How does a BS detector work?
And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
explain more, then i’ll have a go
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
Reasoning from first principles includes such things as these. They are not always true, but true often enough that that my BS detector goes off if someone claims otherwise.
To follow on from the first of these, it can be false if what I’m pushing is the end of a lever, but that’s unlikely.
Corollaries of the first include:
It can be fooled if it is contradicted a sufficient number of times. eg. “What I tell you three times is true” from “The hunting of the Snark”.
It can be fooled if I don’t have the necessary mental tools to prove it false.
transition said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
explain more, then i’ll have a go
I was hoping transition would look at this. ¿Can you look at if from a cognitive standpoint, from the standpoint of how we know what we know.
Having just come from a forum where someone claimed that the US Democrats were worse than Stalin, I think your BS detector could be very useful, if we can get it to work.
Looking at your list of features I suspect though that it may pay insufficient attention to uncertainty.
In other words, often we should not ask “are we absolutely certain that this is true?”, but rather “are we sufficiently confident that this is not true?”.
mollwollfumble said:
Can you look at if from a cognitive standpoint, from the standpoint of how we know what we know.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0735275117692835
Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology
Joshua Wakeham
Abstract
Bullshit is a widely recognized problem. While philosophy has given the topic some
consideration, the analysis it offers is limited by an individualistic understanding of knowledge
and epistemology. This article reframes bullshit as a problem of social epistemology, drawing
on philosophical work on social epistemology as well as related research in psychology and
the sociology of knowledge to explore the problem of epistemic vigilance. The article then
draws on interactional sociology as well as Glaeser’s recent work on understanding and
institutions to delineate those social forces that undermine the task of epistemic vigilance.
The article then examines several different types of bullshit in light of this tension between
the individual pragmatic need to have true beliefs and the social pragmatic need to get along
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:
Can you look at if from a cognitive standpoint, from the standpoint of how we know what we know.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0735275117692835
Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology
Joshua Wakeham
Abstract
Bullshit is a widely recognized problem. While philosophy has given the topic some
consideration, the analysis it offers is limited by an individualistic understanding of knowledge
and epistemology. This article reframes bullshit as a problem of social epistemology, drawing
on philosophical work on social epistemology as well as related research in psychology and
the sociology of knowledge to explore the problem of epistemic vigilance. The article then
draws on interactional sociology as well as Glaeser’s recent work on understanding and
institutions to delineate those social forces that undermine the task of epistemic vigilance.
The article then examines several different types of bullshit in light of this tension between
the individual pragmatic need to have true beliefs and the social pragmatic need to get along
Haven’t read the article yet, but from the abstract it promises to be one of the best papers on the subject that I have read.
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:
Can you look at if from a cognitive standpoint, from the standpoint of how we know what we know.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0735275117692835
Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology
Joshua Wakeham
Abstract
Bullshit is a widely recognized problem. While philosophy has given the topic some
consideration, the analysis it offers is limited by an individualistic understanding of knowledge
and epistemology. This article reframes bullshit as a problem of social epistemology, drawing
on philosophical work on social epistemology as well as related research in psychology and
the sociology of knowledge to explore the problem of epistemic vigilance. The article then
draws on interactional sociology as well as Glaeser’s recent work on understanding and
institutions to delineate those social forces that undermine the task of epistemic vigilance.
The article then examines several different types of bullshit in light of this tension between
the individual pragmatic need to have true beliefs and the social pragmatic need to get along
Haven’t read the article yet, but from the abstract it promises to be one of the best papers on the subject that I have read.
When I was a toung tyke, I tattoed BSA on my arm. ;)
The Rev Dodgson said:
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:
Can you look at if from a cognitive standpoint, from the standpoint of how we know what we know.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0735275117692835
Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology
Joshua Wakeham
Abstract
Bullshit is a widely recognized problem. While philosophy has given the topic some
consideration, the analysis it offers is limited by an individualistic understanding of knowledge
and epistemology. This article reframes bullshit as a problem of social epistemology, drawing
on philosophical work on social epistemology as well as related research in psychology and
the sociology of knowledge to explore the problem of epistemic vigilance. The article then
draws on interactional sociology as well as Glaeser’s recent work on understanding and
institutions to delineate those social forces that undermine the task of epistemic vigilance.
The article then examines several different types of bullshit in light of this tension between
the individual pragmatic need to have true beliefs and the social pragmatic need to get along
Haven’t read the article yet, but from the abstract it promises to be one of the best papers on the subject that I have read.
A real page turner.
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
If you want to know more about a person, I check the Internet and if they have done something of interest or importance it will be listed. Interestingly, those that BS the most usually have little or no mention.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
If you want to know more about a person, I check the Internet and if they have done something of interest or importance it will be listed. Interestingly, those that BS the most usually have little or no mention.
