reminder not to judge a book by its cover. these kinds of self improvement books are often titled to attract the people that need them more than reflect the opinions inside. like that one social media post of the lady burning a book titled “guys like girls who…” because she assumed it was hateful, but the point of the book was to help young women build confidence and realize they don’t need male approval.
if any book requires its title to be a clickbait in order to sell and author are willing to use such a move, i’d doubt about the quality of its content
hmm, idk, again in the “guys like girls who” example. it’s targeting people with bad self image and telling them they’re fine the way they are. if you hate that then you’re being way too of a purist on your “clickbait” stance
Like 50% of the self help industry is showing people that they’re actually the problem in their lives. You’ll never get a person like that to read a book called “actually you’re the problem” but frame it in a way that they agree with, “surrounded by idiots”, and then set up some scenarios, but break them down to show why the other people actually aren’t idiots, and it’s the “surrounded” person’s issues showing through… Well, they may stick around long enough to learn something.
Not necessarily. We live in a capitalist distopia where it doesn’t matter how good you are at what you do or what you sell. You won’t sell shit if you can’t market yourself. The opposite also applies.
The only reason I “have space to say so” is because it’s not a science. Allowing whatever you mean by “direct psychological experimentation” wouldn’t change that.
I’m not saying it’s a field of study that isn’t useful, but it’s not science.
That sound was a behavior analyst stabbing UndercoverUlrikHD in the spleen. I’m guessing you know absolutely nothing about the different fields within psychology, or even much beyond what you’re exposed to in popular culture. Yet here you are, trying to redefine the scientific method to suit your feelings
No, you’re massively overgeneralizing. Freud is pseudoscience, but there’s lots of very real studies especially around the 60s (before ethics were considered) that follow the scientific method and have real measurable outcomes and conclusions.
Don’t be anti science. Science is a method, not a social club.
Psychology from the 60s is unreplicatable just-so story trash. Some stuff being done in the last decade or two is starting to approach legitimacy, but I think we’re still not really there yet.
There definitely is real, experimental psychology, but unfortunately the vast majority of psychology in the popular consciousness, and even in some academic / professional bodies, is modern-day phrenology. (Also I’d cut Freud some slack, since he was working based on the standards of his time.)
I tried reading one of these. Gave up when I realized it was basically a very slightly modified version of the four humours philosophy of philosophy. Couldn’t find anything helpful in it.
yeah, i don’t know these books, nor do i often like self help books… this post just reminded me of mistakes I’ve seen in the past. the internet is very very fast to hate without checking if they’re right.
(or how to understand those who cannot be understood)
The subtitle really highlights his superior understanding.
I think I get it. Listen. There are four types of people: Red person, yellow person, green person and blue person. And they’re all narcissistic psychopath idiots. Easy.
Isn’t that exactly what these books are calling out? That if you feel surrounded by idiots, it’s you who need to work on empathy and communication skills?
This is correct. Fro what i remember In Surrounded by Idiots he starts with a story about a business owner he knew that used the title phrase to describe his own employees and then uses that to lead into the book which is about connecting with other people, perspective, and empathy.
The book is titled like that because it would resonate with the people that actually believe that and are the ones that really need to read the book.
Reminder: If someone constantly bitches about his colleagues, calles them idiots and acts like he is the only one who does everything right all the time. Then this person is the problem and is projecting harder than a drive-in cinema.
Yea, the having shitty coworker thing DOES happen. It’s more the, “I’m the only good one…” thing that’s the indicator. Even most actually shitty coworkers are good some of the time or else they’d hopefully be canned quickly.
And if you work somewhere where shitty people are never fired, it’s probably a good time to find another job. Unless, you know, you’re a shitty person and want job security.
It’s the complaining about it–asserting your correctness to everyone around you–that makes someone the asshole.
Everyone always thinks they’re right. If you didn’t think you were right to act a certain way, you would do something different! Acknowledging afterwards that you were wrong and made a mistake is what makes someone tolerable.
I don’t know about that. I certainly think I’m right when I do something, but I have a healthy dose of imposter syndrome, so I tend to do a lot of testing before hand, and when something goes wrong I assume it’s my fault until I can prove otherwise.
It always seems strange to me when people need to be proven wrong. Usually when I’m wrong, I’m the person who figures it out, because I always assume problems are my fault.
The weird thing is, this leads to an enormous amount of trust in me by others, which I find exceedingly uncomfortable.
I recently had a meeting with my supervisor, and he was complaining about how a previous meeting ran over time and repeatedly complaining about how some former team members who moved to a different team caused the meeting to run over time because they wouldn’t just agree to do what he asked, but kept arguing with him about why it isn’t a good idea.
I had to interrupt him to point out that the meeting we were in, in which he was complaining about the previous meeting running over time because of the previous team members, had just run over time, and they weren’t in the meeting this time.
I don’t think he liked what I said, but he ended the meeting, and that’s what I wanted to happen.
He did my annual review three days later and complained that I don’t work well with others, and specifically indicated that I don’t work well with him.
He’s the only supervisor who has ever complained about me in the 36 years I’ve been working.
We’ve had two people retire last year directly because of him. There is another person who refuses to have a meeting with him unless it is recorded.
Surprised you don’t take this sort of detail up to your skip level. Corporations are not entirely blind to issues in all cases. Actually, I bet you have raised these concerns. For all the folks nodding along, talk to your boss’ boss!! You owe it to yourself to try
I have, and others have as well. It doesn’t look like the situation can be improved through the chain of command.
Although, I heard through the grapevine that he was written up by the director of a department we support. Honestly, given what I know about that person, I’m surprised he survived that. However, he did.
Add comment