> Do I feel bad that over the years I trashed both of his pop-science books, the first (Thinking, Fast and Slow) for being packed full of uncritical citations of bad research, and the second (Noise) for being interminably boring? No. But do I think that overall he still had a positive effect on the public understanding of science? Also no.
Do you have a link to where I can read about this? My understanding was that the priming results were bad, but most of the other stuff in Thinking Fast and Slow was good. Overall he seems to have had a very positive effect on pop science, shattering the delusion that humans always act rationally, and encouraging people to consider their own biases. I think that's done far more good than the harm done by a few specific effects not being real.
"One year! That’s how long I’ve now been doing these link-post newsletters on the Science Fictions Substack. I do hope you’re finding them interesting and/or useful."
Well done Stuart! 👏👏 Keep posting. Even when the 🩷 and comments are few on our Substack posts, it is a worthy endeavor. Never know when someone will find that bottle on the beach, read the message inside, and smile!
"RIP Daniel Kahneman. Do I feel bad that over the years I trashed both of his pop-science books, the first (Thinking, Fast and Slow) for being packed full of uncritical citations of bad research, and the second (Noise) for being interminably boring? No. But do I think that overall he still had a positive effect on the public understanding of science? Also no.
His actual scientific work in the 1970s and 80s with Amos Tversky was genuinely great, though!"
"Kahneman wrote of his experience in Nazi-occupied France, explaining in part why he entered the field of psychology:
It must have been late 1941 or early 1942. Jews were required to wear the Star of David and to obey a 6 p.m. curfew. I had gone to play with a Christian friend and had stayed too late. I turned my brown sweater inside out to walk the few blocks home. As I was walking down an empty street, I saw a German soldier approaching. He was wearing the black uniform that I had been told to fear more than others – the one worn by specially recruited SS soldiers. As I came closer to him, trying to walk fast, I noticed that he was looking at me intently. Then he beckoned me over, picked me up, and hugged me. I was terrified that he would notice the star inside my sweater. He was speaking to me with great emotion, in German. When he put me down, he opened his wallet, showed me a picture of a boy, and gave me some money. I went home more certain than ever that my mother was right: people were endlessly complicated and interesting."
The formative years of behavioral economics were made in the 40s, because the SS soldier did not see the star inside his sweater most likely. Or the SS soldier was absolutely sure that no other SS near him could see the seams from Kahneman's inside-out sweater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman#Early_life
I share the disappointment regarding the big open-science study since I look up to these guys. If the main analysis wasn't preregistered they shouldn't have said it was. That's embarrassing.
But I also don't really think this has very large implications for whether the conclusions of the paper is valid. I think there's a risk for falling for some version of the "fallacy fallacy" here. The studies themselves were pre-registered and all the labs seem to have done things as described in the study. Knowing that they did not specify beforehand how they would measure replicability doesn't really change the actual results. Figure 1 would look like it does regardless, and my beliefs about whether we should use large-sample sizes, preregistration, protocol sharing etc remain unchanged. The main thing that interest me here is whether, as the study is titled "High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable". Much like I don't automatically throw out every non-preregistered study I come across otherwise (few people would hold such an extreme view), same thing goes here, despite the seeming hypocrisy.
I'd also like to wait and see how the authors respond. I've seen people act like there's something nefarious about the silence here, but I don't find it weird that it takes time for 17 authors (no doubt busy people) to formulate and agree on an official response. See Nosek on bluesky apologizing for the delay:
I find myself naturally distrustful of Sinclair, as his book has so little science relative to the size of his claims, and he falls back on persuasion-by-emotion so often. It's like he's just saying the things that he thinks will persuade people, rather than explaining his science.
Does Harvard really need to write 1000 pages on the Gino case? It sounds like they agreed with the original Data Colada folks, and that was way less. Universities aren't trial courts. Companies are much, much faster to deal with bad behaviour - it seems ridiculous that Harvard is so ponderous. Do they not realize that there's a giant swamp that needs draining? Guess not.
> Do I feel bad that over the years I trashed both of his pop-science books, the first (Thinking, Fast and Slow) for being packed full of uncritical citations of bad research, and the second (Noise) for being interminably boring? No. But do I think that overall he still had a positive effect on the public understanding of science? Also no.