It rather depends upon of whom or why you are asking the questions.
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
If you want to know more about a person, I check the Internet and if they have done something of interest or importance it will be listed. Interestingly, those that BS the most usually have little or no mention.
Trump being the exception the proves the rule?
Michael V said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
If you want to know more about a person, I check the Internet and if they have done something of interest or importance it will be listed. Interestingly, those that BS the most usually have little or no mention.
Trump being the exception the proves the rule?
He has done plenty of interesting things and is certainly important, so gets plenty of attention regardless of what you think of him. Therefore all entries will throw extra light on the individual for you to assess the person.
roughbarked said:
PermeateFree said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
If you want to know more about a person, I check the Internet and if they have done something of interest or importance it will be listed. Interestingly, those that BS the most usually have little or no mention.
It rather depends upon of whom or why you are asking the questions.
All you need to get started is the name.
This one comes with a handy peak bullshit indicator as well
Google Play Apps Bullshit Detector App
Do you need a way to subtly point out to a friend that he’s full of it? Maybe you’re just one of those nerds that can’t tell when you’re being handed a pile?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.robotsidekick.detector.bullshit.ad&hl=en_us
To be honest, I don’t think that reasoning from first principles is going to make for an efficient bullshit detector
One for MV…
Jake: They’re not the kinda guys who write letters. You were outside, I was inside. You were supposed to keep in touch with the band. I kept asking you if we were gonna play again.
Elwood: Well, what was I gonna do? Take away your only hope? Take away the very thing that kept you going in there? I took the liberty of bullshitting you, okay?
Jake: You lied to me.
Elwood: It wasn’t a lie, it was just bullshit.
Ian said:
One for MV…Jake: They’re not the kinda guys who write letters. You were outside, I was inside. You were supposed to keep in touch with the band. I kept asking you if we were gonna play again.
Elwood: Well, what was I gonna do? Take away your only hope? Take away the very thing that kept you going in there? I took the liberty of bullshitting you, okay?
Jake: You lied to me.
Elwood: It wasn’t a lie, it was just bullshit.
OK.
I’m guessing a quote from TBB.
Michael V said:
Ian said:
One for MV…Jake: They’re not the kinda guys who write letters. You were outside, I was inside. You were supposed to keep in touch with the band. I kept asking you if we were gonna play again.
Elwood: Well, what was I gonna do? Take away your only hope? Take away the very thing that kept you going in there? I took the liberty of bullshitting you, okay?
Jake: You lied to me.
Elwood: It wasn’t a lie, it was just bullshit.
OK.
I’m guessing a quote from TBB.
:)
Ian said:
Michael V said:
Ian said:
One for MV…Jake: They’re not the kinda guys who write letters. You were outside, I was inside. You were supposed to keep in touch with the band. I kept asking you if we were gonna play again.
Elwood: Well, what was I gonna do? Take away your only hope? Take away the very thing that kept you going in there? I took the liberty of bullshitting you, okay?
Jake: You lied to me.
Elwood: It wasn’t a lie, it was just bullshit.
OK.
I’m guessing a quote from TBB.
:)
We’ll have you memorising entire swathes of the movie without ever having to watch it.
sibeen said:
Ian said:
Michael V said:OK.
I’m guessing a quote from TBB.
:)
We’ll have you memorising entire swathes of the movie without ever having to watch it.
Yair, g’donya!
:)
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:
Can you look at if from a cognitive standpoint, from the standpoint of how we know what we know.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/0735275117692835
Bullshit as a Problem of Social Epistemology
Joshua Wakeham
Abstract
Bullshit is a widely recognized problem. While philosophy has given the topic some
consideration, the analysis it offers is limited by an individualistic understanding of knowledge
and epistemology. This article reframes bullshit as a problem of social epistemology, drawing
on philosophical work on social epistemology as well as related research in psychology and
the sociology of knowledge to explore the problem of epistemic vigilance. The article then
draws on interactional sociology as well as Glaeser’s recent work on understanding and
institutions to delineate those social forces that undermine the task of epistemic vigilance.
The article then examines several different types of bullshit in light of this tension between
the individual pragmatic need to have true beliefs and the social pragmatic need to get along
PMSL.
On RD’s comment about uncertainty, a BS detector is just a first pass, to be followed up by analysis.
Other things that get my BS detector twitching include anachronism. Cavemen and dinosaurs for example. Other similar twitches come from wrong continent, wrong religion, etc.
Another BS twitch is when scientists make claims based on a theory that has already been rejected because it doesn’t fit the facts. Roughly half of all theoretical physics papers fit this description.
I get annoyed by misuse of data intended to deceive. Howard for instance said that in 2001, Australia mined as much oil as it used. Perfectly true, but 2001 was the last year it was true, and by the time he said it, Australia only mined half as much oil as it used.
dv said:
To be honest, I don’t think that reasoning from first principles is going to make for an efficient bullshit detector
You’re correct, it won’t.
