Introduction

Social psychology simply refers to empirical study of how implied, imagined or actual presence of others influences an individual’s behaviors, feelings and thoughts. There are instances in which individuals make claims that are based on assumptions, rather than scientific findings, regarding the meaning or implication of presence or sentiments of other people. Such approaches called pseudoscience (Langston, 2010). There are signs that are used to determine whether claims are based on pseudoscience or not. This paper presents a description of fundamental causes of pseudoscience and an analysis of two claims made in a news paper article in which the author used pseudoscience.

Analysis

The fundamental causes of pseudoscience include bystander effect, groupthink, fundamental distribution error and cognitive dissonance. Fundamental attribution error entails making judgments regarding the behavior of an individual in a given situation using his internal traits, instead of using external factors (Langston, 2010). Cognitive dissonance is a term that describes an individual’s experience in which he or she has contradictory values, ideas or beliefs. Groupthink is a term that describes a situation in which an individual’s desire to conform to a group leads him or her to make an irrational decision. Bystander effect describes a situation in which the presence of other people influences an individual to avoid or be reluctant to provide help to another person (Langston, 2010).

Pseudoscience is evident in an article titled The Slippery Slope Begins published in The New York Times on September 16, 2014, which was written by The Editorial board. The author makes an analysis of Gen. Martin Dempsey’s statements in the article. President Obama had stated one week earlier that the US would not allow its forces to engage in ground war against ISIL in Syria and Iraq (The Editorial Board, 2014). Later, Gen. Dempsey indicated that he opined that the US allows its forces to engage in the ground battle. The author indicated that the Gen. Dempsey’s statements only meant that there was a change in the policy of the existing regime, which rejected engagement of US forces in ground battle in the conflicts occurring in Middle East. The author believed that it was a change of the policy since President Obama easily changes policies even without consulting the congress (The Editorial Board, 2014).

Fundamental attribution error is evident in the remarks of the author. To start with, the author used the behavioral trait of President Obama to make the claim, without considering the eisting situation that led the president to make the policy that places emphasis on avoiding engagement in ground battle in the Middle East. By the time the author wrote the article, public and the congress in the US were currently against ground engagement of the US forces, which influenced President Obama’s regime to make a policy that was against ground engagement (The Editorial Board, 2014).

Also, there cognitive dissonance is evident in the remarks made by the author. The author has different opinions, some of which are contradictory, supporting his claim about the change of policy by President Obama’s administration. Firstly, the author argues that there is a possibility that there is new intelligence report regarding the strengths of Islamic states, which invites an urgent shift in policies. At the same time, the author argues that there is possibility that the US is unable to persuade the persuade governments in which the mission is targeted to join it and work together to end the conflicts, without the US engaging in ground war (The Editorial Board, 2014). Despite stating that Gen. Martin Dempsey’s statement meant a change of policy, the author states that there was a possibility that the statements did not mean that the government was about to change its policy. According to the author, it is possible that the general just wanted the author just wanted to indicate that there was a need for policy change, irrespective of the current stance of the government (The Editorial Board, 2014).

Clearly, the aforementioned remarks indicate that there is a problem of pseudoscience in the remarks made by the author. If I was the one making the remarks made by the author, I would base them on scientific or empirical research findings. As Langston (2010) explains, social psychology requires that any claims made regarding the social behaviors of another person by an individual be based on scientific research. Thus, I would approach Gen. Martin Dempsey and engage him in an interview that would be intended to determine the source, meanings and implications of his statements. I would then do an analysis of the statements and come up with an informed conclusion.

Conclusion

Overall, pseudoscience problem is common in the claims that people make when judging others. In order to avoid the problem, social psychology suggests that individuals should base their judgments of the behaviors of others on results of empirical research. The author of the article described in the essay should have based his or her judgments of behaviors of others on empirical research.