
Bullshit Ability as an Honest Signal of Intelligence - Osiris30
https://psyarxiv.com/aru3f/
======
jessriedel
FYI: Philosopher Harry Frankfurt wrote the classic essay "On Bullshit",
defining the concept. Unlike lying/fraud, where falsehood is instrumental,
Frankfurt defined bullshit as potentially false speech where the truth _simply
wasn 't important_. Bullshit is characterized by giving the _surface
appearance_ of confidence, intelligence, or a convincing argument; whether
it's actually true or not is besides the point.

The essay is only 20 pages and available here:

[http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/bullshit...](http://ruby.fgcu.edu/courses/twimberley/EnviroPhilo/bullshit.pdf)

~~~
uryga
> "potentially false speech where the truth simply wasn't important"

i couldn't make sense of this, which motivated me to actually look at the
essay, thanks :) i recommend the bit with Wittgenstein – it's what made the
proposed distinction between "bullshit" and "lies" click for me. (at least i
hope it did!)

what i got from the essay is:

 _bullshit_ may contain false statements. but their falseness is ultimately
besides the point, because, unlike a _lie_ , the bullshitter isn't trying to
convince the bullshittee that those false statements are true; they're just
props, parts of a scheme to convince you of something else.

explaining it in the abstract gets kind of unreadable (the essay suffers from
this a bit imho), so here's an example:

\---

say i'm doing a (bullshit) pitch for my new startup, "Uber for cats", and lead
with one of these two sentences:

• "Facebook kick-started the social media revolution." (probably true)

• "Facebook created new jobs for marginalized communities." (probably false).

i'm saying something like that because i'm trying to create an impression
that:

• I'm a visionary who aims to revolutionize stuff / cares about positive
social change

• My startup is, at least to some degree, worth comparing to Facebook

and notice: _it doesn 't matter whether that opening sentence is true or
false_. either way i'm bullshitting – using that sentence to create an
overinflated image of my startup. i might even build my bullshit out of
entirely true things, arranged in a misleading way – anything works, as long
as it gets you to invest in Uber for cats :)

~~~
antris
In your example the falseness is not besides the point. Even if you wouldn't
technically lie, using deceptive language as a tool to raise capital is
extremely unethical. You might be able to dodge lawsuits by this kind of
deception, but ethically you are the same as a liar.

~~~
jacoblambda
The thing in my eyes that separates bullshitting someone from lying to them is
that when you lie, you know what you are saying is probably or definitely
false but when you are bullshitting someone, you just don't know if it's
definitively true.

Provided a chance to prepare a proper response, one should never bullshit
anyone and doing so is quite disrespectful however when put on the spot,
sometimes it does more damage to just say "I have no idea" than it does to
make an argument based on assumptions.

A piece of advice that I received when I was younger that I've since taken to
heart is this:

Never say cop out phrases such as "I think", "maybe", "possibly", and "I
hope". The only purpose they serve is to shield you from the consequences of
what you say if you are wrong. If you don't want to deal with those
consequences, don't be wrong. If you can't answer with a reasonable level of
accuracy, the only valid response is something to the effect of "I will find
out".

This advice easily was some of the most useful advice I'd received for being
able to hold my ground in a professional environment. If you know the answer,
say it. If you are willing to bet the answer is true, say it. In all other
cases, find out and get back to them. Very few people will press you if you
can't answer something and will in most cases see you with more credibility.
Nobody has all the answers so why should you have to pretend you do.

In this sense, bullshitting isn't so much about lying, it's just guessing that
you are right. Should you do it often? Probably not, but if it's ultimately of
low consequence and you believe you are mostly correct, it is only slightly
worse than saying something incorrect on accident.

~~~
clairity
> ‘Never say cop out phrases such as "I think", "maybe", "possibly", and "I
> hope". The only purpose they serve is to shield you from the consequences of
> what you say if you are wrong.’

that’s terrible advice, as life is anything but absolute. we make statements
all the time that include our degree of confidence in them. they’re still
often very informative. you can always tack on an “i will find out” after any
of those statements and have the same effect of affirming more definitive
follow-up.

good bullshit though. almost had me.

~~~
Cpoll
Don't you mean "I think that's possibly terrible advice?" :)

~~~
clairity
ha, yes, i'm glad you caught that little contradiction!

