Maybe I've spent a bit too much time in the ivory tower, but neither the sentence you quoted or the one you made up as an example seem difficult to parse. The proper use of "big words" is to communicate unambiguously, so there's no reason to clam up just because an article uses more big words than your average CNN human interest piece.
Also, IQ is a crap metric for pretty much anything other than diagnosing mental retardation. It isn't taken seriously by psychologists anymore. Rather than some general number fit to a normal distribution, the article seems to be trying to correlate various sorts of bullshit, to see if it's the same people who believe different kinds of bullshit, or whether everyone is susceptible to all sorts. They come to the conclusion that it's the same people who fall for different kinds of bullshit, generally.
As the article quoted:
This is all still very preliminary, but the real significance of this paper, the point of the study, isn't just that it shows many people are receptive to things they shouldn't be; it's also that it demonstrates there is indeed a good way to measure how receptive someone is to B.S.
And yeah, you'd probably get a negative correlation coefficient between IQ and susceptibility to bullshit, but it probably wouldn't be terribly predictive.