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

61–70 of 291 posts

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

#61

Post by zamadatix »

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…

Something needs to provide for the good hypothesis making side so those kinds of things are always valuable even in the most strict science focused societies, as long as actual results are allowed to take their place in terms of function when they are investigated solidly.

But that's not really the crux of this particular issue, it was pseudoscience not "not science". I.e. it was masquerading as being more scientifically founded than it was instead of just a book of this guy's personal understandings.

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

#62

Post by NicoJuicy »

coliveira wrote: post #50
NicoJuicy wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not Meyer Briggs: > Despite the use of colours, it turned out that the “Surrounded by …” books were not based on Myers-Brigg. Instead, they built on another personality theory, the so-called DiSC model.

But it is a similar kind of BS. No scientific basis as well.

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 contrary for you? ( I'm just guessing and trying to find differences in experience here)

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

#63

Post by Angostura »

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.

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

#64

Post by tonyedgecombe »

ghaff wrote: post #40
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…

Myers-Briggs is mostly [1] pseudo-scientific BS. And the results may not even be very stable from one test-taking to the next. [1] Mostly. MB and more recent variants can be useful for reinforcing that different people have different worldviews and tendencies. There's also some evidence that different groups, such as different professions (like programmers), do tend to test differently as a population and that has ce…

> There's also some evidence that different groups, such as different professions (such as programmers), do tend to test differently as a population

Doesn’t that imply it isn’t all bullshit?

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

#65

Post by drakonka »

I have yet to read the whole article, but I got too excited when I got to these parts[0] and had to write a quick comment first.

This concept as described reminded me immediately of a book I read as a teenager, called Divided Kingdom by Rupert Thomson: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divided_Kingdom

It is about the country being broken up into four sectors based on the four humors: red, green, yellow, and blue. Scanning through some descriptions of Surrounded by Idiots, the similarities are uncanny. I thought the whole four-humors thing and its derivatives have been definitively debunked for a very long time, how did this book not get laughed out of the gates?

[0] Parts that made me pause: 'Around the same time, qualified psychologists began reporting how clients were considering leaving their partners because, “I can’t possibly live with a yellow person”...'; '...they had been tested at the Human Resources department only to be told they needed to move to another team because their “colour combination”...'; '...A teenage girl comes home and tells her mother, with an air of resignation, “mum, I’m a green.” She had been tested by her school counsellor...'

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

#66

Post by Retric »

nemetroid wrote: post #21
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…

It was the best selling pocket book in Sweden in 2017 and 2018. 800 000 copies have been sold in Swedish. It was pretty difficult to miss.

That’s under 8% of the population buying the book or receiving it as a gift and some percentage of them reading it.

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

#67

Post by maratc »

n8cpdx wrote: post #30
maratc wrote: post #17

I've lost the thought around this part: > For example, consider a person who says, “now I understand why I have such negative thoughts, can’t get to sleep, and have difficulty getting going…I’ve got depression.” This person might believe that the explanation of her symptoms is depression, but in fact, the diagnosis of depression is just a categorisation of exactly these symptoms. The diagnosis of depression usually r…

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.

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

#68

Post by alkonaut »

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.

Sure I didn’t mean to imply that those fields in particular are all bogus, but rather that every new book on the subject has to bring a new angle and also often plays a bit fast and loose with scientific rigor.

You’ll see books on why you should do yoga while juggling eggplants or mindfulness through playing quake and it might be some times a bit semi-scientific.

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

#69

Post by jonnycat »

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…

It only needs to be "data-driven and backed by science" if it's making scientific claims. It's totally okay to write a book of advice about workplace interactions based on anecdotes or your own experience (there are many such books) - but it's an entirely different thing to make scientific-sounding claims about how people are categorized.

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

#70

Post by replygirl »

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…

i'm not sure being into astrology makes people more empathetic
Post reply on HN