4 ms·

I forgot to add the caveat -- I don't mean to say just gobble up whatever the said researchers wrote. Read them with a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially a

I forgot to add the caveat -- I don't mean to say just gobble up whatever the said researchers wrote. Read them with a healthy dose of skepticism. Especially all the psychology and "behavioural economics" books. Yes, some of Kahneman's work doesn't replicate, as he himself admitted. But he's not a "hack". An incredibly hard worker, and an equally fallible human like the rest of us.

jstx1 5y ago
I wouldn't give Kahnemann that much credit. From Thinking, Fast and Slow: > The idea you should focus on, however, is that disbelief is not an option. The results are not made up, nor are they statistical flukes. You have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true. These sentences alone put Kahnemann at bottom of the list of people anyone should listen to. This is the opposite of how you do science especially when we talk new research in something as difficult to measure as human behaviour. Not surprisingly, a lot of the studies in Thinking, Fast and Slow don't replicate. Kahneman has acknowledged this and admitted it was a mistake[1] while simultaneously saying: > I am still attached to every study that I cited, and have not unbelieved them And the book is still sold with the paragraph saying that disbelief is not an option. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-underpowered-studies-nobel-prize-winner-admits-mistakes/ https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...
- kashyapc 5y ago
  I have seen that retraction comment when it came out, and I've quoted it myself here several times over the years. That said, you are being overly harsh. "Bottom of the list"? Give him a break. I'm no Kahneman "defender", but you have to read any of this kind of behaviour research as "advanced opinion pieces" by biased humans. And also bear in mind: it is a 40-year synthesis of his and Tversky's work. Yes, priming-related studies and a few others don't replicate. And that "disbelief is not an option" is of course terribly distasteful and overconfident. That doesn't mean everything in that book is bunkum!

jstx1 5y ago

I wouldn't give Kahnemann that much credit. From Thinking, Fast and Slow: > The idea you should focus on, however, is that disbelief is not an option. The results are not made up, nor are they statistical flukes. You have no choice but to accept that the major conclusions of these studies are true. These sentences alone put Kahnemann at bottom of the list of people anyone should listen to. This is the opposite of how you do science especially when we talk new research in something as difficult to measure as human behaviour. Not surprisingly, a lot of the studies in Thinking, Fast and Slow don't replicate. Kahneman has acknowledged this and admitted it was a mistake[1] while simultaneously saying: > I am still attached to every study that I cited, and have not unbelieved them And the book is still sold with the paragraph saying that disbelief is not an option. [1] https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-underpowered-studies-nobel-prize-winner-admits-mistakes/ https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-und...

kashyapc 5y ago
I have seen that retraction comment when it came out, and I've quoted it myself here several times over the years. That said, you are being overly harsh. "Bottom of the list"? Give him a break. I'm no Kahneman "defender", but you have to read any of this kind of behaviour research as "advanced opinion pieces" by biased humans. And also bear in mind: it is a 40-year synthesis of his and Tversky's work. Yes, priming-related studies and a few others don't replicate. And that "disbelief is not an option" is of course terribly distasteful and overconfident. That doesn't mean everything in that book is bunkum!