Rodeados de idiotas: Los cuatro tipos de personalidades (o cómo entender a aquellos a quienes cuesta tanto entender) (No Ficción)

The Surrounded by Idiots

by Thomas Erikson, Ana Camallonga (Translator)

MÁS DE 10 MILLONES DE EJEMPLARES VENDIDOS.  EL MÉTODO QUE TRIUNFA EN TODO EL MUNDO.  Descubre qué color te define y relaciónate mejor con el resto del mundo. ¿Alguna vez te sientes incomprendido? ¿Has intentado razonar con alguien y habéis acabado a gritos? ¿Has salido de una reunión pensando que estás perdiendo el tiempo? O, lo que es peor, ¿la gente a veces no entiende lo que dices, por más claramente que lo expliques? No estás solo. Tras una reunión desastrosa con un empresario de éxito que estaba convencido de estar «rodeado de idiotas», Thomas Erikson ideó un revolucionario método de clasificación del comportamiento que divide a las personas en cuatro los rojos, dominantes y ambiciosos ; los amarillos, espontáneos y optimistas ; los verdes, pacientes y amables , y los azules, metódicos y precisos . Este libro da herramientas para identificarlos e interactuar con ellos y, con un trasfondo psicológico y partiendo de situaciones cotidianas, nos permite mejorar nuestras habilidades sociales y afrontar los conflictos en nuestra vida profesional y personal, con el fin de sacar lo mejor de nosotros mismos y de aquellos que nos rodean.

Genres: Nonfiction, Psychology, Self Help, Business, Personal Development, Audiobook, Communication

327 pages, Kindle Edition

First published June 4, 2014

About the author

Thomas Erikson is a behaviourist and the bestselling author of the Surrounded by- series about human behaviours.

The series, has been translated to close to 60 languages and has sold over 8 million copies.

His mission is to make people’s lives easier by making them more aware of themselves and help people to a better understanding of what it takes to achieve the best possible communication.

He is a highly sought-after public speaker with 120 keynotes yearly on topics such as human behaviours, self-awareness, , narcissism, and leadership.

He lives by the simple but useful quote:
You can’t change somebody else, but you can change yourself.

Thomas was writing for twenty years before finally getting published. Being an author was his dream in life, so he never gave up. Instead he tested new ideas, tweaked his writing style, learned new skills, asked professionals, worked from 03.00 in the morning for years.

No one really believed in his writing ambitions, so he had to believe in himself.

Nowadays Thomas is Sweden’s most translated author still active. Only Selma Lagerlöf and Astid Lindgren has been translated into more languages.
He has until today published twelve books – half fiction and half non-fiction – and he will continue to write as long as he breathes.

He lives on the countryside in Sweden with his wife Christina, Sweden’s biggest romance author, he runs a family business that provides online courses and master classes on all the topics he writes about in his books.

Fun fact: Thomas is a true anglophile. He is a passionate gardener, loves topiary: if he could wear tweed the full year he would. And he is s collector of old Land Rovers.
Some of them works, most of them don’t.

Reviews

[Charlie · Rating 1 out of 5]

I received this book as a christmas present, otherwise I would never have accepted it into my home. At first, I thought that even if it didn't present anything new, at least it could end up being an interesting read. It was not.

Judging by the tone of the writing, the author genuinely believes that he has revolutionized workplace psychology by rehashing four-temperament ensemble theories of human behavior into an unappetizing slurry of self-aggrandizing word casserole. Every little paragraph is frustratingly presented as some sort of divine insight into how humans truly work, peppered with various anecdotes very obviously constructed to strengthen the point the author is presenting. That point being, "there are four types of humans at any given workplace, and this is how you handle them". There is no room given for, you know, actual human nature or the complexities of personality and relationships. The author would have the reader believe that we are all just, on a basic level, different configurations of traits that can be handled easily by following certain steps... and most importantly, that you will be a successful human being if you take this all to heart and master it.