Moll seems to be engaging in the axiomatic argument which makes up one of the three options of the Munchhausen trilemma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
esselte said:
dv said:
To be honest, I don’t think that reasoning from first principles is going to make for an efficient bullshit detector
You’re correct, it won’t.
Moll seems to be engaging in the axiomatic argument which makes up one of the three options of the Munchhausen trilemma.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Münchhausen_trilemma
Yes. Newton’s laws do tend to be accepted precepts, and I go beyond that. The conditions for them to fail occur less often than the conditions in which they are correct.
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
esselte said:
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
Excellent summary.
esselte said:
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
…and the understanding that one’s own attainments in all those departments may not be as impressive as one has assumed.
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?
The algorithm counts each instance of caps lock, bolded, italics, question marks and multicoloured fonts and assigns a score as to probable presence of BS.
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
…and the understanding that one’s own attainments in all those departments may not be as impressive as one has assumed.
Absolutely, but I consider that to be the “properly” part of the “properly sceptical attitude”. Being well educated in cognitive biases, for example, does not make one immune from being subject to those biases. It doesn’t matter how well educated one is, the nature of the human mind always tends towards these intellectual short-cuts. We are all big dumb monkeys in shoes and we are not well evolved to thinking rationally… we are in fact pretty terrible at it.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
…and the understanding that one’s own attainments in all those departments may not be as impressive as one has assumed.
Absolutely, but I consider that to be the “properly” part of the “properly sceptical attitude”. Being well educated in cognitive biases, for example, does not make one immune from being subject to those biases. It doesn’t matter how well educated one is, the nature of the human mind always tends towards these intellectual short-cuts. We are all big dumb monkeys in shoes and we are not well evolved to thinking rationally… we are in fact pretty terrible at it.
But nonetheless better than any other life form we’ve* so far encountered.
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
…and the understanding that one’s own attainments in all those departments may not be as impressive as one has assumed.
Absolutely, but I consider that to be the “properly” part of the “properly sceptical attitude”. Being well educated in cognitive biases, for example, does not make one immune from being subject to those biases. It doesn’t matter how well educated one is, the nature of the human mind always tends towards these intellectual short-cuts. We are all big dumb monkeys in shoes and we are not well evolved to thinking rationally… we are in fact pretty terrible at it.
But nonetheless better than any other life form we’ve* so far encountered.
(“we” of course meaning those of us who are actually reasonably adept at rational thinking. Sadly large numbers of humans are hopeless at it).
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
Bubblecar said:…and the understanding that one’s own attainments in all those departments may not be as impressive as one has assumed.
Absolutely, but I consider that to be the “properly” part of the “properly sceptical attitude”. Being well educated in cognitive biases, for example, does not make one immune from being subject to those biases. It doesn’t matter how well educated one is, the nature of the human mind always tends towards these intellectual short-cuts. We are all big dumb monkeys in shoes and we are not well evolved to thinking rationally… we are in fact pretty terrible at it.
But nonetheless better than any other life form we’ve* so far encountered.
(“we” of course meaning those of us who are actually reasonably adept at rational thinking. Sadly large numbers of humans are hopeless at it).
I think for conspiracy theorists anyway, it’s not irrational, it’s pattern seeking in search of explanations that’s gone slightly askew. There is usually a kernel of truth, a like example or ambiguity at the heart of a conspiracy.
not something I go enthusiastically looking for, where would a keenness for that go.
not hobby material
I did for a while think everything was bullshit, there was BS that worked, and BS that didn’t. Yes, thinking mans’ philosophy in that.
imagine though an over-enthusiasm, surely it would end in contempt hoovering up the lot.
so, i’ve sort of got BS discovery mode turned off
a good avenue into this subject might be the tests parents do, with their young children, in play.
a good part of BS is playful, from kids very young often too.
in fact a lot of humour is playful BS.
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
…and the understanding that one’s own attainments in all those departments may not be as impressive as one has assumed.
No. As I said before, a BS detector is only a first pass. An instant reaction, that needs to be followed up by analysis. It’s in the following analysis where the understanding of one’s own limitations kicks in.
AwesomeO said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?The algorithm counts each instance of caps lock, bolded, italics, question marks and multicoloured fonts and assigns a score as to probable presence of BS.
Better than that. Is the person making the statement a salesman, politician or comedian? If so …
transition said:
not something I go enthusiastically looking for, where would a keenness for that go.
not hobby material
I did for a while think everything was bullshit, there was BS that worked, and BS that didn’t. Yes, thinking mans’ philosophy in that.
imagine though an over-enthusiasm, surely it would end in contempt hoovering up the lot.
so, i’ve sort of got BS discovery mode turned off
a good avenue into this subject might be the tests parents do, with their young children, in play.
a good part of BS is playful from kids very young often too.
in fact a lot of humour is playful BS.
transition comes through again. I thought he/she/it would have a different way of answering that question. So BS not something socially imposed on people from without but something innate.
