Scientists Figure Out What Type of Person Believes BS

a reply to: Phage

I'm simply trying to say that it's best not to generalise so broadly. Not to mention that whole correlation and causation thing.

a reply to: Astyanax

They were used only to establish respondents' hospitality to conspiracy theories. Conspiracy theories were not treated as BS for the purpose of the study. The authors were trying, among other things, to see whether believers in conspiracy theories are unusually susceptible to BS. Turned out (unsurprisingly) that they are.

The questionnaire is an excellent yardstick for determining belief in conspiracy theories — the more so precisely because some of the questions are indeed factual.

I realize that, but I think you misunderstand my gripe with it. If the determination for conspiratorial minded is based on facts, not just conspiracies, the correlation to the BS (which I realize was not the conspiracies themselves) is not as meaningful.

At least that's what I got from it.

In other words, half the conspiracies are true, half are complete bollocks, does it matter which group 'believe'd in conspiracies' unless they recorded and factored which were true and which weren't?

From what you are saying, it doesnt matter because there is a correlation between those who bought the BS, and those who were conspiratorial. But my point is the yardstick to measure which person is conspiratorial is wrong to begin with, which makes the correlation problematic.

Maybe it just bugs me I feel like they were BSing in the BS study...

a reply to: eisegesis

Scientists Figure Out What Type of Person Believes BS - Why does it take a scientist to do that?

Some people believe BS put out by the govt and the mainstream media and some people believe the BS put out by the alternative media and religion.

We are all guilty of believing BS, none of us are perfect. One of the things we are all faced with in life is that at some point in our lives we all have to decide on what we will hold to be true and what we will hold to be untrue. We are all going to get it wrong a good many times but hay, we're all works in progress otherwise we would not be in this world.

a reply to: boncho

I realize that, but I think you misunderstand my gripe with it. If the determination for conspiratorial minded is based on facts, not just conspiracies, the correlation to the BS (which I realize was not the conspiracies themselves) is not as meaningful.

If you were given a sheet of questions exactly like the one we're discussing, except that all the conspiracies on it were false, and asked which ones you believed in, what would that prove? Many people would get wise to the deception, and refuse to tick any of the boxes whether they believed in them or not.

No, the only meaningful way is to provide a mix of real conspiracies and conspiracy theories.

In other words, half the conspiracies are true, half are complete bollocks, does it matter which group 'believe'd in conspiracies' unless they recorded and factored which were true and which weren't?

I suspect that was done. Yet, even if it wasn't, the results would still be valid, because the study authors would take the percentage of true conspiracies in the questionnaire as a baseline score. By this method, people who dismiss real conspiracies as false could also be identified.

a reply to: Astyanax

I suspect that was done. Yet, even if it wasn't, the results would still be valid, because the study authors would take the percentage of true conspiracies in the questionnaire as a baseline score. By this method, people who dismiss real conspiracies as false could also be identified.

Where does it say they are using them for controls?

Edit: "Them" I meant 'true conspiracies' from the above quote. i.e. Where does it say they are using control questions in the questionnaire to determine conspiratorial ideation.

a reply to: boncho

What?

a reply to: eisegesis

So basically, if you go against the controlled propaganda machine you are an idiot.

Questioning the government or the pharmaceutical monopolies = you are a retard.

Sounds reasonable to me!

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: boncho

What?

Where does it say they are using control questions in the conspiracy questionnaire? They specifically state they use control questions in bull#, and 'pseudo profound bulll#' but it doesnt say they use them to determine conspiratorial ideation.

In par- ticular, the bull# sensitivity measure would be improved if there was a more direct mapping between the pseudo- profound bull# and the genuinely meaningful control items

If they made their determination of how conspiratorial someone is, by offering them questions of conspiracies confirmed by fact, and conspiracies not confirmed by fact (e.g. Aliens came and impregnate women or hybrid babies to take home, t/f) than where are the control questions. They imply they have them for determining sensitivity to bull# and 'meaningful control items'

Edit: Found the full resource they use for determining it I don't have time to go over it though.

a reply to: eisegesis

I think the main problem here, is that the authors of this report have failed to consider certain possibilities, like the possibility that some people are simply devoid of any significant ability to comprehend the written word, beyond its most utilitarian usage.

When I read, hear, or witness BS being uttered, the first thing I go to is the language used. Because I have a significant grasp of the English language, I know where words are appropriate, and where they are incongruous to the point being made, and moreover, if there is even a point made by the end of the sentence. Very often, the most successful BS takes advantage of lots of words which sound impressive, and also takes advantage of the inability of the reader to be able to derive meaning from advanced vocabulary.

