Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Branimir Dolički's avatar

Thanks for this enlightening post, Annie. I, too, initially believed Danziger’s ‘hungry judges’ study. It’s troubling that Kahnemann et al. uncritically endorse this in ‘Noise’, ignoring significant criticisms. On page 17, they assert: ‘For example, judges have been found more likely to grant parole at the beginning of the day or after a food break than immediately before such a break. If judges are hungry, they are tougher.’

Expand full comment
Satyajit Rout's avatar

Wonderfully written, Annie.

Science self-corrects but slowly. This is true not just for social sciences but also for hard sciences. The replication crisis continues to snowball with easier publication via preprints, for example. And with autosummarization and AI it's only become easier for popular science media to communicate questionable findings. But as you say beliefs are incredibly sticky and long after a theory has been corrected, it continues to linger in its older erroneous form. Are there any examples where collective intuition has been put on ice until the science has been corrected? Or is this simply the cost of doing science?

Expand full comment
5 more comments...

No posts