Scientists Figure Out What Type of Person Believes BS

a reply to: masqua

Jung's impenetrability was only partly a matter of style. As a practising Freudian — admittedly a biased critic — once said to me, 'the confusion stems from the ideas themselves.' Though personally, I like Jung's ideas fine.

I absolutely agree with you that Gibbon is one of the great historic masters of English style; but though he was simple and straightforward by the circumlocutive standards of his time, he is dense and clotted by ours. Here is a typical example:

When Attila declared his resolution of supporting the cause of his allies the Vandals and the Franks, at the same time, and almost in the spirit of romantic chivalry, the savage monarch professed himself the lover and the champion of the princess Honoria. The sister of Valentinian was educated in the palace of Ravenna; and as her marriage might be productive of some danger to the state, she was raised, by the title of Augusta, above the hopes of the most presumptuous subject. But the fair Honoria had no sooner attained the sixteenth year of her age than she detested the importunate greatness which must for ever exclude her from the comforts of honourable love: in the midst of vain and unsatisfactory pomp Honoria sighed, yielded to the impulse of nature, and threw herself into the arms of her chamberlain Eugenius. Her guilt and shame (such is the absurd language of imperious man) were soon betrayed by the appearances of pregnancy: but the disgrace of the royal family was published to the world by the imprudence of the empress Placidia, who dismissed her daughter, after a strict and shameful confinement, to a remote exile at Constantinople. The unhappy princess passed twelve or fourteen years in the irksome society of the sisters of Theodosius and their chosen virgins, to whose crown Honoria could no longer aspire, and whose monastic assiduity of prayer, fasting, and vigils she reluctantly imitated. Her impatience of long and hopeless celibacy urged her to embrace a strange and desperate resolution. The name of Attila was familiar and formidable at Constantinople, and his frequent embassies entertained a perpetual intercourse between his camp and the Imperial palace. In the pursuit of love, or rather of revenge, the daughter of Placidia sacrificed every duty and every prejudice, and offered to deliver her person into the arms of a barbarian of whose language she was ignorant, whose figure was scarcely human, and whose religion and manners she abhorred. By the ministry of a faithful eunuch she transmitted to Attila a ring, the pledge of her affection, and earnestly conjured him to claim her as a lawful spouse to whom he had been secretly betrothed. These indecent advances were received, however, with coldness and disdain; and the king of the Huns continued to multiply the number of his wives till his love was awakened by the more forcible passions of ambition and avarice.

The Decline & Fall of the Roman Empire, Ch. XXXV

It still sounds wonderful, but anyone who tries to write sentences like that nowadays would deservedly be judged a bad writer. Consciously wrapping one's prose in the mantle of antiquity in the hope of sounding wiser or better read is among the most egregious of stylistic failings. Anachronism is pretension.

not jumping on the lack of education bandwagon. there would be correlation, but not causation. there are plenty of street smart individuals without a formal education who see through BS with ease. conversely, there are plenty of narrow-minded chumps thoroughly "educated" that get stuck in nonsense. the correlation would be that people of higher intellect tend to go through the hoopla that is getting an education.

i honestly think this boils down to stupidity, thou realize my interpretation of what it is to be stupid will be different than the next. my mind personally takes a step back from what is presented, drops off initial assumptions formed in the majority of minds, and asks questions like, "what does this really mean", and "what benefit is there presenting information in this style". that takes intellect, or lsd... has diddly to do with having an advanced grasp of a particular language. most of the BS isn't presented at a high level regarding language. it's very easy tricks that once you figure out, see the same pattern repeating ad nauseum. pattern recognition? again, intellect. most of the patterns aren't even verbal, you get impressions from all the senses combine into a BS filter. you see lots of flashies and that fake-ass tone coming out of people's mouths, best to tune out unless you're in need of a good chuckle.

a reply to: Astyanax

with you on the pretentiousness of ... some poster(s) in this thread. it's annoying how hard they're trying to be an "intellectual" LOL

a reply to: Metallicus

That may be good advice, but i'm not sure. Actually i'm trying to figure you're motive.

I'd like to ask the question is the "study" a result of confirmation bias?
Is it based on people's opinions ? Is it narrow or broad?

How many of the labelled participants have actually taken apart the conspiracy theories
and formed a logical decision based on weighing the evidence if it is likely true or not
or how many just brushed it off because they are ignorant fools?
Seems like a bit ridiculous to me..

Some of us actually started believing in conspiracy theories not out of choice but as a cause of effect in life's path.

Immanuel Kant destroyed science in his critique of reason.
It can be argued that people who believe in science are fools.
Where does it end and start?
Limbo

EDIT :

I've just looked over the study and it seems they ask questions like homeopathy etc
Science maintains that that the placebo effect is real but when rationally and clinically tested homeopathy fails.
Seems like the questions are double think to me one could assume either way?
Meh.

a reply to: Abysha

Good point.

That would be the more effective propaganda.

a reply to: Limbo

I'd like to ask the question is the "study" a result of confirmation bias? Is it based on people's opinions ? Is it narrow or broad?

Why don't you read the study and find out for yourself? There's a link to it in the OP. And here's another.

How many of the labelled participants have actually taken apart the conspiracy theories and formed a logical decision based on weighing the evidence if it is likely true or not or how many just brushed it off because they are ignorant fools?

