12 ms·

Bullshit ability as an honest signal of intelligence

49 points by hirundo 5y ago

failwhaleshark 5y ago
Maybe this is a bullshit troll paper or was written by an up-and-coming comedian GPT3. There are different kinds of intelligence: fluid, crystalized, mechanical, verbal, sensory, data, intuition, social, emotional, and so on. Maybe it's _______ that's a signal... (body symmetry, comedy, spoken cadence, anxiety, economy of speech, economy of motion, anticipation, etc.)
- thujlife 5y ago
  This post reads like GPT3 to me.
  - failwhaleshark 5y ago
    Hi GPT3 brother!
_Microft 5y ago
There was a lot of discussion about this a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145433
smitty1e 5y ago
Correct Frankfurt link => https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122... The referenced monograph is far less positive about BS, seeing it as an attack on the concept of truth as such. "It can't be helped, but there's a lot of it about."--Pink Floyd
transitivebs 5y ago
This is why I go by the name https://transitivebullsh.it https://transitivebullsh.it
bartread 5y ago
Pfft. It doesn't matter how honest a signal of intelligence bullshit generation is because if you apply a substantial amount of your supposed intelligence toward creating bullshit on a regular basis then, at best, you are not useful. At worst you're actually harmful. You certainly don't deserve respect or praise for it.
- _Microft 5y ago
  That's not what they found. The ones that are better at bullshitting are actually the ones that are less inclined to do so. Here is the results and discussion of the first experiment almost in entirety. I only removed the actual numbers to make the paragraph more readable. You can find the full paragraph in the submitted article. "Additionally, we find that participants’ bullshit ability was uncorrelated with their willingness to bullshit (i.e., feign knowledge of fake concepts) and their receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit (i.e., endorse meaningless pseudo-profound statements as profound). Furthermore, participants’ willingness to bullshit was negatively associated with scores on the Wordsum, suggesting that those scoring higher on our measures of cognitive ability were less willing to bullshit. Finally, we find that those more willing to bullshit were also more likely to be receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit (i.e., rate pseudo-profound bullshit items higher on profoundness), as well as were less likely to distinguish between meaningless pseudo-profound bullshit and meaningful motivational quotations (bullshit sensitivity: calculated as the difference between pseudo-profound bullshit ratings and ratings of motivational quotations for their profoundness)."
- uyt 5y ago
  Most real time conversations I have is complete bullshit, so that's plenty of practice. The problem is that when chatting I don't have time to put any deep thought into my words, I just say whatever is heuristically true. The alternative is to constantly add disclaimers about how much I believe the words I am spouting which kills convo very quickly. If you have smart friends who are willing to challenge your bullshit occasionally, your bullshitting skill should improve and converge into simply "good intuition". Which is a great skill to have when dealing with actual hard problems.
koolba 5y ago
It is true but by my anecdata it’s a local maxima.
Animats 5y ago
We find that bullshit ability is associated with an individual’s intelligence and individuals capable of producing more satisfying bullshit are judged by second-hand observers to be more intelligent. Oh, that explains a lot.
starkd 5y ago
To be successful at bullshitting, you need remember the maxim , "Know thy audience". The biggest thing the bullshitter fears is being found out by others who are equally or more intelligent than they are.
- fuzzfactor 5y ago
  As one con man said to the other, "you can't shit the shitter cause he lives on turdy-turd street".
okareaman 5y ago
Harold Bloom in "How to Read and Why" cautions us against bullshit thinking (cant) Bloom quotes Samuel Johnson pg 23: “My dear friend, clear your mind of cant [excessive thought]. You may talk as other people do: you may say to a man, "Sir, I am your most humble servant." You are not his most humble servant. You may say, "These are bad times; it is a melancholy thing to be reserved to such times." You don't mind the times ... You may talk in this manner; it is a mode of talking in Society; but don't think foolishly.” pg 159 There is no misandry in Jane Austen or George Eliot or Emily Dickinson. Elizabeth Bennet and Emma Woodhouse are not concerned either with upholding or undermining patriarchy. Being vastly intelligent persons, like Rosalind, they do not think ideologically. To read their stories well, you need to acquire a touch of Austen's own wisdom, because she was as wise as Dr. Samuel John-son. Like Johnson, though far more implicitly, Austen urges us to clear our mind of "cant." "Cant," in the Johnsonian sense, means platitudes, pious expressions, group-think. Austen has no use for it, and neither should we. Those who now read Austen "politically" are not reading her at all.
- mjklin 5y ago
  A great description from the 3rd century BCE: Now Dissembling would seem, to define it generally, to be an affectation of the worst in word and deed and the Dissembler will be disposed rather to go up to an enemy and talk with him than to show his hatred; he will praise to his face one he has girded at behind his back; he will commiserate even his adversary's ill-fortune in losing his case to him. More, he will forget his vilifiers, and will laugh in approval of what is said against him; to such as are put upon and resent it he will speak blandly; any that are in haste to see him are bidden go back home. He never admits he is doing it; and makes pretenses, as that he's but now come upon the scene, or joined the company late, or was ill abed. If you are borrowing of your friend and put him under contribution, he will tell you he is but a poor man; when he would sell you anything, no, it is not for sale; when he would not, why then it is. He pretends he has not heard when he hears, and says he has not seen when he sees; and when he has admitted you right he avers he has no remembrance of it. He'll look into this, doesn't know that, is surprised at the other; this again is just the conclusion he once came to himself. He is forever saying such things as “I don't believe it”; “If so, he must have changed”; “I never expected this”; “Don't tell me”; “Whether to disbelieve you or make a liar of him is more than I can tell”; “Don't you be too credulous.” - Theophrastus (c. 371 – c. 287 BCE)
aazaa 5y ago
This is a joke, right? The authors report conducting two "intelligence" tests: "Wordsum task"; and "Raven’s progressive matrices". The first is a verbal test. Correlation should be expected.. The second is a kind of visual puzzle. Among other things, Wikipedia has this to say about it: > A 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with Asperger syndrome, a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher than other individuals on Raven's tests.[10] Another 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with classic autism, a low-functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher in Raven's tests than in Wechsler tests. In addition, the individuals with classic autism were providing correct answers to the Raven's test in less time than individuals without autism, although erring as often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices Lots of things could correlate with the ability to solve this kind of puzzle. So it's really odd to use the adjective "honest" in front of the noun "intelligence." I know there's some mumbo jumbo about what the word means in the paper. But seriously, how can you talk about anything correlating with intelligence when the tools your using are so primitive? What if the "honest" signal of intelligence is the ability to detect bullshit?
- asoylu 5y ago
  This title reflects subject of the paper by self-examplification, almost in an autological manner.
- dave_sullivan 5y ago
  > What if the "honest" signal of intelligence is the ability to detect bullshit? In machine learning research, we have the idea of adversarial algorithms. One algorithm tries to generate convincing bullshit, and the other algorithm tries to differentiate this bullshit compared to the real thing. Resources are spent equally on improving both sides, to the benefit of the larger system. Perhaps human evolution does the same. People get better at bullshitting to navigate social structures in a more efficient way, and other people get better at calling bullshit to prevent people from navigating those structures TOO efficiently. Makes sense to me.
cyanydeez 5y ago
what they should do is take the top 10% of bullshitters and see if they rate each other with a similar outcome as a randomize group

