STOP reading Thinking Fast and Slow

Follow me:
Behavioral Science Instagram: @petebitsofficial
Instagram: @petejudo
Twitter: @petejudo
LinkedIn: Peter Judodihardjo

References:

[jrexm_]

Can you explain 3:37 statement? You say, "The worst part about this is that not only more than 50% of what you're reading is a lie, but you don't even know which 50%?" Strange statement considering you just pointed out which chapters contain studies with replication indexes below 50%.

[salimalshekaili]

It took me more than 20 days to finish, and it is hands down one of the best books I have ever read. it helped me earn to career promotions and change my perspective of life forever

[markzuckerbread]

I read this 5 years ago when I was a high schooler, and I can relate to what you are saying, its great to see that the author accepts criticisms and is dedicated to science and instead of making money

[raindelaygen]

I, too, earned a degree at Warwick Uni in behavioural economics & sciences. At about the same time you did. Talked with the same faculty you studied under. No one said this book is false. In the same vein that no one says you should take any budding theoretical field as "absolute gospel". That's a common bias young academics often suffer. I've seen a few of your other videos and it appears you have two main outputs, either pretend you know more than the giants who came before you, or promote theoretical concepts you don't seem to really understand. I'll give you an example of the latter, the power of replication studies is not only in showing which studies continue (or not) to result in statistically similar results as past studies, but also in showing how we've changed beyond those previous cognitive realities. Failure to replicate is not an absolute indicator of false results in earlier studies. You also very noticeably cherry pick your definition of priming effect (hint, it's both an explicit & implicit effect) as well as the example studies. One poorly executed study does not define an entire phenomenon. "We should stop teaching it to people". Wow, you really are well off the mark. And calling these researchers and their discoveries liars is little more than hubris on your part. Overconfidence much? To assume cognition never changes, is to assume evolution doesn't exist. Kahneman states as much. Unsurprising you fail to mention this. Societies, culture, minds and brains, just like all physical systems, evolve. I'd suggest you take a step back and stop acting like you know so much, but your Youtube channel makes it clear you're well beyond this level of self-reflection at this time.

[cutegirlTina]

I think the biggest problem with Behavioral economics is that it’s hard to create environment in which you can make experiments that will give new theories. I think Kahneman (and Thaler for example) have more life anecdotes which are interesting to read but can’t be the base for solid theories. But of course their work in this field is exceptional. Anyway I appreciate your criticism for this book, this could also help with reading the news - you read something and accept it as truth but don’t know the population or environment in which they conducted those facts.

[KenrickLeiba]

I think it is very important to make people aware of studies that have low replication. That being said I think in a way you are being way too harsh. Firstly I didn't find the book boring at all. Sescondly, I feeling like things such as the "watching eyes" and the " priming" experiments aren't really the central thesis of Thinking Fast and Slow. The central thesis of thinking fast and slow is 1) Humans aren't the rational actors that economics makes us out to be. 2) We use two systems of thinking one fast and inuitives but mistake prone and one that is slow and usually more accurate (assuming the person has the skills to back it up). 3) Experts are good at some things but not others and we need to be aware of the what areas experts make reliable decisions and when we should perhaps rely on quantitative data and formulas. Thinking fast and slow should probably be re-written to remove poorly replicated research, but ignoring it entirely is throwing out the baby with bath water. In all I agree that perhaps you shouldn't read it cover to cover, but doing research into the more solid parts of the book isn't a bad thing. In fact ANY research/book should be taken with a grain of salt until it is replicated.

[FernandoBlancoPsy]

Please! That one result fails to replicate does not mean that the effect "does not exist" or that "it is a lie". Reality is far more nuanced. What a replication failure tells you it's that you need to carefully examine accumulated evidence, as there is always uncertainty.

[tehyonglip]

this book was published 10 years ago, of course some of the findings are outdated, but that does not you shouldn't read it, we just need to update what's wrong in the book

[abjeffre]

Sorry almost never comment on YouTube videos but I must here. Begining around 3:20, you say that some thing had been proven false due to failed replication. Please just eradicate the words proven false from that sentence. What it does it increases the probability that a result is wrong but does not prove it false. I know it is tedious but if you are going to do science you have to be comfortable dealing with degrees of certainty.

[KeltikManEater]

i think the 2 main takeaways from this book should merely be the sheer extent of the egos impressionability and to take chances, it is by no means an in dept guide into the field but still offers some great learning opportunities

[Faran]

Thanks Pete, I read TFAS last year.

I struggled to finish the book for pretty much the same reasons you mention. Thought it was just me so I kept pushing because in my view if I can't get through this, BE is not for me..

I did finish it and the book is insightful. I appreciated how it lays out the shortcomings of utility theory/ but struggled with the many ideas including priming being so powerful.

Good to know that the evidence base has changed since then, keep up your very informative work!

[WillardLloyd]

I do agree with what you are saying but I liked the reading of the book because you could see that it was the pioneering work of the field. Nothing is bound to stay absolute through time especially something that was created less than 50 years ago

[adamrosefire]

Thanks. Returning this after 20 pages of boredom.

[davincidribbler]

You referring to the content as “lies” is pretty disgusting. It implies intent from the authors. It was one of the first books in the field, and while it all doesn’t hold, they were pioneers. Go ahead and recommend other books and and state this one isn’t high quality, but it really wasn’t necessary to drag it through the mud.

[Alan_Duval]

Interesting video, let down by one thing. You refer to the contents of some of the chapters as lies. That is a misuse of the word "lie". To lie is to intentionally deceive and, to quote directly from the Replicability Index page that you showed in the video:

"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."

In other words, his survey of results from (and mostly prior to) 2011 has been superseded since, as you'd expect in a relatively new and growing field.

I personally still think that it's a very important book but it has to be read with one's critical faculties engaged (as is true of reading any book, especially one referring historical studies). The replicability index for the book is a helpful guide as to which chapters to treat with the most skepticism. I'm sure that could be applied to, for example, 'The Righteous Mind', 'Moral Tribes', and a host of other moral psychology books (another area of the social sciences experiencing a renaissance of late).

[ETBrooD]

Kahneman's book taught me mainly about correct and incorrect ways to use and interpret data. In that sense I consider it to be one of the best books out there.
Of course the examples about psychology should be taken with a grain of salt, but that's absolutely not his fault (in regards to this book), it's the fault of the field of psychology which is still in its infancy and riddled with flaws and errors. You should be blaming the experiments that he used as examples, those are not his experiments. But the ideas about statistics and perception that he teaches from those examples are pretty much spot on and they'll transform your scientific mind in very valuable ways.

[marcospco]

I think you need consider: Make a video telling people about read or not read the book in your perspective and life story is just a point.

[ncn]

“A stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.”Bertrand Russell

[DeclanMBrennan]

I had a couple of failed attempts trying to get through it but you're right - the field is interesting as are the ideas discussed, but the book is rather slow and ponderous. It's still in my car to this day. Thanks for giving me the perfect reason to pick a different one. 🙂

[BigHenFor]

Reading the comment section to this video was an education in itself. I hope you've learned from the experience.