First video of yours I've watched. Thank you for sharing this. I'd been recommending the book to a whole bunch of ppl which I'll have to stop doing now. Out of curiosity, Kahneman recently published another book called Noise. I haven't read it yet, but any take on how useful it is? Can I assume from this video Kahneman would have updated some of his conclusions?

While I appreciate you bringing up my comment to Uli, you cut out the full context, thus your question to Uli was misleading especially given that I literally said that "it may be a good metric". My main objection to your claims in the first video was about accuracy, not necessarily the message. You falsely claimed that "50% of the studies" in the book "have failed to replicate" and you used Uli's r-index calculations as the basis of that claim. This is demonstrably untrue because most of the studies in the book have not undergone replications and Uli's r-index is only an estimate/prediction of whether they would replicate IF a replication were attempted. That was the heart of my objection. You finally addressed this issue at the end of this video, and it's good that you had Uli on to explain the measure to you, but that was my main point and you completely misrepresented it to Uli, instead pretending that my main objection was simply "iT hAsN't BeEn PeEr ReViEwEd." Not a good look.

I appreciate this channel actually fact checking whether or not books are accurate and recommending books based on that and not based on popularity.

Thanks for these clarification from last week's video, even though I'm barely aware of TFAS I learned a lot about how research methods are improving and that TFAS doesn't reflect modern academic consensus. Good luck with your dissertation and other life changes, I have to move too soon so that's an opportunity for me to change a lot of bad habits. Thank you for helping me reduce the noise in my life with your wonderful thought-provoking content

You're the reason I haven't read this book yet, and I own it.

I don't know whether to praise you or pity you for tackling a YT comments section but either way thanks for the continually fascinating and entertaining content. Don't let the critics get you down!

I listened to the first 20 chapters of Thinking fast and slow before coming across your video. Regarding the bat and the ball, intuitively and rationally I think the ball costs 10 cents. Can you explain why 5 cents is the correct amount?

Dang! Thanks for this! I’m on chapter 8 and though the gist of dual process thinking seems accurate I recognized some outdated data.

What about the very basic idea of system 1 vs System 2? Are we throwing that out?

Well done Pete, you never cease to amaze your followers!

Thought you made a compelling argument and a thoughtful response.

One thing I would like to add. If you have read the book and have seen the video, don't feel bad about itas if you have wasted your time or feel like you got duped. Often times finding out that things are not as they seem to you is actually good and is gonna show you something about thinking critically, and get you that thick academic skin. it will also show you what it takes to actually know things.

I'm wondering why the authors aren't updating the book then. I mean old books do get updated. 🤷

I am commenting to further promote your happiness :) I was reading Kahneman's book ... not upset at your recommendation

The part about "peer reviewed" is a funny comment. Using "peer reviewed" as tool to reinforce an argument that is favourable to a proponent, and then discarding the same tool as over-rated hype when is not favourable to an argument? Relying on other professionals for replicability, yet disregarding the same other professionals as reviewers? While peer review is not perfect, there will be no meta-analysis if there are no peer-reviewed journals with data to work with to aggregate data. Not enough data, not enough statistical significance, thus lack of development in the science of BE anyway......

Over the last years I see a general tendency to use the word "lie" to (dis)qualify assertions which the commentator thinks are untrue. But lies are not just wrong assertions, they are intentionally wrong assertions, as the person promoting the assertions is knowing for sure they are wrong. Thus, it's not simply "political correctness" if you are willing to limit the use of this word to the cases where it's really applicable.

calming water helps

Great video! Really appreciated the clarification on your previous video 👏

I got the Kahneman-book as a present and I found it weak and tediously verbose.

Shake off them h8r's Pete! We got you :D