49 points by hirundo 5y ago

Maybe this is a bullshit troll paper or was written by an up-and-coming comedian GPT3. There are different kinds of intelligence: fluid, crystalized, mechanical, verbal, sensory, data, intuition, social, emotional, and so on. Maybe it's _______ that's a signal... (body symmetry, comedy, spoken cadence, anxiety, economy of speech, economy of motion, anticipation, etc.)

thujlife 5y ago
This post reads like GPT3 to me.
- failwhaleshark 5y ago
  Hi GPT3 brother!

_Microft 5y ago

There was a lot of discussion about this a year ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145433 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145433

smitty1e 5y ago

Correct Frankfurt link => https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122946/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Bullshit-Harry-G-Frankfurt/dp/0691122... The referenced monograph is far less positive about BS, seeing it as an attack on the concept of truth as such. "It can't be helped, but there's a lot of it about."--Pink Floyd

transitivebs 5y ago

This is why I go by the name https://transitivebullsh.it https://transitivebullsh.it

bartread 5y ago

Pfft. It doesn't matter how honest a signal of intelligence bullshit generation is because if you apply a substantial amount of your supposed intelligence toward creating bullshit on a regular basis then, at best, you are not useful. At worst you're actually harmful. You certainly don't deserve respect or praise for it.

_Microft 5y ago
That's not what they found. The ones that are better at bullshitting are actually the ones that are less inclined to do so. Here is the results and discussion of the first experiment almost in entirety. I only removed the actual numbers to make the paragraph more readable. You can find the full paragraph in the submitted article. "Additionally, we find that participants’ bullshit ability was uncorrelated with their willingness to bullshit (i.e., feign knowledge of fake concepts) and their receptivity to pseudo-profound bullshit (i.e., endorse meaningless pseudo-profound statements as profound). Furthermore, participants’ willingness to bullshit was negatively associated with scores on the Wordsum, suggesting that those scoring higher on our measures of cognitive ability were less willing to bullshit. Finally, we find that those more willing to bullshit were also more likely to be receptive to pseudo-profound bullshit (i.e., rate pseudo-profound bullshit items higher on profoundness), as well as were less likely to distinguish between meaningless pseudo-profound bullshit and meaningful motivational quotations (bullshit sensitivity: calculated as the difference between pseudo-profound bullshit ratings and ratings of motivational quotations for their profoundness)."
uyt 5y ago
Most real time conversations I have is complete bullshit, so that's plenty of practice. The problem is that when chatting I don't have time to put any deep thought into my words, I just say whatever is heuristically true. The alternative is to constantly add disclaimers about how much I believe the words I am spouting which kills convo very quickly. If you have smart friends who are willing to challenge your bullshit occasionally, your bullshitting skill should improve and converge into simply "good intuition". Which is a great skill to have when dealing with actual hard problems.

koolba 5y ago

It is true but by my anecdata it’s a local maxima.

