5 ms·
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 cla
by halpert 5y 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.
- helsinkiandrew 5y agoSurely if a book claims people can be split into 4 colour types it should be the book that should provide the proof?
- halpert 5y agoThis article is claiming the author is a fraud. They should provide proof of that claim, just as the author should provide proof of his claims. I didn’t read the book, but I did read this article and the evidence of fraud is lacking.
- goto11 5y agoYou should look into the concept of "burden of proof". If someone claims a model is based on scientific evidence, then obviously it is the claimant who has to provide this alleged scientific evidence. You can't prove a negative, so it does not make sense to require others to prove this alleged evidence does not exist.
- halpert 5y agoAgain, I haven’t read the book or know anything about the author. All I know is that this article is asserting the author of the book is a fraud. That is a positive statement, and insufficient evidence has been provided from my reading.
- goto11 5y agoHe is a fraud because the alleged scientific evidence does not exist.
- halpert 5y agoSimply being wrong or misinformed isn't fraud in and of itself though. One could be incompetent, for instance.
- CRConrad 5y agoPublishing non-scientific bullshit as science-based is fraud even if the actual contents are based on incompetence. Sure, that makes editors and publishers complicit in the fraud, but in the end: If you let something be published in your name, you get to stand behind it.
- jdmichal 5y agoI thought the article was very direct and fair about the fact that the system in question seems based on DiSC, and that there's not enough evidence to really say one way or the other.
- mongol 5y agoIt does not need to be fraudulent, it is enough that it states facts as scientific when they have not been proven.
- halpert 5y agoThis article is naming “fraudster of the year.” I think they should show evidence of fraud in this case.
- tapland 5y agoThe Swedish title he earned, Förvillare, isn't technically fraudster but more "confuser" (of others, leading them astray) of the year
- jdmichal 5y agoIs it not fraud to claim a scientific backing behind the concepts, when no such backing is provided, and likely doesn't exist? Is it not fraud to claim to be an "expert" in a field in which you have no formal training and likely no practical experience? Those two points above are what I walked away with as the claims along with as much proof as they could muster. Because they can't prove that there's not something that scientifically credits DiSC, but they can say that they did not find anything. As a bonus, they're also clearly intellectually honest in asserting that they could also not find anything discrediting DiSC. They also conveyed what they could not find regarding the author's education and experience. I'm not quite sure what more you are looking for here?
- goto11 5y agoPseudo-sciences tend to make vague and non-falsifiable claims which cannot really be disproven empirically. Can you arbitrary divide people in four groups named after colors? Of course. It is it in any way useful except as a method of selling books and seminars? This remains to be seen.