> I did for a while think everything was bullshit, there was BS that worked, and BS that didn’t. Yes, thinking mans’ philosophy in that.
I like it. So the “Building code of Australia” for instance could be thought of as BS that works.
> i’ve sort of got BS discovery mode turned off
Even better. Following that thought, although the existence of BS is innate, the existence of a BS detector is socially imposed. That helps to make sense of the books of Idriess, where both whites and blacks in northern Australia are BS artists, but where whites have a much stronger BS detector than blacks. Perhaps a BS detector is one of the things that separates the modern age from the stone age.
In one animal experiment, female chickens, on being exposed to a BSing male ‘crying wolf’, developed a BS detector. That suggests that a BS detector is socially imposed.
> BS is playful
I had not thought of that, it certainly is.
mollwollfumble said:
Bubblecar said:
esselte said:
A BS detector requires as its components stuff like knowledge of the subject at hand, critical thinking skills, interrogative skills, an understanding of cognitive biases, a properly sceptical attitude, a knowledge of logical fallacies etc.
…and the understanding that one’s own attainments in all those departments may not be as impressive as one has assumed.
No. As I said before, a BS detector is only a first pass. An instant reaction, that needs to be followed up by analysis. It’s in the following analysis where the understanding of one’s own limitations kicks in.
The algorithm counts each instance of caps lock, bolded, italics, question marks and multicoloured fonts and assigns a score as to probable presence of BS.
Better than that. Is the person making the statement a salesman, politician or comedian? If so …
transition said:
not something I go enthusiastically looking for, where would a keenness for that go.
not hobby material
I did for a while think everything was bullshit, there was BS that worked, and BS that didn’t. Yes, thinking mans’ philosophy in that.
imagine though an over-enthusiasm, surely it would end in contempt hoovering up the lot.
so, i’ve sort of got BS discovery mode turned off
a good avenue into this subject might be the tests parents do, with their young children, in play.
a good part of BS is playful from kids very young often too.
in fact a lot of humour is playful BS.
transition comes through again. I thought he/she/it would have a different way of answering that question. So BS not something socially imposed on people from without but something innate.
> I did for a while think everything was bullshit, there was BS that worked, and BS that didn’t. Yes, thinking mans’ philosophy in that.
I like it. So the “Building code of Australia” for instance could be thought of as BS that works.
> i’ve sort of got BS discovery mode turned off
Even better. Following that thought, although the existence of BS is innate, the existence of a BS detector is socially imposed. That helps to make sense of the books of Idriess, where both whites and blacks in northern Australia are BS artists, but where whites have a much stronger BS detector than blacks. Perhaps a BS detector is one of the things that separates the modern age from the stone age.
In one animal experiment, female chickens, on being exposed to a BSing male ‘crying wolf’, developed a BS detector. That suggests that a BS detector is socially imposed.
> BS is playful
I had not thought of that, it certainly is.
Guess that makes you the forum expert on BS.
mollwollfumble said:
No. As I said before, a BS detector is only a first pass. An instant reaction, that needs to be followed up by analysis. It’s in the following analysis where the understanding of one’s own limitations kicks in.
A BS detector calibrated on instant reactions is not fit for purpose. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, your instant reaction, that feeling you get in your gut, should never be trusted when trying to sort out facts from falsity. We should try to think with our brains, not our guts.
This is a lesson that is emphasised in every discipline where truth and the detection of bullshit matters.
Let’s say I tell you now that I am in fact a Nigerian Prince, and i’ve got $7,000,000 that I need to urgently give to you. Your instant reaction, your gut feeling, is that I’m bullshitting you, right? This feeling certainly can save you from falling for BS, but it doesn’t tell you anything at all about the truth or falsity of my claim to being Nigerian royalty or about my desire or not to give you lots of money.
As such, your BS detector is not acting to detect BS detector when it tells you not to reply to messages from rich Nigerians. 99.9999% of the time it’s going to save you from losing money to a con man, but it’s not telling you anything at all about whether or not their really is a rich Nigerian who wants to give you money; it’s not telling you anything at all about whether said Nigerian is bullshitting you or not. It is, in fact just another variation of the narrative imperative, (the idea that human brains evolved to give greater credence to the stories they tell themselves than to the actual facts of a matter) that tells us those rustling bushes are probably indicative of a lion sneaking up on us and we should RUNNNN! in assuming the rich Nigerian is bullshitting you are running from the lion, but you have no idea whether their was a lion or not.
