- Status
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Somewhat misleading headline.
It is actually a study on the extent to which people’s opinions (on SSM) are influenced in the long term by doorstep conversations with activists.
It is actually a study on the extent to which people’s opinions (on SSM) are influenced in the long term by doorstep conversations with activists.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
In general, one could say that the strategy is to get people through their emotions rather than minds. Without a grounding in values and some history, this movement can be taken as benign on the the surface. They just want what everyone else has, not stopping to think who will be adversely affected like children deprived of at least one parent in a same sex family. The dysfunction and shortened life spans are ignored. The potential sympathizers are not faced with a clear reduction in their own civil and religious liberties.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
:ehh:
How is that relevant to the article? Or did you read no more than the title of the thread?
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
The article to me was pretty convoluted although I tried to make sense of it. The point is how the gay agenda gets people to be sympathetic to it, as i said, appealing to their emotions rather than to their thinking processes.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
So how is that relevant to a news item about a researcher apparently inventing a data set about how long people are influenced by doorstep canvassing?
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Because that is what they were doing, duh!
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Stay polite, please.
And no, whatever the motivation behind this bizarre fraud, it did nothing to advance or condemn same sex marriage. Just the idea that doorstep interviews influence peoples’ opinions in the long term.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
The authors sound like a perfect match for a career with the NSA. No kidding!
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
A friend of mine surveyed research professors in psychology at UCLA and found that many have suspected fraud at some point in their career but did nothing about it. The study was never published due to threats of lawsuits.
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Just for the record, only one of the authors appears to be guilty of falsifying evidence. The other was horrified and retracted the article.
Suspicion of fraud is not the same as proof of fraud, but certainly the ‘softer’ sciences make faking or massaging data easier than it is in the hard physical sciences. (Says the maths & physical science snob
)
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
Then why is the study titled:
“When contact changes minds:** An experiment on transmission of support for gay equality,**” by Michael LaCour and Donald Green,
…if not for the purpose of advancing gay marriage???
Also
From Wiki:
Michael LaCour is a graduate student in political science at UCLA. He is notable for his work on the effect of persuasion in swaying political opinion.
The OP’s article is showing how far gay activists will go to advance their agenda. Even to the point of faking data on a pseudo scientific project.
R
Robert_Sock
Guest
The effect itself is well known in psychology and marketing. It’s usually called “the sleeper effect.” The study itself should have worked as expected.
Z
zamyrabyrd
Guest
Exactly! Thanks!
D
DrTaffy
Guest
Maybe because it was an experiment on transmission of support for gay equality?
But it did not show or purport to show that SSM was good (or bad), just the extent to which doorstep interviews influence people’s opinions. So what does thus have to do with advancing the ‘gay agenda’?
Again, nothing about this faked data did anything to advance the alleged ‘gay agenda’ you lot are so scared of. It just advanced a sociological theory about how much and for how long doorstep lobbying influences us.
Z
Zoltan_Cobalt
Guest
The purpose of this “study” was to encourage gay activists to engage people in dialogue and promote gay marriage. The phony results supposedly proved that you can change people’s opinions by doing a “selling job” on them.Maybe because it was an experiment on transmission of support for gay equality?
But it did not show or purport to show that SSM was good (or bad), just the extent to which doorstep interviews influence people’s opinions. So what does thus have to do with advancing the ‘gay agenda’?
Again, nothing about this faked data did anything to advance the alleged ‘gay agenda’ you lot are so scared of. It just advanced a sociological theory about how much and for how long doorstep lobbying influences us.
The study "…was an experiment on transmission of support for gay equality.
That, in itself, makes it nothing more than a pro-gay marriage attempt and that is wrong.
- Status