3 ms·

> The invocation of a personality Gremlin is one example of careless thinking. Am I supposed to accept this because it already makes sense, because Katz or Sum

> The invocation of a personality Gremlin is one example of careless thinking. Am I supposed to accept this because it already makes sense, because Katz or Sumpter wrote it, because other people believe it, or because of research to back it up? I sympathize with all the so called foolish Swedes.

Barrin92 7y ago
You're supposed to follow the argument in the article. The idea of invoking these colours as an explanatory tool is circular reasoning. You're taking a bunch of traits, call them blue, and then use that colour as an explanation for why you have the traits, when in fact you have just restated some behaviour using slightly different words. it's like saying "the weather is bad because it rains". That's not an explanation for why the weather is bad, it's just the definition of what bad weather is. When people are led to believe they have this or that trait because of some sort of colour schema they tend to believe that this classification is an explanation for their behaviour and has some sort of control or ontological meaning, which it has not. In reality, the behaviour is complex, dynamic, context-dependent and escapes easy classification. Which really should be obvious to anyone with a critical mind because human psychology is slightly more complicated than a test which has fewer colors than the power rangers.
- 0xdeadbeefbabe 7y ago
  > You're supposed to follow the argument in the article. Yes you certainly are. When I read the article I regretted not having read it already, and quickly revised all my ideas before anyone could see. My point is more about inevitable error.
ptx 7y ago
The paragraph preceding your quote has the citation for their characterization of the concept of personality: Perugni, M., Costantini, G., Hughes, S., de Houwer, J. (2016). A functional perspective on personality. International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 51, №1, 33–39.

Barrin92 7y ago

You're supposed to follow the argument in the article. The idea of invoking these colours as an explanatory tool is circular reasoning. You're taking a bunch of traits, call them blue, and then use that colour as an explanation for why you have the traits, when in fact you have just restated some behaviour using slightly different words. it's like saying "the weather is bad because it rains". That's not an explanation for why the weather is bad, it's just the definition of what bad weather is. When people are led to believe they have this or that trait because of some sort of colour schema they tend to believe that this classification is an explanation for their behaviour and has some sort of control or ontological meaning, which it has not. In reality, the behaviour is complex, dynamic, context-dependent and escapes easy classification. Which really should be obvious to anyone with a critical mind because human psychology is slightly more complicated than a test which has fewer colors than the power rangers.

0xdeadbeefbabe 7y ago
> You're supposed to follow the argument in the article. Yes you certainly are. When I read the article I regretted not having read it already, and quickly revised all my ideas before anyone could see. My point is more about inevitable error.

ptx 7y ago

The paragraph preceding your quote has the citation for their characterization of the concept of personality: Perugni, M., Costantini, G., Hughes, S., de Houwer, J. (2016). A functional perspective on personality. International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 51, №1, 33–39.