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

181–190 of 291 posts

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

#181

Post by halpert »

helsinkiandrew wrote: post #34
halpert wrote: post #20

I read some of this article. I have never heard about the color system in question. If it’s really a fraudulent system, it should be easy to say “The system claims thing X, here is evidence X is false.” Instead, this article is filled with anecdotes and what seems like random conjecture on what personality “really” is. This is not a convincing argument.

Surely if a book claims people can be split into 4 colour types it should be the book that should provide the proof?

This article is claiming the author is a fraud. They should provide proof of that claim, just as the author should provide proof of his claims. I didn’t read the book, but I did read this article and the evidence of fraud is lacking.

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

#183

Post by blue1 »

hutzlibu wrote: post #166
NikolaNovak wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"She used classifications for personal shorthand on how she thinks about people." I do not know how your friend did it exactly, but my main experience with people who are into astrology is different - they get told by the astrological models/dogma on how to think of people and combination of people. "I cannot be with this person, he is a lion and I am [whatever]" "Why are you together, your signs do not match each ot…

Years ago I studied astrology quite a lot. I've never been too interested in the divinatory side, and the pop-level generalizations such as those you cited are not even worth commenting.

Instead I, like the OP's friend, think it's a rather interesting and deep system of symbols and archetypes. A set of lenses, if you want. Sometimes, looking at the reality through a certain lens yields interesting insights.

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

#184

Post by Jensson »

beaconstudios wrote: post #175
Jensson wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 4% of 3000 is 120 - that's a lot of studies. Accounting for placebo is the minimum you should do, that doesn't mean that the rest of the study is well done. > You're the one claiming they're the same - where's your evidence that napping causes the effects identified as caused by meditation? You are the one coming with the extraordinary claim, that meditation does something fundamentally different. > meditation is n…

> You are the one coming with the extraordinary claim, that meditation does something fundamentally different. From your perspective, given you seem convinced that meditation is the same as a nap, sure. That itself seems to me like an absurd proposition. At the end of the day, if you want to think that then that's fine. I think it's silly, like claiming that weightlifting and stretching are the same - and I doubt the…

> From your perspective, given you seem convinced that meditation is the same as a nap, sure. That itself seems to me like an absurd proposition.

Occam's razor. If people benefit from sitting and thinking about just one thing then the simplest explanation is that the benefit is that they aren't stressing around about their normal life. If there is some special effect above that then it would need strong evidence comparing it to just sitting down and not stressing about things.

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

#185

Post by AtNightWeCode »

neltnerb wrote: post #163
Terretta wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

I think another rather critical point that is buried in the article is that Erikson *lied that the person writing the article* endorsed them as a behavioral scientist! That makes everything else all the more poignant; Erikson apparently saw the author of the article as their *strongest likely supporter* which says so, so much about their degree of self delusion. The person that says Erikson is totally wrong and causi…

The way it works in parts of Europe and probably other countries is that there are some titles that are protected, and others are not. Anybody can call themself behavioral scientist. Psychologist would be the protected title in this case I believe.

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

#186

Post by pas »

vinceguidry wrote: post #160
GuB-42 wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 relia…

Nah, he did not.

He proved that "it" cannot prove its own consistency. (Where it can express Peano arithmetic.)

But "it" is not the whole of mathematics. There are "weak" systems that can prove their own consistency. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-verifying_theories )

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

#187

Post by NikolaNovak »

hutzlibu wrote: post #166
NikolaNovak wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"She used classifications for personal shorthand on how she thinks about people." I do not know how your friend did it exactly, but my main experience with people who are into astrology is different - they get told by the astrological models/dogma on how to think of people and combination of people. "I cannot be with this person, he is a lion and I am [whatever]" "Why are you together, your signs do not match each ot…

Oh I agree, that's been vast majority of my experience too. That's why I was surprised when I paid attention and realized my friend would meet somebody and observe and classify them as a "taurus with a bit of gemini" (or whatever) regardless if what their actual birth sign is. It transformed it into a observational classification system! To her, calling somebody Capricorn is like somebody else observing "this person looks like INTJ" or "Intuitive on disc model" or whatever. It was fascinating :)

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

#188

Post by hutzlibu »

blue1 wrote: post #183
hutzlibu wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"She used classifications for personal shorthand on how she thinks about people." I do not know how your friend did it exactly, but my main experience with people who are into astrology is different - they get told by the astrological models/dogma on how to think of people and combination of people. "I cannot be with this person, he is a lion and I am [whatever]" "Why are you together, your signs do not match each ot…

Years ago I studied astrology quite a lot. I've never been too interested in the divinatory side, and the pop-level generalizations such as those you cited are not even worth commenting. Instead I, like the OP's friend, think it's a rather interesting and deep system of symbols and archetypes. A set of lenses, if you want. Sometimes, looking at the reality through a certain lens yields interesting insights.

"Sometimes, looking at the reality through a certain lens yields interesting insights. "

I surely agree to that.

But your lenses can also give you a distorted, faulty view of reality. And many people go with that, because it looks nicer.

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

#189

Post by pessimizer »

Retric wrote: post #114
retrac wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You say "under 8% of the population" having a copy of the book as if that doesn't make it almost as popular as the Bible.

There’s been roughly 1 copy of the Bible printed per person alive on the earth. Not all of them are still around, but it’s likely there is still at least 1 copy per 2 people.

A better comparison would be against Bible sales during 2017-2018.

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

#190

Post by watwut »

cjalmeida wrote: post #115
HPsquared wrote: post #76

Earlier 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…

For all flaws of current democracy, it is not nearly totalitarian. Just because two things vaguely reassemble when you abstract enough does not make them the same.
Post reply on HN