TE
TechEcho
Home24h TopNewestBestAskShowJobs
GitHubTwitter
Home

TechEcho

A tech news platform built with Next.js, providing global tech news and discussions.

GitHubTwitter

Home

HomeNewestBestAskShowJobs

Resources

HackerNews APIOriginal HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 TechEcho. All rights reserved.

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

252 pointsby thinkafterbefover 3 years ago

51 comments

alkonautover 3 years ago
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 <i>think</i> of everyone as a pigeonholed category. Intuitively it seems it should be mostly negative <i>especially</i> if the categories don’t even offer any behavioral insight.<p>But something tells me that there could also be some positive effects from actually wondering about the behavior of others and how you treat them, even if it’s pigeonholing and preconceptions based on bogus research.<p>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.<p>As for this book: It’s a pretty useless book, but I can see how it’s appealing. I can’t see how it being unscientific makes it worse than 90% of similar books in the bookstore. This is a pop book you read on a plane. It’s not a scientific publication. If he claims it’s solid science that’s obviously bad, but I’m sure all the mindfulness and yoga books do too - and all of those are certainly not very scientific.
评论 #29725685 未加载
评论 #29725240 未加载
评论 #29725169 未加载
评论 #29725613 未加载
评论 #29725752 未加载
评论 #29725277 未加载
评论 #29725962 未加载
评论 #29726808 未加载
评论 #29725274 未加载
评论 #29725148 未加载
评论 #29725143 未加载
评论 #29726436 未加载
评论 #29728841 未加载
评论 #29725200 未加载
评论 #29725373 未加载
评论 #29725091 未加载
评论 #29725553 未加载
dathinabover 3 years ago
&gt; Red: dominant, driven, solution focussed.<p>&gt; Blue: analytic, careful, meticulous<p>&gt; Green: patient, considerate, nice<p>&gt; Yellow: extroverted, creative, verbal<p>If that&#x27;s the definition it&#x27;s a catastrophe.<p>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 &quot;patient&quot; to all their live doesn&#x27;t mean they also will apply it when it matter, nor does it mean a normally &quot;impartient&quot; person can&#x27;t (potentially already has) learn to be patient when it matters.<p>Generally all of &quot;solution focussed&quot;, &quot;analytic&quot;, &quot;careful&quot;, &quot;meticulous&quot;, &quot;patient&quot;, &quot;considerate&quot;, &quot;nice&quot;, &quot;verbal&quot; are all skills you can learn and learn to apply in all contexts (through for some people it&#x27;s harder it&#x27;s still possible, through different people need to approach it in different ways).<p>I also have meet all kind of &quot;creative&quot; people, so linking that together with other personality traits seem absurd.<p>&quot;driven&quot; is in my experience more related to unhealthy stress, potentially anxiety disorders<p>&quot;extroverted&quot; 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&#x27;s still bs as this kind of behaviour is often highly contextual.
评论 #29726465 未加载
ShockedUnicornover 3 years ago
As a swede. This is the first time I&#x27;ve seen this 4 colour system. I&#x27;m 30, so maybe it&#x27;s more popular around younger people?<p>I have seen things like &quot;INTP-J&quot; on friends profile. I think it&#x27;s called 16 personalities.<p>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 exclude people in their life is mind boggling.
评论 #29725003 未加载
评论 #29725038 未加载
评论 #29724916 未加载
评论 #29724859 未加载
评论 #29736603 未加载
评论 #29730383 未加载
wwilimover 3 years ago
Anything that boils an entire branch of science down to something this simple is by definition a scam.<p>The funniest part of the article was how Forbes lists this as a top ten must-read. And why wouldn&#x27;t it, removing all nuance and operating on big words invented by an &quot;expert&quot; is peak C-level thinking.<p>Finally, I feel obliged to point out that the four types described are essentially the Houses of Hogwarts with the colors switched around.
评论 #29727139 未加载
评论 #29725052 未加载
hermannj314over 3 years ago
I struggle often with this somewhat arbitrary desire for everything to be data-driven and backed by science.<p>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.<p>How does anyone accomplish anything if every step they take has to be double blind studied before it even crosses their mind?<p>Maybe for my own sanity, while humanity marches towards becoming Vulcan, I&#x27;ll continuing accepting a few heuristics, fables, and Grandma&#x27;s chicken noodle soup.
