经济与社会科学2019ftp.iza.org
吹牛者：他们是谁，我们对他们的生活了解什么？
Bullshitters: Who Are They and What Do We Know about Their Lives?
入门 · 约 45 分钟读完前置知识：统计学基础、Frankfurt《On Bullshit》概念背景
导读
这篇论文利用 PISA 数据，研究 15 岁学生在数学测试中“不懂装懂”（对不存在的概念声称熟悉）的行为，并分析这类“bullshitters”的人口特征与后续人生轨迹的相关性。作者将 bullshitter 定义为“在缺乏实际经验或技能的领域声称拥有知识或专长的人”，并发现该行为与性别、社会经济背景等因素相关。
HN 关注点：论文标题戏谑、话题有趣，且其“bullshit”定义偏离了 Frankfurt《On Bullshit》的经典定义，引发读者对概念界定和研究方法严谨性的争论。
HN 评论精选
这几条评论里：质疑 3 亲历 1
质疑论文的定义丢掉了 Frankfurt 强调的“意图”因素，概念界定有问题
有趣的是本研究对 bullshit 的定义：在缺乏实际经验或技能的领域声称拥有知识或专长的人。这与论文引用的 Frankfurt《On Bullshit》中的定义不同——Frankfurt 认为说谎者在意真相并试图掩盖，而 bullshitter 根本不在乎真假，只在乎能否说服听众。关键区别在于：这些青少年可能仍在意真相，只是自以为知道。本研究丢掉了“意图”这一我认为非常重要的因素，尤其在青少年群体中，具体情境会让人因不同动机而倾向于夸大其词。
Zaphods查看英文原文
It's interesting the definition of bullshit in this study: > ‘Bullshitters’ are individuals who claim knowledge or expertise in an area where they actually have little experience or skill. compared to the definition that the philosopher Harry Fankfurt came to in his book On Bullshit, and that this study references: > bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn't care if what they say is true or false, but rather only cares whether their listener is persuaded. The key difference being, these teenagers might still have regard for the truth, they think they know it and believe they know it. But they're still bullshitters under the definition used in this study. Intention seems to have been discarded in this study when I think it plays a very big part, especially among teens. The specific context of a situation might mean certain individuals are inclined to overclaim vs others because they have different reasons to.
质疑论文定义与 Frankfurt 原意几乎对立，讽刺的是论文本身可能就是 bullshit
《On Bullshit》是我读过的最喜欢的作品之一，但令人沮丧的是，这篇论文一边引用它，一边给出的定义几乎完全不符合原意。按 Frankfurt 的定义，bullshit 不是谎言，你也不必“缺乏经验或技能”才能传播 bullshit——你只需要不在乎真相，只在乎对自己是否方便，这与真相可能重合也可能不重合。这个定义几乎与 Frankfurt 的直接对立，让我觉得这篇论文本身就是一堆 bullshit。
anm89查看英文原文
`On Bullshit` is one of my favorite things I've ever read but it's frustrating that this paper simultaneously cites `On Bullshit` while immediately defining bullshit in a way that does not conform almost at all with the `On Bullshit` This article starts out by defining bullshitters and therefore bullshit as: "‘Bullshitters’ are individuals who claim knowledge or expertise in an area where they actually have little experience or skill. " They at least somewhat remedy this by mentioning the better partial definition used in `On Bullshit` which is shared with the word "humbug": "deceptive misrepresentation, short of lying, especially by pretentious word or deed, of somebody's own thoughts, feelings or attitudes”" The important difference is that bullshit is not lies, and you do not have to "have little experience or skill" on a topic to spread bullshit on that topic, all you need is a disregard for the truth, in favor of whatever is convenient to you which could overlap with the truth or not. In this way this definition is almost directly in opposition to Frankfurt's which makes me think this paper is a bunch of bullshit. edit: Frankfurt's own words on his definition of bullshit: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1RO93OS0Sk&feature=youtu.be&t=125
质疑样本仅是 15 岁学生的数学测试，据此推广结论站不住脚
需要注意的是，这项研究的数据来自参加数学测试的 15 岁青少年。我认为基于这样的样本得出宽泛结论是可疑的，甚至可能本身就是 bullshit。
rmbryan查看英文原文
It's important to note that this study focuses on data from 15-year-olds taking a math test. I assert that drawing broad conclusions based on that sample is suspect and may be, in fact, bullshit itself.
亲历软件行业充斥靠忽悠上位的 bullshitter，且层级结构使问题无解
我在软件行业见过太多 bullshitter——他们的技术能力仅限于说服不懂技术的经理自己很懂行。我还见过这种人被提拔到能造成严重损害的位置，不再是 merely 不称职的开发者，而是拖垮整个团队的技术负责人。这往往是个无解的问题：不懂技术的高管坐在不懂技术的经理之上，一层层 bullshitter 对彼此视而不见，且出于自保而乐于维持这种状态。
yarg查看英文原文
I've seen too many bullshitters in the software industry - people whose technical capabilities extend only as far as their ability to convince non-technical managers that they know what the fuck they're talking about. I've seen these people be promoted to positions where they can do serious damage, no longer a mere developer not knowing what the hell you're meant to be able to do - but a lead developer crippling an entire team. In many cases this is an impossible problem to solve - with non-technical executives sitting above the non-technical managers; a layer-cake of bullshitters blind to bullshitters with a vested interest (born of self-preservation) in remaining so.
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
- 2019Hacker News 讨论帖350 分 · 260 评
- 2020Hacker News 讨论帖73 分 · 42 评
同领域还值得读
一切的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
利用1870–2015年多国的长期数据，估算股票、住房等各类资本的回报率，并将其与经济增长率进行比较。
经济与社会科学2019 · 487 分 · 260 评进阶 · 约 100 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015
构建了 1870–2015 年 16 个国家的长周期资产回报数据集，覆盖股票、住房、政府债券和短期票据，系统比较各类资产的真实回报与波动性。
经济与社会科学2018 · 215 分 · 151 评进阶 · 约 120 分钟编辑精选一切资产的回报率，1870–2015（2019）
The Rate of Return on Everything, 1870–2015 (2019)
这篇发表于《经济学季刊》的论文构建了 1870–2015 年间 16 个主要发达国家的股票、债券、房地产等资产收益率的长周期数据库。
经济与社会科学2024 · 190 分 · 148 评进阶 · 约 80 分钟编辑精选想法是否越来越难找？
Are ideas getting harder to find?
探讨“想法是否越来越难找到”：通过衡量多个领域的“研究生产率”，发现维持相同的增长需要投入指数级增长的研究资源，即研究效率在持续下降。
经济与社会科学2016 · 182 分 · 106 评入门 · 约 60 分钟编辑精选比特币与区块链的经济极限
The Economic Limits of Bitcoin and the Blockchain
芝加哥大学 Eric Budish 的论文从经济学角度分析比特币与区块链的根本限制：核心论点是只要攻击网络（双花或砸盘做空）的收益超过挖矿成本，51% 算力攻击就有利可图，而挖矿…
经济与社会科学2018 · 176 分 · 37 评进阶 · 约 90 分钟编辑精选