Vox and Slate have been attentive to a recent observation that the field of psychology research is rife with fraud basically, the tail wagging the dog in terms of what conclusions are drawn from study.
The ‘tail wagging’ seems rightfully articulated as the old publish or perish motivations of collegiate research faculty. They exaggerate the conclusions of their study to make a bigger splash on the academic paper circuit. And ya know, probably a trick of the trade is to do it in ways that conform to tribal intuitiveness about the subject matter, and plays to biases. Bottom line, a zingier research finding enhances prestige, exposes better job opportunities to all involved ($). … Quite the unhealthy feedback loop there… not a conspiracy, just a ginormous, unholy feedback loop that got going.
I’m just glad researchers who study climate change are immune from that sort of thing, and we can have the rock solid certitude in their findings that we do.