I think you're confused by the word "reasonable." GP post is using it in the sense of "a plausible hypothesis", which it is -- it is plausible that people who care about their careers to the exclusion of all else (e.g., ideals) will advance farther and faster. Whether it is correct is a separate issue -- that is where the statistics and data come in.
Actually, "on average, all ants are red" is a good counterexample for plausibility -- talking about a universal truth that applies "on average" is not logical even at a casual glance, therefore it is not reasonable.
The problem is that the opposite hypothesis is also plausible, and without no data about why one is likely to be more "reasonable", the statement doesn't really say anything.
Agreed. I think that's the common ground between marcusbooster's sentiment and michael_nielsen's experience with individual officers.
To expound just a little, I think it's likely that there both exist police departments where careerists do well, and others where responsible officers do. I think we can also all agree that we ought to encourage a legal structure where officers can't advance their careers by falsifying evidence/extracting confessions from innocents/etc.
Actually, "on average, all ants are red" is a good counterexample for plausibility -- talking about a universal truth that applies "on average" is not logical even at a casual glance, therefore it is not reasonable.