Pro-homosexual study fabricated
I’ve always said that if a person need some university study to ‘prove’ that children do best with their real mother and their real father that they are already too far gone to be of any use in a functioning society.
This is a matter of common sense. The fact that universities can put out studies that purport to show anything different is an indictment on ‘higher’ education.
So it should come as no surprise to find that pro-homosexual studies are not really studies at all. Take, for example, a recent ‘study’ supporting the propaganda of homosexual marriage. It has been widely reported. And it has also been found as baseless, much to the disappointment of homosexual activists everywhere.
Here’s how the Sydney Morning Herald reported it:
“The bulk of the work behind the study – When contact changes minds – was undertaken by a PhD student at the University of California Los Angeles, Michael LaCour. Its findings were striking: that 20-minute conversations with voters opposed to gay marriage could turn them into enthusiastic supporters of marriage equality.
The research also contended that, if the person conducting the interview was gay or lesbian, the voter was likely to remain convinced about same-sex marriage when interviewed again nine months later – rather than reverting to their original views.
“Contact with minorities coupled with discussion of issues pertinent to them is capable of producing a cascade of opinion change,” Mr LaCour and Professor Green concluded.
The study was reported by news agencies including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal and radio program This American Life. Its implications were enormous, bucking widely accepted wisdom that most people do not really change their minds, or that, if they do, the process is slow or beyond the sphere of political influence.
But following an attempt to replicate the results, academics at Stanford, Yale and the University of California Berkeley found:
- The survey firm alleged to have performed one of the studies cited by the paper claimed it was not familiar with the project.
- The employee Mr LaCour claimed to have dealt with did not exist.
- The firm denied having the capability to perform some of the activities described in the paper.
- Mr LaCour was unable to provide the original data sets and said he had lost it.”
Writing for Crisis Magazine, Dr Rachel Lu makes some interesting observations about this fabricated study and that it is important for conservatives to resist the ‘inevitability’ of homosexual marriage:
“Various lessons have been drawn from this unedifying case. Economics professor Tim Groseclose made the interesting suggestion that the academic community is likely to see more such cases, given the way graduate students are incentivized to work with complex statistical techniques that authors don’t fully understand. Certainly we should all view “definitive studies” with a healthy skepticism, knowing how easily data can be falsified or fudged.
Several others have noted how amply the episode illustrates the Academy’s proclivity towards confirmation bias. Social scientists were thrilled with LaCour’s (faked) results, for reasons we can all readily imagine. How wonderful to think that the fight for “marriage redefinition” could be won so easily! No doubt it was also gratifying to receive what appeared to be confirmation that opposition to same-sex “marriage” was mostly rooted in ignorance and bigotry, which the slenderest ray of human sympathy could easily dispel. Wanting desperately to believe the message, researchers didn’t look too hard at the actual data.
There is, however, another point that I would make in light of this sorry episode. As beleaguered traditionalists in a losing cultural battle, we often overlook the extent to which progressives win, not through actual persuasion, but rather by projecting an aura of inevitability with respect to their desired outcomes. Many Americans are persuaded to reconcile themselves to progressive views, not because they really believe in a “right to marry” (for example), but more because it just seems to them that resistance is futile. Ironically, we ourselves often help to feed that narrative with our dour assessments of the inevitability of cultural decline.”
I agree. There is clearly a bias within the elite that is prepared to use absolute rubbish to promote absolute rubbish at the expense of reason. Furthermore, the only reason the radicals are winning these arguments is because we are losing the psychological campaign.
We need to be more confident in our positions, defend them and, most importantly, defend them with pride. After all, our positions on marriage and family are rational and in the best interests of all.