Somebody in psychology finally 'gets it' about Stephan Lewandowsky and John Cook and their 'smear science'

Social psychologist Jose Duarte pulls no punches in describing Lewandowsky’s failures of science in the “Moon Hoax” paper and the later retracted “Fury” paper. And then goes on to describe failure in Cook’s 97% consensus paper. Excerpts follow.

in their abstract they say:

“Endorsement of free markets also predicted the rejection of other established scientific findings, such as the facts that HIV causes AIDS and that smoking causes lung cancer.”

This is all false, and the paper should be retracted. It should’ve been retracted by the authors already.

Surprisingly, climate skeptics got mad about this paper, perhaps because > 97.8% of those who think climate science is a hoax reject the moon hoax idea in Lewandowsky’s own data, placing them squarely in the mainstream of humanity. So, Lewandowsky, Cook, Oberauer, and Marriott (2013) wrote a follow-up hit piece that was all about their critics. They wrote a paper that was about the critics of the first paper, the one we’ve just debunked. It wasn’t enough to lie about people and smear them as believing things they definitely do not believe. He needed to take another swipe. The journal, Frontiers in Psychology, wisely ended up retracting that paper, which is exactly what should happen to this fraud here.

This was an awful thing to do. It was damaging to innocent participants. It is unethical to do this to your participants. It is wildly unethical to invite people to participate in a study, and then do this to them. They are helping us. They are volunteering to participate in scientific research. They’ve take time out of their lives to help us out. And in return, we slander them? We tell the world that they believe things that they do not believe? What Lewandowsky and colleagues did here was despicable and fraudulent. Why would anyone participate in a social psychology study if this is what we do to them? Why would anyone participate in research if our goal is to marginalize them in public life, to lie about them, to say that they think the moon landing was a hoax, to say they don’t think HIV causes AIDS, to say they don’t believe smoking causes lung cancer – when none of those things are true. Do we hate our participants?

Read the whole thing here: http://www.joseduarte.com/blog/more-fraud  (h/t Bishop Hill)

In another article, Duarte goes on to describe the failures of Cook and his “independent raters” in Cook’s 97% paper.

In social science, it’s common to use trained human raters to subjectively rate or score some variable — it can be children’s behavior on a playground, interviews of all kinds, and often written material, like participants’ accounts of a past emotional experience. And we have a number of analytical and statistical tools that go with such rating studies. But we would never use human raters who have an obvious bias with respect to the subject of their ratings, who desire a specific outcome for the study, and who would be able to deliver that outcome via their ratings. That’s completely nuts. It’s so egregious that I don’t think it even occurs to us as something to look out for. It never happens. At least I’ve never heard of it happening. There would be no point in running such a study, since it would be dismissed out of hand and lead to serious questions about your ethics.

But it’s happening in climate science. Sort of. These junk studies are being published in climate science journals, which are probably not well-equipped to evaluate what are ultimately social science studies (in method). And I assume the journals weren’t aware that these studies used political activists as raters.

Examples of the unbelievable bias and transparent motives of the raters’ in Cook, et al (2013) below. These are excerpts from an online forum where the raters collaborated with each other in their ratings: –

See more at: http://www.joseduarte.com/#sthash.gfz7am3K.dpuf

Thank you Jose Duarte.

It is heartening to see somebody outside of climate science finally call these spades a spade. Now if we can just instill some sense of moral responsibility to people in climate science who really should be speaking out about using science as a smear tactic, we’ll be gettin somewhere.

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
lucaturin

Brilliant. At long last. Thank you José Duarte.

Mike Smith

“What Lewandowsky and colleagues did here was despicable and fraudulent.”
Nicely said!

Clovis Marcus

From another article on that site entitled “Climate Science is Biased, but Right:
Beware centralized authorities and lofty scientific organizations. Climate science is going through a pompous phase right now, where they think that if they issue a report under the banner of the AAAS or the Royal Society or the IPCC, laypeople should just kneel before them. That’s unscientific, un-American, and terrible epistemology. Authority and officialdom are not good heuristics for scientific truth, and clearly, organizations like the AAAS can no longer be trusted. I don’t think climate scientists fully appreciate the fact that lots of people simply do not trust them — and behavior like the AAAS’ scam report will only further erode the public trust, and deservedly so. They need to have much higher standards, make it trivially easy to obtain their data, and always, always, always tell the truth. AAAS grossly misled the public about the quality of the evidence for their 97% consensus figure, and I can’t tell you how much that crushed me — they’re a left-wing political advocacy organization at this point, not a scientific body. A scientific body would use robust scientific methods like meta-analysis, and carefully control for the political biases of its membership – cherry-picking junk studies is the well-worn tactic of mediocre political advocacy think-tanks.
I’m not sure what weight his opinions carry but he certainly believes in telling it how it is.

