[HN Gopher] Bullshit ability as an honest signal of intelligence
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bullshit ability as an honest signal of intelligence
        
       Author : hirundo
       Score  : 27 points
       Date   : 2021-07-03 12:08 UTC (1 days ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (journals.sagepub.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (journals.sagepub.com)
        
       | starkd wrote:
       | 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.
        
       | okareaman wrote:
       | 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 wrote:
         | 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)
        
       | failwhaleshark wrote:
       | 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 wrote:
         | This post reads like GPT3 to me.
        
       | _Microft wrote:
       | There was a lot of discussion about this a year ago:
       | 
       | https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23145433
        
       | smitty1e wrote:
       | Correct Frankfurt link => 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 wrote:
       | This is why I go by the name https://transitivebullsh.it
        
       | bartread wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | uyt wrote:
         | 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.
        
         | _Microft wrote:
         | 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)."_
        
       | koolba wrote:
       | It is true but by my anecdata it's a local maxima.
        
       | Animats wrote:
       | _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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-07-04 23:02 UTC)