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/7.6716.1

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...