Live data from Hacker News

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

medium.com

141–150 of 340 posts

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

#141
post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this trainin…

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

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

#142
post #8

Is it not the same for the current wave of anti-bias/discrimination/racism training? There is zero evidence that it has any effect. What few brave researchers have risked their careers exploring the effectiveness of the training have found that it does basically nothing. None of that stops companies from paying millions for it and good luck to the employee or executive that even dares suggest that perhaps there's bet…

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this trainin…

If it were truly scientific we could test out and get certified, then we would only have to attend refresher courses.

I'm serious when I say this is one of the best things about being a contractor or consultant. I can just sign a paper saying that I'm responsible for my behavior.

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

#143
post #47

I skimmed the entire article and am still confused about how this guy managed to persuade the media and “large parts of the Swedish population” that he’s a behavioral scientist. I mean, especially for laypeople, the first question you should ask when someone claims to be an expert in a certain science is “does s/he have a Ph.D.?”. This guy did not disclose his academic background, which no Ph.D. holder would ever hid…

The PhD is a fraternity.

I think the only thing a PhD makes you an expert in is "PhD-ing".

Don't get me wrong. I think having a PhD is a signal that you are very intelligent, I respect, work with and love people with PhDs (I disrespect the system). But if you believe this:

> Meanwhile, the percentage of frauds among self-proclaimed non-Ph.D. experts is likely close to 100%

then I would say the percentage of frauds among PhD experts is 99%. No one knows anything. Perhaps non-PhDs are better than PhDs at remembering that. PhD's don't tell you how expert someone is at something. Unless the task at hand is making PDFs. People with PhDs are all great at that.

If you look at the track record of "Psychology PhDs" in the past 100 years, I wouldn't be surprised if this fellow has done better work than more than half of them. Purely by chance, knowing nothing about his book.

I trust experience and open data more than academic credentials.

I would not be surprised if in 50 years we have a much more scientific method of doing science than the current PhD system.

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

#144
post #8

Is it not the same for the current wave of anti-bias/discrimination/racism training? There is zero evidence that it has any effect. What few brave researchers have risked their careers exploring the effectiveness of the training have found that it does basically nothing. None of that stops companies from paying millions for it and good luck to the employee or executive that even dares suggest that perhaps there's bet…

No. Horoscopes are not real, while various biases are. Please stay out of the teaching profession!

Personal attacks will get you banned here. Please review https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and stick to the rules when commenting.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#145
Not to be the devils advocate here, but does the fact that there isnt any scientific proof proof it doesnt work? Not everything has to be tested and verified in a lab, right?

Perhaps I am justifying myself though: I've had the DiSC traing THREE times now. Is it all just a lie? I was kinda hoping this article would show actual proof it doesnt work.

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

#146
post #42

> Unfortunately, the theory behind this book, and the various follow-ups, is no more than pseudoscientific nonsense. And Erikson appears to lack even basic knowledge of psychology or behavioural science. This seems to happen often. Are there any non-pseudoscientific psychology theories? AFAIK only IQ and (possibly) the "Big Five" personality traits. Short list of (likely) "failed" (pop-)psychological theories: - ster…

The fact that many theories are disproven is not evidence of pseudoscience. Popper suggested exactly the opposite: pseudoscience is when you cannot disprove theories.

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

#147
post #17

That seems like an exaggregation. Certainly there must be larger "scientific bluffs"? Examples of articles in peer reviewed journals, relying on manipulated data or something.

True, climate change denialism is certainly a bigger deal, but it's not simply a case of a single guy making stuff up to make money.

True, that's instead a case of many guys making stuff up to make money.

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

#148
post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this trainin…

I think the right way to think about this is that psychology has the imprimatur of legitimate science (and some pscyhological research is indeed legitimate), but a lot of it is more about having an idea you like, conducting a few inadequate studies, and publishing them in a domain journal with little critical review and no reproduction. Then, the folks who teach these courses see these papers (presumably in their und…

> I think in general most people in society don't really have the ability to differentiate bullshit science from real science.

I would say in many ways they can't, at least not without significant time investment every time they need to make that assessment, which is often.

A domain expert is likely able to identify the smell of bullshit in their field extremely quickly. An expert in an adjacent domain will be able to apply some of their expertise, but not all, and sniff out some problems, but other might elude them. That is, a physicist might be able to note some likely problematic parts of statements to do with biology based somewhat on the science, somewhat on the shared methodology, and somewhat on the shared politics they might experience.

A layperson may have very little experience to draw upon for some scientific statement, and even when they have experience with the underlying principles (a general interest in the area, experience in college), that may not be enough to identify problem areas. That's not a problem we can expect the layperson to be responsible for correcting (at least not beyond a healthy skepticism), unless we expect them all to increase their knowledge in every domain that they might make an assessment about (this happens, but it happens at a societal level, and over the span of many years).

Psychology seems to share relatively little with most hard sciences, so it's particularly hard for both laypeople and scientists in other fields to assess without effort (as evidenced here though the multiple stories of people that put in that actual effort).

I'm not sure we'll see improvement on this issue until we have better norms about communicating results. There's a natural inflation that happens when different parties take a finding and explain it, and possibly over-emphasize portions of it. That this happens twice now, once with the PR department associated with the group doing the study and once by the media that goes by what the PR department say, means that the average person gets a very distorted view of what's actually going on.

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

#149
post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AKA confirmation bias: https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-a-confirmation-bias-279... Fascinating how it's the same thing "mediums" use to say there's some person speaking to them from beyond the grave, with a message for someone whose name begin with M...

This is also very similar to the horoscope.

I believe that's the Barnum effect.

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

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

#150
post #47

I skimmed the entire article and am still confused about how this guy managed to persuade the media and “large parts of the Swedish population” that he’s a behavioral scientist. I mean, especially for laypeople, the first question you should ask when someone claims to be an expert in a certain science is “does s/he have a Ph.D.?”. This guy did not disclose his academic background, which no Ph.D. holder would ever hid…

I find it hard to believe that you are surprised. I find myself awash in woo psychology from all media outlets and individuals I talk to. If what you are selling is what people want to hear, then they are more than happy to not bother to look at it any closer.

The thing people really want to hear is that they are not responsible for the consequences of their actions. This is what "personality" tests do. They say that it's not our fault if we behave in a clearly destructive manner because it's our inherent personality and we are powerless to change it. This is clearly nonsense, but the absolution of guilt and pressure to admit our mistakes is so desired that gullible folks are happy to swallow it without a second thought.

Post reply on HN