Study on gay marriage views retracted after allegations of fake data

[GMDino]

So over in the Political Meme / Jokes thread I was asked to reconsider the stance that people are born gay.

Rather than derail that thread more I'll post it here.

(05-19-2015, 12:39 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Man GMDino, you've been really slipping lately. As of right now there is no credible scientific evidence to say that people are born gay. According to current science, it is indeed a choice. Sadly people believe song lyrics now more than actual research.

Hey! I had a chance to look that up!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/science-retraction-gay-marriage-views-fake-data-118131.html

Quote:One of the authors of a recent study that claimed that short conversations with gay people could change minds on same-sex marriage has retracted it.

Columbia University political science professor Donald Green’s retraction this week of a popular article published in the December issue of the academic journal Science follows revelations that his co-author allegedly faked data for the study, “When contact changes minds: An experiment on transmission of support of gay marriage.”


According to the academic watchdog blog Retraction Watch, Green published a retraction of the paper Tuesday after confronting co-author Michael LaCour, a graduate assistant at UCLA.

The study received widespread coverage from The New York Times, Vox, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal and others when it was released in December.

“I am deeply embarrassed by this turn of events and apologize to the editors, reviewers, and readers of Science,” Green told the blog.

In an email to POLITICO, Green said he spoke with LaCour by phone on Tuesday and that he “maintained that he did not fabricate the data but told me that he could not locate the Qualtrics source files for the surveys on the Qualtrics interface or on any of his drives.”
Qualtrics was the survey platform that was purportedly used, though a company spokesman clarified to POLITICO that it did not collaborate with LaCour or anyone else on the study.

“I asked him to write a retraction, and he indicated he would do so, but when it did not appear last night, I sent off my own retraction,” Green wrote.

The investigation into the paper began when graduate students at the University of California, Berkeley, were initially impressed with the work and wanted to do an extension of it, according to a timeline of their probe posted Tuesday. When the students started a similar study, they found they were not getting the large response rate that Green and LaCour received in theirs.

In another email to POLITICO, LaCour wrote that he has read the investigation and will respond: “I’m gathering evidence and relevant information so I can provide a single comprehensive response. I will do so at my earliest opportunity.”


The students’ report chronicles numerous irregularities of the study, which they said allegedly consisted of “repeated observations of the same 11,948 voters over a series of weeks,” including the use of the “feeling thermometer” survey technique, which they called “notoriously unreliable” in terms of measurement error.

“However, in both studies, respondents’ feeling thermometer values are extremely reliable — more so than nearly any other survey items of which we are aware,” the report states.

Qualtrics said it was not familiar with the project and “denied having the capabilities” to do some of what the survey described, according to Green, after UCLA’s political science department chair contacted the company. The graduate students also contacted a Yale political science professor to help look into the discrepancies.

After speaking with LaCour, Green told one of the graduate students and the Yale professor that the UCLA graduate assistant had confessed to “falsely describing at least some of the details of the data collection.”


“Looking back, the failure to verify the original Qualtrics data was a serious mistake,” Green told Retraction Watch, submitting a retraction letter as an appendix to the students’ report on Tuesday.

Sasha Issenberg, a journalist who wrote about Green and LaCour’s work before it was published in Science, said Wednesday he was initially impressed and excited about the study’s methodology and findings.

“Unfortunately, I don’t know any more than what I’ve read, so beyond shock I don’t have much of a reaction at the moment,” Issenberg, who also has a connection to UCLA’s political science department, said in an email to POLITICO.

A previous version of this article misstated Qualtrics’ role.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/science-retraction-gay-marriage-views-fake-data-118131.html#ixzz3avW7kIFT

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-23-2015, 12:06 AM)GMDino Wrote: So over in the Political Meme / Jokes thread I was asked to reconsider the stance that people are born gay.

Rather than derail that thread more I'll post it here.



Hey!  I had a chance to look that up!

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/science-retraction-gay-marriage-views-fake-data-118131.html



Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/05/science-retraction-gay-marriage-views-fake-data-118131.html#ixzz3avW7kIFT

Bravo sir. I honestly don't understand how anybody can think it's a choice. I saw the meme's/joke thread that you're referring to but didn't want to derail the thread either.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

No one really thinks that being gay is a choice. It's just something that religious people say that they think helps them look like less of a piece of shit.

[Belsnickel]

(05-23-2015, 11:56 AM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: No one really thinks that being gay is a choice.  It's just something that religious people say that they think helps them look like less of a piece of shit.

Which is ironic when you think about it. Since they use the idea that it is a choice to say they don't deserve their rights to be protected when their religion is a choice they make, and it qualifies for protection.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 02:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Which is ironic when you think about it. Since they use the idea that it is a choice to say they don't deserve their rights to be protected when their religion is a choice they make, and it qualifies for protection.

If you are not religious, then how do you know that those that are choose to be? How do you know they are not called or something within them compels them to be? If you do not have the passion, then how do you know what causes it?

[GodHatesBengals]

I'm tired of people picking on *****.

