As someone who went through grad studies in the field, and who has met Dr. Inzlicht in person before, I have to say I deeply appreciate his perspective. He has consistently been humble when facing the issues in the field, in ways that call even his own previous research (following the typical practices of the day) into question. The field as a whole has been undergoing a reckoning, but Mickey has been one of the people who has encouraged his fellow researchers not just to wag their fingers at others, but also to look inward and reflect on their own research practices. He has done so by showing humility and acknowledging where his research has fallen short, and that indicates to me a great deal of integrity.
It is sad to see stereotype threat being one of those findings that seems less and less credible. I once worked as a research assistant on a project related to stereotype threat, and I recall the study going through several iterations because it all needed to be just so -- we were testing stereotypes related to women and math, but the effect was expected to be strongest for women who were actually good at math, so it had to be a test that would be difficult enough to challenge them, but not so challenging that we would end up with a floor effect where no one succeeds. In hindsight, it's so easy to see the rationale of "oh, well we didn't find an effect because the test wasn't hard enough, so let's throw it out and try again" being a tool for p-hacking, file drawer effects, etc. But at the time...it seemed completely normal. Because it was.
I'm no longer in the field, but it is genuinely heartening that the field is heading toward more rigour, more attempts to correct the statistical and methodological mistakes, rather than digging in one's heels and prioritizing theory over evidence. But it's a long road, especially when trying to go back and validate past findings in the literature.
>It is sad to see stereotype threat being one of those findings that seems less and less credible.
While I'm sure it is an honest statement, this sentiment is itself concerning. Science is ideally done at a remove - you cannot let yourself want any particular outcome. Desire for an outcome is the beginning of the path to academic dishonesty. The self-restraint required to accept an unwanted answer is perhaps THE most important selection criteria for minting new academics, apart from basic competency. (Acadmeia also has a special, and difficult, responsibility to resist broader cultural trends that seep into a field demanding certain outcomes.)
> While I'm sure it is an honest statement, this sentiment is itself concerning. Science is ideally done at a remove - you cannot let yourself want any particular outcome.
This basically never happens. I worked in academia for many years, and in psychology for some of that, and I have never met a disinterested scientist.
Like, you need to pick your topics, and the research designs within that etc, and people don't pick things that they don't care about.
This is why (particularly in social/medical/people sciences) blinding is incredibly important to produce better results.
> The self-restraint required to accept an unwanted answer is perhaps THE most important selection criteria for minting new academics,
I agree with this, but the trouble is that this is not what is currently selected for.
I once replicated (four times!) a finding seriously contrary to accepted wisdom and I basically couldn't get it published honestly. I was told to pretend that I had looked for this effect on purpose, and provide some theory around why it could be true. I think that was the point where I realised academia wasn't for me.
Now, the same thing happens in the private sector, but ironically enough, it's much less common.
You were told by whom? An editor? A reviewer? To how many journals did you submit this research? Did you work your way from top tier journals downward? In general, almost all empirical research will find a home. I find your story less than believable without some additional context, disgruntledphd2.
I was a PhD student, I was told this by both my supervisors and much of my department.
I attempted to submit it to about 3-4 journals and never even got it sent to review.
Ultimately I left academia both for reasons research and financial, so I stopped.
I'm a little confused as to why you are doubting an anonymous comment on the Internet deep in an old thread on a mostly meaningless message board, but I guess that's life.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with wanting a particular outcome. It wasn’t wrong that people were excited about the prospect of a room temp superconductor a few months back because people knew that if it were true good things were possible. Insisting that you can’t be excited by one potential outcome from a study means that you’ll only study things that don’t have the potential to help
There is a useful distinction between "wanting" and "attachment", but one usually turns into the other. Your mention of room temp superconductors is ironic since they have all been precisely attachment-driven frauds that start with wanting.
These are the exceptions imo. Most of it is funding-driven (or sometimes wanting-status-driven) than pure wanting-driven. Most researchers do not even care that much about their actual field and would change the field to do what they really want to do, albeit funding keeps there where they are.
It is sad to see stereotype threat being one of those findings that seems less and less credible. I once worked as a research assistant on a project related to stereotype threat, and I recall the study going through several iterations because it all needed to be just so -- we were testing stereotypes related to women and math, but the effect was expected to be strongest for women who were actually good at math, so it had to be a test that would be difficult enough to challenge them, but not so challenging that we would end up with a floor effect where no one succeeds. In hindsight, it's so easy to see the rationale of "oh, well we didn't find an effect because the test wasn't hard enough, so let's throw it out and try again" being a tool for p-hacking, file drawer effects, etc. But at the time...it seemed completely normal. Because it was.
I'm no longer in the field, but it is genuinely heartening that the field is heading toward more rigour, more attempts to correct the statistical and methodological mistakes, rather than digging in one's heels and prioritizing theory over evidence. But it's a long road, especially when trying to go back and validate past findings in the literature.