Lot of noise out there, including people making the right noises
It’s a full time job managing the equilibrium quiet in my own head, without looking for otherly too much, i’m not aggressively into contrasts that’d incline looking for it.
I guess I could, that’d be pathology of some sort. Boredom?(blame Dickens), inclined by some sort of poverty of imagination, or mind more broadly, fueled by inadequacy maybe, or feelings of (expressed as anxiety perhaps).
Stupid is really what you’re talking about, which is not an idea without judgement. Mostly people keep stupid to themselves, so it’s isolated stupid, which is a psychological and social proximity business, not to impose on others, intentionally, incidentally or accident.
Of course there are fails, of various scales, including mass contagions of stupid.
To some extent stupid is necessary, like the wobbles you correct from when walking a straight line. You like straight lines I bet, an abstraction of geometry, it’s the shortest route too between two points too, a not unimportant idea applied to thought.
Truth though everyone’s walking wobbly lines, really just straightening out the wobbles, idealizing straight.
Me I add wobbles, add some dither.
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:No. As I said before, a BS detector is only a first pass. An instant reaction, that needs to be followed up by analysis. It’s in the following analysis where the understanding of one’s own limitations kicks in.
A BS detector calibrated on instant reactions is not fit for purpose. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, your instant reaction, that feeling you get in your gut, should never be trusted when trying to sort out facts from falsity. We should try to think with our brains, not our guts.
This is a lesson that is emphasised in every discipline where truth and the detection of bullshit matters.
Let’s say I tell you now that I am in fact a Nigerian Prince, and i’ve got $7,000,000 that I need to urgently give to you. Your instant reaction, your gut feeling, is that I’m bullshitting you, right? This feeling certainly can save you from falling for BS, but it doesn’t tell you anything at all about the truth or falsity of my claim to being Nigerian royalty or about my desire or not to give you lots of money.
As such, your BS detector is not acting to detect BS detector when it tells you not to reply to messages from rich Nigerians. 99.9999% of the time it’s going to save you from losing money to a con man, but it’s not telling you anything at all about whether or not their really is a rich Nigerian who wants to give you money; it’s not telling you anything at all about whether said Nigerian is bullshitting you or not. It is, in fact just another variation of the narrative imperative, (the idea that human brains evolved to give greater credence to the stories they tell themselves than to the actual facts of a matter) that tells us those rustling bushes are probably indicative of a lion sneaking up on us and we should RUNNNN! in assuming the rich Nigerian is bullshitting you are running from the lion, but you have no idea whether their was a lion or not.
To run from a predator, will stimulate it to attack. Might be better to use your brain in that situation.
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
BS detectors are all digital these days , the analog BS detector once crafted onto hand made PCBs with a dial display and flashing lights was after around 1980 digitised and used microcontrollers replacing dedicated circuits to achieve the same result – thus bringing down prices.
a good BS detector might set you back maybe 2000 dollars with an annual calibration, cheaper BS detectors will be found in such places as jaycar in the novelty section with 3D printers.
cheaper detectors may be fooled by loud noises from the voice box or infra sound created by the stamping of feet.
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:No. As I said before, a BS detector is only a first pass. An instant reaction, that needs to be followed up by analysis. It’s in the following analysis where the understanding of one’s own limitations kicks in.
A BS detector calibrated on instant reactions is not fit for purpose. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, your instant reaction, that feeling you get in your gut, should never be trusted when trying to sort out facts from falsity. We should try to think with our brains, not our guts.
This is a lesson that is emphasised in every discipline where truth and the detection of bullshit matters.
Let’s say I tell you now that I am in fact a Nigerian Prince, and i’ve got $7,000,000 that I need to urgently give to you. Your instant reaction, your gut feeling, is that I’m bullshitting you, right? This feeling certainly can save you from falling for BS, but it doesn’t tell you anything at all about the truth or falsity of my claim to being Nigerian royalty or about my desire or not to give you lots of money.
As such, your BS detector is not acting to detect BS detector when it tells you not to reply to messages from rich Nigerians. 99.9999% of the time it’s going to save you from losing money to a con man, but it’s not telling you anything at all about whether or not their really is a rich Nigerian who wants to give you money; it’s not telling you anything at all about whether said Nigerian is bullshitting you or not. It is, in fact just another variation of the narrative imperative, (the idea that human brains evolved to give greater credence to the stories they tell themselves than to the actual facts of a matter) that tells us those rustling bushes are probably indicative of a lion sneaking up on us and we should RUNNNN! in assuming the rich Nigerian is bullshitting you are running from the lion, but you have no idea whether their was a lion or not.
