Kahneman has defended much of this research in the past. But at least he's smart enough to recognize his mistakes, which cannot be said about many of his colleagues.

Personally, I run across the concept a lot in popular books and articles that I read (from before the controversy), so it presents a problem for me in whether to believe them if it's not actually true.

[1] http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/neuroskeptic/2016/07/31/en...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_depletion#Reproducibility_...

If you would have the same standards for large parts of CS that shattered psychology then you'd have to admit some pretty dire things.

Actually, I've hardly seen any vendor study (especially Microsoft, but basically all vendors) which was NOT ridiculed by anyone who cares about science.

> If you would have the same standards for large parts of CS that shattered psychology then you'd have to admit some pretty dire things.

Can you give an example? Unlike "software engineering", which is neither science nor engineering but mostly a craft, Computer Science is a field of Math, and rarely has anything to do with probability (p-Hacking), or selecting a favorable data set; There's a lot of criticism directed at the relevance of test sets (e.g. MNIST), but that's basically the opposite problem, which might impede progress, but does yield out very well defined and verifyable conclusions.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Kahneman

The irony is that Kahneman has spent a lot of time both raising awareness of the replication crisis and studying the kind of cognitive biases people often have, yet got bit by exactly that.

In his defense, his comment here is, I think, a master study in what a detailed, sincere "I was wrong" should look like.