So some Dutch social scientist who has had his studies published has been proven to have falsified the results in dozens of his 150 studies. In fact, he didn't even bother to have a study, he just made the whole thing up. Newspapers such as the New York Times have been fooled by yet another liar receiving gov't grants in the name of "science"...

The Chump Effect

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.”

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/chump-effect_610143.html

One should never believe anything one reads anywhere, unless it is posted anonymously on the internet.

EDIT: Like "Sharp bend ahead" - aye, sure, that's what YOU want us to believe...

Imagine that - social scientists with political agendas.

That never happens.

Since when was a 'social scientist' a bona fide scientist?

Ever since social sciences became academic fields.

Since when was a 'social scientist' a bona fide scientist?

Soft sciences, as it were.

Surely sciences are based upon definable and proven facts?

'Social sciences' are based upon opinion and half-baked theories that change with the weather (or the government in power)(or more accurately the people who want to be the government in power).

Yet, he's absolutely right with his assertions. Ads do influence us negatively and people who seek power are more likey to abuse it.

Yet, he's absolutely right with his assertions. Ads do influence us negatively and people who seek power are more likey to abuse it.

These simple [propaganda] techniques are ages old: Repeat something often enough or bring the same to the attention of the masses over and again - and all becomes true and real.

Bit of a hypnotic and comforting factor in place.

Yet, he's absolutely right with his assertions. Ads do influence us negatively and people who seek power are more likey to abuse it.

Maybe he is right. Problem is, he claimed to have done studies to come to his conclusions when all he did was sit home and make it all up.