------
danielam
Who cares? Being good at bullshitting is like being a good liar or good at
dissimulation. The "good" is only analogical in meaning. Virtuous intelligent
people, the wise, are habituated and developed in the direction of truth and
away from lies, deceit and bullshit. They have a sensitivity to the truth and
the value of truth. Bullshitting requires and in turn reinforces a kind of
mental dullness and blindness. It leads to a kind of degeneration of the
mental faculties. If you don't care about the truth—only the parochial effects
of your petty machinations—then you are frustrating the intellect and its
grasp of reality. You are reinforcing vices while weakening the capacity for
discernment and the strengths and virtues needed for proper intellectual
function and receptivity.

It's a bit like what happens when an intelligent coward is met with contrary
evidence. He will turn away from the truth and go to great lengths to
rationalize it away, and in doing so, he will blind himself to the truth.
Making that a habit through repetition only deepens the vice and unravels the
mind, making it increasingly difficult to dig yourself out.

~~~
nwienert
Bullshit is just a way to practice one of the hardest forms of interaction:
attracting a difficult to get mate.

Not that you need to bullshit them, but often a woman tests a mans abilities
before she decides on a relationship. The tests are many. Some are of loyalty,
some of intellect.

But many are of how quickly you can react to unknown, hard to grasp things.
It’s called “banter” usually, and it’s absolutely vital in many cultures and
areas to attract someone.

Banter is essentially “bullshit”, except it’s highly entertaining. It can
contain tons of truth (it can be almost all truth and even more so than a dry
analytical conversation ever could, in a Straussian way). But the ability to
play along, take up characters, bluff, and know exactly when to push things
and when to let them up, to understand the “game” of having fun through
conversation. That’s basically as important a thing you can learn, absolutely
vital to reproductive success, and honestly one of the most fun activities
that exists.

Sure, you can draw a line and say stupid banter is stupid or pure BS is BS.
But you’re totally missing the point and the fun behind it, and the real
usefulness. Talking dryly about science wont convince people - but giving a
good fictional story with some (wink wink) bluster and can convey much richer
meaning and keep people engaged.

~~~
tomp
I don’t see “banter” as “bullshit”. Sure, it’s usually the exact opposite of a
geeky, factual conversation, but the _purpose_ of banter is to bond, whereas
the purpose of bullshit is to mislead (consciously or unconsciously) (while
avoiding outright lies).

------
mattlondon
Related fun game that I like to play when there are "pop up" public
art/sculpture things that appear on the street: totally ad-lib a mini-
critique/-explanation for the piece there on the spot if you are there with
someone else and see if you can get away with it.

e.g. just picking something random:
[https://inspiringcity.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/wp_2015083...](https://inspiringcity.files.wordpress.com/2015/08/wp_20150830_15_06_13_pro.jpg)
and coming up with something

"The ethereal skeletal-form the character hewn - nay _assembled_ \- out of
cubic masses I think really suggests a genuine fragility or frailty of
humanity in a context of our modern society - you know what I mean, raising
questions about the concept of self in an anonymous and increasingly digitised
world. The fact this faceless figure is stationary and notably rooted solid
here on the spot despite being surrounded by this busy streetscape only
reminds me of our ultimate mortality, and that our place - _our mark we leave_
\- in the universe is merely fleeting... the artist really hammered this point
home I think by the use of rusting steel: nothing is permanent, dust to dust
ashes to ashes and all that. Moving stuff."

It is fun - bonus points for ending the critique with "Ultimately, it is about
mans's inhumanity to man" for every piece :-)

I like to think that I've been able to get away with it loads of times now
("gee - I just thought it was a rusty metal man statue"). My wife now rolls my
eyes whenever I do it with friends, but she lets me have my fun :)

~~~
kinkrtyavimoodh
What if your friends know you are bullshitting but are too polite to point
out, or are just playing along for fun?