The author promises that the reader will have learned something new by the time they have finished reading. All I picked up was that these days, it's really easy to hawk an idea and have a book published if you're a skilled salesperson who loves the sound of your own voice.

Don't mistake this author for an authority. He is a salesperson selling you a repackaged idea. If you are in need of ways to improve workplace relationships, I would suggest you speak with someone actually qualified on the topic.

[Katarzyna · Rating 3 out of 5]

First of all I would like to address some issues other reviewers had mentioned:
"This author thinks he discovered some brand new theory, when it's only choleric, melancholic, sanguine and phlegmatic once again" - this is VERY not true. Author actually mentions Hippocrates and his theory multiple times. And yes, this book is all about four temperaments theory, just portrayed as colors, which in my opinion was more apealing to reader's imagination in author's mind.

"Book describes 4 types of people as only possibilities that exist, a person cannot be simply put in any of these groups! - this opinion could only be written by someone who did not actually read the book itself. Author gives multiple examples of people being dual-colors, or having different elements of multiple colors in their personalities. 4 types are more about groups of features that every person is "made of", and they can be mixed in many different ways.

Now, having that out of the way, I can say that:
- I had a few good laughs seeing different people that I know in colors' descriptions
- Stories from real life that author puts here and there are indeed very made up, but they are only serving certain points, so I guess they can be taken as metaphors...
- There is nothing very new to the characteristics of 4 colors, since it's based entirely on Hippocrates. Author mentiones multiple ways to DEAL WITH them though, which I've never read anywhere before.
- Author has his own way of mentioning "I am a proffesional", "I've worked in this field for 20 years now", "I give lectures and speeches on that topic" and other show-offy bits almost every chapter, which might become irritating for some readers.

I would not recommend this book to anyone who had already read a lot of books on personalities types topic. It won't bring you anything new. To everybody else - give it a go. It has some useful and funny bits.

[anastasia ♥ hiraeth · Rating 5 out of 5]

I read the other reviews of people that were CLEARLY offended by this book and I got to say: WHAT THE ACTUAL F... ?! Are y'all really made out of cotton candy or are you guys so embarrassed and offended by how right the author is that it enrages you to the core??

Because, hey, no judgement there. Most people don't like being analyzed and they don't like it when somebody hits the mark. But on the other hand most people want to analyze other people and hit the mark (ergo why books like this exist) so who's the real ambigous one here?

Okay, so let's address the first issue here. "Ohh, people can't be put in four boxes, you can't do that, because people are so much more complex than that, ohhhh." Jesus Christ, Karen, did you not read when the author mentioned MULTIPLE TIMES that only five percent of the world's population are just one color ?? 80% are two, the remaining 15% are three colors. You may very well question which scientific researches he got those numbers from but talk about selective reading to fit your emotions.

And by the way, the four-basic-personality-model hasn't really been invented by Thomas Erikson. He's not the first person to use that model and also not the last. Tobias Beck coined his personality types "Shark, Whale, Dolphin, Owl" and they have the same characteristics as Erikson's colors and similar traits. Only he uses a different technique to find out who is what.

Or Harry Potter. Your beloved Hogwarts houses. Slytherin, Gryffindor, Ravenclaw and Hufflepuff. GREEN, RED, BLUE and YELLOW. Being sorted into one of those houses by a talking hat who judges you upon your personality. Hmmm, I wonder where that came from?? And yet everybody digs Hogwarts, y'all swallow it up and proudly boast about what house the Pottermore test put you in and judge people based on what house the Pottermore test put THEM in - and yet you STILL are offended by Thomas Erikson's personality model?! GIVE ME A GODDAMN BREAK.

Now, can we go to the more pleasant sides of this review and be done with this childish affectation. Thomas Erikson has a clear system with which he goes about describing his four base personality models (I don't know if that's proper English but let's try it with "base personality"). First, he describes them, then he goes on about their weaknesses, how they deal with stress, what stresses them out, how to effectively give them bad feedback and work with them effectively.

