> No matter what role you play, you will always have to communicate and collaborate with others. If this is something you disagree with, you should go back to the drawing board and think deeply.
It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index) is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability.
Seems like you just did the most cursory of searches, found a negative pull quote about some studies in one chapter, and called it day. Much like reading the negative google reviews for a bar you were invited to instead of actually accepting the invitation and going, I'm not sure this qualifies as "checking it out"
That's right, that is sufficient. Life is too short for me to investigate further, and the onus is on anybody who really wants to defend it to defend it.
I may very well be wrong, some books of the pop-psych self-help kind turn out to be pretty good. I enjoyed How to win friends and influence people. Unfortunately there are approximately nine billion similar books. This is why cursory and aggressively dismissive investigation is the correct approach.
Sounds good, that's what I wanted.
> you should check out Thinking Fast and Slow.
I checked it out:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thinking,_Fast_and_Slow#Replic...
It was discovered many prominent research findings were difficult or impossible for others to replicate, and thus the original findings were called into question. An analysis of the studies cited in chapter 4, "The Associative Machine", found that their replicability index (R-index) is 14, indicating essentially low to no reliability.