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

151–160 of 291 posts

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

#151

Post by dragonwriter »

strken wrote: post #46
ShockedUnicorn wrote: post #11

As 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. […

> it's pretty strongly correlated with the much more respectable Big Five personality traits

Well, two of the MBTI types have a strong correlation (defined typically as >0.5, in the MBTI case around 0.7 in both cases, IIRC) with two of the Big 5 traits. But that’s...not so great a reason to lean on MBTI.

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

#152

Post by inDigiNeous »

beaconstudios wrote: post #53
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…

Mindfulness and meditation especially, /are/ supported by scientific findings. I don't know about yoga, but it's basically stretching and that's generally good for you.

Yoga means many things. There are systems that are developed over hundreds, if not thousands of years, which are systematically designed to elevate certain things in the practicioner, it's just not stretching, but can contain many very specific movements and breath techniques that open up certain channels in the body that would be hard to work with otherwise.

Just wanted to clarify that a bit ..

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

#153

Post by beaconstudios »

inDigiNeous wrote: post #152
beaconstudios wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mindfulness and meditation especially, /are/ supported by scientific findings. I don't know about yoga, but it's basically stretching and that's generally good for you.

Yoga means many things. There are systems that are developed over hundreds, if not thousands of years, which are systematically designed to elevate certain things in the practicioner, it's just not stretching, but can contain many very specific movements and breath techniques that open up certain channels in the body that would be hard to work with otherwise. Just wanted to clarify that a bit ..

I was referring to the most common Western-familiar forms of yoga. I'm not sure what "channels" would refer to materially - I'm of the opinion that effective techniques were discovered by trial and error and then religious explanations were applied to them, but there's nothing supernatural going on.

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

#154

Post by Jensson »

beaconstudios wrote: post #148
Jensson wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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

From the wiki article:

> Of more than 3,000 scientific studies that were found in a comprehensive search of 17 relevant databases, only about 4% had randomised controlled trials (RCTs), which are designed to exclude the placebo effect.

So 4% accounted for placebo. How many accounted for the "taking a break is healthy" effect? You need to show that it is different than just taking a break! Any evidence of this?

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

#155

Post by [deleted] »

gherkinnn wrote: post #126

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#156

Post by Sankozi »

maratc wrote: post #67
n8cpdx wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Diabetes is measurable through blood sugar, insulin, a1c, and other direct chemical tests. It is easily treated (to maintain blood sugar, not cure, unfortunately) through direct chemical application (insulin). Depression can’t easily be measured by any chemical test, existing chemical treatments aren’t effective, and CBT (talking to someone) is similarly effective to chemicals. The chemicals we do have don’t just tre…

> Tldr: “depression is just a chemical imbalance” is basically a meme The alternative depression meme is "it's all in your head", which is about as useful as telling a diabetes patient "it's all in your pancreas". I still struggle to understand which of the two memes is closer to truth.

There is a stigma with having "head problems". I think it is more useful to fight with that stigma than to ignore existence of problems like depression or psychosomatic disorders.

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

#157

Post by aidenn0 »

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…

From TFA:

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

Which sounds about right to me (though I find the last sentence to be a bit overly dismissive).

On top of that, TFA has many good points about the damage that can be done when this system is imposed from above and used to explain away problems. Imagine if there was a shitshow at work, and the post-mortem determined that it was because the tech lead was a Capriocorn and the engineering lead was an Aries.

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

#158

Post by jiggunjer »

wombatmobile wrote: post #96

Ways 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?

I've never cared for those theoretical models, I prefer using empirical models when it comes to humans.

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

#159

Post by moss2 »

INTPenis wrote: post #146

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…

Thank you, INTPenis, for your insight.

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

#160

Post by vinceguidry »

GuB-42 wrote: post #85
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…

If you "only listen to science", you don't understand science. Science actually has a narrow focus. It only deals with things that are observable, reproducible, predictable and falsifiable. Since Gödel, science even proved itself as incomplete. The best doctors will always say that if something makes you feel better, by all means do it, even if it is not backed by science. It is not the same as going against science.…

I liked this a lot, but wanted to make a correction.

> Since Gödel, science even proved itself as incomplete. The best doctors will always say that if something makes you feel better, by all means do it, even if it is not backed by science.

Gödel proved mathematics to be inconsistent. This has much greater implications than just proving scientific inquiry to be insufficient. Science relies on the senses for its reliability and is grounded in the physical world. Mathematics has no such bounds.

Given a "complete" formal (scientific!) understanding of the physical world, we still wouldn't know everything, there will always be systems that intersect with it that inform our world, but can't be understood using our rules. No matter how many formal systems we define to wrap our collective brain around the world, there will always be more things to understand.

That's the significance of Gödel.

Post reply on HN