Reblogged this on My Daily Musing and commented:
Wow, Jose Duarte puts the shucking and jiving of Lewandowsky and Cook in its place.

hunter

If the trash and junk papers that cluster around the climate opbsession were to be withdrawn there would likely be a noticeable and significant decrease in climate papers.
Kudos to Jose Duarte for having the guts to call this particular bit of trash for what it is.

Bernd Palmer

Where are those serious climate scientists who distance themselves from such unscientific studies which abuse of science in every way?

LeeHarvey

Jose Duarte is clearly beholden to the Koch brothers.
/sarc

john robertson

Possibly too little too late.
Climatology is drowning in Lew Paper and the byproducts associated with it.
Social Science is about to get lumped in with “Climate Science”.
As dangerous pseudo sciencey rubbish that is dangerous to personal liberty and destructive to civil society.
Just another front, a cover for the statist do-gooder power hungry people haters.

With all due respect to Jose Duarte, I do not have respect for the “science” of psychology in the first place. While I do admire him for the integrity that he is trying to instill into the field, my own anecdotal experiences with the field shows that Lewandowsky is the rule, not the exception.

CC Squid

Berne, They fear the loss of their grants and life style! Here is a question to ask yourself, if you were Mexican and could only feed your children by working in America, would you cross the border? The same goes for for climate “scientists”, the MSM and the publishers and editors of magazines, I believe it is called self interest. The internet is changing the world!

Cheshirered

“The person who posted this data, Brandon Shollenberger, is a complete unknown. It’s amazing that if it weren’t for him, we wouldn’t know how rigged the study truly was.”
Boom!

DirkH

Looks like Duarte didn’t get the memo. Fellow of Science communication John Cook should straighten him up.

TheLastDemocrat

philjourdan says: “With all due respect to Jose Duarte, I do not have respect for the “science” of psychology in the first place. While I do admire him for the integrity that he is trying to instill into the field, my own anecdotal experiences with the field shows that Lewandowsky is the rule, not the exception.”
Bad science is bad science, and parading propaganda as science is parading propaganda as science.
It is ignorant to dismiss the science of psychology as not-a-science.
Psychology explores the natural world of human experience and behavior, strives to understand its rules or patterns, and take the findings and put them to some use.
Nearly all of us have been in college and learned of this scientifically verified concept called “bystander apathy.” If you are alone, and see something bad happening, or developing, then you are much more likely to act then if you believe others are also observing.

Bystander Apathy is a component of our psychology, something in the natural world.
Knowing this, we can be trained to recognize our likely disposition to observe but not act, and we can train ourselves to behave responsibly despite this phenomenon of nature.
Any “see something-say something” campaign is an intentional effort to overcome this. If you develop one, or more, see-something-say something” interventions, then test whether it has any notable effect on getting people to behave contrary to the bystander apathy effect, then not only are you dealing with a scientifically-described natural phenomenon, but you are engaged in a scientific assessment of scientifically-designed intervention.
Your life may one day be saved by someone trained to respond in a helpful way despite the natural inclination to do nothing.
Have the fake physics studies driven anyone to write off physics as a worthy realm of scientific exploration?
I could go on an on with plenty more obvious examples, but claiming “psychology” is not a science is just ignorant.

@TheLastDemocrat – Reread my post. I did not say I “dismissed” it as a science. Whether I do or do not is irrelevant to what I did say. And that is I have no RESPECT for the field or those who practice it.
As I also stated, in my experience, Lewadowsky is the rule, not the exception.