Animats 5y ago

We find that bullshit ability is associated with an individual’s intelligence and individuals capable of producing more satisfying bullshit are judged by second-hand observers to be more intelligent. Oh, that explains a lot.

starkd 5y ago

To be successful at bullshitting, you need remember the maxim , "Know thy audience". The biggest thing the bullshitter fears is being found out by others who are equally or more intelligent than they are.

fuzzfactor 5y ago
As one con man said to the other, "you can't shit the shitter cause he lives on turdy-turd street".

okareaman 5y ago

Harold Bloom in "How to Read and Why" cautions us against bullshit thinking (cant) Bloom quotes Samuel Johnson pg 23: “My dear friend, clear your mind of cant [excessive thought]. You may talk as other people do: you may say to a man, "Sir, I am your most humble servant." You are not his most humble servant. You may say, "These are bad times; it is a melancholy thing to be reserved to such times." You don't mind the times ... You may talk in this manner; it is a mode of talking in Society; but don't think foolishly.” pg 159 There is no misandry in Jane Austen or George Eliot or Emily Dickinson. Elizabeth Bennet and Emma Woodhouse are not concerned either with upholding or undermining patriarchy. Being vastly intelligent persons, like Rosalind, they do not think ideologically. To read their stories well, you need to acquire a touch of Austen's own wisdom, because she was as wise as Dr. Samuel John-son. Like Johnson, though far more implicitly, Austen urges us to clear our mind of "cant." "Cant," in the Johnsonian sense, means platitudes, pious expressions, group-think. Austen has no use for it, and neither should we. Those who now read Austen "politically" are not reading her at all.

mjklin 5y ago
A great description from the 3rd century BCE: Now Dissembling would seem, to define it generally, to be an affectation of the worst in word and deed and the Dissembler will be disposed rather to go up to an enemy and talk with him than to show his hatred; he will praise to his face one he has girded at behind his back; he will commiserate even his adversary's ill-fortune in losing his case to him. More, he will forget his vilifiers, and will laugh in approval of what is said against him; to such as are put upon and resent it he will speak blandly; any that are in haste to see him are bidden go back home. He never admits he is doing it; and makes pretenses, as that he's but now come upon the scene, or joined the company late, or was ill abed. If you are borrowing of your friend and put him under contribution, he will tell you he is but a poor man; when he would sell you anything, no, it is not for sale; when he would not, why then it is. He pretends he has not heard when he hears, and says he has not seen when he sees; and when he has admitted you right he avers he has no remembrance of it. He'll look into this, doesn't know that, is surprised at the other; this again is just the conclusion he once came to himself. He is forever saying such things as “I don't believe it”; “If so, he must have changed”; “I never expected this”; “Don't tell me”; “Whether to disbelieve you or make a liar of him is more than I can tell”; “Don't you be too credulous.” - Theophrastus (c. 371 – c. 287 BCE)

aazaa 5y ago

This is a joke, right? The authors report conducting two "intelligence" tests: "Wordsum task"; and "Raven’s progressive matrices". The first is a verbal test. Correlation should be expected.. The second is a kind of visual puzzle. Among other things, Wikipedia has this to say about it: > A 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with Asperger syndrome, a high-functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher than other individuals on Raven's tests.[10] Another 2007 study provided evidence that individuals with classic autism, a low-functioning autism spectrum disorder, score higher in Raven's tests than in Wechsler tests. In addition, the individuals with classic autism were providing correct answers to the Raven's test in less time than individuals without autism, although erring as often. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raven%27s_Progressive_Matrices Lots of things could correlate with the ability to solve this kind of puzzle. So it's really odd to use the adjective "honest" in front of the noun "intelligence." I know there's some mumbo jumbo about what the word means in the paper. But seriously, how can you talk about anything correlating with intelligence when the tools your using are so primitive? What if the "honest" signal of intelligence is the ability to detect bullshit?

asoylu 5y ago
This title reflects subject of the paper by self-examplification, almost in an autological manner.
dave_sullivan 5y ago
> What if the "honest" signal of intelligence is the ability to detect bullshit? In machine learning research, we have the idea of adversarial algorithms. One algorithm tries to generate convincing bullshit, and the other algorithm tries to differentiate this bullshit compared to the real thing. Resources are spent equally on improving both sides, to the benefit of the larger system. Perhaps human evolution does the same. People get better at bullshitting to navigate social structures in a more efficient way, and other people get better at calling bullshit to prevent people from navigating those structures TOO efficiently. Makes sense to me.

cyanydeez 5y ago

what they should do is take the top 10% of bullshitters and see if they rate each other with a similar outcome as a randomize group