tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post7410085446865247235..comments2024-03-23T13:15:48.445-07:00Comments on Crystal Prison Zone: Why does anybody mess with their data?Joehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10825531253125205466noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-738485353871431380.post-80288328458344563532016-02-09T14:15:20.297-08:002016-02-09T14:15:20.297-08:00"If the choice is between publishing nonsense..."If the choice is between publishing nonsense and "perishing" (e.g., leaving academia to take a significant pay raise at a real job), why don't we see more researchers choosing to perish?"<br /><br />I have done a research master in BS ("behavioural science" or "bullsh#t" depending on how you want to look at it) and i am still thinking about what i can do with it. The only option seems to be to enter academia (try and find a PhD) which i don't want to do anymore (i've lost nearly all faith in academia).<br /><br />Perhaps "perishing" means flipping burgers somewhere. I fail to see all the options for a "real job" (let alone combined with a significant pay raise) with my kind of diploma. As far as i can see, it's all been a giant waste of time and energy. But maybe that's just me.<br /><br />On a more serious, and hopefully useful, note: i think, and hope, that better research practices (i.e. pre-registration, high power, etc.) will finally make clear which effects are likely to be real and which are not. I think the researchers in the kind of fields Gelman talks about will then *have* to switch over to other, hopefully more genuine, effects and more fruitful topics of interest. <br /><br />So my question is not "why don't we see more researchers choosing to perish?" but "how do we get to see more researchers switching research topics/ leaving fields in which they are basically chasing noise".Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com