Live data from Hacker News

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

soccermatics.medium.com

251–260 of 291 posts

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

#251

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.

The article notes:

---

Almost the only “scientific” reference that Erikson provides in his book is from a book written in 1928 called the Emotions of Normal People, by American psychologist William Moulton Marston. Moulton hypothesised that our behaviour is influenced by “psychonic energy” that is transferred through a web of nerve cells that he called “psychons”. The four personality types (yellow, green, blue and red) arise, Marston claims, as variations between different people in the structure of their psychonic network.

This “theory” is pure speculation on the part of Marston. There was no scientific evidence for psychons or psychonic energy in 1928 and there is none today. At the time of publication, the science of psychology was in its infancy and, like Hippocrates and Jung before him, he had created a theory without proper scientific grounding. Unlike Hippocrates and Jung though, Marston’s theory garnered little attention, and he left psychology. He later rose to fame though when he created the comic book hero Wonder Woman!

---

It might be helpful to simplify life by bucketing people into 'personality types' but there doesn't seem to be any more scientific justification here than one would find in Astrology or Harry Potter Houses (anyway Astrology is a based on a much larger heap of unscientifically collected anecdotes).

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

#252
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Classifying people makes it easier to interact with them. You feel that you understand where their boundaries are, and what motivates them. It’s the reason we have geeks vs jocks, or any other variation of classifying people. Some aspects will bear up under a basic sniff test, which is why they stick around. But it also forces people into boxes that don’t properly describe them well, if at all.

> You feel that you understand where their boundaries are, and what motivates them. Expect you don't because people do not fit into classes, especially not classes that simple (i.e. only 4). It means you will behave annoying, toxic or otherwise unpleasant to people because you expect them to have traits/personalities they might _just don't have_. In my experience any classification I know of is more hurtful for socie…

My last sentence was along these lines. I recall reading somewhere that these types of approximations are things that we tend to make on first impressions, but taking care that they don’t last beyond that first impression is key.

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

#253

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 claim to be a scientist, then it needs to be scientific. Or else you’re a charlatan and need to be called out. If you’re claiming things that go against the scientific understanding, it needs to be called out too. Whether people follow the scientist or not, it’s another problem. Not that it really matters since obviously everyone involved in this is much more interested in the money they are making than in stopping to lie to their readers.

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

#254

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…

Correlation is not causation. Someone who is interested in being good with people is likely to look for a model, but maybe it's their motivation (rather than the model) that makes them good with people.

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

#255
post #9

Anything that boils an entire branch of science down to something this simple is by definition a scam. The funniest part of the article was how Forbes lists this as a top ten must-read. And why wouldn't it, removing all nuance and operating on big words invented by an "expert" is peak C-level thinking. Finally, I feel obliged to point out that the four types described are essentially the Houses of Hogwarts with the c…

> Anything that boils an entire branch of science down to something this simple is by definition a scam. Well, is it? Is it not be definition "abstraction" rather than "scam"? A scam would involve to purposefully obfuscate the truth or outright lying. Creating simpler rules around something difficult in order to explain a lot is how a lot of science progresses. Wasn't that what Newton/Einstein or someone else did reg…

Right exactly. You could describe the bohr model of the atom as "boiling an entire branch of science down to something this simple" but it is still a useful tool in some contexts. Even if you want to argue that it is worthless and never useful for anything, it is still not a scam.

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

#256
post #103
post #49

Scandinavian society gives a lot of airtime to "radical" intellectuals talking bullshit about things outside their field of expertise. Bjørn Lomborg was a hipster economist who denied man-made climate change and had an embarrassing amount of clout in Denmark: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg

As non-scandinavian ... may it have something to do with the strong left/progressive lean of the population? I say this because one of the biggest problems of every single group or organization that I've seen built around progressive/left/liberal ideas is the tendency to believe in the "everyone has a right to be heard/speak" which leads to everything being dominated by the loudest individuals who are almost always f…

I don't have an educated answer for your question so I won't offer one.

But I think it is making it more confusing that you conflate left, liberal, and progressive. They have some overlap and shared meanings but are also different things.

The "everyone has a right to be heard" thing you mention is specifically a liberal value. Others may or may not subscribe to it to varying degrees but in my view it is core only to that one.

Scandanavia is pretty firmly liberal from what I can see. I mean just the other day here there was a good conversation about how the entire wealth of norway is based on nonrenewable resource extraction. Not really anything leftist about that.

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

#257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, it kind of works that way in the US as well, though over-regulation of trades is more our tendency for sure since it keeps out competition from existing players (of course mostly the existing players get a say in the process). I won't bore with the details but look at how many hours of training it takes to become a hair stylist versus a police officer if you're morbidly curious.

My point though is that this person lied, publicly, about being endorsed by the author of the article. You don't usually do that unless you have absolutely positively no other options that will increase your credibility. But sure, maybe psychologists have credibility while behavioral scientist is the equivalent of being a "brand influencer".

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

#258

>> 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.

It's a way to say that PCA can transform data but not explain it.

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

#259

The "Head of People" at my previous employer in Sweden pushed this garbage. She made us spend an entire day — it was mandatory — "learning" about the four colour-coded groups in this pseudoscience. It's worrying that employers can essentially mandate religion in the workplace like this.

Yes, it sucks. I interviewed at a company that started the process with 600 word personality test. I left after the interview and didn't follow up. I didn't want to work at a place with such a process.

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

#260

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…

I think Vetenskap och Folkbildning (authors of the linked text) have a website with some longer articles and more details. If I remember correctly there were a few public services (police? hospital?) that paid a lot of money to the author of the book for private courses.

I think that the book is a typical case of "You have a complex problem and my snake oil provides an easy solution"

Post reply on HN