5 ms·

It's important to note that this study focuses on data from 15-year-olds taking a math test. I assert that drawing broad conclusions based on that sample is sus

It's important to note that this study focuses on data from 15-year-olds taking a math test. I assert that drawing broad conclusions based on that sample is suspect and may be, in fact, bullshit itself.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jwilli 7y ago
I agree with your point. 15 year old boys are by no means a good sample for the population as a whole. I would argue 15 year old boys are in fact one of the worst samples for this study. Aren't boys going through puberty known to be reckless and shortsighted?
- jackcosgrove 7y ago
  Exactly boys are cognitively less developed than girls at that age. The fact that the authors of the study did not control for this well-known fact suggests to me that the study is just more clickbait academic bullshit.
- cwingrav 7y ago
  If you’re going to study something, study it where you can best measure it. Develop your tools and methods. Create theories on this and apply them to new, more difficult domains... hopefully get feedback and insights from the larger community as you progress. Science proceeds at a pace and through a process.
normalhuman 7y ago
The authors only claim to have strong results for the studied demographics, make further remarks about other possible biases, and argue these results provide some insight and encourage further research. This is perfectly fine. Not all fields have the luxury of perfectly controlled lab experiments. If we applied the methodological discipline of experimental physics to social sciences, we might as well give up now. In the abstract they say: "Despite this being a well-known and widespread social phenomenon, relatively few large-scale empirical studies have been conducted into this issue. This paper attempts to fill this gap in the literature by examining teenagers’ propensity to claim expertise in three mathematics constructs that do not really exist." "we find substantial differences in young people’s tendency to bullshit across countries, genders and socio-economic groups" "Together this provides important new insight into who bullshitters are and the type of survey responses that they provide." In the conclusions they say: "There are of course limitations to this study, and many issues on the topic of bullshitting that remain unexplored. First, the PISA data analysed are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. We therefore do not know whether bullshitting is a stable trait that can be consistently observed for an individual over time, or if it is something that changes with age (and the factors associated with such change)." Their strongest claim appears to be: "Despite these limitations, we believe this paper has started to open an important new area of social science research"
- notbob 7y ago
  > The authors only claim... Bullshit! The authors wrote an article entitled "Bullshitters: Who Are They and What Do We Know about Their Lives?" That's the title of the piece. Not "some possibly generalizable observations about the behavior of 15 year olds" Sure, the paper's contents contain the massive CAVEAT EMPTORs, but that's exactly how bullshit works in academic writing. Bold titles, sweeping statements in introductions and conclusions. But enough profuse caveats sprinkled around that you can always say to anyone who takes a closer look "no see I mentioned exactly what I meant on page N"...
Allower 7y ago
You dont need such a poorly designed study for the conclusions to have merit on their own. Just open your eyes and ears. But maybe you are a bullshitter..
OneWordSoln 7y ago
To some extent, I agree. However, 15-year-olds are the direct result of their parents' attitudes and teachings so their foundations have largely been established by that point. Put another way: if children are raised by bullshitters who never cared if their children are also full of crap, then that 15-year-old will likely continue on that path forever, unless they have a serious epiphany. As an American, I am so disgusted by lies that I refused to bullshit my kids about Santa Claus. I informed them that it was utter bullshit but that they were not to ever tell other kids the truth because that was between them and their parents. It really gave my kids an entirely different perspective on American culture and the mass insanity (however benign it is considered) that entire cultures can adopt as the status quo. Personally I felt that weaving an absurd yarn about something so important for the overall culture in general and for the kids in particular was only going to damage my credibility with my kids later when they finally learned the truth, that truth being that I had foisted a ridiculous lie upon them since before they could remember. It is my conclusion that the vast majority of what people consider their precious traditions are nothing more than excuses to continue to act badly in the face of a lack of critical thinking.
edgarvaldes 7y ago
But the paper is very clear about that limitations.
raygelogic 7y ago
no it doesn't. it's 15-year-olds self-reporting on how familiar they are with mathematical topics, some of which are made up.
Animats 7y ago
That was a strange choice. Did they have cheap access to high school students? It's a recognized problem in psychology that much research is the study of college undergrads, because they're available for free. More recently, there's the use of Mechanical Turk for studies, which means the population studied is people really desperate to work for peanuts. Now a study of job applicants... that would be more interesting.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jwilli 7y ago

