[henriquemaia]

If some data is wrong and you can't tell which is which, how can you trust just some parts of this book? Are we to fact-check bit by bit until everything gets sorted out and we know for sure what parts of the book to trust?

Besides, why go through all that trouble if there are heaps of good psychology books out there that aren't plagued with errors as this one? Since our time is so limited, I think it is a good heuristic to avoid any non-fiction book that it is known to contain errors.

[csallen]

Your complaints aren't unreasonable, and I wouldn't disagree with skipping the book to read others instead. I agree with whoever said the book needs a version 2.

However, I don't think this justifies dismissing the entire book. "I'm not sure which studies weren't reproducible and I don't feel like looking them up," is a very different statement than, "This whole book is bullshit." There's really no reason to make that latter overstatement.

[joe_the_user]

If some data is wrong and you can't tell which is which, how can you trust just some parts of this book?

That's kind of the same problem that a psychology researcher faces; some of their data is going to be wrong.

The question winds-up being how "robust" your claim is, can you survive having some points being wrong? For Thinking Slow And Fast, the robustness of the claims is kind of a mixed bag imo.

[jmmcd]

> why go through all that trouble if there are heaps of good psychology books out there that aren't plagued with errors as this one?

All of psychology has suffered in the replication crisis, but my understanding is that Kahneman & Tversky's stuff is better than most. Their work was mostly solid and in a different era. The real bullshit began in the era of celebrities doing TED talks.

Edit it would be better for me to distinguish Kahneman & Tversky's own work from the work of others described in the book. Eg there is stuff in the book on priming which is definitely TED-era and doesn't replicate.