评论 #29725138 未加载
评论 #29725106 未加载
评论 #29725093 未加载
评论 #29725105 未加载
评论 #29725116 未加载
评论 #29725224 未加载
评论 #29725441 未加载
评论 #29729175 未加载
评论 #29725326 未加载
评论 #29725021 未加载
评论 #29726444 未加载
评论 #29725265 未加载
评论 #29725188 未加载
评论 #29725938 未加载
评论 #29725304 未加载
YeGoblynQueenneover 3 years ago
&gt;&gt; The “Big Five” didn’t come from a theory but through statistical analysis of thousands of personality questionnaires consisting of hundreds of questions. These reveal five properties that are relatively constant over time: Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness and Neuroticism.<p>How these Big Five &quot;properties&quot; where derived is that people thought there was some pattern to questionnaires about behaviour and they ran a PCA on it. They noticed that PCA tended to bring up five principal components, so they interpreted them as five dominant personality traits that are shared by all humans.<p>This is not very good statistics: they basically used PCA to identify latent variables. But PCA cannot find latent variables. There is some criticism of this, but very rarely because &quot;The Big Five&quot; is basically accepted truth by the psychological community nowadays. In 20 years from now they&#x27;ll probably debunk it and then hold up some other &quot;model&quot; of &quot;human personality&quot; and then the cycle will repeat.<p>Here&#x27;s one critical paper:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;19946599&#x2F;" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov&#x2F;19946599&#x2F;</a><p>Whence I quote:<p><i>Consider, for instance, the personality literature, where people have discovered that executing a PCA of large numbers of personality subtest scores, and selecting components by the usual selection criteria, often returns five principal components. What is the interpretation of these components? They are “biologically based psychological tendencies,”; and as such are endowed with causal forces (McCrae et al., 2000, p. 173). This interpretation cannot be justified solely on the basis of a PCA, if only because PCA is a formative model and not a reflective one (Bollen &amp; Lennox, 1991; Borsboom, Mellenbergh, &amp; Van Heerden, 2003). </i>
评论 #29727377 未加载
teekertover 3 years ago
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.<p>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 &quot;introverts&quot;) do indeed want to say stuff during meetings but feel like they can&#x27;t get in on the conversation. This was an eye opener to me, I just thought they didn&#x27;t want to speak. I now try to pay more attention to these people. That&#x27;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&#x27;t come up during a discussion (in contrast, I only have insights during discussions although I may often say things that aren&#x27;t well thought through, I sometimes call it &quot;thinking against others&quot;, typical yellow ;) ).<p>Like with every framework&#x2F;mantra&#x2F;insight&#x2F;label if you aren&#x27;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&#x27;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.<p>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&#x27;s pretty useful for our limited minds, and sometimes indeed it may lead us horribly astray. Is tfa an example of the latter? I&#x27;m not really convinced.<p>[0]: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.insights.com&#x2F;insights-discovery-accreditation" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.insights.com&#x2F;insights-discovery-accreditation</a>
评论 #29725866 未加载
评论 #29726483 未加载
评论 #29725122 未加载
kriroover 3 years ago
I&#x27;m not a psychologist but this sentence:<p>&quot;&quot;&quot;Modern evidence-based methods in behavioural science adopt the ground principle that people’s behavior mainly depend on context.&quot;&quot;&quot;<p>doesn&#x27;t have any source to back it up and is opposed to what I have read about the introvert&#x2F;extrovert divide which seems to be more genetic than context dependent for example. And those are character traits that directly shape behavior (I&#x27;d rather read a book when low on energy vs. go to a party). Maybe someone can clarify this for me. The fact that the author uses &quot;shy&quot; and &quot;outgoing&quot; also doesn&#x27;t instill much faith in me. The next section even mentions the big five but I don&#x27;t think these traits are &quot;mainly dependent on context&quot;. I&#x27;m a bit confused.<p>Nevertheless, an interesting story&#x2F;find. The color system seems so obviously ridiculous that it amazes me how popular it got. Lesson learned. People like categories and simple explanations. Coincidentally, that&#x27;s also one of the main sources of (unintentional) bias.
