6 ms·

This is just pseudoscience. No studies, no test, just a guy opinion. Stop clarifying people this way. It's not useful, it's not insightfully. I have seen cowor

This is just pseudoscience. No studies, no test, just a guy opinion. Stop clarifying people this way. It's not useful, it's not insightfully. I have seen coworkers fighting for one thing but not another. One fights against bad work ethics, another for good tech and another one for their own right too be with his family. People is complex, everything comes in gradients and that changes as people grows and they learn and their lives change. If you are interested look for some real course in psychology and learn from there.

mohanmcgeek 5y ago
What is even an "Evolutionary"? Author seems to be just written some intelligent sounding thing seemingly inspired by *Capital in the 21st Century*
dominotw 5y ago
> is just pseudoscience. No studies, no test > look for some real course in psychology and learn from there. Isn't psychology famously pseudoscience as well, given almost all of their studies are irreproducible.
Kranar 5y ago
You can't just call something you disagree with pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when an argument is presented in a way that directly suggests it's a scientific finding, or suggests that it follows the scientific method, but does so only superficially. No part of this article is intended to mislead you into thinking it's scientific or technical in nature. It is one person's opinion and they are sharing it and there's nothing wrong with that. You can disagree, agree, share your own insights, but calling it pseudoscience is uncalled for. >If you are interested look for some real course in psychology and learn from there. There is very little that one can learn from psychology (with respect to this topic) as psychology lacks a great deal of consensus on this and most other subjects, as well as an inability to reproduce a substantial portion of research. Take two different psychology courses related to what the author is discussing and you'll come away with two very different understandings. Finally I would like to distinguish psychology from psychiatry, as the two are often lumped together, unfairly so.
- Hokusai 5y ago
  > call something you disagree with pseudoscience You are right, this is just bullshit. It does not pretend to be a scientific study, I over interpreted what it was saying. > There is very little that one can learn from psychology (with respect to this topic) as psychology lacks a great deal of consensus on this and most other subjects That is a reason to beware of some random opinion, assertiveness does not need to correlate with reason. That this text is assertive does not make it valuable. I see no more learning that people will categorize others in search of a simplicity that is not there. As I said, it's not insightful in any way, it just simplifies to make people feel smart and think that they understand some truth that is no there.
trabant00 5y ago
One can't wipe his own ass these days without it being scientifically proven to exist by a study. The same studies that can't get no replication. And even if they do, aren't actionable at all. Decision paralysis as religion. "Things are complicated" gets thrown against every opinion that people don't like. Not saying anything is wisdom. God forbid anybody has any opinion and may God strike him down if he ever supports anything but tabula rasa. Things got done before studies existed, you know. People built models from intuition and tested them in practice. Or observed patterns. But that's the old wrong ways, right? We publish something on a piece of paper now and unless a committee publishes it and calls it a study it can't be true. And if they do it's true and will remain this way forever, right?
drewcoo 5y ago
My problem with the piece was that people were limited to two types: "revolutionary" and "evolutionary." I think you just played "skeptic" for us. So whether you intended it that way or not, thank you!
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
dang 5y ago
The middle part of your comment is fine but the rest breaks this site guideline: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Blog posts etc. obviously don't need to be scientific studies and there's nothing wrong with people posting them here if they're interesting. HN is an internet watercooler, not an academic journal or conference.

mohanmcgeek 5y ago

What is even an "Evolutionary"? Author seems to be just written some intelligent sounding thing seemingly inspired by *Capital in the 21st Century*

dominotw 5y ago

> is just pseudoscience. No studies, no test > look for some real course in psychology and learn from there. Isn't psychology famously pseudoscience as well, given almost all of their studies are irreproducible.

Kranar 5y ago

You can't just call something you disagree with pseudoscience. Pseudoscience is when an argument is presented in a way that directly suggests it's a scientific finding, or suggests that it follows the scientific method, but does so only superficially. No part of this article is intended to mislead you into thinking it's scientific or technical in nature. It is one person's opinion and they are sharing it and there's nothing wrong with that. You can disagree, agree, share your own insights, but calling it pseudoscience is uncalled for. >If you are interested look for some real course in psychology and learn from there. There is very little that one can learn from psychology (with respect to this topic) as psychology lacks a great deal of consensus on this and most other subjects, as well as an inability to reproduce a substantial portion of research. Take two different psychology courses related to what the author is discussing and you'll come away with two very different understandings. Finally I would like to distinguish psychology from psychiatry, as the two are often lumped together, unfairly so.

Hokusai 5y ago
> call something you disagree with pseudoscience You are right, this is just bullshit. It does not pretend to be a scientific study, I over interpreted what it was saying. > There is very little that one can learn from psychology (with respect to this topic) as psychology lacks a great deal of consensus on this and most other subjects That is a reason to beware of some random opinion, assertiveness does not need to correlate with reason. That this text is assertive does not make it valuable. I see no more learning that people will categorize others in search of a simplicity that is not there. As I said, it's not insightful in any way, it just simplifies to make people feel smart and think that they understand some truth that is no there.

trabant00 5y ago

One can't wipe his own ass these days without it being scientifically proven to exist by a study. The same studies that can't get no replication. And even if they do, aren't actionable at all. Decision paralysis as religion. "Things are complicated" gets thrown against every opinion that people don't like. Not saying anything is wisdom. God forbid anybody has any opinion and may God strike him down if he ever supports anything but tabula rasa. Things got done before studies existed, you know. People built models from intuition and tested them in practice. Or observed patterns. But that's the old wrong ways, right? We publish something on a piece of paper now and unless a committee publishes it and calls it a study it can't be true. And if they do it's true and will remain this way forever, right?

drewcoo 5y ago

My problem with the piece was that people were limited to two types: "revolutionary" and "evolutionary." I think you just played "skeptic" for us. So whether you intended it that way or not, thank you!

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

dang 5y ago

The middle part of your comment is fine but the rest breaks this site guideline: "Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html Blog posts etc. obviously don't need to be scientific studies and there's nothing wrong with people posting them here if they're interesting. HN is an internet watercooler, not an academic journal or conference.