As any real scientist should be, Duarte is flabbergasted to witness the scurrilous stratagems deployed by the relentlessly dishonest Lewandowski, Cook et al.. Those of us who have for years been the targets of eco-alarmist slander cannot muster the same surprise, but our years of familiarity can help to answer the questions Mr. Duarte has about the etiology of this perversion.
My comment on a Daily Caller article about the behavior of Naomi Oreskes:

These leftists always assume that the correlation between right-left ideology and skeptic-believer views on climate are because people on the right compromise scientific thinking in favor of politically preferred conclusions. The reason they jump to that conclusion is because they are always projecting. Leftists think that everyone engages in “motivated cognition” because that is what THEY do.
If you look at the original “motivated cognition” papers, like that idiotic Jost piece from 2003 (my contemporaneous critique of Jost here), these leftists actually assume that EVERYBODY engages in “motivated cognition” all the time. This is an admission that this is what THEY do. They can’t get their head around even the possibility that other people don’t do it, that anyone could actually think frontwards, following reason and evidence instead of looking for how to make the best case for preferred conclusions. Thinking frontwards is outside of the realm of their own experience.
So I’m not surprised that Oreskes assumes that climate skeptics are engaged in biased reason. What IS surprising is her ability to see her own cognition as moral and rational when her whole side of the political spectrum is famous for not even believing that unbiased reason is possible. That is the whole thrust of leftist post-modernism, the claim that there is no such thing as truth, only power. They justify their own disregard for truth by saying that there is no such thing as truth and that all ANYBODY does is concoct ways of seeing things that best serve their own interests, then they at the same time turn around and pretend they aren’t doing this.
Well, that glaring contradiction does serve their own interests, and obviously that is how they arrive at it, but the dishonesty and illogic is so overt that you would think it would give them pause: “Wait a minute: can it really be rational for me to be illogical? Can it really be in my best interest to PRETEND that I know what is in everyone’s best interest when I am so divorced from reality that I don’t even believe there is such a thing as truth?”
The leftist mind is a truly foul and perverted thing.

bernie1815

Duarte is a graduate student. The commentary, while pretty accurate and powerful, is in a blog post. Let’s see if he can get an article published in a reputable journal before ringing the bells.

@LeeHarvey, August 6, 2014 at 8:44. “Jose Duarte is clearly beholden to the Koch brothers.” /sarc
Wait for it, that accusation stands a very plausible chance of popping up, because it is exactly the problem besetting pro-AGW pop-sociologists like Lewandowsky and others: to bolster their assertion that we must analyze why skeptics and the public go against ‘consensus’ opinion, they rely on a single-source talking point about skeptics being ‘paid industry shills’. I covered that right here in a WUWT guest post, and in a post at my own blog:
“The OTHER problem with the Lewandowsky paper and similar ‘skeptic’ motivation analysis: Core premise off the rails about fossil fuel industry corruption accusation” http://ow.ly/nXXny
“Robert ‘dark money’ Brulle & Other ‘Skeptic-Trashing Environmental Sociologists’” http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=1237

Resourceguy

That last part about “moral responsibility to people in climate science” has been a great head scratch-er for me. I suppose they placed moral responsibility of climate goals so high that they overlooked the moral responsibility of the science process, standards, and responsible public policy input. The ends apparently justify the means for a wide swath of the research field. Such total avoidance of responsibility works for awhile and may have little perceived effect incrementally, but cumulative negative impact can be a disaster. I was recently reminded of this when reading the commemoration of WW 1 in the news recently. I did not previously recognize that the wholesale loss of a generation in Germany during the first great war played a part in the moral vacuum giving rise to the unchecked opportunities of radicals that followed in the 30s.

MattN

Lewandowsky and Cook are just two more in a long line of charlatans bleating out the party line, albeit with unusual attitude and arrogance.

JC

TheLastDemocrat says:
August 6, 2014 at 9:11 am
The so called science of “psychology” is akin to blind men groping about in a dark room and asserting that they are divining the true nature of God. Right now they are no more effective than someone looking for the end of a rainbow. Calling a spade a spade is not ignorance. Someone defending something that is based almost entirely on opinions shouldn’t throw stones.

Taphonomic

Bad science and having to retract papers can be hazardous to your health. Yoshiki Sasai, who was embroiled in a stem-cell scandal, committed suicide on August 5, 2014.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2716540/Japanese-scientist-stem-cell-research-retracted-proved-false-commits-suicide.html

“we would never use human raters who have an obvious bias with respect to the subject of their ratings, who desire a specific outcome for the study, and who would be able to deliver that outcome via their ratings.”