And may I add, he does that quite funnily. One of my favorite ones is one about a Blue.

Tell a Blue that he can ignore the details of the new contract and skip the last thirty paragraphs there's nothing important in that bit and he'll stare at you very attentively and wonder about your mental capabilities.

Or when he describes a Red:

The posted speed limits here and there (…), they were mostly recommendations. They didn’t apply to him. They were there for people who didn’t really know how to drive!

How to give feedback to a Red - if you dare (title in the chapter of giving feedback)
The only thing you need is a Kevlar vest and fire-resistant hair.
Prepare for war (subtitle)

It's hilarious, really!

Now, another infamous critic I read all over the offended negative reviews: Ohh, he writes like he's talking to a child or somebody who's very stupid. Yes! And? If he'd be writing in the language of psychology experts you guys would be offended because he's too expertly and using phrases you don't understand anyways! So who are we kidding really?

YES, Thomas Erikson uses a very simple language in this book - and that's fine!! I'm in law and insurance, right, and the first thing I learned was that when you talk to a client talk to them like you would to a 10-year-old. Because you don't know how your client's brain works. Some understand the matter better when you use numbers and statistics, some understand it better when you use visual examples and such that connect to emotions. There's actually a book on that I think. Anyhow, this way of writing was the perfect one because that way Thomas Erikson could make sure that what he wants to say is conceived and understood by everyone. The visual ones, the logical ones, everybody.

I see nothing wrong with this book. I see nothing wrong with a personality system that is widely used among most other nonfiction books going in that direction AND fiction.

Oh, and one last example for those of you that are so offended by those four base personality categories: Divergent, anyone? Same thing as Hogwarts, same thing as Thomas Erikson's color system. Come on, guys, let's grow up.

[Miikka Häyrinen · Rating 1 out of 5]

Wow, do not waste your time with this book. If you want to learn something fact-based about human behaviour, look someplace else.

From the very first page I was sceptical. Nothing in the book seemed to make sense when assessed through my previous knowledge of psychology, persuasion or what affects decision making. Or what makes a team work. The categorization in to four groups seemed to cut too many corners, even though the different colours Erikson uses can mix in one person. I set out do some research and well, surprise surprise, there is really very little basis for this kind of an assessment in the first place. As Magnus Lindwall, a professor of psychology at the University of Gothenburg has commented, the book is “no more scientific than a horoscope”.

As it turns out, the book is based on a DISC assessment system, which was invented in the 1920s. To provide perspective, back then Freud was still around and those who have studied psychology know what today's psychology thinks about his theories. What is that then? Well, it has been proven that he was wrong about most everything. His research and methods have become outdated after scientific development. The same thing has happened with the DISC assessment that Erikson bases this book on. As the Swedish psychologist Jonas Hjalmar blom has commented: “the theories behind this book have been outdated for a long time and it should not be used by professionals” We are talking about psychology preceding WWII for crying out loud. Even the author himself has commented to the criticism on his blog: “…there are no facts in my book.”

Still the book undisputedly mixes behavioural science with pseudo-science and therefore misleads the reader. So, HR people, if you thought you have found the next best thing, you have not. Most likely by applying the thinking and methods of this book, you will miss opportunities.

As said, the psychology side of the book is a swindle, and unfortunately, the book is not saved by good narration. The description of the different colours, representing different kinds of individuals, ranges e.g. from their values, decision making and conflict management to things like “blue people are quality-conscious, like the Japanese engineers working at Toyota”. I mean, this is so far from how decision making actually works, I don’t have enough time to even address everything that is wrong with it. The text itself bounces from one thing to another, because the skeleton for which this book is constructed on is crooked and fragile like it would have had osteoporosis its entire life. This is for the simple fact, that because it is not based on any actual research, it has no distinguishable red line which a conscious and critically thinking reader could follow.