Now, that inability is indicative of just one thing, and one thing alone, that being a sub par educational experience, or an unwillingness or inability to interact with an education that was offered the individual, which normally amount to roughly the same thing, more often than not. Mindset is irrelevant, bias is irrelevant. If one can read and comprehend words with a significant degree of actual understanding, then this sort of BS simply cannot actually overcome your reason and infect your mind.

However, the researchers who developed the study, have mangled themselves up a bit. You see, they have decided that they want to link an inability to read and comprehend language, with the probability that a person might become a conspiracy theorist or follow conspiracy theory, or that they might turn toward a faith. This, by its very definition, seeks to make a broader point about acceptance of conspiracy theory and faith matters, which cannot be supported by facts.

Having worked in big corporations for many years, I see BS statements all the time.
Completely meaningless under scrutiny but impressive sounding sentences designed to give the impression of competency, professionalism and ability, but actually based in some other reality other than the present one.

You see the same rehashed descriptors and sentences used all the time on people's LinkedIn pages. for instance!

a reply to: eisegesis

Don't know if I agree with all of it but I do believe that those with limited vocabulary and reading comprehension skills seem to be more susceptible and I think that MSM is already well aware of that fact.

Just take a little time and compare the news ticker feeds at the bottom of the screen on the various MSM news sources.

There's a reason that Fox News runs their ticker much slower than everyone else and with larger fonts and simpler words.

a reply to: Flatfish

There's a reason that Fox News runs their ticker much slower than everyone else and with larger fonts

I will be laughing at this all day! Love it!

a reply to: boncho

i'll take this one step further. if a conspiracy is a verified historical fact, available to anyone who bothers checking reputable sources, and some one checks the "do not believe" box, isn't this person susceptible to bullshyte?

a reply to: Swills

I don't understand what's so hard to believe that stupid people are prone to be bullshi**ed.

Is it stupidity? I think they're (we're?) born with a hitch in the brain that makes them more afraid of being deceived than they are of being wrong

No matter what they see or think or feel for themselves, there's always that pea under a mattress that's so far down that even when they can't actually get to it they're still convinced the pea is there. There's no way for them to unknow that pea once they've imagined it

People with low intelligence are more likely to buy bull #?

No # Sherlock! Why bother with a study that was obvious?

originally posted by: anotheramethyst
a reply to: boncho

i'll take this one step further. if a conspiracy is a verified historical fact, available to anyone who bothers checking reputable sources, and some one checks the "do not believe" box, isn't this person susceptible to bullshyte?

No! most definitely not, history begins yesterday, or even a few minutes ago.

Henry Ford is the perfect example, God knows maybe these researchers took their cue from his dissertations.
Didn't Henry Ford say, "History is bunk" and earlier, "History is more or less bunk" but it seems like he said both in some conversation or the other, and not that he never said that, while some sources say he never said [IT]
Context must play a part then. However, the context must be solely down to what Henry Ford's own beliefs were at any given time, one of which may well have been his belief that bankers, but certain bankers, created the scenario for the Great War/WW1....I think he said that too. So, Henry was a conspiracy theorist himself...or was he? Work that one out.

I was having a conversation with my mother earlier this evening, and it covered some things which are actually relevant to this topic, which I had not gone into in my earlier post. I will address my failure forthwith.

BS comes in many different shapes and sizes. It comes in different qualities too. The BS on the shopping Channel for example, is what I would call low grade. It is relatively mundane, working out where the nonsense is requires little intellectual gymnastics, and is often delivered by people who have all the inherent wit of a bludgeoned corpse. You KNOW that whatever force animated the awful troll on the screen, you should not trust a word out of its mouth. You can know this whether you have just finished a university degree, or been trepanned for your own health and that of those around you. It is pretty obvious.

However, at the other end of the scale, you have the BIG BS. Detecting this, and the specifics of how it operates is not something which many people are really capable of. Hell, few people are even aware that it is happening, preferring to accept the larger BS, because they are generally unwilling to engage with the possibilities presented by a change in their own world view and reason for going about their daily business, which would come from a logical and open minded investigation of the aforementioned BS.

For example, this discussion I mentioned at the top of my post, that I had with my mother just earlier, was rather heated, and revolved around the problem presented by IS. My mother has always had a little bit of a concern that my attitude toward war is somehow disrespectful of those who have fought it in times gone by, and we had a frank debunking of that particular issue tonight, as well as going over the whole topic from my perspective, the way I see the whole gamut, from the function and performance of the military industrial complex, to the way the money travels from governments and from institutions, to the terrorists in the Middle East at the moment. We had the moment, finally, where she threw up her hands and tried to posit a binary choice between bombing, and doing nothing, ignoring every single other thing that could, and in my view, should be done.

