[VietVet]

I would suspect the data on opinion change even if it was actual, collected data instead of made up shit. In 1967, I participated in a study of persuasive communication at OSU; in fact, I wrote the persuasive message. Creating the change in opinion response was easy. Too easy; the message had to be toned down to get differentiating results. Respondents can tell what response they are supposed to give, and will do so to please the experimenter. We used to call it the Grad Student Effect: Grad students will bring back the results they believe the Professor wants.

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.

[FredZarguna]

We used to call it the Grad Student Effect: Grad students will bring back the results they believe the Professor wants.

It's not really a grad student effect, though. It's a human being effect:

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself – and you are the easiest person to fool."
-- Richard Feynman.

Researchers in the humanities altogether too often don't understand that they must take extraordinary measures to keep themselves from simply getting the results they want.

[Sir Napsalot]

>>> 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.

IF both institutions have any veneers of integrity left.

LaCour, of course, will experience a very short ‘unemployed’ period, then he will be quickly gobbled up by other leftist organization and we will have another Van Jones in the making.

[IMR 4350]

How about we just call it what it is, the Gruber Effect.

Make up a lie to support your position. Repeat the lie as if it’s true even when confronted with evidence it’s a lie. Claim the evidence refuting the lie is itself a lie.

The average democrat voter is stupid.

They are not too ignorant to know it’s a lie, they know it’s a lie they are just too stupid to care so they repeat the lie as if it’s true.