评论 #29725146 未加载
评论 #29724947 未加载
评论 #29736376 未加载
评论 #29725173 未加载
neomover 3 years ago
&quot;Some professionals recognised talk of colours from the infamous Myers-Briggs test, administered by less-respectable management consultants. It built on the mystical ideas of the Swiss psychoanalyst Carl Jung, active at the start of the 20th century, whose theories are now mostly of historical interest. The theory of Myers-Briggs was not something modern psychologists took seriously. Since the test had been developed quite some time ago it had been the subject of extensive research and the results had revealed serious flaws.&quot;<p>I didn&#x27;t know Myers Briggs has a colour component, tangentially: crazy to me how often I see a &quot;Myers Briggs Score&quot; on resumes these days, especially in Korea. I was under the impression most people didn&#x27;t take it very seriously, at least not seriously enough to put on a resume.
wombatmobileover 3 years ago
Ways to categorize other people&#x27;s personalities, such as Myers-Briggs, Swedish Colors, The Zodiac, McCarthyism, devils advocacy, racial profiling, Stockholm Syndrome, and hero worship have always been popular.<p>Why? Because people need ways to feel like they understand and can predict other people&#x27;s behavior.<p>Why? I don&#x27;t know. It&#x27;s just something I&#x27;ve observed.<p>Would you agree, and if so, why do you think that is?
评论 #29725603 未加载
评论 #29725755 未加载
nradovover 3 years ago
And yet we still see fools in the US who actually believe that Myers-Briggs personality types like &quot;INTJ&quot; are somehow meaningful. It&#x27;s hilarious.
评论 #29725103 未加载
评论 #29724888 未加载
评论 #29724967 未加载
评论 #29725099 未加载
keewee7over 3 years ago
Scandinavian society gives a lot of airtime to &quot;radical&quot; intellectuals talking bullshit about things outside their field of expertise.<p>Bjørn Lomborg was a hipster economist who denied man-made climate change and had an embarrassing amount of clout in Denmark:<p><a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Bj%C3%B8rn_Lomborg</a>
评论 #29733615 未加载
评论 #29725307 未加载
kqrover 3 years ago
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;VOzvt" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;archive.is&#x2F;VOzvt</a>
yakshaving_jgtover 3 years ago
The &quot;Head of People&quot; at my previous employer in Sweden pushed this garbage.<p>She made us spend an entire day — it was <i>mandatory</i> — &quot;learning&quot; about the four colour-coded groups in this pseudoscience.<p>It&#x27;s worrying that employers can essentially mandate religion in the workplace like this.
评论 #29730372 未加载
thatguyagainover 3 years ago
Most people I know made fun of this book from the very start. It was the book version of a clickbait article with obvious pseudoscience.
drakonkaover 3 years ago
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.<p>This concept as described reminded me immediately of a book I read as a teenager, called Divided Kingdom by Rupert Thomson: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Divided_Kingdom" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Divided_Kingdom</a><p>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?<p>[0] Parts that made me pause: &#x27;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”...&#x27;; &#x27;...they had been tested at the Human Resources department only to be told they needed to move to another team because their “colour combination”...&#x27;; &#x27;...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...&#x27;
评论 #29725591 未加载
halpertover 3 years ago
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.
评论 #29725172 未加载
评论 #29725026 未加载
评论 #29724979 未加载
评论 #29725100 未加载
zibzabover 3 years ago
The book maybe is garbage, but it makes people think about others feelings and goals in meetings.<p>This is already much more than an average person does walking into a social situation.
评论 #29725087 未加载
评论 #29725532 未加载
评论 #29724984 未加载
评论 #29726844 未加载
ravel-bar-fooover 3 years ago
I thought the text about personality colors sounded familiar.<p>@dang This same article was discussed on HN almost two years ago: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22064530" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&#x2F;item?id=22064530</a><p>I think the title could use a (2020) tag.