~~~
pjc50
Does it matter? After all, there's no real underlying conversational reality
to be referenced; just the Ur-Zeitgeist of performative familiarity, the
verbal construction of an image and its presentation to the Other ...

~~~
blaser-waffle
that's a fancy way of sayin they were just bullshittin about nothin

------
ikeyany
_Hello. I 'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien encounters is true.
And by true, I mean false. It's all lies. But they're entertaining lies. And
in the end, isn't that the real truth? The answer is No._

~~~
Tade0
Somehow Jonathan Frakes seems to be more fitting here, even though it was
indeed Leonard Nimoy in that episode.

------
aazaa
From the abstract:

> ... Consistent with our hypotheses, we find that bullshit ability is
> predictive of participants’ intelligence and individuals capable of
> producing more satisfying bullshit are judged by second-hand observers to be
> higher in intelligence. ...

This abstract reads like bullshit.

The paper defines "bullshiting," but not "intelligence." Nor do the authors
even seem interested in addressing any of the numerous problems in measuring
human intelligence.

The "intelligence" tests being used appear to be:

\- Wordsum Task. The Wordsum task is a 10-item vocabulary test commonly used
as a measure of verbal intelligence (see Malhotra et al., 2007 for a review).
In this task, a word in large print (e.g., “CLOISTERED”) appears above a
series of smaller print words (e.g., bunched, secluded, malady, miniature,
arched). Participants’ objective is to pick a small print word that is the
best synonym for the large print target word. Scores on the Wordsum task were
equal to the total number of correct responses provided.

\- Raven’s Progressive Matrices. We administered Raven’s Progressive Matrices
(RPM) as a measure of abstract reasoning and non-verbal fluid intelligence
(Bilker et al., 2012). In this task, participants are presented with a
partially obscured visual pattern and must select the available pattern
fragment that will successfully complete the pattern. The RPM is comprised of
60 items broken up into five levels of difficulty. In order to decrease time
demands on participants, we randomly selected four items from each of the five
difficulty levels, resulting in 20 RPM items being presented in Study 1. We
calculated an RPM score for each participant by calculating the number of
correct responses they provided.

Assuming this study was in fact performed and isn't some weird bullshit
inception joke, these "intelligence" tests seem flawed at best.

~~~
thomasqm
They are commonplace puzzles that serve to measure commonplace intelligence.
What else were you thinking?

~~~
throwaway3999
Taking a far-reaching and encompassing notion that's very ingrained in
everyone's vocabulary, redefining it so that it's easier to measure, and
reducing it to a bunch of puzzles, seems to be a favorite pastime of
psychologists.

~~~
rladd
For example?

~~~
throwaway3999
I'm always impressed by psychologists' claim to be able to accurately define
and measure intelligence, creativity, or indeed most personality traits, when
researchers from other, presumably adjacent fields (AI to neuroscience to
animal behavior to developmental biology) haven't come near approaching these
notions. Not only that, but (in the case of intelligence) it apparently stems
from the ability to match words and recognized predefined patterns very
quickly? This is such an extraordinary claim to make, so either psychologists
are onto something people from other fields are too close-minded or feeble-
minded to grasp, or some kind of intellectual shortcut was taken there.

------
s_m
If I were well known as a master bullshitter, I would simply convince the
world that being a master bullshitter was a sign of intelligence.

~~~
danielmarkbruce
I don't understand how this doesn't have more upvotes.

~~~
KingFelix
Take mine!

------
_Microft
It reminds me of a game called "Nobody is perfect" where there are cards with
names and words that usually only few people know (don't worry, nobody is
perfect). Goal is to write convincing explanations for them.

Each turn, one player draws a card, reads out the word, name or situation
listed and writes down the correct answer shown on the backside. All others
think up an explanation and write this on their piece of paper instead. At the
end of each turn, the sheets are collected, shuffled, read out by the active
player and the players have to vote for the answer that they think is most
likely to be correct. Points are awarded if they chose the correct answer and
additional points for everyone they fooled with their own creation.

