Live data from Hacker News

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

soccermatics.medium.com

1–10 of 291 posts

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

#5
I use Scribe to get around the paywall: https://scribe.rip/how-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-bigg...

Follow up question: if you give bad investment advice (or any unlicensed financial advise at all) you can be prosecuted by on or the other government organisation. Why don't we do the same for bad food / health / psychology advise ?

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

#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 came out that they (the "introverts") do indeed want to say stuff during meetings but feel like they can't get in on the conversation. This was an eye opener to me, I just thought they didn't want to speak. I now try to pay more attention to these people. That's a win in my book. I also realized that there are people that like to think long before they talk, after a meeting you can revisit them later and they have nice insights which don't come up during a discussion (in contrast, I only have insights during discussions although I may often say things that aren't well thought through, I sometimes call it "thinking against others", typical yellow ;) ).

Like with every framework/mantra/insight/label if you aren't dogmatic about it (looking at you, Agile!), it may provide some value as a model (and models are often incorrect in details and have exceptions, just be very aware of that). I don't really see a better way for someone like me (totally unaware of psychology as a scientific field) to use their insights other than through these simplified, wrong-perhaps-but-useful, frameworks.

Edit: Honestly, to me as a molecular biologist, the whole field of psychology is a model for some neurological truth which is a model again for particle physicists which is a model again for mathematicians... Right (or am I using the wrong model ;) )? We all try to fit some labels on some complex continuum constantly. Sometimes it's pretty useful for our limited minds, and sometimes indeed it may lead us horribly astray. Is tfa an example of the latter? I'm not really convinced.

[0]: https://www.insights.com/insights-discovery-accreditation

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

#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 colors switched around.

Post reply on HN