The growing interest in psychology over the last two decades has led to the subject slowly and then rapidly moving away from its scientific framework. People from all walks of life, those who have been educated in different disciplines, those who could not find satisfaction in their professional journeys, or those who felt blocked, “embraced” psychology. If hugging meant seeking help, it would certainly be viewed positively. Many of these people, by following semi-structured or unstructured paths, or by building their own paths, considered themselves experts in helping others.
In response to this interest in psychology, private universities have filled not only their psychology departments but also their master’s programs without prerequisites. I have witnessed in the past years that the lack of faculty members to respond to this interest is not a problem. At a foundation university where I was invited as a speaker for Psychology Days, all the faculty members were pediatricians.
Those who did not even pass through such an educational institution wrote cut-and-paste books from books written in different languages. Some were more courageous and produced personality tests, recognizing the need in business life. The most daring example came out of Sweden, a culture where norms are influential, and spread beyond the country’s borders to the world. Thomas Ericson’s Surrounded by Idiots, a book believed to be written by an expert in the field and describing human psychology, sold more than 100,000 copies in Sweden and generated more than 10 million euros in revenue. The success of this book has reinforced the interest of many companies in personality tests in the business world and has increased the number of people willing to take advantage of this new market.
David Sumpter, professor of mathematics at Uppsala University, writes on Medium that Thomas Erikson’s Surrounded by Idiots is a pseudoscience scandal, based on the experiences of psychologist and psychotherapist Dan Katz, a member of the Swedish Skeptics Association. I came across the original source a few years ago when I came across Psychologist Gamze Şener’s translation. Since I have seen that psychology has been increasingly misused in recent years and this article is a powerful example of this, I have edited it faithfully. Those who want to access the original text can go to the first reference at the end of the article.
The judgment of Dan Katz, Erickson’s researcher, is very sharp. The theory on which this book is based, and the work that follows, is pseudoscientific nonsense. Erikson lacks even a basic knowledge of psychology and behavioral sciences. That is why VoF (Vetenskap och Folkbildning – the Swedish Skeptics Society) has declared Thomas Erikson “Fraud of the Year 2018”. Let us now follow how the story unfolded in Sweden, as written by David Sumpter.
The book that lifts the veil from people’s eyes
Suddenly, Swedes started to see a cover with shadowy red, yellow, green and blue figures and posters of this cover in bookstores everywhere. Especially at airports and on airplanes, it became common to pass people reading the book. Around the same time, expert psychologists reported that some of their patients were breaking up with their partners because they said they “couldn’t live with a yellow person”. As a result of tests conducted by human resources, some employees were told that they had to move to another team because of “color incompatibility” in their current team. “I’m red, a little blue. What’s your color?” discussions were heard.
Following this attention, Thomas Erikson was quick to appear in the media. The morning news on the Swedish national channel TV4 introduced him as an expert in behavior and communication. When his second book Surrounded by Psychopaths was published, the public broadcaster STV invited Erikson to talk about psychopaths on its “Ask the Doctor” program. Aftonbladet, one of the country’s leading newspapers, gave him a weekly column to answer questions about psychology. Despite the high price, tickets for the lectures sold out and Erikson gave lectures on how people can be divided into red, blue, yellow and green. No one before him had had such an impact on the public’s understanding of how and why people behave the way they do.
Surprised by this interest, psychologists investigated how the Swedish public had become so blindly attached to Erikson and his four colors. Some professionals likened Erikson’s color distinction to the Myers-Briggs Test used by some management consultants with little knowledge of psychology. This test and the theory behind it, based on the mystical ideas of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung, is not taken seriously by modern psychologists. Although this test, developed many years ago, has been the subject of numerous studies, no scientifically valid results have been found, but it has been enthusiastically welcomed by business executives who are far from the discipline of psychology. The most important reason for this is that the results, like astrological descriptions, make the person being evaluated feel very good about themselves. As with horoscopes, this test makes everyone fall in love with their own results.
As psychologists furthered their work, it became clear that the basis for the book “Surrounded by Idiots” was not based on Myers Bridge, but on a fifty-year-old model called DiSC. Although the model is so old, to date no scientific evidence has been found to confirm the results of this test either.
Personality as a mysterious concept
Although the subject of personality is of interest to everyone, the general public lacks a scientific understanding of personality. This is why astrologers, fortune tellers and self-proclaimed salesmen can easily monetize public ignorance about personality. The Swedish Skeptics’ Association went after the story of Thomas Ericson, who is perhaps one of the most outspoken in this regard and has achieved international fame and fortune with his pseudoscientific nonsense.