(And now the question is whether the described game actually exists.)

~~~
jml7c5
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictionary](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fictionary)

It's very close, though your version would be more like "The Encyclopedia
Game".

~~~
_Microft
It is very similar indeed.

------
ankit219
What they are measuring is the confidence levels of an individual and how they
relate to us trusting them or detecting something is amiss.

A version of this is Practical Intelligence, an ability to talk your way out
of situations or to talk about things which will soothe or convince the
listener. I think this is a separate skill in itself, and has nothing to do
with your general IQ levels (based on empirical evidence only, dont know of
any study). This is something I found lacking in me where others would get out
of an assignment or a test in school based on just convincing the teacher
alone, or get access to things, work done from others while I would be left
wondering how the hell they did it. It is an important skill to be taught -
knowing what to say in front of who in any situation - to buid rapport, get
support, connect on an emotional level (things I have struggled with
occasionally hence those are more noticeable) and more like this to help you
succeed in this world.

~~~
AQuantized
does "based on empirical evidence only" mean anecdotes then?

~~~
ankit219
anecdotes is a part of them, I used empirical in the sense that i noticed (and
somewhat envied) they had the ability to get out of situations while I could
not. The reason I said nothing to do with IQ or intelligence is probably an
underlying bias where I have seen some smarter folks (compared to me) do it as
well as some not as smart folks do it too. Not using anecdotes because it has
happened way too often, and this is also the experience of a few individuals
in my friends group

------
DevKoala
Back when I was younger, I would bullshit on software interviews with great
success. I say "bullshit" because I would talk with a high degree of
"confidence" about topics and technologies that I had barely read about or had
experience with.

"Scaling a service to millions of requests per second? Sure, you will need X,
Y, and Z."

Now, on the other side of the table, I am quick to spot the bullshit.

Also, I realize how criminal those interviews were back then. I was answering
architect level questions asked by a senior engineer when applying for a
junior level position.

~~~
folkhack
I mean - assuming you passed the interview how BS was it? Either the guy
interviewing you had no place asking those questions or you were accurate
enough in your response to get in is my take.

~~~
Tade0
I'm in my current project because I read the right articles about ngrx an hour
before the interview.

We had a laugh about it with our line manager the other day. He was leading
that interview.

------
it
This reminds me of the Kurt Vonnegut novel Galapagos, in which the human race
evolves beyond the era of really big brains since they weren't doing us that
much good after all and made our heads less streamlined for swimming after
fish.

~~~
wiml
A similar idea forms the background to Karl Schroeder's novel _Permanence_.

------
sunstone
Definition of a Gentleman: someone who knows how to play the bagpipes but
doesn't.

This is kind of similar.

~~~
nicharesuk
Are you saying that like: A gentleman is someone who is intelligent enough to
bullshit you, but chooses not to?

~~~
sremani
Would say, A gentleman is someone who is intelligent enough to spot Bullshit.

~~~
chaoticmass
Being good at bullshitting makes it easier to spot bullshit.

~~~
asveikau
Disagree. I think a lot of bullshitters assume everyone else is bullshitting,
including when they are not.

~~~
seppin
In fact, they can't imagine a world that doesn't operate this way.

------
adrianmonk
Side issue, but if someone is going to bullshit me, I really appreciate it if
they do a good job. Put some effort in. Make it believable.

