Thinking Fast and Slow

[Anonymous No.17065202]

How much of this beyond the priming effect was debunked by the replication crisis?

[Anonymous No.17065244]

Is this the Behavioural guy? If yes, ignore him. Worst econ nobel of all time

[Anonymous No.17065328]

>>17065244
Are there any more reputable introductory psychology books that have survived the crisis?

[Anonymous No.17065346]

>>17065202
all of it also he's a jew so be careful of being deceived in general

[Anonymous No.17065361]

>>17065346
I'm a Jew anon, not everyone is out to get you
I want correct facts to the best available knowledge, but I know psychology is going through a tough time right now

[Anonymous No.17065447]

>>17065202
It's only the priming effect that I'm awarebof anon. One chapter. Which, wasn't necessarily debunked, it's just been proven that he used underpowered studies. Basically they haven't tried to recreate the research he cited on a large enough scale for it to have completely failed replicability.

He reviewed the evidence against them and admitted his mistake as well. I'd say it's a pretty reputable book.
>>17065361
>I'm a Jew anon
Oh noooo. I feel your electronic influence pulsating from the pixels in your post. Ahhhhhh

[Anonymous No.17065501]

>>17065202
Didn't he mostly use older studies from before the field was taken over by shallow halfwits?

[Anonymous No.17065512]

>>17065202
the book still holds up fine and disregard anyone who believes otherwise

[Anonymous No.17065665]

>>17065447
>>17065501
>>17065512
Maybe I'll read this one too

[Anonymous No.17067593]

>>17065447
>He reviewed the evidence against them and admitted his mistake as well. I'd say it's a pretty reputable book.

Where did he do this, out of curiosity?

[Anonymous No.17067610]

>>17065361
>I'm a Jew anon
Can you tell me the secret of the khazar milkers? Is it the matzo?

[Anonymous No.17067615]

>>17065328
No psychology really survived the crisis but the crisis wasn't needed for that
Social sciences and medicine are by and large still stuck in the nineteenth century
It's not just a matter of underpowered data, it's a tendency towards archaic, idealised methodologies
Experiments as they are conducted tell us nothing about how people actually act in the real world
On this account it should be stressed that the worst perpetrators are social psychologists who purportedly study social phenomena but seem to live in a phantasy land all to themselves
>>17065447
>It wasn't necessarily debunked
No it just has no evidence supporting it
Psychology is a religion holy shit

[Anonymous No.17067624]

>>17065202
I got this book as a gift. Havent gotten to it yet. Is it any good?

[Anonymous No.17067639]

>>17065361
>I'm a Jew anon, not everyone is out to get you
>psychology is going through a tough time right now
Psychology is an evil jewish invention meant to enslave people's minds. You may not intentionally be out to get us, but it's in you nonetheless.

[Anonymous No.17067701]

>>17067624
One anon was correct in pointing out that you can get the most out of it by reading his and Tversky's original articles at the end, containing 10000% less jew and personal anecdotes

[Anonymous No.17067812]

>>17067593
I read about it here. https://retractionwatch.com/2017/02/20/placed-much-faith-underpowered-studies-nobel-prize-winner-admits-mistakes/

Apparently the oned who most vocally pointed out his mistake run a small psychology blog, he went to their blog and responded to them.
>>17067615
It has evidence, just underpowered evidence.

[Anonymous No.17067823]

>>17067639
>Psychology is an evil jewish invention
>>17067701
>containing 10000% less jew

[Anonymous No.17067853]

>>17067823
antisemitism is a traditional russian pastime, pogrom is one of the few words borrowed into english
don't you descriminate MY culture

[Anonymous No.17067860]

>>17065346
I would welcome your replacement.

[Anonymous No.17067872]

>>17067853

[Anonymous No.17067874]

Guys like 80 percent of all books written after 1900 are by jews, if you don't like it go to /a/

[Anonymous No.17067885]

>>17067860
We know.

[Anonymous No.17067887]

>>17067823
>psychology was invented by jews
>still run mostly by jews
>based on jewish neuroticism and anxiety projected onto all mankind
>used as a scam to have innocent people keep paying money to never get better
>co-opted by big pharma which is also a jewish invention

[Anonymous No.17067893]

>>17067860
But I thought it was a conspiracy theory???
>>17067874
Or just read older books? /a/ is for faggots and manchildren

[Anonymous No.17068033]

>>17067893
It isn't. The only thing stopping us are big brained anti semites posting on this board. Drat!

[Anonymous No.17068250]

>>17067887

[Anonymous No.17068257]

>>17068033
What are you trying to accomplish by posting this?

[Anonymous No.17068274]

>>17068250
And where are the jews on that list? Oh, maybe they're categorized as white so people won't notice? So what you're showing doesn't disprove anything I said, great. Pilpul.

[Anonymous No.17068355]

>>17068274
Perhaps they're simply more educated on average.

