Theory-as-Identity Distorts Policy Debate

When academics make a theoretical framework central to their identity, they tend to interpret or cherry‑pick evidence to defend that framework rather than treat evidence as a potential refutation. This dynamic helps explain persistent policy advocacy (for example, open‑borders economics) even after real‑world tests contradict its predictions. — If true, this explains why certain policy positions remain politically influential despite contrary evidence and suggests remedies (institutional incentives for falsification, mechanism‑focused inquiry).