“But it’s happening in climate science.”

“Now if we can just instill some sense of moral responsibility to people in climate science”
You can’t instill something in someone when they never had a shred of it to begin with.

Aphan

Alec Rawls-
Perfect way of stating a long held belief of my own! May I quote you sometimes with full attribution in the future?
[Response from Alec: Of course.]

Political Junkie

bernie1815 says:
“Duarte is a graduate student. The commentary, while pretty accurate and powerful, is in a blog post. Let’s see if he can get an article published in a reputable journal before ringing the bells.”
What the hell does his graduate student status and the blog post location have to do with anything? Are his facts correct or are they not?
Would publishing in a ‘reputable journal’ somehow change the veracity of Duarte’s account? Or would publishing incorrect information in a reputable journal make it true?
What journal would be willing to do a (deserved) evisceration of Lewandowski’s garbage? Professional courtesy means that they stick together.
Just look at the failure of honest scientists (there must be some) to deal with Mann, Gleick, Cook, Lewandowski, Gore, etc., etc.

Alan Robertson

It was only a matter of time until someone within the social sciences community spoke against the farcical works of Lewandowsky. Now that Oreskes has inextricably linked her name to Lewandowsky, the scions of Harvard are surely plotting their next move…

Patricia

Wow! Really trashed Lewendski et al. Hooray!

John in L du B

bernie1815 says:
“Duarte is a graduate student. The commentary, while pretty accurate and powerful, is in a blog post. Let’s see if he can get an article published in a reputable journal before ringing the bells.”
I agree with you Bernie. I’m concerned for this guy’s career, maybe even his physical safety.

bernie1815

Political Junkie:
You are correct, his status as a graduate student says nothing about the accuracy of his commentary. It does, however, have relevance for gauging whether his robust and rigorous criticism of the appallingly bad Lewandowsky and Cook papers, which I agree with, will garner any traction among other psychologists. Personally I doubt it. It would take a critique of someone like Kahneman to really bring Lewandowsky down.

ossqss

It is amazing the extent of deception in the climate science community. Data tampering, rigged review, outright lies, refusal to share code or data, policy implementation without representation, agenda driven study results, funding impropriety, and on and on. We need a reset button as everyone is paying the price for this abhorrent behavior.
Incarceration is the only button that can bring this systemic fraud to an end.

Harry Passfield

I looked up some of the research programmes (and very laudible are many of them) for Bristol University and found that they have come up with yet another morphed definition of AGW. Now they call it ‘Global Change’.
To this end they have come up with:

With the growing consensus about the reality of human-induced climate change, we urgently need to better understand its likely consequences and evaluate this in the context of natural, past variability. For example, even a modest increase in temperature of the order of a fraction of a degree can cause major changes to the functioning of ecosystems and can fundamentally alter our weather patterns. Such changes are manifest in an increasing intensity of tropical cyclones and the prevalence of flooding and drought events.

Now, I would have thought that any university worth the salt would run a mile from ‘consensus’.

Going through the raters’ discussion on SkS I came across this comment by an “Andy S”:
“The danger, of course, is that we will also grade some iconic denier papers as neutral. We shouldn’t, naturally, change their ratings but we should at least be aware of their existence I suspect that a lot of denialist papers will be rated neutral, since they may have had to hedge their conclusions to get published. I haven’t looked at it again but I suspect that the McLean et al ENSO paper abstract would have to be rated neutral, whereas the authors trumpeted its denialist conclusion only in the press release, if I recall correctly. I’d guess that M&M’s papers and some of the cosmic ray and solar stuff will also be neutral. Remember that many deniers will claim that they don’t doubt AGW, just “CAGW”.”
Just look at the honesty here: “I suspect that a lot of denialist papers will be rated neutral, since they may have had to hedge their conclusions to get published”.
Don’t they feel *any* shame?

bernie says:
“Duarte is a graduate student. The commentary, while pretty accurate and powerful, is in a blog post. Let’s see if he can get an article published in a reputable journal before ringing the bells.”
I don’t have any figures, but at my psych grad shool the vast majority of papers published
were the work of grad students, even those that had the major professor’s name attached.

MattS

The link in the main post to the José Duarte blog is broken.

