SURROUNDED BY IDIOTS by Thomas Erikson | Core Message

[@SmallBusinessFree-StylePodcast]

This is a very good overview of the DISC "Behavioral" styles. Note that this assessment is NOT a Personality profile but an assessment of observable behaviors. This is about How you respond/react to Problems & Challenges, People & Contacts, Pace & Consistency, and Procedures & Compliance.

[@FrankPloegman]

Excellent summary and thanks for bringing this book to my attention! I had already done the DISC test in 2015, but mostly forgot about it. This framework describes a lot of misunderstanding and criticisms that I have experienced in my own life.

[@peterpower8322]

This is very practical personality squares...that explain behaviors of others and how to deal with them

[@orfeas8]

Seems like a very very useful book. I like your summary here. Thanks

[@harishankarparthipan-ol3ly]

Wonderful and very clearly put down, thanks 🙏

[@lorenzomarquesini7136]

Hello Productivty Game. Thanks for the video

[@xyJleTaM]

You've gotten really good with this stuff. Massive respect and many thanks!

[@arupmullick3474]

Love This Book

[@Pegamax]

The 4 temperaments of Hippocrates or even older Ezekiel... nothing is created, everything is transformed...

[@harishankarparthipan-ol3ly]

Awesome 👍

[@sihr07]

🙄🙄🙄 no one said this author created this theory….

[@d.m.uu.8776]

love it, thank you for introducing this book to us 😊 the adidas design teams in Germany are like this, one is create has mostly a crazy hair colours, one is the grey mouse and very focused, one is the strong decision maker an leader and the last one is a friendly person the keep the full team together 😊

[@enfisya]

nice summary 👏🏼

[@MatthewEaton]

Or you could refer to the DISC system that pretty much covers this without colors. I get that people learn differently, but this is sort of reinventing the wheel that already exists.

[@AberrantArt]

Can you explain the DISC system? I've heard of it before but this is the only personality categorization im familiar with.

[@RadekPilich]

yes, it's just rehashed DiSC

[@MatthewEaton]

@@AberrantArt You pretty much got it from this video. D is Red, I is Yellow, S is Green, C is Blue. All of the personality traits and reactions are the same as DISC

[@parthparmar257]

Loved it ❤

[@broncobilly4029]

Thanks. I went through a leadership training course a few years ago that was very similar. It may have been the same source. Anyway, good reminders in this book to better understand someone, you should look at things from the other person's perspective.

[@STUDIO-ew8dz]

great book, great review, thanks!

[@SamirMishra6174]

Another great video

[@stefaan9218]

Thank you! Great explanation m8

[@alaskaaesthetics]

Reading a book in 9 minutes is the best

[@rishiraj2548]

Thanks

[@haifisher]

This is basically the persolog DISC model.

[@sihr07]

It is, the whole point is to bring new tools for understanding and taking advantage of these characteristics

[@milinprkh]

Very nice. Thank you!

[@macharlaaswin9102]

Thank you

[@ArjunSarja-qv4qn]

But I don’t think people will stick to 1 colour. They will be shifting their colour based on the situation

[@gustavocosti8019]

luv it

[@themoviecapo]

Another personality type book but this time with colours. So simple that even kindergarten can use /s

[@Yrona]

🤗thanks

[@lifetrail_hiking_mentoring]

You can just cut out judging others, all others, take everyone at face value and remove the expectations. We do not need another human category.

[@rohithdsouza8]

Nice!

[@PennyTrayshun-dh2ft]

Exactly the same point previously pointed out by the others, that’s been grossly overlooked by this book. I appreciate the invitation to be more tolerant of peoples differences but suggesting ways on how to best approach each type assuming their predictability is fundamentally flawed. Nice presentation though. Sounds similar to the outdated Myers Briggs concept

[@cristiplopeanu]

this model looks highly-subjective from my self-introspection results over the years I think putting the mind in limited, well-defined categories is very dangerous, as a habit, due to its complexity and power of adaptation and learning. At least that's my opinion.

[@knownuser0815]

DISC assessment. This shit has been known for decades.

[@sihr07]

🙄🙄🙄 it is, the whole point is to bring new tools on how to use it No need to be bitter 🤡🤡🤡

[@knownuser0815]

There is no need for new tools when the principle itself is already flawed. Or do you also believe in MBTI?

[@SonnyDarvish]

This book mentions 4 colors and every color has a perspective, positive and moving forward. How about me? I am white as a whiteboard. That lazy couch potato that keeps complaining about everything and everyone and does't have or care about a solution. I want to be included in this book too! 🤷🏻‍♂

[@Meowmemoments]

Is it possible that i can be every colour at some point

[@teddnagurski5583]

I took the quiz and it says I'm a blue. While some of it suits me, some of it doesn't because I'm a creative

[@Yrona]

❤

[@tar-yy3ub]

Any book that divides people into a bunch of categories is bollocks. Real psychologists and actual personality researchers know this.

[@d.m.uu.8776]

Absolutely, people’s reactions can vary greatly from day to day, influenced by their current emotions and experiences, as well as what lies ahead. The complexity of human behavior cannot be fully captured by just four broad categories; a more nuanced approach would offer deeper insights. Additionally, the book appears to be researched and written from a Western perspective, potentially overlooking a more global viewpoint.

[@skanderabdellaoui]

@@d.m.uu.8776 I sincerely like your comment and it is 100% true and what I liked the most is this one “POTENTIALLY OVERLOOKING A MORE GLOBAL VIEWPOINT.” BUT (sorry there is always a “but”, but don’t worry it is not a “but” that is opposite to what you’ve said it is only a supplement :-)), we are condemned to use the scientific method and categorize in order to highlight the attributes of a particular category. The goal is to capture one aspect of reality not the entire reality (this is called ABSTRACTION). So the categories are models just models not to confuse with the real persons. Models don’t exist in real life. In his book “Mastery”, George Leonard (not mastery of Robert Green) divided the learner in three categories: the dabbler, the obsessive, and the hacker. Does he really consider that there are three types and only three type of people trying to learn something ? Of course not, he was just trying to bring our attention to the fact that the attributes in these 3 models may be an obstacle for learning. His goal is to convince us to avoid these attributes while trying to master something. So indeed if we “change” our behavior, we can avoid “being” a dabbler, an obsessive, or a hacker. This is an excerpt from the chapter on “the dabbler, the obsessive, and the hacker”: “The categories are obviously not quite this neat. You can be a Dabbler in love and a master in art. You can be on the path of mastery on your job and a Hacker on the golf course and vice versa…These characters, then, have proven useful in help- ing us see why we're not on the path of mastery. But the real point is to get on that path and start moving.”. Carl Jung also used categories to illustrate his points about consciousness, the unconscious, the shadow, the archetypes… but Yes to not confuse with the real self which is more complex. And @tar-yy3ub you are are right about saying what you said, we must be aware and don’t forget that these are only models to help us understanding and don’t capture reality in any way !

[@Outerspacefunk]

Read the book not worth it. Just understand that you need to cut the chase when asking or reporting to someone.

[@pulseformmusic]

I think I am a 🔵

[@lisbon2407]

Empty, wasting time, no answer. So, modern author.

[@watchit387]

Sounds like pseudo science bullshit