Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time (2020) • Hacker News Board

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

#71

Post by ahelwer » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

ModernMech wrote: post #54

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…

I used to be the way you describe, and I found it left me without any convictions. I used to think that was okay, because I reasoned with myself that convictions are irrational if not backed by data. Then I got older and realized how easy it is to frame and manipulate data and “facts” to achieve any desired result on the part of the person disseminating the facts. I realized that having some base convictions was a wa…

You may be interested in the book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Pretty impressive you’ve come to the conclusions you have, I’d say. I suspect many of us choose these points of view by their explanatory power. There will always be some social phenomena that elude explanation by any given point of view, of course.

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

#72

Post by nialse » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

kriro wrote: post #12

I'm not a psychologist but this sentence: """Modern evidence-based methods in behavioural science adopt the ground principle that people’s behavior mainly depend on context.""" doesn't have any source to back it up and is opposed to what I have read about the introvert/extrovert divide which seems to be more genetic than context dependent for example. And those are character traits that directly shape behavior (I'd r…

A main pilar of behavioral psychology is that the previously learnt behavior is activated in a certain context, the antecedent. The presence (or absence) of consequences following the behavior affects the probability of such a behavior occurring again a smiliar context. This operant conditioning has been shown extensively in behavioristic research by Skinner and beyond. Genes can be thought of as learnt behavior in an organism accumulating over time. This behavior is also activated in certain contexts. Thus the sentence does not necessarily separate environmental influence from genetic influence although it is easy to interpret it as such.

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

#73

Post by JoBrad » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:35 PM UTC

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…

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.

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

#74

Post by janto » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

rubidium wrote: post #43

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…

“ Really intelligent people only listen to science and do things backed by science and lots of data.” You know _no one_ smarter than you who follows a deity?

I think it was meant with a bit of sarcasm?

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

#75

Post by fabatka » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:36 PM UTC

People love to categorize/label themselves and others (belonging to a group, provides easy answers to complicated questions, etc.). So most will be glad to do so when given a chance.

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

#76

Post by HPsquared » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

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…

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%27s_five_regimes

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

#77

Post by goto11 » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

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.

Pseudo-sciences tend to make vague and non-falsifiable claims which cannot really be disproven empirically. Can you arbitrary divide people in four groups named after colors? Of course. It is it in any way useful except as a method of selling books and seminars? This remains to be seen.

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

#78

Post by dmingod666 » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:37 PM UTC

kriro wrote: post #12

I'm not a psychologist but this sentence: """Modern evidence-based methods in behavioural science adopt the ground principle that people’s behavior mainly depend on context.""" doesn't have any source to back it up and is opposed to what I have read about the introvert/extrovert divide which seems to be more genetic than context dependent for example. And those are character traits that directly shape behavior (I'd r…

Shy and Outgoing is the Extraversion trait. 5 are OCEAN - Openess to experience, Concientiousness (attention to detail), Extraversion, Agreeableness, Neuroticism.

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

#79

Post by dathinab » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

> Red: dominant, driven, solution focussed.

> Blue: analytic, careful, meticulous

> Green: patient, considerate, nice

> Yellow: extroverted, creative, verbal

If that's the definition it's a catastrophe.

A lot of entries listed are skills you can (and do) learn for specific situations, and which just some people do to some degree apply to all parts of their live. But someone applying "patient" to all their live doesn't mean they also will apply it when it matter, nor does it mean a normally "impartient" person can't (potentially already has) learn to be patient when it matters.

Generally all of "solution focussed", "analytic", "careful", "meticulous", "patient", "considerate", "nice", "verbal" are all skills you can learn and learn to apply in all contexts (through for some people it's harder it's still possible, through different people need to approach it in different ways).

I also have meet all kind of "creative" people, so linking that together with other personality traits seem absurd.

"driven" is in my experience more related to unhealthy stress, potentially anxiety disorders

"extroverted" depends a lot on the definition what it is supposed to mean, through in this context it probably means outgoing, outspoken, etc. or similar, in which case in which case it's still bs as this kind of behaviour is often highly contextual.

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

#80

Post by JoBrad » Wed, Dec 29, 2021, 2:39 PM UTC

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…

According to the article, this particular thought was being used to determine who could perform certain jobs. Requiring those criteria to be based in science is reasonable.