The study is not about conspiracy theories.

Immanuel Kant destroyed science in his critique of reason. It can be argued that people who believe in science are fools.

He did nothing of the kind. Have you read it?

Science is alive and well. People who believe in it are certainly not fools, but they would be better advised to try to understand rather than simply to believe.

It is not hard to conclude from your post that you don't like science because it says that the things you would like to believe in are false. It's a common problem. I'm afraid the only solution is to stop believing things that are not true.

Very annoying, I agree; but there it is.

originally posted by: Astyanax

It is not hard to conclude from your post that you don't like science because it says that the things you would like to believe in are false. It's a common problem. I'm afraid the only solution is to stop believing things that are not true.

Very annoying, I agree; but there it is.

Not the only solution. Another one is stop uncritically accepting what science says about paranormal/mystical matters it only pretends to disprove because its materialistic methodology makes it incapable of providing that disproof. To advise someone to stop believing things that are not true begs the question that these things are untrue and reeks of arrogance. All you really have is scientists telling you to believe only in what they have to say - after they have duped you into accepting that they are qualified to pronounce on all things supernatural. Some of us have learnt to think for ourselves.....

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: Limbo

I'd like to ask the question is the "study" a result of confirmation bias? Is it based on people's opinions ? Is it narrow or broad?

Why don't you read the study and find out for yourself? There's a link to it in the OP. And here's another.

How many of the labelled participants have actually taken apart the conspiracy theories and formed a logical decision based on weighing the evidence if it is likely true or not or how many just brushed it off because they are ignorant fools?

The study is not about conspiracy theories.

Immanuel Kant destroyed science in his critique of reason. It can be argued that people who believe in science are fools.

He did nothing of the kind. Have you read it?

Science is alive and well. People who believe in it are certainly not fools, but they would be better advised to try to understand rather than simply to believe.

It is not hard to conclude from your post that you don't like science because it says that the things you would like to believe in are false. It's a common problem. I'm afraid the only solution is to stop believing things that are not true.

Very annoying, I agree; but there it is.

before you bark at me again and try to put me in your little "box" ad hominem.
I suggest check my posting history you will not see I am not anti science
and yes I have brushed over the study and read both Kant and the study.
Yes Kant went outside science and exposed it for what it is assumption based.
You assumed that I was anti science (Which I believe is the best we got so far and you labelled me.
Just like this study is a tool to label others also.

Like it or not tough doo doo.

Limbo

a reply to: eisegesis

I guess I "have lower "verbal and fluid intelligence" bc I believe in the paranormal and alternate medicines

a reply to: micpsi

To advise someone to stop believing things that are not true begs the question that these things are untrue and reeks of arrogance.

Only to someone rather stupid.

A person of normal intelligence should be able to see that ceasing to believe something need not automatically mean disbelieving it: there is a third option, that of reserving judgement until enough information is available to settle the matter.

This is known as keeping an open mind, and it is something that conspiracy-pedlars and the hopelessly gullible are constantly advising others to do, although they never seem to take their own advice.

a reply to: Limbo

Thank you for your confirmation that my earlier assessment of you was 100% correct.

yes I have brushed over the study

But not, evidently, read it, or you would not have thought it was about conspiracy theories.

What you really did was look at the questionnaire boncho posted and think it was what the study was about.

It wasn't. I'll leave you to work out what it really was yourself. Hint: reading back up the thread should help.

LOL! Who's BS? Thiers or just "uneducated" bs? I'll just assume "scientist" even understand bs.... You know what? No "scientist" has ever proven sh*t to me. Other than basic knowledge. Thier speculation..doesn't mean nothing more than , well?.. BS. Let me guess? They "studied" a 100% of 0.002% of global population and found that 30% of 0.002% validates "science"? I wonder what "they're" calling "bs".

a reply to: eisegesis

The study is Bull S***. You believe the study, so you are the type of person that believes Bull S***

a reply to: Astyanax

More ad hominem..

I did brush over it and there was question on homeopathy which is "alt med"a (Which is what I am interested in)
If that isn't conspiracy theory based what is?
(Now before you misinterpret what i say I am not claiming efficacy for homeopathy.

As for other alt med some of it absolutely works and was shown to work in randomised study and other less robust studies
e.g. Coley's Toxins. So yeah I am a conspiracy theorist and it certainly isn't all BS.)

Limbo

a reply to: Limbo

More ad hominem.

Are we having an argument? I don't think so.

When you have actually understood the study, perhaps we can have one.

This debate is an interesting one, because it forces people to think about how easily they might be influenced (ie by a form of words that sounds eloquently profound). How about some examples? My favourite is "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" (Carl Sagan). A slogan that seems to have impressed many, yet is actually vague, subjective, misleading, and runs counter to scientific objectivity.

a reply to: eisegesis

So scientists also acknowledge their own BS ?....

Like how 50,000 synthetic chemicals invented since WW2
are good for us , .... and the environment ?


Science leads the way in BS.

ie . God doesn't exist , but intelligent design does .
There is a gene that we can switch off to stop religion.

e.g Week 1 ..... it's bad for you
Week 2 ..... it's good for you
Week 3 ...... we're not sure ..... nothing to see here , move along !

All funded by vested interests .