[Johnny Cupcakes]

(05-23-2015, 03:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you are not religious, then how do you know that those that are choose to be? How do you know they are not called or something within them compels them to be? If you do not have the passion, then how do you know what causes it?

You're right, really. For most people, religion is not really a choice. They were just born that way.

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 03:49 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: You're right, really.  For most people, religion is not really a choice.  They were just born that way.

Some people are born with something in them that tells them that they should love a man.

But only if that man is named Jesus.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 03:49 PM)Johnny Cupcakes Wrote: You're right, really.  For most people, religion is not really a choice.  They were just born that way.

You could be right. I have 2 sons, we raised them both similarly. One really took to our religion, he thirsted for it and wanted to be in the church whenever he could: Sunday Morning, Sunday Evenings, Wednesday Nights, Vacation Bible School, etc… The other considered even attending Sunday morning service to be a chore and one he would avoid every chance he could get. I wonder why they didn’t make the same “choice”.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 03:59 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Some people are born with something in them that tells them that they should love a man.

But only if that man is named Jesus.

I love lots of men, just never had sex with one.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-23-2015, 03:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If you are not religious, then how do you know that those that are choose to be? How do you know they are not called or something within them compels them to be? If you do not have the passion, then how do you know what causes it?

It's my understanding the spirit of Christ compels them.

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 04:12 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: It's my understanding the spirit of Christ compels them.

Spirit, huh? I heard LBJ called his "Jumbo".

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 04:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: I love lots of men, just never had sex with one.

Keep trying. I'm sure one will say yes.

[*bfine32*]

(05-23-2015, 04:18 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Keep trying. I'm sure one will say yes.

Quit flirting. I'm just not interested.

[Aquapod770]

So you disproved one study saying they found evidence that it was a choice. All I said was as of now there is no [undeniable] evidence that people are born gay.

Now with that said there has been a study recently that suggests their could be genetic markers on the X on chromosome 8 that influence homosexuality, but doesn't offer any conclusive proof. It could be a "step in the right direction", but some other studies have showed no correlation between homosexuality and male chromosome X.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/genetic-link-male-homosexuality_n_6171244.html

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 04:23 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Quit flirting. I'm just not interested.

Sorry, Cincy's Best wanted me to ask for him. I'll tell him you weren't born that way.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-23-2015, 04:26 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: So you disproved one study saying they found evidence that it was a choice. All I said was as of now there is no [undeniable] evidence that people are born gay.

Now with that said there has been a study recently that suggests their could be genetic markers on the X on chromosome 8 that influence homosexuality, but doesn't offer any conclusive proof. It could be a "step in the right direction", but some other studies have showed no correlation between homosexuality and male chromosome X.  


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/genetic-link-male-homosexuality_n_6171244.html

I freely admit that I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to have a plethora of scientific knowledge. That being said, since I can remember I've just always been attracted to girls/women. But I have a younger cousin who've all known he was gay since he was little and just "came out" couple of years ago. Then there are some that seem to be attracted to both. I don't think any of us made a conscious decision. Therefore is it really a choice? I can't logically conclude that it is.

[BmorePat87]

(05-23-2015, 04:26 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: So you disproved one study saying they found evidence that it was a choice. All I said was as of now there is no [undeniable] evidence that people are born gay.

Now with that said there has been a study recently that suggests their could be genetic markers on the X on chromosome 8 that influence homosexuality, but doesn't offer any conclusive proof. It could be a "step in the right direction", but some other studies have showed no correlation between homosexuality and male chromosome X.  


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/17/genetic-link-male-homosexuality_n_6171244.html

I wasn't quite sure why he posted this study. All it says is that one of the guys who did the study probably faked data showing that talking to gay people overwhelmingly changed the opinion of those who are against gay marriage.

It doesn't really show that being gay is or is not a choice. The thread just kinda went in that direction.

Unless I am missing something.

[Aquapod770]

(05-23-2015, 04:39 PM)RICHMONDBENGAL_07 Wrote: I freely admit that I'm not a scientist nor do I claim to have a plethora of scientific knowledge.  That being said, since I can remember I've just always been attracted to girls/women.   But I have a younger cousin who've all known he was gay since he was little and just "came out" couple of years ago.  Then there are some that seem to be attracted to both.  I don't think any of us made a conscious decision.  Therefore is it really a choice? I can't logically conclude that it is.

Admittedly choice may not be the best word. It is most likely a combination of social, cultural, external, parental, and other factors that go into being gay. My point is that there is very little credible proof that being gay is genetic. As of right now, people are not born gay.

[RICHMONDBENGAL_07]

(05-23-2015, 04:48 PM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Admittedly choice may not be the best word. It is most likely a combination of social, cultural, external, parental, and other factors that go into being gay.  My point is that there is very little credible proof that being gay is genetic. As of right now, people are not born gay.  

That may be true to an extent, but probably not most cases. For example my cousins parents are heterosexual, catholic, and live in white suburbia. I doubt any one of the those highlighted above had anything to do with him being gay. Whether you want to call it "genetic" or whatever makes no difference to me. But for what ever reason they just seemed to be "wired" differently than me. Again it just logically makes sense to me.