6 ms·

Without getting into a snark, that is not a particularly good book to recommend. https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-researched-the-scien

Without getting into a snark, that is not a particularly good book to recommend. https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-researched-the-science-of-error-and-still-made-errors.html https://slate.com/technology/2016/12/kahneman-and-tversky-re... "Taken all together, the chapters Schimmack looked at earned an average grade of C-minus."

d23 4y ago
Thanks. I had the impression this book and his work was widely regarded. I'll have to put a mental asterisk next to some of the stories I was blown away by.
- eliasmacpherson 4y ago
  The book not so much (despite its initial critical acclaim on continuing commercial success), but at least his research summarized within seems to be reproducible and his reputation is intact. The research on priming in particular, was reliant on low sample size studies, and was not reproducible.
exo-pla-net 4y ago
Without getting into snark, your very own article bolsters my point: > The replication crisis in psychology does not extend to every line of inquiry, and just a portion of the work described in Thinking, Fast and Slow has been cast in shadows. Kahneman and Tversky’s own research, for example, turns out to be resilient. Large-scale efforts to recreate their classic findings have so far been successful. One bias they discovered—people’s tendency to overvalue the first piece of information that they get, in what is known as the “anchoring effect”—not only passed a replication test, but turned out to be much stronger than Kahneman and Tversky thought.
- eliasmacpherson 4y ago
  What portion of the scientists in the book are represented by Kahneman and Tversky? The other scientists in the book did not go to great lengths to avoid sampling bias. The authors could not be relied on to spot it either. I don't see any point you made being bolstered. The anchoring effect you mention in another comment doesn't permit a scientist or statistician to throw their hands up in the air and say one mechanical turk group is as average as any other pseudo random group.

d23 4y ago

Thanks. I had the impression this book and his work was widely regarded. I'll have to put a mental asterisk next to some of the stories I was blown away by.

eliasmacpherson 4y ago
The book not so much (despite its initial critical acclaim on continuing commercial success), but at least his research summarized within seems to be reproducible and his reputation is intact. The research on priming in particular, was reliant on low sample size studies, and was not reproducible.

exo-pla-net 4y ago

Without getting into snark, your very own article bolsters my point: > The replication crisis in psychology does not extend to every line of inquiry, and just a portion of the work described in Thinking, Fast and Slow has been cast in shadows. Kahneman and Tversky’s own research, for example, turns out to be resilient. Large-scale efforts to recreate their classic findings have so far been successful. One bias they discovered—people’s tendency to overvalue the first piece of information that they get, in what is known as the “anchoring effect”—not only passed a replication test, but turned out to be much stronger than Kahneman and Tversky thought.

eliasmacpherson 4y ago
What portion of the scientists in the book are represented by Kahneman and Tversky? The other scientists in the book did not go to great lengths to avoid sampling bias. The authors could not be relied on to spot it either. I don't see any point you made being bolstered. The anchoring effect you mention in another comment doesn't permit a scientist or statistician to throw their hands up in the air and say one mechanical turk group is as average as any other pseudo random group.