I agree with your point. 15 year old boys are by no means a good sample for the population as a whole. I would argue 15 year old boys are in fact one of the worst samples for this study. Aren't boys going through puberty known to be reckless and shortsighted?

jackcosgrove 7y ago
Exactly boys are cognitively less developed than girls at that age. The fact that the authors of the study did not control for this well-known fact suggests to me that the study is just more clickbait academic bullshit.
cwingrav 7y ago
If you’re going to study something, study it where you can best measure it. Develop your tools and methods. Create theories on this and apply them to new, more difficult domains... hopefully get feedback and insights from the larger community as you progress. Science proceeds at a pace and through a process.

normalhuman 7y ago

The authors only claim to have strong results for the studied demographics, make further remarks about other possible biases, and argue these results provide some insight and encourage further research. This is perfectly fine. Not all fields have the luxury of perfectly controlled lab experiments. If we applied the methodological discipline of experimental physics to social sciences, we might as well give up now. In the abstract they say: "Despite this being a well-known and widespread social phenomenon, relatively few large-scale empirical studies have been conducted into this issue. This paper attempts to fill this gap in the literature by examining teenagers’ propensity to claim expertise in three mathematics constructs that do not really exist." "we find substantial differences in young people’s tendency to bullshit across countries, genders and socio-economic groups" "Together this provides important new insight into who bullshitters are and the type of survey responses that they provide." In the conclusions they say: "There are of course limitations to this study, and many issues on the topic of bullshitting that remain unexplored. First, the PISA data analysed are cross-sectional rather than longitudinal. We therefore do not know whether bullshitting is a stable trait that can be consistently observed for an individual over time, or if it is something that changes with age (and the factors associated with such change)." Their strongest claim appears to be: "Despite these limitations, we believe this paper has started to open an important new area of social science research"

notbob 7y ago
> The authors only claim... Bullshit! The authors wrote an article entitled "Bullshitters: Who Are They and What Do We Know about Their Lives?" That's the title of the piece. Not "some possibly generalizable observations about the behavior of 15 year olds" Sure, the paper's contents contain the massive CAVEAT EMPTORs, but that's exactly how bullshit works in academic writing. Bold titles, sweeping statements in introductions and conclusions. But enough profuse caveats sprinkled around that you can always say to anyone who takes a closer look "no see I mentioned exactly what I meant on page N"...

Allower 7y ago

You dont need such a poorly designed study for the conclusions to have merit on their own. Just open your eyes and ears. But maybe you are a bullshitter..

OneWordSoln 7y ago

To some extent, I agree. However, 15-year-olds are the direct result of their parents' attitudes and teachings so their foundations have largely been established by that point. Put another way: if children are raised by bullshitters who never cared if their children are also full of crap, then that 15-year-old will likely continue on that path forever, unless they have a serious epiphany. As an American, I am so disgusted by lies that I refused to bullshit my kids about Santa Claus. I informed them that it was utter bullshit but that they were not to ever tell other kids the truth because that was between them and their parents. It really gave my kids an entirely different perspective on American culture and the mass insanity (however benign it is considered) that entire cultures can adopt as the status quo. Personally I felt that weaving an absurd yarn about something so important for the overall culture in general and for the kids in particular was only going to damage my credibility with my kids later when they finally learned the truth, that truth being that I had foisted a ridiculous lie upon them since before they could remember. It is my conclusion that the vast majority of what people consider their precious traditions are nothing more than excuses to continue to act badly in the face of a lack of critical thinking.

edgarvaldes 7y ago

But the paper is very clear about that limitations.

raygelogic 7y ago

no it doesn't. it's 15-year-olds self-reporting on how familiar they are with mathematical topics, some of which are made up.

Animats 7y ago

That was a strange choice. Did they have cheap access to high school students? It's a recognized problem in psychology that much research is the study of college undergrads, because they're available for free. More recently, there's the use of Mechanical Turk for studies, which means the population studied is people really desperate to work for peanuts. Now a study of job applicants... that would be more interesting.