[Anonymous No.17068383]

>>17065202
the most boring book i have ever read. it constantly repating itself.

[Anonymous No.17068510]

>>17068383
that's why you just read the original articles tacked on at the end and move on

[Anonymous No.17068524]

>>17067812
>he went to their blog and responded to them.
based

[Anonymous No.17068533]

>>17067853
What's your opinion on 200 years together?

[Anonymous No.17068683]

>>17068533
never read it, solzhenytsin is boring
I was reading an article on race-based conspiracy theories in tzarist russia and came across a casual mention of supposed ritual murders, which brought me to blood libel and the beilis case in particular (no english translation) https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%94%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%BE_%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%B9%D0%BB%D0%B8%D1%81%D0%B0
little things like the right-wingers postponing the pogrom were too much

[Anonymous No.17068703]

>>17068683
the term "blood libel" is libellous

[Anonymous No.17068714]

Cab we get back on topic about Kahneman please, wasn't much of his data based on Israeli army studies?

[Anonymous No.17068737]

>>17068714
not just that, but also phone surveys and experimental econ
check out thaler's misbehaving to know more

[Anonymous No.17069558]

>>17067812
>Just underpowered evidence
Let me guess, you consider the Stanford experiment to be evidence of a thesis too?
Underpowered evidence isn't worth anything in psychology, you can get underpowered psychology for anything
Nevermind the fact that psychologists are literally taught statistical manipulation in their stat101s

[Anonymous No.17069562]

>>17068737
Moving from one giant of science to the next
Are people in psychology allergic to evidence or something
You should consider cancer research, they'd welcome your style with open arms

[Anonymous No.17069577]

>>17068355
Nobody post the charts showing Jewish SAT scores vs. disproportionately high Ivy League intake

[Anonymous No.17069918]

>>17067893
>noooo you must either read modern books and Jewish crap or femboy degenerate anime, there is no other possibility beyond media written in the last 100 years no other possible thing to read!!!

[Anonymous No.17070461]

>>17069918
You know anime is japanese right.

[Anonymous No.17070935]

>>17065202
It's a great book, unlike any other garbage frequently shilled by /lit/. For a fresh change, it's not full of research misuse and / or neuromania employed to push a flimsily supported thesis. It's actually written by an accomplished researcher and not a bestseller list baiting journalist. The one psychology book frequently discussed that isn't shit and of course /lit/ hates it because it's full of retards. It has some flaws that you can easily google, because they have been transparently discussed by the author himself.

[Anonymous No.17072394]

>>17070935
What do you think of "The Shallows"?

[Anonymous No.17072528]

>>17072394
Funny coincidence, I'm just now about 2/3 in that book. Can't say about the historical part of his argument (seems flimsy, but it's not like I know any better), but the psychological research part so far is pretty much what I described. That isn't to say that there's no merit to his thesis, just that it isn't supported nearly as well as he pretends it is. He uses this infuriating trick that I've seen time and time again in too many fucking books. First he rightly notices that "the brain has astonishing plasticity as research shows" and then he jumps straight to "the brain becomes X under the influence of Y", skipping a few steps in the argument, replacing them with anecdotal jabs like "I feel stupid because I use the Internet too much, I'm sure you can relate amirite?". Apart from that, there's a lot of the usual practice of drawing too wide of a conclusion from a very specific study (the education research part I'm currently on), but that's a given in popsci. Like I said, I'm only 2/3 in, but it's not looking too good.

[Anonymous No.17072563]

>>17072528
Yeah that was my grab from it as well, I think he has a good point about the internet making focus harder but I'm still unsure about the entire thesis

[Anonymous No.17072573]

>>17070935
What do you think of Cal Newport's So Good They Can't Ignore You?

[Anonymous No.17072606]

>>17072573
Haven't read it, but I did read The Talent Code. It's a blatant example of the trick I mentioned here >>17072528. It's really comical how he does absolutely nothing to connect myelin to the task of training. He needed some cutting edge neuroscience up in that bitch and fuck if the whole thing makes sense or not.

[Anonymous No.17072630]

>>17070935
Have you read Chris Voss' Never Split the Difference? Thoughts?

[Anonymous No.17072672]

>>17072573
I did read Deep Work by Cal Newport now that I think of it. I don't remember being too critical of it research-wise. I think it's very solid advice on time management and work philosophy that doesn't make grandiose claims about how it has cracked the genius code. I can respect that in a self-help book.
>>17072630
I listened to a podcast with him, but haven't read his book. Seems like he knows his shit as far as I can tell.

[Anonymous No.17072694]

>>17072672
>>17072606
I've only read So Good They Can't Ignore you and it sat well with me because he never really went into discussing anything that seemed outside of his bailiwick. I have seen that he's been pretty prolific as an author though so I'm not sure how many of his books follow that pattern.

[Anonymous No.17073898]

>>17070935
What do you think of Incognito by Dan Eagleman?