5 ms·

While reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" I was astonished by the priming effects, and the confidence with which Kahneman presented information about priming. I b

While reading "Thinking, Fast and Slow" I was astonished by the priming effects, and the confidence with which Kahneman presented information about priming. I became obsessed with the priming concept and began doing further research, only to find countless articles discounting priming's legitimacy. I haven't been able to pick up the book since, because of the way in which the information was presented as sure fact, when in reality the research was early and inconclusive.

edanm 8y ago
I think you're not quite right with the timeline here. IIRC, when "Thinking, Fast and Slow" first came out, the research was considered pretty settled and had had lots of replications. It's only a few years afterwards that the replication crisis really hit psychology in a big way, and especially priming. So with the benefit of hindsight, yes, he presented faulty research - but he didn't (and couldn't) have known it at the time. (Of course, if the lesson is that the entire field should be considered skeptically, I don't think I'd disagree)
freshhawk 8y ago
I think I have some old comment here where I tried to find anyone else who found that book to be completely unconvincing and really bad at justifying the conclusions. People acted like I was insane.
Vinnl 8y ago
See also Kahneman's response to this: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454 https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruc... > I still believe that actions can be primed, sometimes even by stimuli of which the person is unaware. There is adequate evidence for all the building blocks: semantic priming, significant processing of stimuli that are not consciously perceived, and ideo-motor activation. I see no reason to draw a sharp line between the priming of thoughts and the priming of actions. A case can therefore be made for priming on this indirect evidence. But I have changed my views about the size of behavioral priming effects – they cannot be as large and as robust as my chapter suggested. (Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712)

edanm 8y ago

I think you're not quite right with the timeline here. IIRC, when "Thinking, Fast and Slow" first came out, the research was considered pretty settled and had had lots of replications. It's only a few years afterwards that the replication crisis really hit psychology in a big way, and especially priming. So with the benefit of hindsight, yes, he presented faulty research - but he didn't (and couldn't) have known it at the time. (Of course, if the lesson is that the entire field should be considered skeptically, I don't think I'd disagree)

freshhawk 8y ago

I think I have some old comment here where I tried to find anyone else who found that book to be completely unconvincing and really bad at justifying the conclusions. People acted like I was insane.

Vinnl 8y ago

See also Kahneman's response to this: https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454 https://replicationindex.wordpress.com/2017/02/02/reconstruc... > I still believe that actions can be primed, sometimes even by stimuli of which the person is unaware. There is adequate evidence for all the building blocks: semantic priming, significant processing of stimuli that are not consciously perceived, and ideo-motor activation. I see no reason to draw a sharp line between the priming of thoughts and the priming of actions. A case can therefore be made for priming on this indirect evidence. But I have changed my views about the size of behavioral priming effects – they cannot be as large and as robust as my chapter suggested. (Discussed on HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15228712)