Found the Pseudoskeptics. Thinktank of psychologists self-publish a pseudoacademic paper replete with bias, logical fallacies. Unsurprisingly, paper says conspiracy theorists and those into complementary / alt medicine are most susceptible to BS >>>

56  2015-12-02 by 911bodysnatchers322

Not the onion. The establishment is fighting hard to stop the awakening.

Litmus test: what academic paper do you know continuously says 'bullshit'? Answer: only this one. Are we to believe that a legitimate academic paper reads so condescendingly and inflammatory? Why? Just because a group of insular psychologists got together and decided to make fun of conspiracy theorists and herbalists, even though they don't know what the fuck they are talking about. Also, does this group of psychologists know what the rest of science thinks of them? I'll just clue them in: bullshit. Psychology can say literally anything. And the only studies worthy to talk about are tightly constrained and studied in a lab. Testing reflexes, perceptions, etc. Millgram experiment for example, its valid. This paper, I can assure you is absolute garbage.

The problem I have with this, is 4441 upvotes and people are having an actual discussion in science on this and they don't consider it onionworthy whatseover. It's almost a proof we've lost our critical thinking skills. If the proposterously anti-science, antithinking of the 9/11 official story didn't do it first, nor did the kids who wrote an AI program to autogenerate a CS masters thesis didn't do it second, then astroturfing and antiintellectual anticonspiracism surely will do the trick.

Richard Gage of AE911truth.org had this to say about pseudoskeptics versus real ones:

> Characteristics of a pseudoskeptic:

1. The tendency to *deny, rather than doubt*.
2. *Double standards* in the application of criticism.
3. The making of judgments without full inquiry.
4. ***Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.***
5. ***Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments.*** (red flag characteristic)
6. Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.
7. Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
8. Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
9. Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
10. Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
11. Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
12. Use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims.
13. Asserting that claims which have not been proven false must be true, and vice versa (Argument from ignorance).
14. They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.
15. They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths.
16. No references to reputable journal material.
17. If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

> True Skeptics / Open-Minded Skeptics

1. Does not show any of the characteristics of a pseudoskeptic.
2. Inquires and asks questions to try to understand things
3. Applies open inquiry and investigation of both sides
4. Is nonjudgmental, doesn't jump to rash conclusions
5. Has honest doubt and questions all beliefs, including their own
6. Seeks the truth, considers it the highest aim
7. Fairly and objectively weighs evidence on all sides
8. Acknowledges valid convincing evidence
9. Possesses solid sharp common sense and reason
10. Is able to adapt and update their paradigms to new evidence
7 comments

12  Fuckaduckfuckaduck 2015-12-02

Yeah. I'm naturally skeptical, and open minded. And I'm certainly not susceptible to bullshit, nor am I stupid.

Fuck this paper, and the bullshit propaganda it pushes.

2  Thevents 2015-12-02

I think this paper should've been titled:

"People That Appreciate Poetry Acknowledge National Security Act Exists."

2  oelsen 2015-12-02

If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative.

Then why_tf are all talking points against climate change and even conclusions of invented facts the oil industry propagates a main staple here in /r/consp. ?

2  JimmyJoeJohnstonJr 2015-12-02

I find it amazing that conspiracy people will loose their mind and go back and research every singe piece of evidence in a paper and find every wrong and factually incorrect thing that says they are gullible but will take at face value that someones brothers , uncles cousins friend talked to a guy who actually saw the black ops guys planting explosives in the twin towers and that story is hand to god fact. why don't you take apart the conspiracy theories like you do a study that criticizes you

1  blacksunalchemy 2015-12-02

Well, they may be assholes for pointing it out. But they do have a point. Anyone want to buy some healing crystals?

http://www.healingcrystals.com/

Or expose some crisis actors by looking at their ears?

http://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2013/01/11/remarkable-resemblance-of-sandy-hook-victims-and-professional-crisis-actors/

Or should we call out Matt Stone and Trey Parker of South Park fame, for being the real Columbine shooters?

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/read/40/1152485.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mnivVuxN1bw

It's not like conspiracy minded folks aren't a little kooky.

1  swampbear 2015-12-02

Yeah, I actually read the paper. What this study consists of is giving a bunch of college kids some quizzes and comparing their results. Using this very tiny demographic is a big problem in psych research; just google WEIRD psychology research and you will be bombarded with articles on this topic (the WEIRD demographic means that decades of studies may be invalid for any declarations outside of the specific demographic studied).

Furthermore, the employed use of quizzes had some procedural problems. The subjects were primed with the mention of Deepak Chopra before they took the "Are these quotes bullshit or profound?" quiz. Had they been primed with the mention of say Aristotle or Wittgenstein, perhaps their answers would be totally different. There is also the BIG problem, that I'm not sure if researchers know how to address, of people being wholly unreliable self-reporters, either outright lying or not having any real objective sense of their self. The tiny bit of research into the possibility of lying on self-reports has concluded that teenagers are the most likely to intentionally lie ("for the lulz") on these kind of tests, something which obviously further tarnishes the integrity of the WEIRD dataset. Additionally, I am unaware of any work exploring how/if anything obtained in these studies will replicate itself in the real world. Obviously, sitting a room and doing quizzes for course credit is not the same as browsing websites for info on good supplements to use or receiving direct response marketing e-mails, or you know, reading the news and synthesizing or integrating what you read into your larger worldview.

The conspiracy inventory they used is interesting, because just at cursory glance, half of the mentioned things can be proven as fact and not paranoid nonsense using only "credible, vetted" sources like NYT, Guardian, WashPo.

I thought maybe the post itself was a grad student's pet project to acquire "data" on bullshit.

-1  badfonts 2015-12-02

I saw that shit on the FP and died. I just hope all those upvotes were artificial