评论 #29725013 未加载
brabelover 3 years ago
I see a lot of so-called software experts fall into the exact same category as the author of that book... believing themselves to be experts just because they worked in the field for a while, despite having no scientific training, or any relevant training for that matter, no serious studies backing up whatever they promote, nothing except for a lot of gut feeling and on-the-job &quot;hands-on knowledge&quot;, exactly as the author of this book who believed himself to be an expert in communication and psychology despite lacking even a basic understanding of that.<p>We should apply the same kind of scrutinization when it comes to the software industry IMO. Just because you wrote code for a few years and managed a team later, doesn&#x27;t mean anything you learned is applicable to anyone else. Imagine doctors going around experimenting on people and &quot;learning hands-on&quot; what works and what doesn&#x27;t. Or even electricians or plumbers... yet, here we are, and I feel like it&#x27;s exactly what we&#x27;re doing with software development.
评论 #29726527 未加载
jantoover 3 years ago
&gt; He started by placing Freud and Jung as the grounders of modern psychology, a distinction that even a someone who has studied a four-week course in the area will know is incorrect. The subject has developed greatly since the time of Freud, Jung and comic book author, Marston.<p>The author&#x27;s resistance against Freud and Jung&#x27;s contributions is... myopic?
评论 #29725434 未加载
评论 #29730965 未加载
platzover 3 years ago
Better than meyers-briggs -<p>How the ‘Magic: The Gathering’ Color Wheel Explains Humanity: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;humanparts.medium.com&#x2F;the-mtg-color-wheel-c9700a7cf36d" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;humanparts.medium.com&#x2F;the-mtg-color-wheel-c9700a7cf3...</a>
hereme888over 3 years ago
One thing we do know from the longest running human studies in history, is that, over a lifetime, people&#x27;s personalities change so much that in their old age they are oftentimes nothing like what they were when they were younger.
评论 #29725627 未加载
评论 #29746354 未加载
INTPenisover 3 years ago
In their hunt for simple answers to complex questions people often forget that they are far too complex to be defined by 16 types of 4 colours.<p>That said though, MBTI did help me figure out a lot about myself. Discovering MBTI back in 2009 was definitely life changing for me and I&#x27;ve kept it in the back of my head since then, mostly to improve myself and rarely applied to others.<p>I&#x27;ve been in one amazing relationship with an MBTI type that is supposed to match with mine, and one awful relationship with a type that does not match with mine.<p>So it&#x27;s not supposed to be followed blindly but it can help you out in life.
评论 #29727395 未加载
评论 #29725760 未加载
daneel_wover 3 years ago
I know the title of the book as it was for a brief period on the receiving end of some ridicule (rather than praise), though I hadn&#x27;t heard about its &quot;colorized&quot; idea until I read this article. As I remember it the book made at most a bit of &quot;noise&quot; in media, more so than being a wave of revelation, and my gut feeling as a Swede is that most people bought the book out of the sensationalist and entertaining promise. I don&#x27;t think I&#x27;ve ever come across a person here in Sweden expressing or applying the presented ideology in any way.
评论 #29724965 未加载
zpplnover 3 years ago
I remember some colleagues at work labeling me as a blue person a few years ago. I didn&#x27;t pay much attention to it, as it came from the types of people you&#x27;d expect taking this kind of bait.<p>I think the interesting thing here is how stuff like this spread through society. Or, parts of middle class society that is. We appear to have a large number of HR people, middle management and ambitious LinkedIn men who spend their time with things like this rather than doing actually useful work. Kind of like the class of useless people sent off on that space ship in HGTTG.
评论 #29727397 未加载
ess3over 3 years ago
I think this sort of stuff can be useful as an icebreaker into a constructive discussion on how we’re different but taking it at face value is a big problem with pigeon holing and what not.
CRConradover 3 years ago
