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

231–240 of 291 posts

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

#231

Post by nradov »

delecti wrote: post #57
nradov wrote: post #10

And yet we still see fools in the US who actually believe that Myers-Briggs personality types like "INTJ" are somehow meaningful. It's hilarious.

IMO the biggest issue with MBTI types is the lack of "unaligned" letters. Someone at 51% of the way between "P" and "J" probably doesn't meaningfully express their "J", but would still get "INTJ" the same as if they had scored 100% of the way to "J". Adding an "X" to the middle of each scale would probably help differentiate between people genuinely expressing one end or the other of the scale, and the middle who don…

IMO the biggest issue with MBTI types is reducing personality traits to exactly 4 dimensions. Why not 3 or 5? It's completely arbitrary.

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

#232

Post by thewarrior »

YeGoblynQueenne wrote: post #170

>> The “Big Five” didn’t come from a theory but through statistical analysis of thousands of personality questionnaires consisting of hundreds of questions. These reveal five properties that are relatively constant over time: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism. How these Big Five "properties" where derived is that people thought there was some pattern to questionnaires about beha…

Interesting. Isn’t IQ also based on PCA. So would similar criticisms apply to IQ.

“ PCA is a formative model and not a reflective one”. Can’t understand this.

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

#233

Post by wackro »

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…

After a quick search it seems like the idea of 'matching types' was removed from the most popular MBTI testing site (I swear it used to say in the romantic relationships section), and different sources seem to have different opinions on which types match.

My own experience is that there is definitely some value to the idea, so my question to you is, is it a legit part of the MBTI 'theory', and is there a canonical listing of compatible types? Browsing random blogs/reddit sets my pseudoscience sensors off.

A fellow INTP.

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

#234

Post by [deleted] »

zppln wrote: post #230

I remember some colleagues at work labeling me as a blue person a few years ago. I didn't pay much attention to it, as it came from the types of people you'd expect taking this kind of bait. I think the interesting thing here is how stuff like this spread through society. Or, parts of middle class society that is. We appear to have a large number of HR people, middle management and ambitious LinkedIn men who spend th…

[deleted]

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

#235

Post by goblin89 »

whimsicalism wrote: post #132
goblin89 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My pet peeve is that in this worshipping of science (count me guilty) it’s often forgotten that it is ultimately an attempt to model a system from within itself, and thus will never model it fully and prove that it is correct or even validate the very fundamental assumptions (STEM-inspired material monism, some mainstream flavor of dualism, or a riff on transcendental idealism—note how this stuff technically would ha…

I disagree that those assumptions are core to science. Really, science makes relatively weak assumptions, largely around induction and its existence.

Those assumptions are technically not even in scope of our “hard science”, but if one of those assumptions got “proven true” through whatever means (possible oxymoron) it would have major implications as much of pre-existing hard science would suddenly become either markedly less or markedly more consequential and/or new fields may be created.

Those assumptions describe fundamental traits of a system which humans are ill-equipped to live not having a model of; some (many?) people believe advances in science support one of them (e.g., material monism).

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

#236

Post by goto11 »

halpert wrote: post #220
goto11 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He is a fraud because the alleged scientific evidence does not exist.

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

#237

Post by NicoJuicy »

coliveira wrote: post #221
NicoJuicy wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's why pseudo-science exist. Many people like it and think it is personally useful. If you feel comfort in this, congratulations.

So, i suppose you did the test in the past? Can I know what the result was?

To check my statement mentioned before.

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

#238

Post by maratc »

el_nahual wrote: post #121
maratc wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not arguing, but for a person suffering from depression, who of the following is right? A. People saying "It's all in your head" and reducing depression to a non-biological condition (which is not very helpful at best), or B. Doctors saying "Here, have a pill" and reducing depression to a biological condition? I think that we still don't know, and maybe it's a bit of both, or maybe neither. But TLA seems to go wi…

I must have not done a good job explaining. Of course depression is a biological condition (because the mind emerges from the brain). That doesn't mean it's a single condition with a single cause or even a group of pathological causes, the way cancer is, or MLS. But yes, of course it's biological. What an intellectually honest psychiatrist would say is something like "look, you're not doing well. Here are some things…

Ok, but if "depression is a biological condition" — I understand we don't know the details — would you agree with what is said in TLA, that "[t]here is no depression Gremlin, either"? The biological condition — that we can't test for yet — seems for me to be exactly that "depression Gremlin".

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

#239

Post by elbear »

Jensson wrote: post #184
beaconstudios wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 comp…

Most meditation techniques involve stabilising attention. That is, you can keep your attention on the same stimulus for longer and get deep focus.

Another benefit is increased awareness. You become more aware of your thought patterns and the emotions they trigger. This way you can become less reactive. You have space to not follow the initial impulse that comes up.

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

#240

Post by TriNetra »

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.

The original term yog/yoga has very little to do with stretching. Yog in Sanskrit means to unite with, and historically in India it's used to refer ashtanga yoga (raja yoga) which has eight limbs. It's a complete science [0] to master your body and mind, to experience different states of consciousness with meditation.

> Yoga is the mastery of the activities of the mind-field. Then the seer rests in its true nature.

0: https://swamij.com/index-yoga-meditation-yoga-sutras.htm

Post reply on HN