Are You an Internet Kook? Quite Possibly.

Via The Daily Dot.

You’re probably an “internet kook”. Heck, we all probably are, at least according to a list created by Dale Jensen. Jensen claims to have identified eight signs that may indicate that a writer is an “internet kook”. While I have the sneaking suspicion that the purpose of such lists is to make it easier to dismiss troubling ideas wholesale as the work of a “kook”, I’m sure that there will be others who disagree with me. And you know what? They’re kooks. I can tell by looking at this list…

1) “Don’t believe me? Do your own research.”

According to Jensen this is such a telltale phrase that it’s the first item on his list for identifying when someone is over-invested and using a sensible directive to justify irrational beliefs. It’s especially likely, Jensen says, if they repeat the phrase or apply it to a subject for which research is impossible, like the existence of God. Or, of course, if they write it in giant ugly-colored font.

2) Crazy Fonts and Colors

Using GIANT FONT SIZES or random colors to make your points? Sign of kookiness, says Jensen.

3) Links Aplenty

“Another good clue is a million links to articles/rants/information buried within the web site,” Jensen writes. “Generally, this indicates that the person has spent most of their life on this project, rarely a good thing.”

4) Gigantic Wall of Text

“[T]he amount of white space in a post, page or message is inversely proportional to the amount of insanity contained within.”

Read the full list at The Daily Dot.

 

35 Comments on "Are You an Internet Kook? Quite Possibly."

  1. The man doing this study must have a lot of time on his hands. 

  2. i guess i’m not a kook. my day just got a whole let better…

  3. i guess i’m not a kook. my day just got a whole let better…

  4. Liam_McGonagle | Sep 19, 2012 at 6:46 pm |

    #6 was presented a bit perfunctorially.  How does the author know for a fact that this blogger wasn’t John the Baptist?

  5. Liam_McGonagle | Sep 19, 2012 at 6:46 pm |

    #6 was presented a bit perfunctorially.  How does the author know for a fact that this blogger wasn’t John the Baptist?

  6. Martin Hayes | Sep 19, 2012 at 7:35 pm |

    Incredibly, I have spent time at the Cassiopaea (sic)

  7. Martin Hayes | Sep 19, 2012 at 7:35 pm |

    Incredibly, I have spent time at the Cassiopaea (sic)

  8. Martin Hayes | Sep 19, 2012 at 7:36 pm |

    Incredibly, I have spent time at the Cassiopaea (sic) site the article mentions. Is kookiness contagious?

  9. Martin Hayes | Sep 19, 2012 at 7:36 pm |

    Incredibly, I have spent time at the Cassiopaea (sic) site the article mentions. Is kookiness contagious?

    • BrianApocalypse | Sep 19, 2012 at 9:29 pm |

       Heh, I didn’t read through the entire article when I first saw this link, but funnily enough that website crossed my mind when I was reading the bullet-points!

    • BrianApocalypse | Sep 19, 2012 at 9:29 pm |

       Heh, I didn’t read through the entire article when I first saw this link, but funnily enough that website crossed my mind when I was reading the bullet-points!

  10. Hadrian999 | Sep 19, 2012 at 8:18 pm |

    so writing in depth, showing sources, and encouraging peer review makes you a kook

    • Simiantongue | Sep 19, 2012 at 11:57 pm |

      Yes actually. If you were to do that you’re a kook.

      On the other hand. If you have first submitted yourself to a decades long process of inculcation called education in which you’ve proved to the powers that be that you’re worthy of being vetted from among your peers for entitlement and notoriety, not really because you show any superior intellectual ability, but because you can be entrusted to interpret facts in a way that benefits that establishments world view.

      In that case if you were to do that you’re not a kook you’re a scientist.

      Is a clear demarcation between being a kook and a scientist by the articles definition? Maybe that means kooks are scientists without an agenda? Or that scientists are just useful trained kooks? Silly rabbit trix are for kids!

      P.S I can’t honestly say whether I’m serious about that or not lol. Just kind of letting it roll.

    • Simiantongue | Sep 19, 2012 at 11:57 pm |

      Yes actually. If you were to do that you’re a kook.

      On the other hand. If you have first submitted yourself to a decades long process of inculcation called education in which you’ve proved to the powers that be that you’re worthy of being vetted from among your peers for entitlement and notoriety, not really because you show any superior intellectual ability, but because you can be entrusted to interpret facts in a way that benefits that establishments world view.

      In that case if you were to do that you’re not a kook you’re a scientist.

      Is a clear demarcation between being a kook and a scientist by the articles definition? Maybe that means kooks are scientists without an agenda? Or that scientists are just useful trained kooks? Silly rabbit trix are for kids!

      P.S I can’t honestly say whether I’m serious about that or not lol. Just kind of letting it roll.

      • Simiantongue | Sep 20, 2012 at 12:02 am |

         Is *there a clear demarcation between being a kook and a scientist by the articles definition?

        Forgot a word, forgive me I’m a kook.

      • Simiantongue | Sep 20, 2012 at 12:02 am |

         Is *there a clear demarcation between being a kook and a scientist by the articles definition?

        Forgot a word, forgive me I’m a kook.

