4 ms·

Kahneman's full quote is just embarrassing: > The idea you should focus on, however, is that disbelief is not an option. The results are not made up, nor are t

by jstx1 4y ago

Kahneman's full quote is just embarrassing: > 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. More important, you must accept that they are true about you. So so arrogant, and he ended up being wrong about it too. It's very hard to take him seriously after reading this.

klysm 4y ago
How do you end up with such a fundamentally flawed epistemology?
- FabHK 4y ago
  I'd say that it wasn't the epistemology that was flawed, but the studies. (Though, ok, arguably it was a flaw in the epistemology that it didn't allow for flaws in the studies.) But the more interesting question is how the initial studies could have been so flawed. At any rate, those results were not replicated, and science marches on.
  - Jensson 4y ago
    How is "More important, you must accept that they are true about you." anything but flawed? If something is true for 60% of people must you accept that it is true for you as well, even though evidently it wasn't true for 40%?
neuronexmachina 4y ago
It's interesting that his "proposal to deal with questions about priming effects" was just a year later (2012): https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/s... > My reason for writing this letter is that I see a train wreck looming. I expect the first victims to be young people on the job market. Being associated with a controversial and suspicious field will put them at a severe disadvantage in the competition for positions. Because of the high visibility of the issue, you may already expect the coming crop of graduates to encounter problems. Another reason for writing is that I am old enough to remember two fields that went into a prolonged eclipse after similar outsider attacks on the replicability of findings: subliminal perception and dissonance reduction. > I believe that you should collectively do something about this mess. To deal effectively with the doubts you should acknowledge their existence and confront them straight on, because a posture of defiant denial is selfdefeating. Specifically, I believe that you should have an association, with a board that might include prominent social psychologists from other field. The first mission of the board would be to organize an effort to examine the replicability of priming results, following a protocol that avoids the questions that have been raised and guarantees credibility among colleagues outside the field. His more recent (2022) retrospective on the episode is also pretty interesting: https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahneman https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahnem...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
austinjp 4y ago
I think you're somewhat misinterpreting his point. He's not saying "I'm correct whether you like it or not". Instead, he's saying "we are all prone to cognitive errors, whether you like it or not". Admittedly, the experiments he conducted and cited were found to be flawed. But I think his point, as I understand it, still stands.
- tacoooooooo 4y ago
  it almost seems even more relevant given the outcome of his experiments...
- bobthechef 4y ago
  > He's not saying "I'm correct whether you like it or not". Instead, he's saying "we are all prone to cognitive errors, whether you like it or not". Restated: "I'm correct, about us all being prone to cognitive errors, where you like it or not."
- goatlover 4y ago
  It sounds like he's saying his students were wrong to express disbelief over the counter intuitive findings of a study because the statistics were such that it left no option but to accept the results. Which is arrogant and wrong. Studies can be faulty or fail to replicate, statistics can be misapplied or fudged, future studies also contradict prior findings, etc. Blind faith in the results of a study is not good science. If a study is counter intuitive, one should question it.
- tgv 4y ago
  The point doesn't stand, at least, not for psychology papers: even if the data have been collected correctly, the method was flawless, and the statistics have been done properly, the conclusions (as written in the paper under "Conclusions" heading) are always beyond the scope of the experiment, often far beyond it. I've never seen a psych paper that limits itself to just the experiment. They always present the outcome as proof for some kind of broader theory (which usually has been proven wrong in the same style by somebody else).
jbullock35 4y ago
> Kahneman's full quote is just embarrassing Yes. It is. But as another poster has noted, he largely recanted in 2017 [1]. And this is to his credit. Few scholars -- and fewer prominent ones -- have been willing to reverse course in as public a fashion as this. [1] https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454 https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
- mrow84 4y ago
  “The argument is inescapable: Studies that are underpowered for the detection of plausible effects must occasionally return non-significant results even when the research hypothesis is true – the absence of these results is evidence that something is amiss in the published record. ” This is a great insight.
- jstx1 4y ago
  > I am still attached to every study that I cited, and have not unbelieved them So he admits that the studies don't replicate but he still believes in their conclusions? Somehow that makes him look worse, not better, in my eyes but maybe I'm too critical.
  - matthewdgreen 4y ago
    You’re allowed to be attached to any theory you want, as long as you don’t let it override your judgement of the actual evidence. In this sense it’s probably better that you’re cognizant and open about your personal bias, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist (or overcompensating in the other direction and thus developing a new bias.)
diffeomorphism 4y ago
> so, so arrogant. Yeah, your reaction is. The whole point was to be humble and accept that you might be wrong. In particular, if well-done research contradicts your prior belief, then you "have no choice" but to consider that you might have been wrong. It turns out that the "well-done" was not the case here, but I find it hard to think your post was in good faith.
- tome 4y ago
  But Kahneman didn't say "no choice but to consider" he said "no choice but to _accept_" which is a much stronger statement.

by jstx1 4y ago

klysm 4y ago

How do you end up with such a fundamentally flawed epistemology?

