[disgruntledphd2]

> 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.

[SubiculumCode]

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.

[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.