Finally, if you want to learn about the subjects of which this tragicomic presentation claims to be a true authority of, I urge you to consider some of the following titles and save yourself from a good 8-10 hours of lost lifetime.

Philosophy:

5 Major Pieces to the Life Puzzle
The Slight Edge

Practical psychology:

Thinking, Fast and Slow (This tells how decision making actually works)
How to Win Friends and Influence People
Influence: The Psychology of Persuasion

Teamwork:
The Five Dysfunctions of a Team: a Leadership Fable
The 17 Indisputable Laws of Teamwork: Embrace Them

[Timo Kataja · Rating 1 out of 5]

Childishly written, as if speaking to toddlers. Based on no science but the writer's own opinions.

So in brief: Utter garbage.

[Naomi · Rating 1 out of 5]

UPDATE 2018::: om ni vill ha ytterligare anledningar till att sky den här soppan som pesten, läs den här artikeln: https://www.jonashjalmarblom.com/blog...

Vilken vedervärdig bok, och vilken vidrig, vidrig människa Thomas Eriksson verkar vara. Han verkar älska sig själv mer än något annat, varje sida skriker av hans självgodhet.

Hans sätt att skriva får det att koka i mig, att han tilltalar läsaren och är så INFORMELL. T.ex:
Med risk för att låta klyshig - det handlar om att samarbeta, om att mötas. Det visste du redan, men detta är orsaken till just den slutsatsen, och här har du nu fått en lektion i hur det kan gå till.
-
Adriano var dessutom djupt harmsen över att jag som specialist på området kunde beskriva honom ganska ingående ... När han fick analysverktyget som används för att beskriva en enskild individ i sin hand tystnade han fullständigt.
-
Återigen - jag kan inte bevisa detta, så du får helt enkelt genomföra dina egna studier. Utmana dina kompisar en fredagskväll till exempel, så kommer du förstå precis vad jag menar. :)
-

VEM ÄR denna fruktansvärda föreläsare som njuter av att trycka till sina kunder, som använder en fucking SMILEY i sin bok, som hänger ut sina vänner, sin döda mamma, som i varenda exempel bara vill visa sin egen begåvning? Alla exempel i boken ��r av extrema, påhittade människor med noll självinsikt, som bara är en färg (vilket alltså utgör FEM procent av befolkningen). Tack så jävla mycket för den informationen, och tack för dina fantastiska tips som, för alla fyra färger, löd "Var tydlig och prata med dem som om de vore barn."

Det här är populärvetensksp när den är som allra sämst, alla exempel är hämtade ur Erikssons eget liv, han redogör teorier han inte själv kan bevisa, är repetetiv så till den milda grad att hela boken hade kunnats koka ner till en 20-sidig uppsats.

Jag hoppas att han aldrig får ge ut en skönlitterär bok och jag hoppas definitivt att jag aldrig någonsin kommer jobba på ett företag som tar in den här idioten som föreläsare

[Iain · Rating 1 out of 5]

Absolute drivel from start to finish. Categorising people in over-simplified ways in order to manipulate them. The author provides examples, all of which come across as completely made up, and he himself comes across as the most abhorrent person. Perhaps society is in turmoil because too many people are reading nonsense like this and actually taking it seriously. You don't need this to understand people, you just need a bit of common sense and compassion. Avoid.

[آلاء · Rating 4 out of 5]

كنت أعتبر نفسي من القراء اللذين لا تستهويهم كتب من هذه النوعية ولكن هذا الكتاب غير وجه نظري عنها..
الكتاب يمكن إدراجه تحت تصنيف علم نفس وتحديداً بشكل تطبيقي من خلال أمثلة واقعية وتفاعلية..
يتحدث الكتاب عن أنماط السلوك البشري التي تجعل منا شخصيات تختلف إحداها عن الأخرى.
قسم الأنماط إلى أربعة ألوان (أحمر ، أصفر ، أخضر ، أزرق) وكل لون يمثل شخصية معينة تغلب عليها تصرفات وطريقة تفكير معينة وعندما تقرأ سوف تبدأ بملاحظة ألوان الأشخاص المحيطين بك.. ليس الأمر سهلاً ان تطلق أحكام حول من أصفر ومن أخضر لأن الكثير منا هو مزيج من صفات لونين أو ثلاثة.