FabHK 4y ago
I'd say that it wasn't the epistemology that was flawed, but the studies. (Though, ok, arguably it was a flaw in the epistemology that it didn't allow for flaws in the studies.) But the more interesting question is how the initial studies could have been so flawed. At any rate, those results were not replicated, and science marches on.
- Jensson 4y ago
  How is "More important, you must accept that they are true about you." anything but flawed? If something is true for 60% of people must you accept that it is true for you as well, even though evidently it wasn't true for 40%?

neuronexmachina 4y ago

It's interesting that his "proposal to deal with questions about priming effects" was just a year later (2012): https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/suppinfoFile/Kahneman%20Letter.pdf https://www.nature.com/news/polopoly_fs/7.6716.1349271308!/s... > My reason for writing this letter is that I see a train wreck looming. I expect the first victims to be young people on the job market. Being associated with a controversial and suspicious field will put them at a severe disadvantage in the competition for positions. Because of the high visibility of the issue, you may already expect the coming crop of graduates to encounter problems. Another reason for writing is that I am old enough to remember two fields that went into a prolonged eclipse after similar outsider attacks on the replicability of findings: subliminal perception and dissonance reduction. > I believe that you should collectively do something about this mess. To deal effectively with the doubts you should acknowledge their existence and confront them straight on, because a posture of defiant denial is selfdefeating. Specifically, I believe that you should have an association, with a board that might include prominent social psychologists from other field. The first mission of the board would be to organize an effort to examine the replicability of priming results, following a protocol that avoids the questions that have been raised and guarantees credibility among colleagues outside the field. His more recent (2022) retrospective on the episode is also pretty interesting: https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahneman https://www.edge.org/adversarial-collaboration-daniel-kahnem...

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

austinjp 4y ago

I think you're somewhat misinterpreting his point. He's not saying "I'm correct whether you like it or not". Instead, he's saying "we are all prone to cognitive errors, whether you like it or not". Admittedly, the experiments he conducted and cited were found to be flawed. But I think his point, as I understand it, still stands.

tacoooooooo 4y ago
it almost seems even more relevant given the outcome of his experiments...
bobthechef 4y ago
> He's not saying "I'm correct whether you like it or not". Instead, he's saying "we are all prone to cognitive errors, whether you like it or not". Restated: "I'm correct, about us all being prone to cognitive errors, where you like it or not."
goatlover 4y ago
It sounds like he's saying his students were wrong to express disbelief over the counter intuitive findings of a study because the statistics were such that it left no option but to accept the results. Which is arrogant and wrong. Studies can be faulty or fail to replicate, statistics can be misapplied or fudged, future studies also contradict prior findings, etc. Blind faith in the results of a study is not good science. If a study is counter intuitive, one should question it.
tgv 4y ago
The point doesn't stand, at least, not for psychology papers: even if the data have been collected correctly, the method was flawless, and the statistics have been done properly, the conclusions (as written in the paper under "Conclusions" heading) are always beyond the scope of the experiment, often far beyond it. I've never seen a psych paper that limits itself to just the experiment. They always present the outcome as proof for some kind of broader theory (which usually has been proven wrong in the same style by somebody else).

jbullock35 4y ago

> Kahneman's full quote is just embarrassing Yes. It is. But as another poster has noted, he largely recanted in 2017 [1]. And this is to his credit. Few scholars -- and fewer prominent ones -- have been willing to reverse course in as public a fashion as this. [1] https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-train-wreck-how-priming-research-went-of-the-rails/comment-page-1/#comment-1454 https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...

mrow84 4y ago
“The argument is inescapable: Studies that are underpowered for the detection of plausible effects must occasionally return non-significant results even when the research hypothesis is true – the absence of these results is evidence that something is amiss in the published record. ” This is a great insight.
jstx1 4y ago
> I am still attached to every study that I cited, and have not unbelieved them So he admits that the studies don't replicate but he still believes in their conclusions? Somehow that makes him look worse, not better, in my eyes but maybe I'm too critical.
- matthewdgreen 4y ago
  You’re allowed to be attached to any theory you want, as long as you don’t let it override your judgement of the actual evidence. In this sense it’s probably better that you’re cognizant and open about your personal bias, rather than pretending it doesn’t exist (or overcompensating in the other direction and thus developing a new bias.)

diffeomorphism 4y ago

> so, so arrogant. Yeah, your reaction is. The whole point was to be humble and accept that you might be wrong. In particular, if well-done research contradicts your prior belief, then you "have no choice" but to consider that you might have been wrong. It turns out that the "well-done" was not the case here, but I find it hard to think your post was in good faith.

tome 4y ago
But Kahneman didn't say "no choice but to consider" he said "no choice but to _accept_" which is a much stronger statement.