"Donald P. Green (Ph.D., University of California at Berkeley, 1988) is the author of four books and more than 100 essays. Professor Green's research interests span a wide array of topics: voting behavior, partisanship, campaign finance, hate crime, and research methods. Much of his current work uses field experimentation to study the ways in which political campaigns mobilize and persuade voters.
He was elected to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 2003 and was awarded the Heinz I. Eulau Award for best article published in the American Political Science Review during 2009. In 2010, he founded the Experimental Research section of the American Political Science Association and served as its first president.
Prior to joining the Columbia faculty in 2011, he taught at Yale University, where he directed the Institution for Social and Policy Studies from 1996 to 2011."
UCLA still has this up: Michael J. LaCour "
My dissertation addresses the extent to which it is possible to change peoples’ minds on divisive social issues. In this effort, I designed, secured funding, and implemented a series of longitudinal field experiments assessing the effect of persuasive communications on voters’ policy preferences and attitudes toward minority groups. To do this, I built an Internet panel of 11,498 voters from which multiple samples of networked individuals could be surveyed and unobtrusively re-surveyed to track the persistence and spread of causal effects over the course of a year. Between survey measurements, I embedded a series of placebo-controlled field experiments, where designated individuals were contacted by different types of messengers. Finally, I sustained the project long enough to observe how the conversations delivered at the door interact with landmark policy events on the same topics. This design enables me to not only estimate the magnitude, persistence, and transmission of effects; it is also capable of assessing the immediate and enduring effects of direct and secondhand contact with minority groups.
The results from six different field experiments across two domains (gay equality and abortion rights) demonstrate that it not only matters what messages canvassers’ deliver but also who delivers it.
For example, in my job market paper, I report results from a field experiment assessing whether gay or straight canvassers were more effective at encouraging voters to support same-sex marriage. I find that both straight and gay canvassers produce short-term change in support for same-sex marriage, but only gay canvassers produce enduring effects that also spread to other members of the household.
When the Supreme Court announced its reversal of Proposition 8, making gay marriage in California legal, everyone’s support for gay marriage increased, but among those people who were canvassed a month earlier by a openly gay person (as opposed to a straight canvasser), the effects were amplified. A mechanism for attitude change is suggested by the fact that gay canvassers also brought about a substantial and enduring change in attitudes toward gay and lesbian people more generally. As you may know, researchers in many fields have usually failed in experimental efforts to bring about lasting attitude change on cultural issues, which is why I think my results might be publishable in Science.........."
-----------------------
Groundbreaking new study published in Science (and circulated......)
All one needs to do is fund someone to publish a "study" and then have the state media circulate it so politicians and policy makers can run with it.
Science has been destructively politicized. It cannot be trusted.
Yesterday in the NYT: This Antarctic ice shelf could collapse by 2020, NASA says; Obama's demand for more action on Climate Change Obama Recasts Climate Change as a Peril With Far-Reaching Effects.
Here's a different one from yesterday that directly disputes the NYT's piece and Obama's lies:
Forbes: Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat
".....A 10-percent decline in polar sea ice is not very remarkable, especially considering the 1979 baseline was abnormally high anyway. Regardless, global warming activists and a compliant news media frequently and vociferously claimed the modest polar ice cap retreat was a sign of impending catastrophe. Al Gore even predicted the Arctic ice cap could completely disappear by 2014.
In late 2012, however, polar ice dramatically rebounded and quickly surpassed the post-1979 average. Ever since, the polar ice caps have been at a greater average extent than the post-1979 mean.
Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.
During the modest decline in 2005 through 2012, the media presented a daily barrage of melting ice cap stories. Since the ice caps rebounded – and then some – how have the media reported the issue?.......
Oh, those poor Polar Bears!
Where will they swim??!
(It's always something, all they have to do is to figure out how to work it into the narrative.)
I bet most studies in favor of homosexuality are faked because how can one be born homosexual with the existence of bi-sexuals/transgendered/gender fluid/intersex...
Making up data, on the other hand, is a cardinal academic sin. LaCour should be expelled, kicked out of his program and academia for good.
>> marriage equality
The inability to differentiate the sphincter from the vagina.
Since is dissertation relied on fabricated data, I assume that UCLA will be rescinding LaCour’s Ph.D.?
Sadly enough the younger generation is ahistorical so have little problem with gay marriage. I would never attend a gay marriage. It would make my stomach churn
Was this study queer reviewed before publication?
Lies.
Here is a question I like to ask liberals, It has been proposed that homosexuality is something you're born with. If abortion is legalized to, "on demand" status could it be used to terminate homosexual embryos?
“Outed” huh.
That’s the problem with movements based on lies. They inevitably wear out their credibility.