يبدأ الكاتب بشرح طبيعة كل نمط تباعاً من الأحمر إلى الأزرق، ثم يحدد نقاط قوة وضعف كل منهم، وكيفية التعامل الإيجابي مع الأنماط وإقامة علاقات جيدة معهم ثم يتحدث عن العوامل التي تسبب الضغط والإجهاد لكل شخصية من الأربع. يصل الكاتب في النهاية إلى ضرورة اختلاف أنماط البشر ،من خلال تجربة عملية بوضع شخصيات متشابهة من نفس النمط في مجموعة عمل واحدة وكانت النتائج سيئة وهو ما بين أهمية وجود أنماط شخصيات مختلفة، ومزيج من الألوان لحياة أكثر تفاهم مع توضيحه لسلاسة التعامل بين بعض الأنماط دون الأخرى.

مها كانت وظيفتك أو أين ستذهب بك الحياة فأنت ستتعامل مع الناس ومن المهم فهم طريقه تفكير الآخرين ولماذا يتصرفون على هذا النحو دون غيره لتتمكن من التعامل بسلاسة وكفاءة، تصنيف الشخصيات يجنب الكثير من المشاكل عندما نفهم لماذا يتصرف الناس بالطريقة التي يتصرفون بها.
sun, Sep 18, 2022♥️📚

[Autumn · Rating 1 out of 5]

I only read this because it was my work's book club pick - would never have picked it up otherwise.

My essential takeaway is that this is a man's book. Written by a man, with men in mind. It was rigid and categorical, even though the author repeatedly claimed that that's not how this book was meant to come across.
The vibes are undeniable. I mean, chapter 4 is literally called "Red Behavior: How to Recognize a Real Alpha and Avoid Getting in His Way" 😒
The author also chose to exclusively use theoretical he/him pronouns. I found this alienating and entirely unnecessary for a book written in 2019. His explanation in the introduction was "I know that you have enough imagination to insert a 'her' or a 'she' in your thoughts where this may be appropriate."
Couldn't he have enough imagination to just use they/them pronouns and be inclusive from the start?

My biggest beef with this book, though, is that it is undeniably pseudoscientific. All the author has done is recycled a philosophical concept from Hippocrates and passed it off as a foundational insight into social science and human psychology. He quoted next to no scientific sources in this work, and places himself in a position of expertise on human communication when he has no real accreditations or experience to make him so.

The world doesn't need this book, it never needed to be published. It makes no difference that it exists because it contributes nothing that is new nor that can be relied upon.

[Kimmo · Rating 2 out of 5]

Jostain kumman syystä minulla oli pakottava tarve antaa tälle kirjalle yksi tähti. Tajusin, että arviota olisi painanut alas kuitenkin vain jonkinlainen "minä tiedän paremmin"-fiilis, joten päätin antaa kaksi. Kirjassa kun on myös ihan järkeviä juttuja hattaran seassa. Alleviivaan vielä: kirjassa on siis hyvin paljon vääriä tietoja ja outoja väittämiä, mutta myös joitain hyviä kohtia.

