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

91–100 of 291 posts

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

#91

Post by edanm »

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…

> A bit like every single diet works (compared to no diet) because the fundamental thing is dieting in the sense that you think actively about diet.

(This is completely tangential to the main point, but...)

Every diet "works" because the underlying mechanism driving weight loss is eating less calories than your body uses throughout the day. And almost every diet makes people consume less calories than they normally do, at least at first. That's why every diet "works" at least in the short term.

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

#92

Post by matbatt38 »

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…

Maybe you should extend your concern about those 90% books. IMO, they're just as problematic. They're simply less successful so we pay less attention to them individually, but IMO the trend of having 90% of books sold being total BS dressing as science or personal development is a serious concern.

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

#93

Post by dathinab »

JoBrad wrote: post #73
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.

> 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 society then it's helpful and should be avoided.

Also in my experience they are quite often used in a slightly degradating way by people outside of that group which either don't understand or like that group or just want to make themself feel better by lifting themself over other people.

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

#94

Post by maratc »

el_nahual wrote: post #86
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…

This is just wrong. Depression is a descriptive condition, not a prescrtive one. Many psychiatrists--the quack ones--will use the language of "chemical imbalance" as a sort of "appeal to authority" fallacy. It should be obvious that this is a fallacy because: A) at no point have they actually measured the patient's brain chemistry (and it's not obvious what it would even mean to do this? an imbalance where ? compared…

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 with the first group, hence my comment.

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

#95

Post by hermannj314 »

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 did not mean for my post to come across in such a way.

But yes - people I know, smarter than me, that believe in a deity, returned quite a few rows when I queried.

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

#96

Post by wombatmobile »

Ways to categorize other people's personalities, such as Myers-Briggs, Swedish Colors, The Zodiac, McCarthyism, devils advocacy, racial profiling, Stockholm Syndrome, and hero worship have always been popular.

Why? Because people need ways to feel like they understand and can predict other people's behavior.

Why? I don't know. It's just something I've observed.

Would you agree, and if so, why do you think that is?

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

#97

Post by ghaff »

tonyedgecombe wrote: post #64
ghaff wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Hence "mostly." But if you look at the full Myers-Briggs summary, it slots people into one of 16 categories and then has a nice little writeup describing people in that category. Which is a long way past acknowledging that some people are more comfortable dealing with abstract mental models than others or that some people want to deal with facts over emotions.

The actual science, such as it is, is also rooted into Jungian psychology which doesn't really have a lot of actual science behind it.

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

#98

Post by nemo44x »

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.

So is taking a short nap in the afternoon. Pretty much these are all the same things. Some just get branded and packaged as a thing for consumers to make into a “lifestyle”.

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

#99

Post by jd115 »

matbatt38 wrote: post #92
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…

Maybe you should extend your concern about those 90% books. IMO, they're just as problematic. They're simply less successful so we pay less attention to them individually, but IMO the trend of having 90% of books sold being total BS dressing as science or personal development is a serious concern.

Just curious - do you also think 90% of people are a serious concern?

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

#100

Post by Linosaurus »

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…

> So now I do both. I have some points of view that I can’t defend with data and science and peer review studies.

I do like it when people point out which part of their advice is supported by established science, and which is not. Both can be useful.

Post reply on HN