I absolutely love *'Surrounded by Idiots';* it's my favourite book! It taught me so much about DISC language and made me realise I am Red/Blue/Green. Thomas Erikson is a superstar 💫💫💫
in recent years i have understood that the world is populated by greens, very obedient, they do not like conflicts and do not like changes. In fact they ran to do that thing just to continue to live their life as usual. Bravo this writer!
I am about to read the book "Surrounded by idiots" by Thomas E... So I am here to watch him .. about how he actually in conversation... And in the end .. it's very nice and Great author .. I can't wait to read his book.. this is great video .. thanks alot
I see that the red and blue character are best traits you can have for competence very practical and helpful book it's a life changing , thank you all ❤️
same here, depends wether i am working and focused on results, or in a meeting and working on a solution with others, with friends or co-workers, am i learning from someone, or when i am teaching someone. it seems to shift constantly, daily, adjusting depending on my situation, the position am in and the people i am with.
I bought your book, but I'm not sure whether we could group people into these categories and how accurate these descriptions are. It looks like a lot of Barnum effect.
Well, the idea here is not to completely enclose in these descriptions but to use it as a guide to foster a good relationship with them. Dealing with people without fitting them into these 4 categories would have you guessing what to do next. But with this knowledge, you would be able to come up with a way of communication that likely resonates with them. Which is of course contingent to how well you can "read" people. Treat it as knowing how to read a map - You will know the general direction that you would take but it doesn't mean that you'll know the sceneries specific to the location. Please tell me your thoughts.
That tells us your are very blue, like rocket-science-blue - at Mr Blue's best very reliable and knowledgable, and at his worst rigid and pedantic, which is what we absolutely adore in a person responsible for flight-safety and in our bank's taking care of our money. You might think we all others (especially me - very much yellow) are idiots! Sorry about that nuisance! 🙂
I will listen to any arguments if you didn't immediately identify with a group. Its not a pure science granted. But i think its a positive theory, and undeniably rings true
I can’t believe people can still get caught up in the unsubstantiated theories of this smooth-talker. Recall that he was named fraudster of the year in 2018 by the Swedish Skeptics Society and that he has no formal degree in communication or behavioural science, so he’s not an expert on the matters he claims to be.
In fact, it may be counter-productive to be an academic scientist in this domain. As it is a good theoretical behavior to be skeptic about Skeptics Societies that denies by principle all that is not scientifically proven. Never forget what is Cartesianism dead end to innovation : all that is doubtful is false. Erikson, even although he does not boast about it, is one of the many continuators of a tradition that goes back to Hippocrates and has undergone numerous iterations that are generally compatible with each other.
@@Matx5901 There are several logical errors in your comment. First, in the field of communication styles (blue, green, yellow, red) we are not at all in the case of a statement not scientifically proven, but in the case of a theory that is only blatant nonsense, originally out of the fertile imagination of William Marston. Erikson has only taken out of the mothballs a theory (the psychonic energy) without any foundation in any objective reality. Second, skepticism is not at all about claiming false everything one doubts. Rather, it is a cautious attitude towards a proposal that is not proven. But given the first point, it can indeed be said that Erikson’s words are rubbish, because it is enough to read the original writings of Marston to realize that his theories are only a fool’s trap for the credulous without logic. And finally, the Cartesian logic is the mother of many more innovations and scientific discoveries than all the ideologies, esoteric thought or other new-age nonsense combined.
@@jefft3814 It's not by telling me whatever you know about the sources of Erickson's inspiration that you'll manage to deny the fact that his field is very ancient and still evolutive (characterology, Hermann's Quadrants, cognitive styles in educational science, etc.) Please, pay attention: I'm not arguing about the theory, I'm talking about the fact that it has been studied for thousands of years (including Plato and Aristotle, Ayurveda) and that it plays nowadays a constructive role in certain contexts of the society. These facts are verifiable and falsifiable: prove that theses researches doesn’t exist and that they don't have the same object. So where am I not logic? Why do you use pejorative terms to support your arguments? Why do you bring esoteric into the discussion? Secondly, I'm not talking about skepticism, but about hyperbolic doubt, leading to rational certainty. That's epistemology. This is how academic science behaves, not without success, as you point out, but with a lot of waste, as I point out. You don't seem to realize that this is how you operate.
@@Matx5901 Um, it’s clear you don’t understand at all what "falsification" means in science. Herrmann’s theory is based on two twentieth-century theories (the predominance of the brain, the famous left and right brain and Paul MacLean’s three-brain theory), two theories that are now totally invalidated by neuroscience research. It doesn’t go back thousands of years in the past and it’s just as much pseudoscientific rubbish as Erikson’s nonsense. If you find comfort in these charlatan fantasies, good for you, it is still worth warning the more rational minds. And regarding cognitive or learning styles in education, maybe you should read articles like The Stubborn Myth of “Learning Styles”.
Haha what is going on? Is he allright? I know he is from sweden but doesnt this feel very american? So very assertive demeanor yet completely unnuanced
Thanks for all the recommendations but it is crazy that you didn’t mention 250+ self help books called Antozent
He talks so passionately. Such a great author. You know he loves what he does.
