7 ms·

As a swede this is a bit embarrassing to me. I have a few friends who's bought into this completely, and of course bought the book. All without even a hint of c

As a swede this is a bit embarrassing to me. I have a few friends who's bought into this completely, and of course bought the book. All without even a hint of critical thinking. It is hard to tell your friends they've been conned. I can understand it to some extent. Here's someone, who claims he is a behavioral expert and scientist, and who offers a seemingly plausible simple method to understand yourself and other people, and how to use that method to efficiently interact and work with others. Who wouldn't want that? Unfortunately the books are still sold. I've considered printing stickers that warns about the nonsense and sneak it on to copies in book stores. How else can we stop the proliferation of this junk?

yhoiseth 7y ago
> Unfortunately the books are still sold. I've considered printing stickers that warns about the nonsense and sneak it on to copies in book stores. Great idea! We should do that for Why We Sleep, too: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/
- OJFord 7y ago
  The article starts by stating fairly that the book's author is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and UC Berkeley. The article author's homepage says: > I'm an independent researcher with background in Economics, Mathematics, and Cognitive Science. Since I don't have any prior knowledge of the area, I'm sure either of them could convince me of their argument. So I'm inclined to believe the published Berkeley professor over the unaffiliated independent reviewer. (Or perhaps the auto-bio is being too modest?)
  - DiffEq 7y ago
    Credentials play no role in this fight. There are plenty of examples of credentialed people fabricating and lying. The author documents the lies pretty soundly.
  - riversflow 7y ago
    As suggested by sister comment, consider the content of the well-cited review instead of being blinded by credentials. >or perhaps the auto-bio is being too modest? Human beings are perfectly capable of autodidactism.
  - guzey 7y ago
    I cover this objection in section 15.1 https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-objections https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-object...
xamuel 7y ago
If something as blatant as these colors was legitimately an inherent part of human psychology, how would it be that they were only discovered in the past decades? Wouldn't philosophers have noticed it thousands and thousands of years ago?
- Izkata 7y ago
  They did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments
javajosh 7y ago
One way to think of this is as an experiment itself. That is, do your friends have an increase in happiness and life enjoyment having read the book? If so, it may be worth tolerating if only for the placebo effect.
csours 7y ago
Well, some/many Japanese believe that blood type determines a lot about your personality, and Americans believe in Myers-Briggs types, and I'm sure there are local equivalents everywhere else too, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.
- fastball 7y ago
  I always thought of Myers-Briggs as being about identifying the things you are less comfortable with and learning to address them. It's about identification of tendencies, not blaming a Gremlin.
  - csours 7y ago
    Someone should do a talk on Pseudo-Psychology, the Good Parts. I had no idea what Myers-Briggs was actually meant to be used for.
    - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
      Myers-Briggs is a proprietary test marketed by a commercial company. It is meant to extract money from corporate customers.
  - ncmncm 7y ago
    It has always struck me as odd when somebody insists Myers-Briggs has been "debunked". It asks a lot of questions about what amount to boundaries of your comfort zone. Of course as we age that zone changes, ideally, but sadly not always, by expanding. Naming various borders of your comfort zone is useful if you want to push them back. If M-B has a failing, it is that its advocates never seem to suggest that being dead center on all axes is an ideal to strive for.
    - fastball 7y ago
      I suppose the issue with centrality is that not only can it indicate that you are both good at being an extrovert and good at being an introvert (when appropriate), but it can also indicate that you are bad at being extroverted and bad at being introverted when arguably called for by context. I think what MBTI lacks is an appreciation of context - sometimes it's good to be Thinking, sometimes it is good to be Feeling. What individuals need to learn is 1. when each is appropriate and 2. if they're bad at doing one or the other, getting better at it.

yhoiseth 7y ago

> Unfortunately the books are still sold. I've considered printing stickers that warns about the nonsense and sneak it on to copies in book stores. Great idea! We should do that for Why We Sleep, too: https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/ https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/

OJFord 7y ago
The article starts by stating fairly that the book's author is a professor of psychology and neuroscience and UC Berkeley. The article author's homepage says: > I'm an independent researcher with background in Economics, Mathematics, and Cognitive Science. Since I don't have any prior knowledge of the area, I'm sure either of them could convince me of their argument. So I'm inclined to believe the published Berkeley professor over the unaffiliated independent reviewer. (Or perhaps the auto-bio is being too modest?)
- DiffEq 7y ago
  Credentials play no role in this fight. There are plenty of examples of credentialed people fabricating and lying. The author documents the lies pretty soundly.
- riversflow 7y ago
  As suggested by sister comment, consider the content of the well-cited review instead of being blinded by credentials. >or perhaps the auto-bio is being too modest? Human beings are perfectly capable of autodidactism.
- guzey 7y ago
  I cover this objection in section 15.1 https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-objections https://guzey.com/books/why-we-sleep/#appendix-common-object...

xamuel 7y ago

If something as blatant as these colors was legitimately an inherent part of human psychology, how would it be that they were only discovered in the past decades? Wouldn't philosophers have noticed it thousands and thousands of years ago?

Izkata 7y ago
They did: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_temperaments

javajosh 7y ago

One way to think of this is as an experiment itself. That is, do your friends have an increase in happiness and life enjoyment having read the book? If so, it may be worth tolerating if only for the placebo effect.

csours 7y ago

Well, some/many Japanese believe that blood type determines a lot about your personality, and Americans believe in Myers-Briggs types, and I'm sure there are local equivalents everywhere else too, so I wouldn't worry about it too much.

fastball 7y ago
I always thought of Myers-Briggs as being about identifying the things you are less comfortable with and learning to address them. It's about identification of tendencies, not blaming a Gremlin.
- csours 7y ago
  Someone should do a talk on Pseudo-Psychology, the Good Parts. I had no idea what Myers-Briggs was actually meant to be used for.
  - WAHa_06x36 7y ago
    Myers-Briggs is a proprietary test marketed by a commercial company. It is meant to extract money from corporate customers.
- ncmncm 7y ago
  It has always struck me as odd when somebody insists Myers-Briggs has been "debunked". It asks a lot of questions about what amount to boundaries of your comfort zone. Of course as we age that zone changes, ideally, but sadly not always, by expanding. Naming various borders of your comfort zone is useful if you want to push them back. If M-B has a failing, it is that its advocates never seem to suggest that being dead center on all axes is an ideal to strive for.
  - fastball 7y ago
    I suppose the issue with centrality is that not only can it indicate that you are both good at being an extrovert and good at being an introvert (when appropriate), but it can also indicate that you are bad at being extroverted and bad at being introverted when arguably called for by context. I think what MBTI lacks is an appreciation of context - sometimes it's good to be Thinking, sometimes it is good to be Feeling. What individuals need to learn is 1. when each is appropriate and 2. if they're bad at doing one or the other, getting better at it.