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

Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

soccermatics.medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 291 posts

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#141

Post by Dumblydorr »

alkonaut wrote: post #41

The 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…

Slow down, I don't think "all of those" yoga and mindfulness books claim to be "solid science" and I doubt they're all "not very scientific". You just took hundreds of books, assumed they all claim to be scientific, and attacked them for not being solid. This broad brush painting of two healthy habits' texts is pretty damn lazy writing, friend.

Obviously, yoga is a movement practice and thus, one could write a very practical book about the muscles, ligaments, and tendons, how to foam roll and massage to enhance yoga, how yoga has scientifically proven health benefits, etc.

Similarly for mindfulness, you look at Joseph Goldstein's book Insight Meditation, and it's mostly a combination of stories from his life as a Buddhist in Asia, alongside his learnings from Buddhist teachings. Nowhere does he claim it's scientific nor does he attempt to use pseudoscience. He stays in his lane and the book is a great one.

So, friend, I'd say don't besmirch two very ancient and healthy habits which have aided millions of people, especially when you give zero pieces of evidence while seemingly not actually knowing those fields.

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#142

Post by jiggunjer »

ModernMech wrote: post #54
hermannj314 wrote: post #29

I 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…

I used to be the way you describe, and I found it left me without any convictions. I used to think that was okay, because I reasoned with myself that convictions are irrational if not backed by data. Then I got older and realized how easy it is to frame and manipulate data and “facts” to achieve any desired result on the part of the person disseminating the facts. I realized that having some base convictions was a wa…

I'd say your own observations constitute valid (albeit suboptimal) data, to which you apply the scientific method. Peer review isn't part of that method, it's just a useful mistake/fraud filter.

I don't need a textbook to tell me objects fall downwards, I've been collecting that data since I was born.

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#144

Post by nabla9 »

hereme888 wrote: post #129

One thing we do know from the longest running human studies in history, is that, over a lifetime, people's personalities change so much that in their old age they are oftentimes nothing like what they were when they were younger.

Some personality traits change, some are stable.

Typically selfconfidence, warmth, self-control, and emotional stability increases with age.

Generally personality changes fast up to 30 year of age and then change slows down. Conscientiousness often increases whole lifetime. Extroversion seems to be relatively stable.

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#145

Post by Jensson »

beaconstudios wrote: post #106
nemo44x wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So is taking a short nap in the afternoon. Pretty much these are all the same things. Some just get branded and packaged as a thing for consumers to make into a “lifestyle”.

They're not the same things, in the same way that healthy eating and exercise aren't - they're both systemically beneficial. Sleep and meditation are different and serve different purposes, and stretching is closer to exercise than anything else. They do get packaged into a lifestyle, but they also predate consumerism by thousands of years.

> They're not the same things

Evidence for this? Taking a break and relaxing your mind is beneficial, not sure why one form wouldn't substitute for another form.

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#146

Post by INTPenis »

In their hunt for simple answers to complex questions people often forget that they are far too complex to be defined by 16 types of 4 colours.

That said though, MBTI did help me figure out a lot about myself. Discovering MBTI back in 2009 was definitely life changing for me and I've kept it in the back of my head since then, mostly to improve myself and rarely applied to others.

I've been in one amazing relationship with an MBTI type that is supposed to match with mine, and one awful relationship with a type that does not match with mine.

So it's not supposed to be followed blindly but it can help you out in life.

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#147

Post by hutzlibu »

Terretta wrote: post #133
alkonaut wrote: post #41

The 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 d…

”In other words, Erikson’s book might help someone with the empathetic and intellectual level of a five-year-old.”

Yes, that was a very nice worded academic insult. Which makes the later sentence a bit hypocrite:

"When faced with challenges to his work, Erikson claims that we are attempting to make out that his readers are idiots. Nothing could be further from the truth"

Of course a psychologist is not using the loaded word "idiot" anymore. They still scientifically describe it and use more nuances. And in this case explains, how the poor readers were fooled by the big publisher. Ah those poor idio.. I mean, structurally mentally challenged persons.

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#148

Post by beaconstudios »

Jensson wrote: post #145
beaconstudios wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not the same things, in the same way that healthy eating and exercise aren't - they're both systemically beneficial. Sleep and meditation are different and serve different purposes, and stretching is closer to exercise than anything else. They do get packaged into a lifestyle, but they also predate consumerism by thousands of years.

> They're not the same things Evidence for this? Taking a break and relaxing your mind is beneficial, not sure why one form wouldn't substitute for another form.

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

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#149

Post by NikolaNovak »

alkonaut wrote: post #41

The 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…

I have a friend who's tremendously into astrology. After years of arguments etc I had a moment of enlightment when I realized she practically uses it more as descriptive model rather than predictive source of truth. I. E. She used classifications for personal shorthand on how she thinks about people. From that perspective, there's a sense where a summarizing framework is beneficial.

Almost every high level executive I met that's actually genuinely good with people, subscribes strongly and uses a personality model - whether it's the Disc model or four quadrants or whatever. The fact it has no scientific backing has no bearing in them "knowing its true" , but it also doesn't limit it being a useful if self fulfilling framework. And though we can accurately argue that system is stacked in what it rewards, these are leaders who genuinely do care and do well by their team. More than anything, it makes me introspect what does it mean for a model to "work", because I deeply believe that these models are pseudo scientific garbage, overly simplifying and random bs's confirmation of existing bias... But I've also had tons of personal anecdotal evidence they "work" or "help" - again, not just in self fulfilling or pegging into square hole way.

Re: Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020)

#150

Post by roywiggins »

maratc wrote: post #83
learc83 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don’t understand the biological processes behind depression, and there is no lab test used to diagnose depression. It is just as the passage says, a categorization of symptoms. That doesn’t mean there aren’t biological processes at work, but we don’t understand them enough to diagnose depression at that level. We aren’t even really sure why most depression treatments work. Contrast that to diabetes. You don’t get…

> We aren’t even really sure why most depression treatments work. SSRIs and SNRIs and many others all seem to have a theory behind them, based on biology.

The theory is "more serotonin and then something something less depression." SSRIs definitely increase the amount of serotonin in the brain. Why and how and if that's what helps is a mystery.

> Why boosting brain communication can help alleviate symptoms of depression, however, is unclear, she says.

> “We know to some extent what [these drugs are] doing, but we don’t necessarily know why this works for depression or anxiety,” says Edwards.

> Antidepressants quickly increase concentrations of these neurotransmitters shortly after someone starts taking the medication, says Christin Drake, a clinical psychiatrist at NYU Langone Health. But patients generally don’t start to feel the benefits for several weeks. The reason for this lag time, and what’s happening during this gap, is not clear.

https://www.discovermagazine.com/health/how-antidepressants-...

Part of the reason you can tell that we don't really know very much at all about the mechanism of action is that individual patients often have to take a little grand tour of the available medications before they find one that even works on them. Why does this SSRI work for Patient Bob and that SNRI doesn't? Nobody really knows, it's just informed guesswork.

Post reply on HN