People who lack the discipline of scientific thinking easily fall into the fallacy that if two events follow one another, the latter is the cause of the former. A simple example is opening an umbrella when it rains, but it does not rain when the umbrella is opened. Those interested in popular psychology are prone to such errors. Dan Katz gives the example of the approach of Mia Törnblom, a popular Swedish motivational speaker who has made a small fortune with her books on “how to improve self-confidence”. According to her, “negative thoughts are the result of low self-esteem”. But the very definition of self-confidence is to have negative thoughts about oneself. This leads to a vicious circle, whereby low self-esteem is explained by low self-confidence. Törnblom recommends that people with low self-esteem look in the mirror and say “I am great” over and over again. This, he claims, will increase self-confidence and the person will be able to do things they were afraid to do before, such as public speaking.
Wood’s 2009 study showed that such affirmations, which many life coaches and even therapists often recommend for people who have negative thoughts about themselves, actually have a damaging effect. When these exercises are practiced, contrary to expectations, many people experience an increase in negative thoughts and tension. This is a good example of how the suggestions of well-meaning people with no training or experience in psychology can have damaging consequences. If treating self-confidence problems were as easy as repeating these and similar simple mantras, there would be no people today with feelings of inadequacy. In short, low self-esteem is a label, not a description, and using concepts in this way is like saying that bad weather causes rain. Therefore, labeling people red, blue, green, yellow does not explain anything.
Modern evidence-based methods in the behavioral sciences are based on the idea that human behavior is context-dependent. For example, a shy child in class may take center stage when he is with his friends on the soccer team. An extrovert may become quiet when he realizes that no one pays attention to him. These simple situations, which we are all aware of, cause psychologists to be very careful when using the term personality. Within these limitations, there have been many scientific attempts to classify personality types. These studies date back 2000 years, from Hippocrates’ grouping of temperament into four types (irritable, cold-blooded, melancholic, hopeful) to Jung’s work in the 20th century. However, it was not until the “Five Factor Theory of Personality”, which was put forward in the 1980-90s, that these studies became scientifically based.
The “Big Five” was determined not by a theory, but by statistical analysis of thousands of personality questionnaires, each containing hundreds of questions. The five traits that have remained relatively constant over time are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness and emotional stability. These traits do not cause people to be categorized into different types. People fall somewhere in the range of being very agreeable to very disagreeable, with the vast majority in the middle. At the same time, these five traits are not mutually exclusive and an openness to experience recognizes that one can also have a high sense of responsibility (some tests consider ambition, which is included in extroversion, as a separate dimension when it comes to business life). In sum, the “Big Five” is a functional way of statistically summarizing differences in human behavior, and the psychologists who develop these tests are careful to classify people based on these five factors. As Sjöberg showed in 2010, “we have different tendencies in how we behave, but these tendencies are only a small part of the explanation of who we are”. Because values are an important determinant of human behavior. People with a high achievement orientation compete with others and themselves. Some are upset when they fail but accept the result, while others are spoilers and will try to cheat if there is an opportunity. At this point, it is not the personality that determines the behavior, but the value system that the person has.
After giving this general information about personality, Sumpter focuses on the answer to the question, “Is there a scientific basis for color theory?”, which is the subject of “Surrounded by Idiots”. Because the back cover of Erikson’s book states that “based on a scientific basis… this book provides a concrete way to understand the biggest differences between different communication styles”. But what exactly is this “scientific basis”?
The only scientific reference Erikson uses is the book The Emotions of Normal People, written by American psychologist William Moulton Marston in 1928. Moulton argues that our behavior is influenced by the “psychonic energy” carried by nerve cells he calls “psychons”. According to Moulton, the four personality types (yellow, green, blue and red) are variations of the structure of psychonic networks in different people. This “theory” is pure speculation on Marston’s part. Neither in 1928 nor now is there any scientific data showing the existence of “psychons” or “psychonic energy”. At the time this book was published, psychology was still a very new science and Marston, like Hippocrates and Jung, came up with a theory without any scientific basis. But unlike Hippocrates and Jung, Marston’s theory received very little attention and she herself left psychology and later became famous for her comic book “Wonder Woman”!
But there was one person who followed Marston’s writings. In 1956 Walter Clark created a personality test based on the four-color model. This test was later refined and gave rise to what is now referred to as the DiSC model. The purpose of the test was for employers to understand their employees and it was marketed as such. According to the DiSC test, people in the world are divided into four categories:
Red: Dominant, solution-oriented, determined
Blue: Analytical, careful, meticulous
Green: Patient, considerate, sensitive
Yellow: Extroverted, productive, verbal
What is interesting is that even though the model has been around for more than 50 years and is widely used, there are no scientific studies on it. In fact, the test’s representative in Sweden, the IPU, or Institute for Personal Development, has never published a scientific paper on the test. So it is not possible to know whether people give consistent answers to the test. This means, for example, that there is no way of knowing whether red people are really dominant or driven.
