In disciplines like fighting and comedy it is clear to an outsider whether you have are proficient in the discipline. “Did the other person give up?” “Are you funny?” Absolute games are anchored to reality and so are these disciplines - they are both low on Bullshit Ideas. However, some of these disciplines (like fighting and chess) are clearly relative games, demonstrating that relative games do not necessarily lead to bullshit.
Is it the case with any game that’s anchored to reality is observable to an outsider?
The really hard-line assertion would be that any discipline is “floating” until it produces an output that an outside observer can appreciate. I’m not sure I entirely buy that but I do like the bright line.
This criterion is complicated by serval factors. Many things are ‘acquired tastes.’ Taste can either be really fine tuned pattern-matching or it can just be the result of other people convincing you that something is good. Faith based on desire works in human systems.
Similarly, in science or math, a new discovery can honestly expand humanity’s knowledge about the real world (it is anchored in reality) but it could have no effect on people’s lives and be so subtle that an outsider couldn’t tell the difference between the new state of knowledge and the previous state of knowledge. And on the flip side, many scientists who seem good to outside observers earn that distinction by being skilled communicators and entertainers rather than skilled scientists. There are secretly three kinds of experts.