To me the major problem with Cook’s study was the fact that it was so stupidly designed and
obsolete. The study was supposedly to determine the opinion of climate scientists about global warming. That implies it should canvas their “current” beliefs, not beliefs they may have held in the past, in some paper they may have been involved with (perhaps before the “pause”).
And the strategy Cook chose almost looks as if it was designed to introduce human bias into the results. If you want to know a scientist’s beliefs about an issue, you do what everyone else (except Cook) would do : YOU ASK THEM. You don’t dig thru a bunch of published papers trying to read tea leaves and infer the answer to a question that the papers probably never even addressed. In court, such a claim as Cook’s study makes would be tossed out as “not best evidence” as well as “including answers likely to be obsolete.”

Crispin in Waterloo

@Clovis
“That’s unscientific, un-American, and terrible epistemology”
But it makes for good eschatology if you are a Believer!

Crispin in Waterloo

Grad students tend to graduate, eventually. If the meme sticks, a PhD is in the offing, and a good one, showing that there is a new form of psychological behaviour that needs to be categorized, named as a form of self-delusion and placed on the list of other delusions.
Willful ignorance is inadequate. L&C papers are perversions of social science. A random act would be an error, but systematic abuse is a syndrome. Perfect grist for a PhD’s mill.

John West

arthur4563 says:
“If you want to know a scientist’s beliefs about an issue, you do what everyone else (except Cook) would do : YOU ASK THEM.”
I tried that once. I sent an e-mail to every State Climatologist in the USA at the time. (I believe it was about 36 states having State Climatologists at that time.) The e-mail asked a very straight forward question about global warming with multiple choice answers reflecting a variety of views including “not enough data to confidently determine”. I got exactly 3 replies. Two I would characterize as warmist and one lukewarmist if I recall correctly (it’s been a while). An 8% response rate is hardley enough to determing what State Climatologists think. The lack of response I suppose does say something. Perhaps there is a consensus among State Climatologists that they need to keep their mouth shut or tow the line if they want to keep their jobs.

“If you want to know a scientist’s beliefs about an issue, you do what everyone else (except Cook) would do : YOU ASK THEM.”
Maybe Cook was worried about what the scientists would say if he asked them. 🙂

bernie1815, you ought to look it up first:

bernie1815 says:
August 6, 2014 at 9:25 am
Duarte is a graduate student. The commentary, while pretty accurate and powerful, is in a blog post. Let’s see if he can get an article published in a reputable journal before ringing the bells.

From Duarte’s website:
Publications

Duarte, J. L., Crawford, J. T., Stern, C., Haidt, J., Jussim, L., & Tetlock, P. E. (in press). Political diversity will improve social psychological science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.
Duarte, J. (2014). Beyond life satisfaction: A scientific approach to well-being gives us much more to measure. In A.C. Parks & S.M. Schueller, (Eds.). The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of positive psychological interventions. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
E-mail me for a copy of either publication. More coming soon…

catweazle666

“Now if we can just instill some sense of moral responsibility to people in climate science”
Good luck with that.

Steve P

TheLastDemocrat says:
August 6, 2014 at 9:11 am
Freud to Jung upon their arrival in NYC in 1909:

We are bringing them the plague.

Congratulations future Dr. Duarte.

more soylent green!

BTW: How did Lewandowsky’s paper account for several Apollo-era astronauts being climate skeptics? Does Neil Armstrong believe the moon landings were faked?

Jimbo

This really says it all.

It never happens. At least I’ve never heard of it happening. There would be no point in running such a study, since it would be dismissed out of hand and lead to serious questions about your ethics.

Yet it was not dismissed out of hand. It’s called an agenda and is part and parcel of Climastrology. It’s agenda driven, paid for, pal reviewed results. And that’s to put it mildly.