> 99.9999% of the time it’s going to save you from losing money to a con man
Except in Belgium. I got conned out of money twice in Belgium, and my BS detector didn’t register on either occasion.
wookiemeister said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
BS detectors are a lot cheaper these days due to the internet, whereas BS detectors might be made and sold by a handful of manufacturers , the internet opened up the market by connecting customer to manufacturerBS detectors are all digital these days, the analog BS detector once crafted onto hand made PCBs with a dial display and flashing lights was after around 1980 digitised and used microcontrollers replacing dedicated circuits to achieve the same result – thus bringing down prices.
a good BS detector might set you back maybe 2000 dollars with an annual calibration, cheaper BS detectors will be found in such places as jaycar in the novelty section with 3D printers.
cheaper detectors may be fooled by loud noises from the voice box or infra sound created by the stamping of feet.
Exactly.
Why did my BS detector register when I read that?
Start with the first clause “BS detectors are a lot cheaper these days due to the internet”. A BS detector is a psychological tool not a physical tool, and psychological tools are rarely sold over the internet.
Then the analysis phase kicks in. Could a BS detector be sold over the internet? Yes, it could. The book “Straight and crooked thinking” is an assembly kit for making a BS detector. Would a BS detector assembly kit be cheaper in these days due to the internet? Yes, it would.
> whereas BS detectors might be made and sold by a handful of manufacturers, the internet opened up the market by connecting customer to manufacturer.
My BS detector doesn’t register on that.
> BS detectors are all digital these days
My BS detector registers again.
Whoa. Analysis phase again. Could a BS detector be digital? Yes, a lie detector could be digital. Time to google “lie detector”. A simple lie detector is available on the internet for just $14. A slightly more serious machine for under $200.
> the analog BS detector once crafted onto hand made PCBs with a dial display and flashing lights was after around 1980 digitised and used microcontrollers replacing dedicated circuits to achieve the same result.
True enough for polygraphs.
> a good BS detector might set you back maybe 2000 dollars with an annual calibration.
A vintage polygraph machine that measures 7 inputs is available for $1,500 on ebay, so in the right ballpark. “Annual calibration”, perhaps.
> cheaper BS detectors will be found in such places as jaycar in the novelty section with 3D printers
My BS detector registers again, I don’t remember seeing “BS detector” in the Jaycar catalog.
Analysis phase. My BS detector is wrong again. Jaycar does sell a lie detector kit. For just $7.95.
https://www.jaycar.com.au/lie-detector-mini-science-kit/p/KJ9015
> cheaper detectors may be fooled by loud noises from the voice box or infra sound created by the stamping of feet.
I already know about voice stress analysis as a BS detection method. So could that be fooled in this way? Checks Mr Google again.
There is a free Android app for this http://www.androidapps-reviews.com/t/voice-stress-analysis . The review stresses that it is unreliable because “If you know how to use them, they can work well. If you use this on someone, they must believe that their lies will be caught by a follow-up full polygraph test. This induces a stress response in most people, and thus be detected by the software.” And “I also found the accuracy depends strongly on the phone is used. One on my Nexus, and accuracy seems to be the detection rate of nearly 90%”.
So could “loud noises from the voice box or infra sound created by the stamping of feet” give a false positive on voice stress analysis? I don’t know.
—-
In summary, although wookiemeister’s post registered multiple times on my BS detector, it could in fact be true if interpreted as follows:
> BS detectors are a lot cheaper these days due to the internet, whereas BS detectors might be made and sold by a handful of manufacturers , the internet opened up the market by connecting customer to manufacturer. BS detectors are all digital these days, the analog BS detector once crafted onto hand made PCBs with a dial display and flashing lights was after around 1980 digitised and used microcontrollers replacing dedicated circuits to achieve the same result – thus bringing down prices. Cheaper BS detectors will be found in such places as jaycar in the novelty section with 3D printers.
Could be true for electronic lie detectors.
> A good BS detector might set you back maybe 2000 dollars with an annual calibration.
Could be true for antique polygraphs.
> Cheaper detectors may be fooled by loud noises from the voice box or infra sound created by the stamping of feet.
Could be true for voice stress analysis.
mollwollfumble said:
esselte said:
mollwollfumble said:No. As I said before, a BS detector is only a first pass. An instant reaction, that needs to be followed up by analysis. It’s in the following analysis where the understanding of one’s own limitations kicks in.
A BS detector calibrated on instant reactions is not fit for purpose. To paraphrase Carl Sagan, your instant reaction, that feeling you get in your gut, should never be trusted when trying to sort out facts from falsity. We should try to think with our brains, not our guts.
This is a lesson that is emphasised in every discipline where truth and the detection of bullshit matters.
Let’s say I tell you now that I am in fact a Nigerian Prince, and i’ve got $7,000,000 that I need to urgently give to you. Your instant reaction, your gut feeling, is that I’m bullshitting you, right? This feeling certainly can save you from falling for BS, but it doesn’t tell you anything at all about the truth or falsity of my claim to being Nigerian royalty or about my desire or not to give you lots of money.