Otherwise, you're insulting my intelligence, and maybe it's just my ego, but
having my intelligence insulted offends me more than being lied to does.

~~~
CamperBob2
That's also reminiscent of a similar problem with the original Turing test:
the test outcome says more about the intelligence of the person evaluating the
test than it does about the identity of the test subject.

What does it prove if a computer successfully fools a moron... or if a
presidential candidate successfully bamboozles 62,979,879 of them?

------
xivzgrev
Plenty of dumb people bullshit and plenty of smart people don’t. I saw another
comment here I agree with - your intelligence probably correlates with the
quality of bullshit, assuming equal motivation.

------
Dowwie
Confronting indifference toward truth: Dealing with workplace bullshit:
[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000768132...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S000768132030001X)

------
cryptica
I think this type of thinking is dangerous because there are at least two
factors at play when it comes to bullshitting:

1\. Ability to bullshit

2\. Willingness to bullshit

And I think the second one is inversely correlated with intelligence. It's
short term thinking which tends to lead to trouble in the long run. Truly
smart people know that there will be a point when reality will catch up with
their BS; especially if they're dealing with other smart people.

I think BS has worked pretty well so far because most people are delusional
and they'd rather lie to themselves and maintain their existing relationships
rather than admit that they've been duped into using an inferior product or
service.

------
karatestomp
I bet activities and educational environments that correlate (for whatever
reason) with higher-than-average intelligence train for bullshitting, directly
or indirectly. Improv, verbal sparring games (e.g. "Questions"), debate,
small-group discussion-driven instruction styles (as the Harkness method of
Phillips Exeter Academy)

------
mgh2
I don't think so: Listen to Alibaba founder Jack Ma, he is a lucky persistent
guy turned business leader. He is actually air-headed, but people still listen
to his BS because he is rich. Money speaks...but substance? Not necessarily

I will actually say that people who are able to detect BS are more intelligent
still, because truth is so rare.

------
mg794613
What a great bullshit-article (pun intended)!

However it completely forgets the willingness aspect. I think a lot of smart
people are brilliant bullshitters, however they have morale and pride which
make them avoid this. I'll bet this article will be shared among CEO friends,
"See, we are smart!"

~~~
kls
Having spent a lot of time in the C-suites, I would say that I have never
really gotten the bullshit vibe from many CEO's. I have gotten the sociopathic
tendencies / devil may care, vibe from more than a few of them, but
bullshitting seemed to be a sales exec's expertise. CEO's (at least successful
ones) don't really care about the small stuff and the touchy feely, they tend
to mow over that stuff for the big picture and a lot of bullshit focuses on
the details and the emotional aspects of the conversation. That's not to say
that they don't lie, they just don't tend to color it like a bullshitter does.

------
it
Also related: The Ubiquitous Matrix of Lies by Charles Eisenstein:
[https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-ubiquitous-
matrix-o...](https://charleseisenstein.org/essays/the-ubiquitous-matrix-of-
lies/).

~~~
mncharity
Reminds me by contrast of reports of ancient Persia...

> They hold it unlawful to talk of anything which it is unlawful to do. The
> most disgraceful thing in the world, they think, is to tell a lie; the next
> worst, to owe a debt: because, among other reasons, the debtor is obliged to
> tell lies. (Herodotus I.139)

> From five years of age to twenty-four they are trained to use the bow, to
> throw the javelin, to ride horseback, and to speak the truth; (Strabo
> 15:3.18)

Perhaps connected to a Zoroastrianism light/truth/good at war with
dark/lies/evil.

------
jokoon
It seems to describe how I generally argue. I guess as long as I'm called
intelligent, I can agree to be called a bullshitter too?

It's true that being able to "navigate" vague ideas of politics, economics,
philosophy, communication, and understand how others perceive those ideas,
enables one intelligent person to play with those ideas to make some bullshit.

The problem is that when ideas are not precisely defined, or when those ideas
are controversial and/or misused because they're important societal values, it
gives more and more opportunity for someone to make bullshit.

I mean you can't bullshit about quantum physics or advanced math. But it's
easier to do it for law or social sciences.

~~~
TeMPOraL
> _I mean you can 't bullshit about quantum physics or advanced math._

Depends on your audience. In general, on any given subject, you can
successfully bullshit people who are less familiar with it than you are. In
terms of social wins, I think that's usually what matters - bullshitting
people on the spot. They won't go and fact-check it later anyways, but will be
left with an impression that you're smart and knowledgeable.

------
krick
GPT-2 must be intelligent as fuck.

