"...everyone in the industry behaves as if they are the only ones cheating. They are all bending the rules, gaming the system, and p-hacking the data, but they make decisions as if they were the only ones doing it and all of the other players are honest and acting in good faith.... Yes, this requires doublethink. No, I don't think that is much of surprise these days."
I think you're on to something.
So FYI, I went to graduate school and worked on several academic studies, for well-respected academics and well-respected research centers. I quit before my career really got started, because I found research to be a giant sham; most studies were poorly-designed or otherwise deeply flawed, data was cherry-picked to give desired results, work was compromised by unreasonable deadlines and funder expectations, data was tortured to fit the theoretical flavor-of-the-month, etc. If my experience is in any way indicative of the larger research world, research is a wasteland.
But I wouldn't say that most people think they're "cheating" exactly. Just, you know...cutting a corner here, cutting a corner there (so busy! so little time!), looking (or not) at what the funder of this research wants them to look (or not), ignoring data and patterns that don't fit the desired results, etc. Gotta play the game, gotta get the work done on deadline, gotta keep the money flowing... And yes, when EVERYONE is doing this, it messes up - well, everything. Layers on top of layers of bad data compound each other.
I think what I'm saying, is that the whole structure of how research is funded and incentivized is flawed, and causes a lot of bad research, and then the bad research compounds itself - but the root of the problem isn't that everyone is deliberately cheating, exactly. In my experience, it's more like everyone is playing the same corrupted game and producing compromised products, and not thinking about what that leads to in the aggregate.
Re: A presumption of honesty in a room full of liars
I think you're on to something.
So FYI, I went to graduate school and worked on several academic studies, for well-respected academics and well-respected research centers. I quit before my career really got started, because I found research to be a giant sham; most studies were poorly-designed or otherwise deeply flawed, data was cherry-picked to give desired results, work was compromised by unreasonable deadlines and funder expectations, data was tortured to fit the theoretical flavor-of-the-month, etc. If my experience is in any way indicative of the larger research world, research is a wasteland.
But I wouldn't say that most people think they're "cheating" exactly. Just, you know...cutting a corner here, cutting a corner there (so busy! so little time!), looking (or not) at what the funder of this research wants them to look (or not), ignoring data and patterns that don't fit the desired results, etc. Gotta play the game, gotta get the work done on deadline, gotta keep the money flowing... And yes, when EVERYONE is doing this, it messes up - well, everything. Layers on top of layers of bad data compound each other.
I think what I'm saying, is that the whole structure of how research is funded and incentivized is flawed, and causes a lot of bad research, and then the bad research compounds itself - but the root of the problem isn't that everyone is deliberately cheating, exactly. In my experience, it's more like everyone is playing the same corrupted game and producing compromised products, and not thinking about what that leads to in the aggregate.