      • Liam_McGonagle | Sep 20, 2012 at 11:59 am |

        LOL.

        Well, there is kind of a fragment of a point in including excessive detail as a warning sign.

        If you were stopped on the street by a random stranger with a 3 hour monologue about his impeccable research into alternative fuels, you’d not only be annoyed at having your plans derailed, but also feel put upon by the totally unsolicited assumption of familiarity implied by such a massive demand on your attention.  “Who the hell is this f*cker?” is a question that might occurr to you.

        People have similar expectations of their media, too.  No more than 10 minutes to read any article–TOPS.  Any more would require a radical alteration to the rhythm of their lives.

        Those expectations may not be reasonable, given the gravity of a particular topic, but they are commonly understood expectations, which is the best kind of expectation.

        • Simiantongue | Sep 21, 2012 at 4:33 am |

          Well, yes, I see the point. But just for giggles if you ever get the opportunity simply show a passing interest in some random research scientists area of expertise at a faculty party, or pause momentarily in the vicinity of a student who has just decided to take up philosophy as their major.

          You will yearn for excessive detail, because you’ll be burning in the hell of obsessive detail. There is a reason why it’s socially acceptable to smack research scientists and philosophy students with fly swatters. Even in polite company.

  11. haven’t been keeping count
    but isn’t this the 3rd
    if you do this yer not normal article this week?

    what I got was
    if you don’t know how to create a modern web page
    or you twist facts like the mass media does
    you’re a kook

    • Matt Staggs | Sep 20, 2012 at 9:26 am |

      Was commenting 
      in free-verse on that list?

      😉

      • it’s always funny to me how people perceive these posts
        as poetry
        when all I’m really doing is
        organizing the thoughts into bullet points

        but once I discovered that it pissed people off
        or ruffled their sentence structured psyche
        it gave me impetus to do more

        but being an internet kook
        is far better than being normal
        Normal will be the death of us yet

      • it’s always funny to me how people perceive these posts
        as poetry
        when all I’m really doing is
        organizing the thoughts into bullet points

        but once I discovered that it pissed people off
        or ruffled their sentence structured psyche
        it gave me impetus to do more

        but being an internet kook
        is far better than being normal
        Normal will be the death of us yet

  12.  You can call me whatever you want really.

  13. According to #4, I must be about the sanest guy on Disinfo.

  14. Simiantongue | Sep 19, 2012 at 11:35 pm |

    Yes I am a kook.
    Remember kook inside out is okko.
    Which is a pretty insightful comic series, there are many that are.
    This proves the universe is channeling it’s essence through comic creators.
    To disregard that essence is to ignore the universe that is speaking to you.
    Only people who are evil wish to do that.
    And evil spelled backward is live.
    And we all want to do that, now don’t we?
    In closing I’d like to write some witticism in all caps
    and make it a blue or red hyperlink leading you to proof of what I say.
    But it turns out I’ve lost my frame of thought.
    Whatever it was we were discussing
    I’m sure sure you’ll find that I was right and you were wrong.
    Which is the point of being on the internet after all.
    Some famous dead person said something that substantiates this
    and I quote “He’s right”. So there you have it.

  15. Tchoutoye | Sep 20, 2012 at 3:32 am |

    ” I have the sneaking suspicion that the purpose of such lists is to make it easier to dismiss troubling ideas wholesale as the work of a ‘kook’ ”

    Worth repeating. Handing out pointers to discredit opinions merely on the basis of text lay-out is intellectually lazy. Instead, Jensen would have done better to do a 101 on logic fallacies. But that wouldn’t serve the jokey purpose of the article. 

    The most worthwhile element in the Daily Dot article is the link to the Cassiopaea site.

  16. Tchoutoye | Sep 20, 2012 at 3:32 am |

    ” I have the sneaking suspicion that the purpose of such lists is to make it easier to dismiss troubling ideas wholesale as the work of a ‘kook’ ”

    Worth repeating. Handing out pointers to discredit opinions merely on the basis of text lay-out is intellectually lazy. Instead, Jensen would have done better to do a 101 on logic fallacies. But that wouldn’t serve the jokey purpose of the article. 

    The most worthwhile element in the Daily Dot article is the link to the Cassiopaea site.

    • Bad formatting and unreadable walls of text are an indication that the author isn’t interested in the experience of the reader, but only interested in getting his point across. It hints at a lack of self reflection.
      Or it can be a side effect of chemtrail fallout.

    • Bad formatting and unreadable walls of text are an indication that the author isn’t interested in the experience of the reader, but only interested in getting his point across. It hints at a lack of self reflection.
      Or it can be a side effect of chemtrail fallout.

  17. justagirl | Sep 20, 2012 at 9:45 am |

    hmmm yeah i still find this “kookiness” to be kind of adorable.

  18. Rev. Good Hair | Sep 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

    How does one “misrepresent reality” when my own preferred version is obviously superior?

  19. Rev. Good Hair | Sep 20, 2012 at 7:20 pm |

    How does one “misrepresent reality” when my own preferred version is obviously superior?

  20. You know what time it is?! Time Cube Time!

    http://www.timecube.com/ 

Comments are closed.