I knew this guy was a hot load the second my boss at my first help desk job insisted that we take this test and "learn" from it.
Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
131–140 of 291 posts
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#132I struggle often with this somewhat arbitrary desire for everything to be data-driven and backed by science. People hope, pray, follow best practices, listen to advice on the internet and yet, every now and then we are reminded that only fools do these things. Really intelligent people only listen to science and do things backed by science and lots of data. How does anyone accomplish anything if every step they take…
My pet peeve is that in this worshipping of science (count me guilty) it’s often forgotten that it is ultimately an attempt to model a system from within itself, and thus will never model it fully and prove that it is correct or even validate the very fundamental assumptions (STEM-inspired material monism, some mainstream flavor of dualism, or a riff on transcendental idealism—note how this stuff technically would ha…
I disagree that those assumptions are core to science. Really, science makes relatively weak assumptions, largely around induction and its existence.
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#133The interesting question here perhaps isn’t so much whether knowing if you are a particular color or 4-letter Myers-Briggs combination helps you or whether there is a solid foundation to the categorization at all. What’s interesting here is rather: what happens when you think of everyone as a pigeonholed category. Intuitively it seems it should be mostly negative especially if the categories don’t even offer any beha…
> But *something* tells me that there could also be some positive effects from actually wondering about the behavior of others and how you treat them, even if it’s pigeonholing and preconceptions based on bogus research.
The article. The article told you that:
“Maybe the only positive thing that can be said about Erikson’s theory is that it might help some people realise that not everyone thinks the same way they do. Psychologists call this “theory of mind”, an ability to change perspective, which usually develops in early childhood.”
But then it continues with this glorious TL;DR:
”In other words, Erikson’s book might help someone with the empathetic and intellectual level of a five-year-old.”
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#134Earlier quoted context omitted.
Arbitrarily dividing people into groups with defined roles is the basis of the "Noble Lie" in Plato's Republic. In that, people are defined as having souls made of gold, silver or iron/bronze. The idea of giving people a role that they can focus on, from an early age, has some advantages. Of course pigeonholing people has a wide range of disadvantages; everything is a trade-off. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%…
Interesting that Popper denounce Plato's political theory as totalitarian. But if you look at it, that's basically how we divide society and government. We cherish technocrats and "philosopher-king" to rule us in the Supreme Court and high ranking agencies and military. In turn they're not expected to have relevant property to avoid temptation. Truth is people like being ruled and being told where they fit, if this l…
I think people like having a world that they can make sense of, and organizational schema help do that. I don’t think it needs to be hierarchical (ruled/ruler) in order to get 100% of the benefit of a world that is somewhat distilled, even imperfectly, from a complete mess of unstructured interactions.
Society will reach its peak when we fully adopt a graph-like conception of people’s roles, ideally with a high degree of mobility between the nodes. You can know where you fit without being told where you fit. Right now we’re in the uncanny valley of not wanting to tell anyone, but also acting like there’s nothing to be known.
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#135> Red: dominant, driven, solution focused -> Powerpoint > Blue: analytic, careful, meticulous -> Word > Green: patient, considerate, nice -> Excel > Yellow: extroverted, creative, verbal -> Outlook Interestingly enough, these colours map quite well to the Office suite of old.
> Red: dominant, driven, solution focused -> Outlook, for the email-heavy executives.
> Blue: analytic, careful, meticulous -> Excel, for the quants
> Green: patient, considerate, nice -> Word, for those who like to cozy up with a book or write a short story
> Yellow: extroverted, creative, verbal -> PowerPoint, for those who want to make a Ted talk
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#136Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe you should extend your concern about those 90% books. IMO, they're just as problematic. They're simply less successful so we pay less attention to them individually, but IMO the trend of having 90% of books sold being total BS dressing as science or personal development is a serious concern.
Just curious - do you also think 90% of people are a serious concern?
Not sure what you mean. Do you ask if I care about them in a general sense (if so, yes) or if I think they're "a problem" (if so, no) ?
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#137I have yet to read the whole article, but I got too excited when I got to these parts[0] and had to write a quick comment first. This concept as described reminded me immediately of a book I read as a teenager, called Divided Kingdom by Rupert Thomson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_Kingdom It is about the country being broken up into four sectors based on the four humors: red, green, yellow, and blue. Scannin…
> clients were considering leaving their partners because, “I can’t possibly live with a yellow person”...';
I remember hearing similar comments from Japanese friends once they learned their boyfriend/girlfriend's blood group. (Personality tests based on blood groups are huge there).
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#138As a swede. This is the first time I've seen this 4 colour system. I'm 30, so maybe it's more popular around younger people? I have seen things like "INTP-J" on friends profile. I think it's called 16 personalities. Me and my colleagues did that test, and the suggested one for me did not fit in with me at all, and most of us thought the results were bullshit. Why anyone would follow this to make work groups, or to ex…
The INTP thing is MBTI type, and although it's widely derided, it's pretty strongly correlated with the much more respectable Big Five personality traits[0]. It's not 100% bullshit, since knowing it tells you a little bit about how someone will act. I do agree that cutting someone out of your life solely due to a personality test is putting the cart before the horse, regardless of how scientifically rigorous it is. […
Nope, still bullshit. It's not science to make up a bunch of stuff and look for confirmation after. (Hence there are no "in defense of" articles.)
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#139Ways to categorize other people's personalities, such as Myers-Briggs, Swedish Colors, The Zodiac, McCarthyism, devils advocacy, racial profiling, Stockholm Syndrome, and hero worship have always been popular. Why? Because people need ways to feel like they understand and can predict other people's behavior. Why? I don't know. It's just something I've observed. Would you agree, and if so, why do you think that is?
>Why? Because people need ways to feel like they understand and can predict other people's behavior.
> Would you agree
Yes
> if so, why do you think that is?
Because society. Literally. You need to "predict" behaviors around you, it's only natural, every animal checks for threats. The moment you live in a society, you have to live with lots of other humans, so you inevitably develop lots of heuristics to deal with them.
From a stranger passing on a street, to your coworker.
Predicting behavior is the basis of society, it's the reason traffic rules sort of work, why we can even have such a thing as laws.
Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)
#140Also: any “love languages” and Enneagram numbers.
It’s really astounding how much these frauds impact relationships and organizations.