Do you have a link to where I can read about this? My understanding was that the priming results were bad, but most of the other stuff in Thinking Fast and Slow was good. Overall he seems to have had a very positive effect on pop science, shattering the delusion that humans always act rationally, and encouraging people to consider their own biases. I think that's done far more good than the harm done by a few specific effects not being real.
"One year! That’s how long I’ve now been doing these link-post newsletters on the Science Fictions Substack. I do hope you’re finding them interesting and/or useful."
Well done Stuart! 👏👏 Keep posting. Even when the 🩷 and comments are few on our Substack posts, it is a worthy endeavor. Never know when someone will find that bottle on the beach, read the message inside, and smile!
"RIP Daniel Kahneman. Do I feel bad that over the years I trashed both of his pop-science books, the first (Thinking, Fast and Slow) for being packed full of uncritical citations of bad research, and the second (Noise) for being interminably boring? No. But do I think that overall he still had a positive effect on the public understanding of science? Also no.
His actual scientific work in the 1970s and 80s with Amos Tversky was genuinely great, though!"
"Kahneman wrote of his experience in Nazi-occupied France, explaining in part why he entered the field of psychology:
It must have been late 1941 or early 1942. Jews were required to wear the Star of David and to obey a 6 p.m. curfew. I had gone to play with a Christian friend and had stayed too late. I turned my brown sweater inside out to walk the few blocks home. As I was walking down an empty street, I saw a German soldier approaching. He was wearing the black uniform that I had been told to fear more than others – the one worn by specially recruited SS soldiers. As I came closer to him, trying to walk fast, I noticed that he was looking at me intently. Then he beckoned me over, picked me up, and hugged me. I was terrified that he would notice the star inside my sweater. He was speaking to me with great emotion, in German. When he put me down, he opened his wallet, showed me a picture of a boy, and gave me some money. I went home more certain than ever that my mother was right: people were endlessly complicated and interesting."
The formative years of behavioral economics were made in the 40s, because the SS soldier did not see the star inside his sweater most likely. Or the SS soldier was absolutely sure that no other SS near him could see the seams from Kahneman's inside-out sweater. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman#Early_life
I share the disappointment regarding the big open-science study since I look up to these guys. If the main analysis wasn't preregistered they shouldn't have said it was. That's embarrassing.
But I also don't really think this has very large implications for whether the conclusions of the paper is valid. I think there's a risk for falling for some version of the "fallacy fallacy" here. The studies themselves were pre-registered and all the labs seem to have done things as described in the study. Knowing that they did not specify beforehand how they would measure replicability doesn't really change the actual results. Figure 1 would look like it does regardless, and my beliefs about whether we should use large-sample sizes, preregistration, protocol sharing etc remain unchanged. The main thing that interest me here is whether, as the study is titled "High replicability of newly discovered social-behavioural findings is achievable". Much like I don't automatically throw out every non-preregistered study I come across otherwise (few people would hold such an extreme view), same thing goes here, despite the seeming hypocrisy.
I'd also like to wait and see how the authors respond. I've seen people act like there's something nefarious about the silence here, but I don't find it weird that it takes time for 17 authors (no doubt busy people) to formulate and agree on an official response. See Nosek on bluesky apologizing for the delay:
https://bsky.app/profile/briannosek.bsky.social/post/3koqqj2q2zx2y
I find myself naturally distrustful of Sinclair, as his book has so little science relative to the size of his claims, and he falls back on persuasion-by-emotion so often. It's like he's just saying the things that he thinks will persuade people, rather than explaining his science.
I read them every time!
Does Harvard really need to write 1000 pages on the Gino case? It sounds like they agreed with the original Data Colada folks, and that was way less. Universities aren't trial courts. Companies are much, much faster to deal with bad behaviour - it seems ridiculous that Harvard is so ponderous. Do they not realize that there's a giant swamp that needs draining? Guess not.
The links are greatly appreciated!
I thought Kahneman had come to denounce some of the flashy research he cited in 'Thinking Fast and Slow' that failed to replicate?