There might be a lot that’s bad in Psychological Science, and it might be inaccurate, naive, and/or sub-optimal to reason and assume this is all due to unconscious and unintentional actions of psychological scientists. It might also be inaccurate, naive, and/or sub-optimal to ascribe all these problematic issues to things like the “publish or perish” system and “the incentives” and stop there, for I reason these kinds of systems and incentives (partly) involve actual psychological scientists who created them, developed them, implemented them, (ab-) use them, participate in them, and/or uphold them. In light of this all, I wonder if perhaps we should not (only) be thinking and talking about “the natural selection of bad science” (cf. Smaldino & McElreath, 2016), but we should (also) be thinking and talking about “the natural selection of bad psychological scientists”. Pondering these kinds of things might be uncomfortable for some, but I reason it might be very useful in the search for knowledge and truth, and it can perhaps be considered to be a crucial part of being a (responsible) psychological scientist (cf. Popper, 1971).