> Mainly because it's not as interesting. For every positive result researchers find there are dozens of things they test that just don't work. That seems to b

> Mainly because it's not as interesting. For every positive result researchers find there are dozens of things they test that just don't work. That seems to be the core of the problem. Reality doesn't have a bias toward results that are interesting, humans do. > Imagine if the first test of "romantic priming" didn't work. Would the researchers really bother trying to publish "Hypothesised romantic priming effect was just a wild hunch after all."? And would the journal accept it? No way. So maybe they should.