As such, your BS detector is not acting to detect BS detector when it tells you not to reply to messages from rich Nigerians. 99.9999% of the time it’s going to save you from losing money to a con man, but it’s not telling you anything at all about whether or not their really is a rich Nigerian who wants to give you money; it’s not telling you anything at all about whether said Nigerian is bullshitting you or not. It is, in fact just another variation of the narrative imperative, (the idea that human brains evolved to give greater credence to the stories they tell themselves than to the actual facts of a matter) that tells us those rustling bushes are probably indicative of a lion sneaking up on us and we should RUNNNN! in assuming the rich Nigerian is bullshitting you are running from the lion, but you have no idea whether their was a lion or not.
> 99.9999% of the time it’s going to save you from losing money to a con man
Except in Belgium. I got conned out of money twice in Belgium, and my BS detector didn’t register on either occasion.
Talking of BS, someone on the Internet said that John Cleese was a bloody Flemish bastard, but others on the Internet say his ancestry is bloody English bastards (and that the family name is really Cheese).
So what is the truth?
The Rev Dodgson said:
Talking of BS, someone on the Internet said that John Cleese was a bloody Flemish bastard, but others on the Internet say his ancestry is bloody English bastards (and that the family name is really Cheese).So what is the truth?
According to his biography in The Pythons Autobiography by The Pythons, he was born in Weston-super-Mare in Somerset, England. His father’s surname was originally Cheese, but he changed it to Cleese by deed poll when he enlisted in the British Army during WWI. He doesn’t mention his family’s historical origins, but his parents were born in England.
mollwollfumble said:
> 99.9999% of the time it’s going to save you from losing money to a con man
Except in Belgium. I got conned out of money twice in Belgium, and my BS detector didn’t register on either occasion.
Haha, me too, except only once.
On the streets of Belgium, a street performer type guy doing the old 3 cups one ball trick. I watched him carefully, saw that the way he was doing it was to move the cups around, act like he had finished moving them and look up at his mark, momentarily distracting them from looking at the cups with eye contact and a word or two whilst swiftly completing one final cup move when the mark was looking at him and not at the cups.
Somehow, even armed with knowledge about how he was doing what he was doing I still managed to lose 100 euros to the bastard.
The Rev Dodgson said:
Also had a couple of guys try to rob me in the train station in Brussels whilst waiting for a train to Germany.
Also took a walk in the hours waiting for said train to go see the pissing boy statue thing and managed to step in dog shit.
It was in this same waiting period that I lost money to the street performer.
I fucking hate Belgium!
just a hunch, but it must in ways have evolved from the systems involved in body coordination, including feedback.
the body-vehicle carries the computational apparatus housed in the cranium too, a unit you know.
so i’m reckoning the business started with coordination of the body-vehicle, which involves refinement of error correction.
the minds eye watches the performance of the error correction systems, which includes monitoring of mental states.
and now to the complexities of monitoring more complex representations, the conversion qualities, representational conversions, of the computational apparatus injecting its workings into the representations.
transition said:
just a hunch, but it must in ways have evolved from the systems involved in body coordination, including feedback.the body-vehicle carries the computational apparatus housed in the cranium too, a unit you know.
so i’m reckoning the business started with coordination of the body-vehicle, which involves refinement of error correction.
the minds eye watches the performance of the error correction systems, which includes monitoring of mental states.
and now to the complexities of monitoring more complex representations, the conversion qualities, representational conversions, of the computational apparatus injecting its workings into the representations.
so the coordination system works with positional informal, this and that whatever in relation to other aspects of self, and the external environment (negotiating obstacles for example). Requires abstractions of geometry no doubt, and there’s physics, the qualities of moving mass, steering all that.
it’s an interesting question what does this do during its idle time, for example. That’s unused computational capacity. Potential.
not an entirely daft proposition, that unused or surplus computational capacity usually applied to coordinating the body-vehicle lends to higher functions.
why not?
transition said:
transition said:
just a hunch, but it must in ways have evolved from the systems involved in body coordination, including feedback.the body-vehicle carries the computational apparatus housed in the cranium too, a unit you know.
so i’m reckoning the business started with coordination of the body-vehicle, which involves refinement of error correction.
the minds eye watches the performance of the error correction systems, which includes monitoring of mental states.
and now to the complexities of monitoring more complex representations, the conversion qualities, representational conversions, of the computational apparatus injecting its workings into the representations.
so the coordination system works with positional informal, this and that whatever in relation to other aspects of self, and the external environment (negotiating obstacles for example). Requires abstractions of geometry no doubt, and there’s physics, the qualities of moving mass, steering all that.
it’s an interesting question what does this do during its idle time, for example. That’s unused computational capacity. Potential.
not an entirely daft proposition, that unused or surplus computational capacity usually applied to coordinating the body-vehicle lends to higher functions.
why not?
