Conversation

"Readers of “Thinking: Fast and Slow” should read the book as a subjective account by an eminent psychologists, rather than an objective summary of scientific evidence." A fair summary of the reliability of TFaS:

replicationindex.com

A Meta-Scientific Perspective on “Thinking: Fast and Slow

2011 was an important year in the history of psychology, especially social psychology. First, it became apparent that one social psychologist had faked results for dozens of publications ( Second, …

8:12 AM · Oct 21, 2021TweetDeck

Replying to

"It is likely that Kahneman’s book, or at least some of his chapters, would be very different from the actual book, if it had been written just a few years later. However, in 2011 most psychologists believed that most published results in their journals can be trusted." Wow!

Replying to

Reminds me about this: "If unpaid Minecraft mods can produce a 29-page mathematical analysis of Dream’s contested run, then scientists and editors can find the time to treat plausible fraud allegations with the seriousness they deserve."