The State Run Media reports what social scientists say, a new study finds, research shows or data suggests but it is falsified data.
The Chump Effect
Reporters are credulous, studies show.
ANDREW FERGUSON
Lots of cultural writing these days, in books and magazines and newspapers, relies on the so-called Chump Effect. The Effect is defined by its discoverer, me, as the eagerness of laymen and journalists to swallow whole the claims made by social scientists. Entire journalistic enterprises, whole books from cover to cover, would simply collapse into dust if even a smidgen of skepticism were summoned whenever we read that “scientists say” or “a new study finds” or “research shows” or “data suggest.” Most such claims of social science, we would soon find, fall into one of three categories: the trivial, the dubious, or the flatly untrue.
A example of this third option emerged last month when an internationally renowned social psychologist, Diederik Stapel of Tilburg University in the Netherlands, was proved to be a fraud. No jokes, please: This social psychologist is a fraud in the literal, perhaps criminal, and not merely figurative, sense.
An investigative committee concluded that Stapel had falsified data in at least “several dozen” of the nearly 150 papers he had published in his extremely prolific career.
Perhaps “falsified” is too mild a word. Stapel didn’t just tweak and twist numbers, he made stuff up. With his colleagues, Science Insider reported, “he would discuss in detail experimental designs, including drafting questionnaires, and would then claim to conduct the experiments at high schools and universities with which he had special arrangements. The experiments, however, never took place.” Questionnaires are the mother’s milk of social science, given (most often) to collections of students who are easily accessible to the scientist. After being rewarded with course credits or money, the students go on to serve as proxies for humanity in general, as the scientist draws from their questionnaires large conclusions about the way human nature compels us, all of us, to think and act.
The conclusions that Stapel drew were large indeed. One thing he liked to demonstrate in his studies was the exploitive nature of democratic capitalism. Last year, the New York Times reported on a typical Stapel study, called “The Self-Activation Effect of Advertisements.” It proved that advertising for cosmetics and fancy shoes “makes women feel worse about themselves,” as the Times put it. Another study, released at the end of the scandal-ridden year 2009, was called “Power Increases Hypocrisy.” Quite a timely little study it was. Stapel and his colleagues’ research revealed that powerful people were more likely to be “moral hypocrites.” And which powerful people did the researchers have in mind? “Politicians [who] use public funds for private benefits while calling for smaller government” and CEOs “accepting executive bonuses while simultaneously asking for government bailouts.”
Both of these studies purported to employ the usual social-psychology method: Students in psychology or marketing classes were asked to “role-play” or perform some artificial task under the observation of graduate students. Then they’d fill out those questionnaires to report their thoughts or feelings.
Sometimes, though, social psychologists move beyond the lab. A good example is a more recent study from Stapel’s corpus, released last spring to wide publicity. It touched on another of Stapel’s favorite themes: white racism.
“Disorder can encourage stereotyping, study says,” read the headline in the Los Angeles Times. Stapel discovered—scientifically, of course—that white heterosexuals used racism and homophobia as defense mechanisms. Confronted with disorder in their “social environment,” Stapel showed, they quickly reverted to their natural inclination to stereotype “the other” and draw comfort from their prejudice.
(Keep in mind stapel made this stuff up and fed it to "the news media and they fed it to the "low information voter".) Story Reports
At this writing, investigators are not yet clear to what extent the results of these particular studies are discredited by Stapel’s fakery. And nobody knows how extreme an anomaly Stapel’s behavior will prove to be.
Leslie John of Harvard Business School recently surveyed more than 2,000 social psychologists about their research methods. She found a rash of research practices she deemed “questionable.” Indeed, she wrote, in social psychology, “some questionable practices may constitute the prevailing research norm.”
......
(Lets see, 2000 times maybe 1000 published "research" papers equals 2,000,000 questionable research conclusions. This is the CRAP that is fed daily on the hour every hour. This is the social propaganda Pablum that is fed to the brain dead public. They hear it on the news, or some silly show on tv. A doctor "OZ" interviews a sociologist or psychologist and then they along with the doc from "OZ" type explains the false premise or a "study" that leads you to a FALSE conclusion.
This is mind control or brain washing etc.
These "false" studies are social engineering used to persuade you to "accept", for instance, sodomites in the nba who have exclaimed to the world that they are queer.
All the silly weird interview shows will use fake studies that "social scientists" have engineered to lead you to think being "gay" or queer is the new normal.
This is the world we live in. The world of fake and false information. A world of lies. Obama is nothing more than a fake/fraud social engineering propagandist. His "talk show" is all over the "state run media".) Story Reports
......
But it hardly seems to matter, does it? The silliness of social psychology doesn’t lie in its questionable research practices but in the research practices that no one thinks to question.
The most common working premise of social-psychology research is far-fetched all by itself: The behavior of a statistically insignificant, self-selected number of college students or high schoolers filling out questionnaires and role-playing in a psych lab can reveal scientifically valid truths about human behavior.
(This Andrew Ferguson report for the Weekly Standard exposes the social engineering of the obama "state run media". Thinking people will read this and see that nbc,cbs,abc,pbs etc etc just parrot social engineering to control society. Its all geared to control you and elimate you freedom. The average obama voter will not understand they are being taught how to drink the "jim jones" kool aid. Then one day they will drink the real "kool aid" but of course it will be too late.) Story Reports
If the only thing you listen and watch is the nbc,cbs,abc,pbs etc nightly news you will not ever know the truth. You will not realize that you are really taking a "course" in social engineering from saul alinsky one of obama's mentors.
The Chump Effect
