How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots” • Hacker News Board

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#91

Post by coliveira » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #67

I have a problem with the article author's implication that someone without credentials (read: university degree) isn't a scientist, or at least is a lesser scientist. A scientist is someone who employs the scientific method. That's it. Thomas Erikson does not seem to qualify from what I can tell (he's just winging it), but he absolutely does not need to have a doctorate (or even a bachelors) in order to be a "behavi…

To be a scientist is not enough to use the scientific method in isolation. Because modern science is much bigger than anyone can understand as an individual, it is an imperative requirement that you also articulate your findings to the scientific community as a way to prove/disprove your personal conclusions. In other words, the requirement for proper use of the scientific method in a modern society can only been accomplished through the scientific community. Now, you could in theory do this without a PhD, but your chances are minimal of even being able to start the discussion, so if you're really willing to do science the first meta-step is to prove yourself going through a PhD program.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#92

Post by SiempreViernes » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:08 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #64

tenpies wrote: post #8

Is it not the same for the current wave of anti-bias/discrimination/racism training? There is zero evidence that it has any effect. What few brave researchers have risked their careers exploring the effectiveness of the training have found that it does basically nothing. None of that stops companies from paying millions for it and good luck to the employee or executive that even dares suggest that perhaps there's bet…

It depends on what you mean. About 25 years ago in Sweden the leading party the Social Democrats instituted a policy championed by feminists that meant that every other elected position should be occupied by a woman. Research has shown that that policy has led to more qualified candidates across the political spectrum. There is also evidence from Sweden that attitudes towards rape and sexual assault has changed due t…

An internal policy for the list of candidates on their ballot, stating that every other candidate must be a woman.

This is not the same as the list of who eventually gets elected of course, as the probability of getting elected decreases the further down the list you go. Also the policy appears to apply per ballot, and since there are something like 30 regions with (possibly) independent ballots, there is still some room to stack one way or the other. In the event, last election they got a pretty even split: 48 vs 52.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#93

Post by mc32 » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #77

growlist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this trainin…

Let me ask you something: Is unconscious bias training the worst example of bullshit you have experienced in your professional life or the thing that has aggravated you the most? Does that tell you anything about your unconscious biases? The point of the training is for companies to absolve themselves of culpability. If you act like a jerk after unconscious bias training you are on your own and the company hopes that…

Maybe it’s worth asking what other types of “bs” training they received at work.

Maybe it’s one among many or maybe it’s the only one. We don’t know.

That said, most training is about absolving the company of responsibility and putting it on you (security training for example).

On the surface it would seem a good idea to train against harassment at work, but I’d be keen to know if it has an effect on behavior or is it the HR consequences that affect behavior more than the training, for example.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#94

Post by koube » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

freepor wrote: post #81

growlist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this trainin…

You have to forgive the diversity training industry a little as they are being hired to convince people of a fact that is known to be wrong. If you look at the most successful tech companies in history, they are all built by teams that are >90% white and Asian men, and as they grow hire more white and Asian women. Yet we’re supposed to believe that we can do even better through different methods, and become even more…

I have not been led to the same conclusion (we can balance out workforce racial population) by my unconscious bias training, I have been led to conclusions that I find quite reasonable (watch for these thought patterns that indicate racial bias, such as if the person is X then the person is also Y, also be sure to keep questions to things that are essential to the job role). We might be taking different diversity training.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#95

Post by Loughla » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

This article is a hack piece, in my opinion. First, formal qualifications do not a scientist make. Second, using phrases like this, with zero real evidence to support them:

>a distinction that even a someone who has studied a four-week course in the area will know is incorrect.

Regardless of the validity of the 'color' theories, this is not journalism. It is opinion presented as fact.

Full disclosure, I have never bought into colors theories, even though they are currently en vogue in my field. But we need scientific study, not more opinion nonsense.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#96

Post by Nursie » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #67

I have a problem with the article author's implication that someone without credentials (read: university degree) isn't a scientist, or at least is a lesser scientist. A scientist is someone who employs the scientific method. That's it. Thomas Erikson does not seem to qualify from what I can tell (he's just winging it), but he absolutely does not need to have a doctorate (or even a bachelors) in order to be a "behavi…

Their poodle appears to have the same amount of inclination to use the scientific method, and the same level of experience in doing so.

One claiming to be a behavioural scientist should be able to demoinstrate a history of such, even if it's an unconventional history. There is none here.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#97

Post by luckylion » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

growlist wrote: post #31

tenpies wrote: post #8

Is it not the same for the current wave of anti-bias/discrimination/racism training? There is zero evidence that it has any effect. What few brave researchers have risked their careers exploring the effectiveness of the training have found that it does basically nothing. None of that stops companies from paying millions for it and good luck to the employee or executive that even dares suggest that perhaps there's bet…

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this trainin…

Understanding the "scientific basis" of something unscientific is a ritual. It's 2+2=5, a test of your willingness to say things that are obviously false when that's asked of you by those above you.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#98

Post by giggles_giggles » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:12 PM UTC

bjourne wrote: post #77

growlist wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! I had 'unconcious bias' training at work, one of the learning outcomes of which was to understand the 'scientific basis' for unconcious bias. After reviewing the material and finding myself somewhat dubious of its claims, I - as a good scientist working in a technical role in a technical company - went off to research for myself. Turns out the supposed scientific basis is deeply flawed. And yet, this trainin…

Let me ask you something: Is unconscious bias training the worst example of bullshit you have experienced in your professional life or the thing that has aggravated you the most? Does that tell you anything about your unconscious biases? The point of the training is for companies to absolve themselves of culpability. If you act like a jerk after unconscious bias training you are on your own and the company hopes that…

I've seen studies[1][2] which indicate that unconscious racial bias training increases racist attitudes among those who are put through it. If that's true, unconscious bias training might be worse than bullshit, it might be actively harmful and counterproductive to its stated goals.

1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6524213/

2 https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095001701771984...

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#99

Post by username90 » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:13 PM UTC

abvdasker wrote: post #51

One feature of these personality taxonomies is that inevitably in the set of different categories designed to be of equal human value or worth, one or two categories are always discernably worse than the others.

The only scientific personality scale, Big5, was not designed that way. It is pretty easy to figure out that workers with high conscientiousness and low neuroticism are preferable. Which makes sense, we didn't evolve to be corporate drones so not all personalities are equally fit for the role.

Re: How Swedes were fooled by the book “Surrounded by Idiots”

#100

Post by projektfu » Thu, Jan 16, 2020, 4:14 PM UTC

fastball wrote: post #67

I have a problem with the article author's implication that someone without credentials (read: university degree) isn't a scientist, or at least is a lesser scientist. A scientist is someone who employs the scientific method. That's it. Thomas Erikson does not seem to qualify from what I can tell (he's just winging it), but he absolutely does not need to have a doctorate (or even a bachelors) in order to be a "behavi…

The question is how such a person is able to do research. If you weren't independently wealthy, how would you go about getting funding for a study of human subjects and have it covered by the oversight that it should entail, if you didn't already receive training to a satisfactory degree in an institution of higher learning? Not saying it's impossible, but it would be remarkable on its own.

Of course, once you have already become a popular writer, people start to assume that you are the real deal, without looking into it in detail. So you can fake it 'till you make it. But you'd have to fake it.