On the other hand, Erikson’s own statement of his conclusions is contradictory. First he claims that “people have many colors”, then he claims without evidence that “80% of people have two colors”. Regarding himself, he says, “I have three colors: red, blue and yellow!” Given that the stated purpose of the test is to classify people, such claims go beyond the bizarre. Urban Fagerholm studied the meaning of colors in detail and found that Erikson was, by his own admission, both fast and slow to react, both highly and minimally interested in relationships, and both attentive and impulsive. And according to Fagerholm, Erikson’s lack of green also indicates a lack of many essential qualities such as patience, calmness, stability and kindness!
To summarize, the four-color model is based on a theory that has no scientific basis, has not been rigorously studied, and gives contradictory results. Simply put, the model is a typical example of pseudoscience.
How does color theory affect relationships?
In his book, Erikson repeatedly states that color theory helps us to understand ourselves and others, which in turn improves communication and reduces conflict. Erikson’s argument for why companies and organizations should adopt his approach is based on this. Since there is no scientific research on the model, there is naturally no information about the accuracy of this argument. Nevertheless, it might be useful to approach it scientifically by asking “what would happen if we applied his color theory?”
The most common mistake when there are problems in an organization is to focus primarily on the individuals involved in the conflict. In fact, since it is the circumstances in which people behave that determine how they behave, in a conflict it is first necessary to look at how the organization works. Therefore, the consultant brought in to solve the problem is expected to look at the structure of the organization and its culture before looking at the individuals (Olofsson & Nilsson, 2015). How are decisions made? How are employees informed about decisions? How is responsibility shared? Which behavior is punished and which is rewarded and what are the means used? Although stress is a normal reaction to structural problems in the organization, the solution is often found in the ‘problem’ employee learning ways to cope with the stress. This leads to a vicious circle in which the stressed employee is perceived as the cause of the problem.
If Erikson’s theory of personality is not working (which it is not), it leads to such errors: The fact that a person behaves in a certain way is attributed to his or her coloring and the root cause of the problem is ignored. It is hard to imagine a more unpleasant and unfair way of handling a problem than attributing it to the fact that the person at the center of the conflict is “blue”. There is nothing more natural than interpersonal conflict and problems, both at work and in the family. The solution to these problems lies in improving the quality of interpersonal communication and relationships, not in making decisions based on personality theory. Perhaps the only positive aspect of Erikson’s book is that some people realize that not everyone thinks like them. Psychologists call this ability to change perspective, which usually develops in early childhood, “theory of mind”. In other words, Erikson’s book can help a 5-year-old on an intellectual and empathic level.
Ericson and behavioral sciences
In translations of the book outside Sweden, Erikson was presented as a behavioral scientist, and in his interviews he presented himself as a “behaviorist” and “communication expert”. When Dan Katz and his colleagues, whose views Sumpter draws on in this article, started this research, their first goal was to access Erikson’s academic and personal information. They contacted Erikson’s company “Team Communications” and after three emails, they received an email from Christina, who at first said she did not understand the question and that “Erikson would let them know when he had time”, but the information never came. It was later discovered that Christina was in fact Erikson’s wife. An attempt was made to find Erikson’s lectures using Ladok, the system through which all university students in Sweden are registered, but no one with his name and date of birth could be found, and it was discovered that Erikson’s professional life was based on sales. He worked at Bank Nordea for a while, then started his own company where he trained salespeople, and probably the best academic background he had was a high school diploma with Swedish equivalency.
According to Sune Gellberg, owner of IPU, the organization that sells the DiSC test, no qualifications are needed to administer the personality test. “I don’t know what training our counselors have because it doesn’t matter,” she said. “The computer program that does the personality analysis and gives the counselor a report to go through with the participant is enough.” This approach shows that even the representative of the test does not need to know psychology. The personality counselors had no knowledge of testing methodology or personality theory. They were only expected to enter the numbers into the computer and were naturally not interested in what the result meant or its scientific value.
For further research, the team decided to go to one of Erikson’s lectures at the Rival Theater in Stockholm. According to them, the presentation was embarrassing for anyone with a basic knowledge of psychology. Ericson began his presentation by introducing Freud and Jung as the founders of modern psychology, which anyone who has taken a four-week course in the field knows to be false. The discipline of psychology has evolved a lot since Freud, Jung and the comic book writer Marston. Both at the conference and later in his radio programs, Erikson’s attempts to explain behavior and personality were very different.
When confronted with criticism of the book, Erikson said that those who criticized it were “treating the reader like an idiot”. According to Dan Katz, nothing could be further from the truth. What they conclude is that the book was falsely marketed and that readers were led to believe that Erikson’s education and the book had a scientific basis.