Two observations:<p>1) From the headline alone, I guessed this would be about the Macchiarini scandal at Karolinska.<p>2) I think this is the same guy who also wrote <i>Omgiven av idioter</i> [&quot;<i>Surrounded by Idiots</i>&quot;] (? though I could be misremembering). Which would be ironic, since he seems to be among the bigger ones himself.
drallisonover 3 years ago
This article is a hatchet job by a self-declared &quot;skeptic&quot; intended to convince the reader that a popular Swedish book about personality types, Surrounded by Idiots, is without scientific basis or value. The language of the article, independent of the content, conveys the negative message.<p>These days we are immersed is a sea of falsehoods and half-truths. Storytelling and lyrical metaphoric depictions of reality have been replaced by downright lies and malicious intent. Opinion articles which violate rhetorical rules and utilize deceptive and fallacious argumentation are not a good resource to mine for facts.<p>We are &quot;Surrounded by Idiots&quot;, individuals whose weltanshanguung embraces fantastical concepts supported by pseudoscientific argumentation and assertions without evidence. Much of the richness of human culture is captured by wrong ideas and conceptions. Consider creation myths, fables with morals, religions, moral systems, astrology, political systems, cold fusion, Meyers-Briggs personality tests, and so forth. Finding a balance between the factual, the fictional and the speculative is difficult.<p>Words, facts, and expression do matter. The title, for example, states that Swedes were &quot;fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time&quot; is wrong. There is no evidence that people were &quot;fooled&quot;, the book and theory are not a &quot;bluff&quot;, and there is no partial ordering of bluffs so &quot;biggest&quot; is hard to identify.
musesumover 3 years ago
On a program called 20&#x2F;20, John Stossel punked Astrology. He asked adult night school students to provide their birthday, gave them an astrology chart, and asked them how relevant it was. Many said the description was uncanny in its accuracy. Except it wasn&#x27;t their chart ... it was for Jeffrey Dahmer.<p>I couldn&#x27;t find the episode to cite. Maybe some of the students were upset?
maratcover 3 years ago
I&#x27;ve lost the thought around this part:<p>&gt; 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.<p>The diagnosis of depression usually revolves around changes in body chemistry and the functioning of the brain. It is an issue as real as diabetes is. To explain my point further, consider the following:<p>&gt; For example, consider a person who says, “now I understand why I have such frequent urination, increased thirst and increased appetite. I’ve got diabetes.” This person might believe that the explanation of her symptoms is diabetes, but in fact, the diagnosis of diabetes is just a categorisation of exactly these symptoms. There is no diabetes Gremlin, either.<p>All this not to say that the accusations of fraud are either based or baseless.<p>EDIT: I know we can&#x27;t test (blood etc.) for depression — yet. There&#x27;s still a question of whether &quot;it&#x27;s all in your head&quot; or &quot;your biology is a bit off&quot;. See also [0].<p>[0] <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Biopsychiatry_controversy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Biopsychiatry_controversy</a>
评论 #29724929 未加载
评论 #29725226 未加载
评论 #29724992 未加载
评论 #29724960 未加载
评论 #29724975 未加载
评论 #29724950 未加载
评论 #29724983 未加载
评论 #29724938 未加载
评论 #29731188 未加载
评论 #29724925 未加载
zhiQover 3 years ago
Human minds demand coherent explanations and the book supplies it. The book supplies conjectures that “feel” right and the many readers, well, who have the time and skills to prove them. The soft science (of psychology) is hard and to generalize findings from a situation or controlled experiment environment will be fraught with errors.
coldteaover 3 years ago