I absolutely love *'Surrounded by Idiots';* it's my favourite book! It taught me so much about DISC language and made me realise I am Red/Blue/Green. Thomas Erikson is a superstar 💫💫💫
I’m currently reading this book and I love it!!
I am definitely a red with a few yellow qualities ❤️💛
in recent years i have understood that the world is populated by greens, very obedient, they do not like conflicts and do not like changes. In fact they ran to do that thing just to continue to live their life as usual. Bravo this writer!
I am about to read the book "Surrounded by idiots" by Thomas E... So I am here to watch him .. about how he actually in conversation... And in the end .. it's very nice and Great author .. I can't wait to read his book.. this is great video .. thanks alot
I see that the red and blue character are best traits you can have for competence very practical and helpful book it's a life changing , thank you all ❤️
I feel like im a mix of all and it all depends on who I'm with or what I'm doing
yeah same here xD would love to do the test
same here, depends wether i am working and focused on results, or in a meeting and working on a solution with others, with friends or co-workers, am i learning from someone, or when i am teaching someone.
it seems to shift constantly, daily, adjusting depending on my situation, the position am in and the people i am with.
I bought your book, but I'm not sure whether we could group people into these categories and how accurate these descriptions are. It looks like a lot of Barnum effect.
Well, the idea here is not to completely enclose in these descriptions but to use it as a guide to foster a good relationship with them.
Dealing with people without fitting them into these 4 categories would have you guessing what to do next. But with this knowledge, you would be able to come up with a way of communication that likely resonates with them. Which is of course contingent to how well you can "read" people.
Treat it as knowing how to read a map - You will know the general direction that you would take but it doesn't mean that you'll know the sceneries specific to the location.
Please tell me your thoughts.
That tells us your are very blue, like rocket-science-blue - at Mr Blue's best very reliable and knowledgable, and at his worst rigid and pedantic, which is what we absolutely adore in a person responsible for flight-safety and in our bank's taking care of our money. You might think we all others (especially me - very much yellow) are idiots! Sorry about that nuisance! 🙂
I will listen to any arguments if you didn't immediately identify with a group. Its not a pure science granted. But i think its a positive theory, and undeniably rings true
Inspiring
Can people with ADHD fit into the DISC System? Because I probably have it, but I identified myself as yellow and blue. 🤔Who knows?
I can’t believe people can still get caught up in the unsubstantiated theories of this smooth-talker. Recall that he was named fraudster of the year in 2018 by the Swedish Skeptics Society and that he has no formal degree in communication or behavioural science, so he’s not an expert on the matters he claims to be.
In fact, it may be counter-productive to be an academic scientist in this domain. As it is a good theoretical behavior to be skeptic about Skeptics Societies that denies by principle all that is not scientifically proven. Never forget what is Cartesianism dead end to innovation : all that is doubtful is false. Erikson, even although he does not boast about it, is one of the many continuators of a tradition that goes back to Hippocrates and has undergone numerous iterations that are generally compatible with each other.
@@Matx5901 There are several logical errors in your comment. First, in the field of communication styles (blue, green, yellow, red) we are not at all in the case of a statement not scientifically proven, but in the case of a theory that is only blatant nonsense, originally out of the fertile imagination of William Marston. Erikson has only taken out of the mothballs a theory (the psychonic energy) without any foundation in any objective reality.
Second, skepticism is not at all about claiming false everything one doubts. Rather, it is a cautious attitude towards a proposal that is not proven. But given the first point, it can indeed be said that Erikson’s words are rubbish, because it is enough to read the original writings of Marston to realize that his theories are only a fool’s trap for the credulous without logic.
And finally, the Cartesian logic is the mother of many more innovations and scientific discoveries than all the ideologies, esoteric thought or other new-age nonsense combined.
@@jefft3814 It's not by telling me whatever you know about the sources of Erickson's inspiration that you'll manage to deny the fact that his field is very ancient and still evolutive (characterology, Hermann's Quadrants, cognitive styles in educational science, etc.)
Please, pay attention: I'm not arguing about the theory, I'm talking about the fact that it has been studied for thousands of years (including Plato and Aristotle, Ayurveda) and that it plays nowadays a constructive role in certain contexts of the society. These facts are verifiable and falsifiable: prove that theses researches doesn’t exist and that they don't have the same object.
So where am I not logic? Why do you use pejorative terms to support your arguments? Why do you bring esoteric into the discussion?
Secondly, I'm not talking about skepticism, but about hyperbolic doubt, leading to rational certainty. That's epistemology. This is how academic science behaves, not without success, as you point out, but with a lot of waste, as I point out. You don't seem to realize that this is how you operate.
@@Matx5901 Um, it’s clear you don’t understand at all what "falsification" means in science.
Herrmann’s theory is based on two twentieth-century theories (the predominance of the brain, the famous left and right brain and Paul MacLean’s three-brain theory), two theories that are now totally invalidated by neuroscience research. It doesn’t go back thousands of years in the past and it’s just as much pseudoscientific rubbish as Erikson’s nonsense. If you find comfort in these charlatan fantasies, good for you, it is still worth warning the more rational minds.
And regarding cognitive or learning styles in education, maybe you should read articles like The Stubborn Myth of “Learning Styles”.
Haha what is going on? Is he allright? I know he is from sweden but doesnt this feel very american? So very assertive demeanor yet completely unnuanced