Yet Erikson continues to present himself as a behavioral scientist when he is not. Prior to one of the first articles to be published in Filter in Sweden, Erikson called Dan Katz to ask him to support his claim to be a behavioral scientist as a psychologist and member of the Swedish Skeptics Society. Katz declined, even though in Sweden it is legally possible to call oneself a behavioral scientist without any formal qualifications. Nevertheless, Erikson claimed that Katz had endorsed him, a lie that was easily exposed when a Filter reporter telephoned Katz. Erikson went further, claiming on his website, “In my interview with Filter, I was confirmed as a behavioral scientist by a psychologist.”
Being predictably irrational…
Now let’s come to the crux of the matter: the answer to the question of why so many people continue to believe in Ericson, despite his exaggerated and unrealistic qualities and the fact that the theory on which the book is based is a product of fantasy. It is possible to attribute this to people’s thinking system errors. For example, the book’s popularity may be due to the “snowball effect”. People talking about the book may have generated interest and increased sales. Another “first system thinking error” may be the “sunk cost fallacy”. Those who bought the book paid money, spent time reading it, perhaps told others, and did not want to admit their mistake and feel humiliated. Another thinking error is the availability effect. Being encountered too often creates anxiety about missing something important. People who are prominent in society but do not have basic knowledge of psychology are considered opinion leaders and create conversations about the book (messanger effect). It is a known fact that people behave predictably irrationally and systematically make thinking errors. It should not be forgotten that many respected media outlets publish horoscopes and many highly educated people read them.
It remains to be seen who is responsible. The first edition is published by Hoi Publishing House. However, as sales increase, it is Forum, which is affiliated with Sweden’s largest media group Bonnier, that wins the book’s publication through auction and reaches a wide audience. While it is acceptable for the first publisher not to check the truth of the facts in the book, it is unacceptable for Forum, which helped the book reach a wide audience, to publish it without evaluating the book and the author’s background. Katz also directs the same question to TV4, SVT and Aftonbladet. In particular, before Aftonbladet devoted a column to Erikson, Filter published an article questioning his expertise. Although his being named “Swindler of the Year” caused a stir in the media, Aftonbladet ignored it. Up to this point, we can assume that each publishing house, including Bonnier, accepted the book because the others accepted its validity and therefore considered it scientific. According to Sumpter, Swedish society is based on trust. Society assumes that those who write books know what they are writing about and trusts reputable book publishers. It believes that newspaper editors control the facts and trusts television and radio. Here we encounter one of the biggest problems of our age. In an age where everyone can publish their ideas without limits on online platforms, institutions that represent trust, such as publishing houses, publishers, and editors, have to be more careful to maintain their own credibility. According to the authors, if that trust is lost, democracy and an open society are at risk. Since the first article was published in spring 2019, Erikson’s book has sold in more than 35 countries, becoming the all-time bestseller of the previous year in Norway in 2018. Forbes put the book in the top 10 of its “must read” list. The book has sold around 2 million copies worldwide. And Erikson’s publisher continues to list him as a “behavioral scientist” on amazon.com.
Conclusion
Sumpter’s article on Medium ends with the final paragraph summarizing the situation in January 2020. After five years, Ericson’s books are still on the shelves in Turkey. Decisions are being made about employees in business life based on tests that have no scientific basis, people with no education write books that format the brain without giving any references and that sell for hundreds of thousands of copies, and publishing houses that we expect to be respected publish them. The findings of American psychology are accepted as universal truths. Fortune tellers, astrologers, mediums are seen as opinion leaders, and life coaches continue to offer “quick solutions” in every area of life.
Resources
- https://medium.com/@Soccermatics/how-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-biggest-scientific-bluffs-of-our-time-de47c82601ad
- Olofsson, R,. Nilsson, K. (2015) OBM I praktiken: förändra beteenden och nå resultat I organisationer. Natur & Kultur, Stockholm.
- Perugni, M., Costantini, G., Hughes, S., de Houwer, J. (2016). A functional perspective on personality. International Journal of Psychology, Vol. 51, №1, 33–39.
- Sjöberg, L (2010) Personlighetsdimensioners validitet i arbetslivet: teorier och empiri. Center for Risk Research and Center for Media and Economic Psychology Marketing and Strategy Department, 2010:6 Stockholm School of Economics, Stockholm.
- Sumpter, D. (2020, February 04). How Swedes were fooled by one of the biggest scientific bluffs of our time. Retrieved from https://medium.com/@Soccermatics/how-swedes-were-fooled-by-one-of-the-biggest-scientific-bluffs-of-our-time-de47c82601ad
- Wood, J. V., Perunovic, W. Q. E., & Lee, J. (2009). Positive thinking: Power for some, peril for others. Psychological Science, 20, 860866.
