Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 340 posts

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#181

Post by blablabla123 »

fastball wrote: post #67

I have a problem with the article author's implication that someone without credentials (read: university degree) isn't a scientist, or at least is a lesser scientist. A scientist is someone who employs the scientific method. That's it. Thomas Erikson does not seem to qualify from what I can tell (he's just winging it), but he absolutely does not need to have a doctorate (or even a bachelors) in order to be a "behavi…

Part of the scientific method is to perform studies. The studies must be self-contained, based on facts, traceable and get published. In many disciplines because of complexity this requires people to include data into the argument. (Psychology is one of these disciplines) Bonus points for peer-review, Science is a team discipline after all, even if done outside of Academia.

According to the article almost none of the points hold true:

- "no scientific articles have been published about the test."

Apparently the book did not contain measurements of data or data based on that, so it wasn't written according to the scientific method. Not even close...

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#183

Post by A_Parr »

ncmncm wrote: post #170
_pzof wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an American who does not “believe” in Myers-Briggs types and I know plenty more of the same.

There is nothing to "believe". If it is useful in expanding your comfort zone, it's useful, full stop. If it's useful in helping to get along with people who are different from you, it's useful, full stop. If it's not useful to you, that does not mean it is not useful to anybody else.

You can say that about punching people in the face, too.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#184

Post by DavidSumpter »

fastball wrote: post #67

I have a problem with the article author's implication that someone without credentials (read: university degree) isn't a scientist, or at least is a lesser scientist. A scientist is someone who employs the scientific method. That's it. Thomas Erikson does not seem to qualify from what I can tell (he's just winging it), but he absolutely does not need to have a doctorate (or even a bachelors) in order to be a "behavi…

I am the professor who translated the article from Swedish. I agree that anyone can be a scientist. But, as you Erikson neither has qualifications, nor does he show understanding and nor does he use the scientific method. So very poor all round.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#185

Post by ncmncm »

dang wrote: post #141
bjourne wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let me ask you something: Is unconscious bias training the worst example of bullshit you have experienced in your professional life or the thing that has aggravated you the most? Does that tell you anything about your unconscious biases? The point of the training is for companies to absolve themselves of culpability. If you act like a jerk after unconscious bias training you are on your own and the company hopes that…

Please don't get personal about this. It only provokes others into doing worse, as happened downthread. Your comment would be just fine with just the second paragraph. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

The second paragraph is the useful part of the comment. You seem to be reacting to the presence of the word "jerk", entirely ignoring the context.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#187

Post by atheistnsingle »

oefrha wrote: post #56
achow wrote: post #2

Couldn't help but check that it is rated 4.6/5 (113 reviews) in Amazon. https://www.amazon.com/Surrounded-Idiots-Behavior-Effectivel... Excerpt from one of the top review.. The book really helps you to understand why 'blues' ask 100 questions, want to problem solve all the time, always ask for more information, and can be cold and distant instead of being emotional creatures. Yellows on the other hand are always day…

Hah, this reminds me of zodiac signs, which every single non-scientist female friend of mine seems to take very seriously (not sure about male friends since this topic seems to never come up). No wonder it sells.

I have no idea how many of my male friends are into this but as a man I check "don't believe in astrology" or similar in Ok Cupid as a search filter and 4 people out of how ever many thousands of people should be out there appear. It's super depressing.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#188

Post by atheistnsingle »

ncmncm wrote: post #170
_pzof wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am an American who does not “believe” in Myers-Briggs types and I know plenty more of the same.

There is nothing to "believe". If it is useful in expanding your comfort zone, it's useful, full stop. If it's useful in helping to get along with people who are different from you, it's useful, full stop. If it's not useful to you, that does not mean it is not useful to anybody else.

It makes up distinctions that don't actually exist. The questions and be answered differently depending mood at the moment and/or interpretation. It's complete and utter bunk!

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#189

Post by watwut »

wayoutthere wrote: post #15
dgellow wrote: post #9

> · Red: dominant, driven, solution focussed. > · Blue: analytic, careful, meticulous > · Green: patient, considerate, nice > · Yellow: extroverted, creative, verbal Damn. I spent so much of my time and energy pushing back exactly on this bullshit when I was young. That's part of the curriculum of mandatory courses I had to take during an apprenticeship in Switzerland. Expensive and mandatory courses paid by students…

I think a big part of it is that corporate HR types are trying to turn people into interchangeable cogs in the machine. But this ignores the richness of our experience -- even if the color model were both static and true, I'm willing to guess that the expression of those characteristics would vary widely from person to person. Better to just get to know people individually and talk to them about their desires, capabi…

> Better to just get to know people individually and talk to them about their desires, capabilities and needs.

That does not scale. You cant do that reasonably with nuance with too many people.

Moreover, someone who is on completely different position will never understand fully what programmer will talk about when talking about desires, capabilities and needs. This sort of thing needs to be discussed with more technical leader/manager. And vice versa, programmers have no idea about what hr people actually need.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#190

Post by ncmncm »

bjourne wrote: post #154
growlist wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn't act like a jerk before the training, never mind after :) I had training called 'cultural awareness' or similar at another company which was basically very similar material, but without the bogus claims that it was rooted in science. It's the latter that I object to - if they are going to enforce behavioural standards just be honest about it, rather than gaslighting people with this arrant nonsense that we're…

The bullshit I've had to endure during my career includes "You're one of our best paid engineers, so don't share salary information with your colleagues.", "NDA means you can not take a job at a competing company for six months after your resignation." and "It is important that your back is towards me (the manager) so that I can see your monitor and ensure that you are working at all times." My point is that even if…

What you describe is not bullshit, it's just straight up dishonesty and bullying.

Bullshit is distinguished by the speaker not even caring if it's true. Usually it is meant to distract you from what you are not supposed to notice.

Post reply on HN