“It is difficult to get a man to understand something if his salary depends upon his not understanding it”.
Upton Sinclair

Lloyd Martin Hendaye

To those of us who have been saying this for years, naming names without compunction for Warmists’ bleats-and-squeaks, the sociopathology of AGW Catastrophism is simply Will James’ Anabaptists of Munster writ large (see “Varieties of religious Experience”).
In direct line from Paul Ehrlich to John (“seething maggots”) Holdren, Keith Farnish, Kentti Linkola, Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber, a certain mindset regards all industrial/scientific progress from c. 1725 as antithetical to nature’s “purity”… in no uncertain terms, these self-loathing ideologues hate Humanity and want you dead

Jimbo

The Lewandowsky and John Cook paper linked many of us to denial that smoking causes lung cancer. I know and insist smoking causes lung cancer. My only question is do climate change campaigners and the British Bias Corporation believe in their own propaganda. Of course not. The MASTERS OF HYPOCRISY are below.
Jeremy Grantham invests via his hedge fund in tobacco companies and he is a climate change funder and campaigner. He also invests in oil and coal companies via Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo & Co. LLC
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/03/05/bob-wards-rat-snake-ploy/#comment-1583997
The BBC Pension fund, as at 31 March 2013, had investments in the following tobacco companies:
Altria Group
British American Tobacco
Imperial Tobacco
Reynolds American

Al Gore, the climate change campaigner, has been quoted in 1996 by the New York Times saying:

“Throughout most of my life, I’ve raised tobacco,”……..”I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve chopped it. I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.”

Earlier in the same article the New York Times said:

“Six years after Vice President Al Gore’s older sister died of lung cancer in 1984, he was still accepting campaign contributions from tobacco interests. Four years after she died, while campaigning for President in North Carolina, he boasted of his experiences in the tobacco fields and curing barns of his native Tennessee….”

8 June, 2012
Masters of Hypocrisy: the Union of Concerned Scientists
A new report funded by big oil and big tobacco has the chutzpah to complain about corporate influence on the climate debate.
http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2012/06/08/masters-of-hypocrisy-the-union-of-concerned-scientists/


One of the founders of the wildlife and climate campaigning WWF is Dr. Anton Rupert. The now deceased Dr. Rupert made his fortune from the cigarette manufacturing company called Voorbrand, re-named Rembrandt, now consolidated into Rothmans.
Ref: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1508360/Anton-Rupert.html

British American Tobacco Biodiversity Partnership: Fauna & Flora International, the Tropical Biology Association and Earthwatch Institute. Through the Partnership, we are involved in more than 30 biodiversity projects worldwide.
We donated £1 million per year to the Partnership in its first five years, and £1.5 million per year for the five years from 2006. In 2010, we agreed the scope of work for the next five years of the Partnership, with a commitment of £1.5 million per year. ”
Source:http://www.bat.com/ar/2010/directors-report/business-review/strategic-review/responsibility.html

Earthwatch partners with organizations across all sectors of business to improve both environmental and corporate sustainability…….
British American Tobacco (BAT) is the world’s second-largest tobacco group,…..Royal Dutch Shell is a global group of energy and petrochemical companies,”
Source:http://au.earthwatch.org/corporate-partnerships/partnership-profiles
Climate change can seem like a remote problem for our leaders, but the fact is that it’s already impacting real people, animals, and beloved places. These Faces of Climate Change are multiplying every day.”
Source:http://www.earthday.org/faceofclimate/?gclid=CN6Xp9Px9bkCFeY82wodKnAAMA

DrTorch

ASU! Go Sun Devils
Wow. First redeeming thing to come from Tempe in some time.
(Torch- Graduate Class of ’94)

Louis

As long as 97% or more of climate scientists are okay with other climate scientists lying and using dishonest methods for the “cause,” I’m going to continue to treat everything they say with extreme skepticism. Trust has to be earned. And you can’t earn trust by using dishonest or shoddy methods or by supporting those who do.

James McCown

Alec Rawls said
That is the whole thrust of leftist post-modernism, the claim that there is no such thing as truth, only power. They justify their own disregard for truth by saying that there is no such thing as truth and that all ANYBODY does is concoct ways of seeing things that best serve their own interests, then they at the same time turn around and pretend they aren’t doing this.

Quite so, Alec. The left rarely have any original thoughts of their own. So in their simple-minded naivety, they project their lack of any cognitive ability onto others. I have run into this so many times, that now I find it amusing.

Robert of Ottawa

TheLastDemocrat says:
August 6, 2014 at 9:11 am
Bystander Apathy
I had an instance of that very thing a couple of weeks ago. While in a store, a man outside was seen, through the window, to have fallen over and lay motionless on the ground. I remarked this to the other people and cashiers and they had seen it but did nothing. I actually had to force myself to go out and check on the guy. He awoke and knew his name – just a drunk

NikFromNYC

I call a spade a shovel just as I call John Cook evil.