> I'm still embarrassed when I have thoughts related to that book
You shouldn't be. The book is rightfully considered one of (if not) the defining works of behavioral psychology and you dismiss it because one chapter's methods came into question?
There's 1 specific chapter that he has publicly acknowledged relied on weak data. You're significantly overstating your point. Here's the actual blog post, with Kahneman responding in the comments (publicly confirmed it's him) if you page back : https://replicationindex.com/2017/02/02/reconstruction-of-a-...
Debunked how? Got links? I'm curious because I remember quite enjoying that book and he did get a Nobel for that whole area of research whereas we're just random HN commenters.
Debunked might too harsh of a claim, but the book does not make any strong testable predictions so that it can either be validated or debunked. The book certainly is not fraudulent in anyway, but the research is of quite limited value. Claims about prospect theory, priming, endowment effects and happiness heavily center around what is referred to as WEIRD populations (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic), and even more specifically middle class Americans. The work has not found much success generalizing to other cultures or demographics, either geographically or even within ethnic communities within the U.S.
For the most part, the book puts forth some interesting ideas and presents some interesting metaphors and it is certainly more technical than most treatments of this subject, but in terms of actually making concrete statements that can be used to actually understand human psychology, there isn't a whole lot to debunk to begin with.
I suppose its a 6 year old article, but I'm still embarrassed when I have thoughts related to that book.