6 ms·

> 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 i

> 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. The article. The article told you that: “Maybe the only positive thing that can be said about Erikson’s theory is that it might help some people realise that not everyone thinks the same way they do. Psychologists call this “theory of mind”, an ability to change perspective, which usually develops in early childhood.” But then it continues with this glorious TL;DR: ”In other words, Erikson’s book might help someone with the empathetic and intellectual level of a five-year-old.”

hutzlibu 5y ago
”In other words, Erikson’s book might help someone with the empathetic and intellectual level of a five-year-old.” Yes, that was a very nice worded academic insult. Which makes the later sentence a bit hypocrite: "When faced with challenges to his work, Erikson claims that we are attempting to make out that his readers are idiots. Nothing could be further from the truth" Of course a psychologist is not using the loaded word "idiot" anymore. They still scientifically describe it and use more nuances. And in this case explains, how the poor readers were fooled by the big publisher. Ah those poor idio.. I mean, structurally mentally challenged persons.
neltnerb 5y ago
I think another rather critical point that is buried in the article is that Erikson *lied that the person writing the article* endorsed them as a behavioral scientist! That makes everything else all the more poignant; Erikson apparently saw the author of the article as their *strongest likely supporter* which says so, so much about their degree of self delusion. The person that says Erikson is totally wrong and causing harm is seemingly about the only actual scientist Erikson knows... and Erikson continues to push their theory anyway.
- AtNightWeCode 5y ago
  The way it works in parts of Europe and probably other countries is that there are some titles that are protected, and others are not. Anybody can call themself behavioral scientist. Psychologist would be the protected title in this case I believe.
  - neltnerb 5y ago
    Yeah, it kind of works that way in the US as well, though over-regulation of trades is more our tendency for sure since it keeps out competition from existing players (of course mostly the existing players get a say in the process). I won't bore with the details but look at how many hours of training it takes to become a hair stylist versus a police officer if you're morbidly curious. My point though is that this person lied, publicly, about being endorsed by the author of the article. You don't usually do that unless you have absolutely positively no other options that will increase your credibility. But sure, maybe psychologists have credibility while behavioral scientist is the equivalent of being a "brand influencer".
alkonaut 5y ago
I mean it would be interesting to see some scientific insight on what the effects of pigeonholing is. I’m ready to agree with the author of the article here but his conclusion isn’t exactly more scientific than the book he’s writing about.

> 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 i

hutzlibu 5y ago

”In other words, Erikson’s book might help someone with the empathetic and intellectual level of a five-year-old.” Yes, that was a very nice worded academic insult. Which makes the later sentence a bit hypocrite: "When faced with challenges to his work, Erikson claims that we are attempting to make out that his readers are idiots. Nothing could be further from the truth" Of course a psychologist is not using the loaded word "idiot" anymore. They still scientifically describe it and use more nuances. And in this case explains, how the poor readers were fooled by the big publisher. Ah those poor idio.. I mean, structurally mentally challenged persons.

neltnerb 5y ago

I think another rather critical point that is buried in the article is that Erikson *lied that the person writing the article* endorsed them as a behavioral scientist! That makes everything else all the more poignant; Erikson apparently saw the author of the article as their *strongest likely supporter* which says so, so much about their degree of self delusion. The person that says Erikson is totally wrong and causing harm is seemingly about the only actual scientist Erikson knows... and Erikson continues to push their theory anyway.

AtNightWeCode 5y ago
The way it works in parts of Europe and probably other countries is that there are some titles that are protected, and others are not. Anybody can call themself behavioral scientist. Psychologist would be the protected title in this case I believe.
- neltnerb 5y ago
  Yeah, it kind of works that way in the US as well, though over-regulation of trades is more our tendency for sure since it keeps out competition from existing players (of course mostly the existing players get a say in the process). I won't bore with the details but look at how many hours of training it takes to become a hair stylist versus a police officer if you're morbidly curious. My point though is that this person lied, publicly, about being endorsed by the author of the article. You don't usually do that unless you have absolutely positively no other options that will increase your credibility. But sure, maybe psychologists have credibility while behavioral scientist is the equivalent of being a "brand influencer".

alkonaut 5y ago

I mean it would be interesting to see some scientific insight on what the effects of pigeonholing is. I’m ready to agree with the author of the article here but his conclusion isn’t exactly more scientific than the book he’s writing about.