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

211–220 of 291 posts

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

#211

Post by drallison »

This article is a hatchet job by a self-declared "skeptic" intended to convince the reader that a popular Swedish book about personality types, Surrounded by Idiots, is without scientific basis or value. The language of the article, independent of the content, conveys the negative message.

These days we are immersed is a sea of falsehoods and half-truths. Storytelling and lyrical metaphoric depictions of reality have been replaced by downright lies and malicious intent. Opinion articles which violate rhetorical rules and utilize deceptive and fallacious argumentation are not a good resource to mine for facts.

We are "Surrounded by Idiots", individuals whose weltanshanguung embraces fantastical concepts supported by pseudoscientific argumentation and assertions without evidence. Much of the richness of human culture is captured by wrong ideas and conceptions. Consider creation myths, fables with morals, religions, moral systems, astrology, political systems, cold fusion, Meyers-Briggs personality tests, and so forth. Finding a balance between the factual, the fictional and the speculative is difficult.

Words, facts, and expression do matter. The title, for example, states that Swedes were "fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time" is wrong. There is no evidence that people were "fooled", the book and theory are not a "bluff", and there is no partial ordering of bluffs so "biggest" is hard to identify.

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

#212

Post by MauranKilom »

peakaboo wrote: post #197
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…

People have different personality types and they can be grouped into categories just like anything else. I think this guy used some science to back his book up, but the book doesn't even need that. The point is, people are different, and it's an important life skill to realize this because you accept people who are different from you much easier.

That is also my takeaway from the book - people work differently, and being aware of that can make you more effective at communication.

I didn't even manage to take the book very seriously because it was so overly... arrogant in its presentation. "If you do X, you're red. Red people do Y, Z, U, V. Remember the times someone did W? Red person." Every statement presented as unquestionable fact, but none of them sourced (but anecdotes abound).

It's unfortunate that people (all of Sweden, apparently?) seem to have gotten carried away and based lives and decisions around what is evidently just the author's musings.

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

#213

Post by Zigurd »

Angostura wrote: post #63
teekert wrote: post #7

I went through the Insights Discovery course [0], which sounds a lot like what tfa is discrediting. At work we still talk about the colors of people years after the course. After reading tfa I still feel that there is value in this system, but mostly wrt awareness. The course recognizes a spectrum and everyone has aspects of all colors. Many people at my employer are primarily green or blue. During the courses it cam…

> I still feel that there is value in this system, but mostly wrt awareness. And that's fine - but you might as well use astrology.

> you might as well use astrology.

Not only are these "tests" tantamount to astrology, the amount of bunk that goes into momentous decisions is underestimated. Ronald Reagan is reported to have consulted an astrologer about nearly every decision. That's dangerous. Accepting bunk is dangerous to your business.

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

#214

Post by musesum »

On a program called 20/20, John Stossel punked Astrology. He asked adult night school students to provide their birthday, gave them an astrology chart, and asked them how relevant it was. Many said the description was uncanny in its accuracy. Except it wasn't their chart ... it was for Jeffrey Dahmer.

I couldn't find the episode to cite. Maybe some of the students were upset?

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

#215

Post by NicoJuicy »

coliveira wrote: post #195
NicoJuicy wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So i suppose there is "science" against it? I don't know the science surrounding it. But i took a test through work once and most seems to be correct. I don't think it would be "popular" in businesses if nothing would be correct. That's exactly what suprised me the first time, so I'm hesitant to call it bs. If there is another correlation it could be that the test was pretty positive for me. Perhaps it was the contra…

Perhaps you should consider the main idea in the article: pseudo-psychology operates stating the obvious with different words, to make it sound important. The tests that you took are tautologically true, because they ask questions about you and then give one or more names to that set of responses (blue, sanguineous, etc). Moreover, you rarely get a clear answer, and the creators of these test know that is very diffic…

> Moreover, you rarely get a clear answer

Weirdly enough, i actually got more than I bargained for.

So whatever the pseudoscience is. It was applicable and useful to me.

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

#216

Post by teekert »

xwolfi wrote: post #206
teekert wrote: post #7

I went through the Insights Discovery course [0], which sounds a lot like what tfa is discrediting. At work we still talk about the colors of people years after the course. After reading tfa I still feel that there is value in this system, but mostly wrt awareness. The course recognizes a spectrum and everyone has aspects of all colors. Many people at my employer are primarily green or blue. During the courses it cam…

> Many people at my employer are primarily green or blue. They are not. They are like everyone, impatient and loving, violent and helpful, worried and self-assured. The article is very clear that what seems to matter is CONTEXT and we all can understand it. I'll explain patiently to my kid something I'd literally tear a new one for a senior colleague. So no your colleagues don't have personality colors, but the organ…

I get where you’re coming from, sure you can’t project a human character onto 2 axes. But still this is all “to a degree”. I’ll never see my sweet silent coworker literally tear someone a new one in any context. Moreover, aren’t you just admitting that the colors are useful when remaining in a certain context? Sure, don’t take them home or to the gym but otherwise…

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

#217

Post by mannanj »

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…

> 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 behavioral insight.

Attach the label "antivax" or "conspiracist" to anyone and see what goes on in your mind.

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

#218

Post by zepto »

golemotron wrote: post #124
dathinab wrote: post #87

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. I doubt it, any benefit (if there are any) will be FAR outweighed by the negative effects. It makes it way too easy to use the category as a excuse for bad behaviour. It makes it way too easy for someo…

This critique also applies to intersectionality.

I think this is valid. Intersectionality may make sense as a legal theory for scrutinizing patterns of discrimination in industrial relations. This is where it originated.

However, it tends to be used as a theory of personality too, despite there being no science whatsoever to support it.

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

#219

Post by WesolyKubeczek »

zibzab wrote: post #8

The book maybe is garbage, but it makes people think about others feelings and goals in meetings. This is already much more than an average person does walking into a social situation.

So do any other attempts to label and "systemize" people. Talk about Hogwarts Houses, or astrology. But we know the latter two are fiction, right? Right?

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

#220

Post by halpert »

goto11 wrote: post #199
halpert wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You should look into the concept of "burden of proof". If someone claims a model is based on scientific evidence, then obviously it is the claimant who has to provide this alleged scientific evidence. You can't prove a negative, so it does not make sense to require others to prove this alleged evidence does not exist.

Again, I haven’t read the book or know anything about the author. All I know is that this article is asserting the author of the book is a fraud. That is a positive statement, and insufficient evidence has been provided from my reading.
Post reply on HN