------
29athrowaway
Exploiting information asymmetry and lying, like any other form of adversarial
information manipulation, requires skill. And applying intelligence can be an
effective way to acquire an skill.

You can also acquire bullshit skills from knowledge transfer, and you can
become effective at bullshit in that way.

You can train an entire sales force using a script in order to convince
customers to buy stuff they do not need, like insurance, using bullshit
pretenses. While that will make a lot of people good at bullshit, that does
not mean those people will become more intelligent.

------
croo
> "Bullshitting, a style of communication characterised by an intent to be
> convincing or impressive without concern for the truth"

A wonderful and suprisingly precise definition.

------
foobar_
Bullshitters are observed to be intelligent. That is true. Confident
bullshitters are assumed to be intelligent but thats because of the confidence
factor. Intelligent people usually outthink themselves and "appear" doubtful
when the actual case is they are considering all possible options.

I think it should be possible to amplify bullshit to such a degree that
everyone can see the absurdity.

------
2019-nCoV
It would make sense that imbeciles have a harder time bullshitting. You can't
continually bullshit someone that is more knowledgable on a topic.

Though it would seem bullshit ability is more closely tied to that knowledge
gap between participants than anything.

e.g. mechanic with an IQ of 85 easily bullshits the economist with an IQ of
125 into more mechanical work than is required.

~~~
seppin
> It would make sense that imbeciles have a harder time bullshitting.

Or your lack of knowledge doesn't hold you back in any way, your BSing is pure
nonsense and therefore isn't even approachable.

The best BSers I know are total morons.

------
koolhead17
Reminds me of another paper [1] on bullshitters about which we discussed in
details here.[2]

[1]: [http://ftp.iza.org/dp12282.pdf](http://ftp.iza.org/dp12282.pdf)

[2]:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19749130](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19749130)

------
didibus
"Bullshit Ability as an Honest Signal of high score on Raven’s Progressive
Matrices"

The study is equivocating intelligence with RPM, and I feel I missed the paper
that proved that RPM was an accurate measure of intelligence? Or that we even
arrived at a general consensus on the formal definition of intelligence.

------
em-bee
sure, bullshitting is a form of imagination, and imagination is a sign of
intelligence.

but intelligence in itself is not enough. evil masterminds are intelligent
too.

it also matters how that intelligence is used. if you use it for bullshitting,
you are at best wasting someones time, and at worst you are deceiving them.

------
greendave
> We interpret these results as adding further evidence for human intelligence
> being naturally geared towards the efficient navigation of social systems.

Seems to be a talking about a very specific type of intelligence, e.g. quite
different from the stereotypical geek.

------
TheSpiceIsLife
Ok, before I go knee-deep, can anyone tell me:

Is this article itself _bullshit_?

------
larsrc
BS. The Bullshitting skill is based on CHA, not INT.

------
azhu
Bullshitting is spitting out a valid model for a nonexistent phenomenon. It's
reasoning without knowledge.

------
rurban
They got it completely wrong. Not the ability to produce bullshit is
intelligence, but the ability to detect it.

------
markus_zhang
Somehow I habe a feeling that the whole experiment is self referential...

------
nicetryguy
"Life is more or less a lie, but then again that's exactly the way we want it
to be. We wouldn't be comfortable with it any other way." \- Bob Dylan

------
bfung
Bullshit.

------
hasa
Many personality disorders are related to intelligence. Nothing new. The dark
side exists.

------
AzzieElbab
Yeah, but the results of using this specific ability are what exactly?

~~~
gxx
Becoming a powerful politician...

~~~
AzzieElbab
Exactly, more bs

------
6510
Everything you wrote reduced to nothing in my mind.

~~~
6510
I hate explaining good jokes but I guess the topic is worthy. The idea is to
repeat everything people say (or write) in your own words. That way others can
polish their words all day long without changing the facts. I often wish we
all had a natural gift for this kind of objectivity. I mean, if someone
describes something, wouldn't you want it to describe the thing the way it is?

(Its different if someone is genuinely passionate about a topic. Then I want
to wear the pink glasses and get a set of my own.)