Why not indeed.
Good point. If true, it gives a way of bypassing the BS detector. By spreading the BS while the listener is in the middle of non-automatic activity. I.e. get them while they’re busy.
wookiemeister said:
mollwollfumble said:
How does a BS detector work?And how can it be fooled?
I’m asking because I have a method of BS detection that I call “reasoning from first principles” that I’ve never been able to explain properly.
BS detectors are a lot cheaper these days due to the internet, whereas BS detectors might be made and sold by a handful of manufacturers , the internet opened up the market by connecting customer to manufacturerBS detectors are all digital these days , the analog BS detector once crafted onto hand made PCBs with a dial display and flashing lights was after around 1980 digitised and used microcontrollers replacing dedicated circuits to achieve the same result – thus bringing down prices.
a good BS detector might set you back maybe 2000 dollars with an annual calibration, cheaper BS detectors will be found in such places as jaycar in the novelty section with 3D printers.
cheaper detectors may be fooled by loud noises from the voice box or infra sound created by the stamping of feet.
wookiemeister said:
fusion power as we know it now was discovered in the later part of the 23rd century when the resonant graviton process allowed amplification of “gravity” thus creating an artificial singularity which provided the power needed for dimensional folding.
did Emma the elf do the dishes lastnight
lahlia and I discussed this while I was making breakfast this morn
why did I suggest it, and why did Lahlia go along with it.
both of us were keen on the idea, but there was uncertainty about from both of us.
this magic thing, it’s cool
of course we’re bot indulging the idea of magic, but more the magic of minds.
both us know it’s fantasy, projection of sorts.
and she’s just wandered in now, started engaging her brother about what the elf did lastnight, they’re over at the oven looking at Emma, talking about it, quite seriously.
Emma the elf would be dead boring without this psychological animation
transition said:
did Emma the elf do the dishes lastnight
in the pip emma
transition said:
did Emma the elf do the dishes lastnightlahlia and I discussed this while I was making breakfast this morn
why did I suggest it, and why did Lahlia go along with it.
both of us were keen on the idea, but there was uncertainty about from both of us.
this magic thing, it’s cool
of course we’re bot indulging the idea of magic, but more the magic of minds.
both us know it’s fantasy, projection of sorts.
and she’s just wandered in now, started engaging her brother about what the elf did lastnight, they’re over at the oven looking at Emma, talking about it, quite seriously.
Emma the elf would be dead boring without this psychological animation
interestingly, couple day back when Lahlia got the elf, she suggested a few names, and sought some agreement about the name.
conversation happening
apparently you’re not allowed to touch the elf, and if you do you’ve got to put it in the fridge to get its magic powers back ( because they come from the north pole, it’s cold there), or instead you can write letters to them, you write nice things about them.
transition said:
transition said:
did Emma the elf do the dishes lastnightlahlia and I discussed this while I was making breakfast this morn
why did I suggest it, and why did Lahlia go along with it.
both of us were keen on the idea, but there was uncertainty about from both of us.
this magic thing, it’s cool
of course we’re bot indulging the idea of magic, but more the magic of minds.
both us know it’s fantasy, projection of sorts.
and she’s just wandered in now, started engaging her brother about what the elf did lastnight, they’re over at the oven looking at Emma, talking about it, quite seriously.
Emma the elf would be dead boring without this psychological animation
interestingly, couple day back when Lahlia got the elf, she suggested a few names, and sought some agreement about the name.
conversation happening
apparently you’re not allowed to touch the elf, and if you do you’ve got to put it in the fridge to get its magic powers back ( because they come from the north pole, it’s cold there), or instead you can write letters to them, you write nice things about them.
Names? How about this one?
mollwollfumble said:
transition said:
transition said:
did Emma the elf do the dishes lastnightlahlia and I discussed this while I was making breakfast this morn
why did I suggest it, and why did Lahlia go along with it.
both of us were keen on the idea, but there was uncertainty about from both of us.
this magic thing, it’s cool
of course we’re bot indulging the idea of magic, but more the magic of minds.
both us know it’s fantasy, projection of sorts.
and she’s just wandered in now, started engaging her brother about what the elf did lastnight, they’re over at the oven looking at Emma, talking about it, quite seriously.
Emma the elf would be dead boring without this psychological animation
interestingly, couple day back when Lahlia got the elf, she suggested a few names, and sought some agreement about the name.
conversation happening
apparently you’re not allowed to touch the elf, and if you do you’ve got to put it in the fridge to get its magic powers back ( because they come from the north pole, it’s cold there), or instead you can write letters to them, you write nice things about them.
Names? How about this one?
chuckle