神经科学与心理学2016journals.plos.org
将胡说误认为深刻
Misperceiving Bullshit as Profound
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：心理学实验设计基础、统计学基础
导读
这篇论文研究人们是否会将'胡言乱语'（由随机拼凑的流行词组成、看似深刻的句子）误认为有深意。研究者让被试对这类句子进行深刻性评分，发现倾向于直觉思维和特定信仰模式的人更容易被这类伪深刻语句打动。
HN 关注点：是因为话题涉及认知偏差与政治倾向的关联，同时不少人质疑研究本身的设计和样本代表性。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 3 补充 1
质疑质疑样本代表性：MTurk 用户和 196 人的小样本难以代表总体，且缺少人口统计数据
社会科学研究很难获得有代表性的样本。根据 FiveThirtyEight 的数据，特朗普初选选民的 household 收入中位数约 7.2 万美元，高于全国中位数约 5.6 万美元，也高于希拉里和桑德斯支持者的约 6.1 万美元。有多少富人会整天泡在 Mechanical Turk 上？作者似乎没有收集收入、教育程度等数据来验证样本的代表性。即使完全随机，196 人在社会科学中也算小样本，尽管比许多心理学研究大。其他讨论也表明 MTurk 用户群体并不代表总体人口。
jkldotio查看英文原文
Getting a representative sample in social science is really hard. "The median household income of a Trump voter so far in the primaries is about $72,000, based on estimates derived from exit polls and Census Bureau data. That’s lower than the $91,000 median for Kasich voters. But it’s well above the national median household income of about $56,000. It’s also higher than the median income for Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders supporters, which is around $61,000 for both"[0] How many richer people are spending their days on Mechanical Turk? The authors don't seem to have collected any income, educational or other data that might help us ascertain how representative their sample is. Even when completely random 196 people is a fairly small sample in social science although it's much larger than many psychology studies, which seems to be the background of the authors. Other discussion[1] seems to suggest the people using the service are not very representative of the population at large. [0]http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-mythology-of-trumps-working-class-support/ [1] http://themonkeycage.org/2012/12/how-representative-are-amazon-mechanical-turk-workers/
质疑批评研究设计业余，缺少真伪陈述的对照比较
撇开内容明显的政治色彩不谈，这项研究本身设计得相当糟糕、业余。一个设计良好的研究应该把'胡言乱语'和'非胡言乱语'的相似复杂度的陈述混合起来，对两者都进行信号对比。更好的做法是，'胡言乱语'陈述应该从'非胡言乱语'陈述池中混合词语生成。
sfifs查看英文原文
Keeping aside the clearly political nature of the content, this study itself seems quite poorly designed & amateurish. A well designed study would mix "bullshit" and "non-bullshit" statements of similar complexity and look at signals on both for comparison. Better still, the "bullshit" statements would be derived from mixing words from the "non-bullshit" statement pool.
补充补充论文使用的具体例句和'胡言乱语'的定义，并好奇各政治群体各自的盲区
如果我没认错，这些被当作'胡言乱语'例子的句子包括：'隐藏的意义转化无与伦比的抽象之美'、'意识由量子能量的频率构成'等（我确实对第 4 句中招了）。补充评论指出：这类句子看似传达某种深刻含义，实际只是把流行词随机拼进保留句法结构的句子里；它不是单纯的'无意义'，因为'无与伦比转化意义美隐藏抽象'这种乱序句子就不算胡言乱语。我很好奇其他政治群体（自由派、自由意志主义者、无政府主义者等）会中招于什么样的胡言乱语。
tomp查看英文原文
If I can tell correctly, these statements were used as examples of bullshit (from [1]): 1. Hidden meaning transforms unparalleled abstract beauty. 2. Good health imparts reality to subtle creativity. 3. Wholeness quiets infinite phenomena. 4. The future explains irrational facts. 5. Imagination is inside exponential space time events. 6. We are in the midst of a self aware blossoming of being that will align us with the nexus itself. 7. Consciousness consists of frequencies of quantum energy. “Quantum” means an unveiling of the unrestricted. 8. Consciousness is the growth of coherence, and of us. 9. We are in the midst of a high frequency blossoming of interconnectedness that will give us access to the quantum soup itself. 10. Today, science tells us that the essence of nature is joy. (I definitely fall prey to 4.) Some additional commentary (from [2]): > Although this statement may seem to convey some sort of potentially profound meaning, it is merely a collection of buzzwords put together randomly in a sentence that retains syntactic structure. The bullshit statement is not merely non-sense, as would also be true of the following, which is not bullshit: > “Unparalleled transforms meaning beauty hidden abstract”. I wonder what kind of bullshit other political groups (liberals, libertarians, anarchists, ...) fall prey to. [1] http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/supp.pdf [2] http://journal.sjdm.org/15/15923a/jdm15923a.pdf
质疑讽刺该研究本身可能就是它所批判的'伪深刻'
对 Taylor Swift 或安·兰德的正面评价在这个量表上算什么？虽然我算个偏左派，但我忍不住觉得这篇文章本身就是胡言乱语。
blowski查看英文原文
Where do favourable views of Taylor Swift or Ayn Rand sit on this scale? Despite being a bit of a lefty, I can't help but think this article is itself bullshit.
相关资源
从这篇论文所有 HN 讨论帖的全部评论里整理出来的链接。
历次讨论
- 2016Hacker News 讨论帖148 分 · 110 评
同领域还值得读
神经科学家能理解微处理器吗？（2017）
Could a Neuroscientist Understand a Microprocessor? (2017)
提出一个思想实验：把神经科学常用的分析方法（损伤实验、电生理、功能定位等）应用到一个我们完全了解其原理的工程系统——6502 微处理器（运行游戏）上，检验这些方法能否真正“理解”…
神经科学与心理学2017 · 411 分 · 135 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选大脑衰老呈现非线性转变，提示中年“关键窗口”
Brain aging shows nonlinear transitions, suggesting a midlife "critical window"
这篇 PNAS 论文研究大脑衰老的非线性变化，发现大脑老化并非匀速进行，而是在中年（约 40-60 岁）存在一个关键的"临界窗口期"，此时干预可能有效。
神经科学与心理学2025 · 295 分 · 159 评进阶 · 约 75 分钟编辑精选社交网络中大规模情绪传染的证据（2014）
Evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks (2014)
这篇 2014 年发表于 PNAS 的论文研究了 Facebook 上约 70 万用户的信息流中，减少正面或负面内容是否会传染性地影响用户自己发布内容的情绪。
神经科学与心理学2020 · 285 分 · 72 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选裸盖菇素使人类大脑去同步化
Psilocybin desynchronizes the human brain
这篇 Nature 研究用个体化的 fMRI 精密成像追踪受试者服用裸盖菇素（psilocybin）前后的脑功能连接变化，发现药物会造成大范围的脑网络「去同步化」，尤其是默认模式…
神经科学与心理学2024 · 273 分 · 259 评进阶 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选对智力的赞扬会削弱儿童的动机与表现（1998）
Praise for Intelligence Can Undermine Children's Motivation (1998)
这篇 1998 年的经典论文（Dweck 等人）通过实验研究表扬方式对儿童动机的影响：夸孩子“聪明”（表扬智力）会让他们回避挑战、害怕失败，而表扬努力则更能培养坚持性。
神经科学与心理学2016 · 253 分 · 155 评入门 · 约 45 分钟编辑精选