This was DESPITE the fact that I had already outlined a plan which, given certain things being in place, and certain individuals being a) available, and b) willing, might actually solve the problem for good, without causing massive devastation to an entire region, casualties in the double digit millions, and so on and so forth. Now, rather than engage with the particulars of the aforementioned plan, her realisation that basically the entire IS issue may have been nothing more than an effort to make money for oil barons, arms dealers, and "invisible" power brokerages (which does not make the effects of IS any less serious or concerning, I might add), had her amygdala literally spark off like a nuclear firework. I hated seeing that happening in my mother, let me tell you, but the conversation had to be had, because I knew that although she has a great many concerns about the government of our nation, and other nations as well, she is not prone to contemplating solutions to, or even the identities of the responsible parties in, these sorts of critical issues.

She then said something very important...

"So why should I get up and get through the day tomorrow? What is my motivation for anything that I do anymore, if my taxes are spent this way, if nothing can be done because all the politicians are owned, and even the best of them are powerless to act EFFECTIVELY to solve both the corruption that gives rise to, and the actual fact of the terrorism?"

Some BS is so dangerous, so toxic, so insidious, that people almost HAVE to believe it, because if they do not, they have not the energy or the unique mindset which says "Balls to it. Get up and do it anyway, in the hope that something CAN be done in the fullness of time, in the hope that the next generation, or at least the one after that will FINALLY take down the banner of war, and hang the banner of peace through wisdom, rather than living under the flag of chaos and greed."

You see, I am many things personally. Utterly bat crap mad is one of those things, if you ask certain friends of mine. But being mad as a March hare, means I do not need a reason to continue to do what I am doing, or at least, not one which revolves exclusively, or even mainly around my life, or the lives of my immediate family. I am looking at the big picture with ZERO vested interest, because I know that the most important thing in the world is not me. It is the species. The whole, not the one. It would be lovely to look at life through a selfish lens, always concerned about my bottom line, always putting my eggs in the basket of the person who promises me riches and comfort, rather than nobility and honour, the person who promises posh clobber for my little one, rather than the possibility of him living in a world free of high level corruption and the sale of lives for the sake of profit.

But I hold the point of view that I do not just because I want my son to become an adult in a world free of the MIC, the influence of money on politics, the influence of that money on the causes of and outcomes of war, but because I want EVERY human on the Earth to one day have the opportunity to live without those concerns, not because they are ignorant of the reality, but because the reality has changed. As I said, these are not thoughts which come easily to certain minds, not because those minds are lesser in some way, but because they have different training and construction. Not worse training necessarily, or even old training, just different training and construction. I can accept that there is a great lie at work in the world, without loosing my motivation, because righteous fury and indignation is a great motivator. But not everyone can do that as readily.

The BS which has been smeared over events over the last fifty or sixty years, which has culminated in this particular batch of madness we are living through as a species, is of the most dangerous, awesome scale and potency. It is so powerful, so steeped in the very stuff which people rely on for everything from their bank accounts to their motivation for living and working, that some people would rather forget they ever thought outside the box they have been put in, than consider a truth beyond what they have been fed. Many of them never even realise the programming of course, but even those who do will retreat back inside it, having seen a different view, because they have no ability to reconfigure for the new, better data. These are good people I am talking about, loving, caring, honourable and fair to a fault in life and dealings with their fellow human beings...but duped all the same, and some of them knowingly, despite the alternative being known to them.

There are types of BS that are way beyond the type of psychological evaluations that have been devised by the authors of this report, and one of the ways I can tell that, is because by the sounds of things, the authors themselves have already made assumptions about what, precisely, constitutes BS and what does not. Those assumptions, are likely in very serious error.

I actually like quotes and parables. Much of common and ancient knowledge is summized and passed-down this way.

I have tons of formal education too....go figure.

a reply to: boncho

They specifically state they use control questions in bull#, and 'pseudo profound bulll#' but it doesnt say they use them to determine conspiratorial ideation.

Surely you understand that the paper we're discussing, despite its unconventional slanginess, is written for an academic audience. As such, they would not trouble to stress relatively minor details that would be familiar to their intended readers.

That questionnaire is a standard one used to determine how much of a conspiracy nut a respondent is. The researchers didn't formulate it themselves. It was designed by Brotherton, French and Pickering ('Measuring Belief in Conspiracy Theories: The Generic Conspiracist Beliefs Scale', Frontiers in Psychology, 2013).

You can find the quoted study, and the questionnaire itself, here.

BS isn't conspiracy theory. It is used to support conspiracy theories. The finding that conspiracy theorists are susceptible to BS is hardly unexpected — particularly to a seasoned user of ATS.