&gt;<i>Before we define personality, it is useful to explain what it isn’t. Consider a friend who does something bad and then says, “I did it because my personality led me to do it”. In making this argument, our friend is essentially claiming that their personality is like a Gremlin in their head who steers their behaviour, telling them what to do. In reality, of course, the Gremlin doesn’t exist and we don’t usually accept this argument as an excuse for bad behaviour. Instead of invoking Gremlins, the most reasonable and widely accepted definition of personality is behaviour of an individual which is relatively constant over time and doesn’t depend on context (Perugni et al, 2016). Personality isn’t a thing, like a Gremlin, it is simply a pattern of repeatable behaviour. Using this definition, the Gremlin argument becomes circular: if someone claims that their personality made them do something, we can simply counter, “Well, yes, that is the definition of personality. All you are telling me is that you behaved in the way you did because you behaved the way you did.” The invocation of a personality Gremlin is one example of careless thinking.</i><p>This &quot;explanation&quot; or &quot;argument&quot; is worse empirically and theoritically than what it criticizes...
webinvestover 3 years ago
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;12ft.io&#x2F;proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fsoccermatics.medium.com%2Fhow-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-biggest-scientific-bluffs-of-our-time-de47c82601ad" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;12ft.io&#x2F;proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fsoccermatics.medium.co...</a>
gherkinnnover 3 years ago
&gt; Red: dominant, driven, solution focused -&gt; <i>Powerpoint</i><p>&gt; Blue: analytic, careful, meticulous -&gt; <i>Word</i><p>&gt; Green: patient, considerate, nice -&gt; <i>Excel</i><p>&gt; Yellow: extroverted, creative, verbal -&gt; <i>Outlook</i><p>Interestingly enough, these colours map quite well to the Office suite of old.
评论 #29725571 未加载
评论 #29725733 未加载
poutrathorover 3 years ago
It spreads in France too I believe and it&#x27;s the first time I heard it&#x27;s a hoax.
评论 #29725247 未加载
chmod775over 3 years ago
People need an individually unique entire human brain working nonstop to figure out how they themselves are going to respond, act, and believe. You really think you can narrow that down to four colors?
fabatkaover 3 years ago
People love to categorize&#x2F;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.
citizenpaulover 3 years ago
I knew this guy was a hot load the second my boss at my first help desk job insisted that we take this test and &quot;learn&quot; from it.
heikkilevantoover 3 years ago
Would anything in this discussion, or in the original article, change much if it was about astrology instead of personality types?
funOtterover 3 years ago
I&#x27;m not sure which this article claims to be the bluff: the author or the DiSC assessment? ... It seems to be attacking both.
评论 #29725364 未加载
EVa5I7bHFq9mnYKover 3 years ago
Fraudsters are outraged that someone out-fraudstered them and took money they thought was theirs.
Digoryover 3 years ago
Also: any “love languages” and Enneagram numbers.<p>It’s really astounding how much these frauds impact relationships and organizations.
评论 #29730948 未加载
Foobar8568over 3 years ago
This crap reminds me of the left&#x2F;right brain non-sense.
s_devover 3 years ago
Paywall Removed: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;12ft.io&#x2F;proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fsoccermatics.medium.com%2Fhow-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-biggest-scientific-bluffs-of-our-time-de47c82601ad" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;12ft.io&#x2F;proxy?q=https%3A%2F%2Fsoccermatics.medium.co...</a>
peoplefromibizaover 3 years ago
I blame Harry Potter and Hogwarts Houses.<p>Incidentally, they are four as well.
cm2187over 3 years ago
Thought they were going to talk about psychoanalysis.
johnchristopherover 3 years ago
Eneagrams are making a comeback at my place.
janandonlyover 3 years ago
I use Scribe to get around the paywall: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scribe.rip&#x2F;how-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-biggest-scientific-bluffs-of-our-time-de47c82601ad" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;scribe.rip&#x2F;how-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-bigg...</a><p>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&#x27;t we do the same for bad food &#x2F; health &#x2F; psychology advise ?
jollybeanover 3 years ago
It&#x27;s pop culture psychology and &#x27;people type rumouring&#x27; - the oldest game in the book, backed by &#x27;Science&#x27; and a bit of capitalism to hustle books.<p>This isn&#x27;t surprising.
idiocratover 3 years ago
Waiting for a book &quot;Surrounded by Idiots -- how to use Swedish Legal System to Jail Unwanted Journalists, while the World is Watching, and Get Away With It. A Practical Guide&quot;.