If you want to have your eyes opened even more, you should also check out Kahneman's debate with Gerd Gigerenzer spanning decades of scientific work. Gigerenze

If you want to have your eyes opened even more, you should also check out Kahneman's debate with Gerd Gigerenzer spanning decades of scientific work. Gigerenzer challenged Kahneman on the grounds that he has a very specific definition of rationality, probability (single-case vs. relative frequency), etc. and that many of the biases he claimed to have found can be made to "disappear" once you apply a different concept of probability. To give one example (I'm not 100% sure if I remember everything correctly): In one of Kahneman's studies, he asked participants questions such as "Is Detroit bigger than Anchorage?" and then asked them how sure they were of their answer (e.g. 70% sure). In this case, people would systematically overestimate how correct they were, and Kahneman concluded that there is an "overconfidence bias". Gigerenzer repeated the study, but instead of asking the participants for a confidence estimate at every question, he only asked them at the end how many of questions they got right overall - and in this case, people's estimate was actually very accurate.