Oma motivaationi kirjan lukemiselle kumpusi sen suosiosta Suomessa ja yritysmaailmassa. Minusta on hyvä olla tietoinen siitä, millä tavalla ihmiset hahmottavat psykologian käsitteitä. Ymmärrän luku-urakan (tai oikeastaan kuuntelu-urakan) jälkeen hyvin, miksi kirja on keikkunut myydyimpien kirjojen listoilla kauan. Se tarjoaa helppoja vastauksia asioihin, joita kohtaan me kaikki tunnemme jossain määrin epävarmuutta: ihmissuhteisiin. Epävarmuuden tunteen vähentäminen yksinkertaisesti myy (kts. vakuutukset, konsultit). Lisäksi kirja tarjoaa coping-keinoja erilaisiin ihmissuhdekiemuroihin, joka varmasti vetoaa keneen tahansa. Erikson myös elävöittää tarinaansa hyvin käyttäen runsaasti yksityiskohtia ja tarinaniskennän keinoja, jolloin se jää mieleen. Lukuisat hauskat anekdootit auttavat vertailemaan kuvailuja oman elämän ihmiskontakteihin. Kirjan kuuntelemisen aikana on helppo luokitella omia tuntemiaan ihmisiä väriluokkiin, koska vertailupintaa on helppo löytää: Erikson yksinkertaisesti kuvailee hyvin monia erilaisia tapauksia ja luokittelu on suoraviivaista. Täydellistä keittiöpsykologiaa siis.

Kirjan alussa käsitellään persoonallisuuden käsitettä ihan hyvin, joka varmasti antaa kirjalle monen lukijan silmissä uskottavuutta. Lisäksi se tuo esille differentiaalipsykologian tietoiseen käsittelyyn, eli sen, että ihmisten välillä on eroja. Uskon, että kirjan luettua monet saavat jonkinlaista rauhaa ihmissuhteissa kokemilleen ahdistuksille ja oudoille tuntemuksille. Syy kahnaukselle ei välttämättä ollut minussa tai sinussa, vaan meidän erilaisuudessa. Kirjan ylätason sanoma on siis ihan ok, ottamatta vielä kantaa itse Eriksonin teoretisointiin.

Vaan otetaanpa kantaa: Eriksonin kirja sisältää hyvin paljon outoja asioita, joihin ei kannata uskoa. Kirjailija itsekin tämän myöntää monessa kohtaa ("en pysty tätä tieteellisesti todistamaan"). Erikoista on myös se, miten kirjailija sanoo puhuvansa modernista psykologiasta ja ihmiskäsityksestä, mutta jotenkin jättää mainitsematta piirreteoriat ja Big Fiven persoonallisuusteoriana, jotka ovat paljon uskottavampia ihmisen persoonallisuutta kuvaavia teorioita verrattuna Eriksonin luokittelevaan persoonallisuusteoriaan. Muinaiset kreikkalaiset ja asteekit saavat kuitenkin mainintansa, sillä heidän teoriansa ovat edeltäjiä Eriksonin hassuttelulle. Ehkä piirreteorioiden mainitseminen olisi syönyt myyntiä Eriksonin muilta tuotteilta, jotka pyörivät hänen konseptinsa ympäriltä. Kirjailija myös kuvailee oudon tarkasti, millä tavalla kuhunkin kategoriaan sullottavat ihmiset ajattelevat ja millä tavalla heitä tulisi käsitellä. Tämä on jotenkin jännän jämähtänyt kuva ihmisestä ja vuorovaikutuksesta, joka on outoa, kun herra itse tituuleeraa itseään käyttäytymistieteilijäksi. Kirja on siis pahemman luokan stereotypisointia, ja menisi paremmin jonkinlaisena etikettioppaana tai pöytäroolipelin hahmoluokan valintakirjana. Eriksonin myynnillisistä vaikuttimista kertonee myös hänen jatkokirjansa aihe: "Psykopaatit ympärilläni". Toinen aihepiiri, joka purkkapsykologian hengessä kiinnostaa varmasti monia. Kaikkienhan elämässä kuitenkin on psykopaatteja, vähintään pomo tai ex-puoliso.

Jos kehitystavoitteenasi on ymmärtää, että ihmisten välillä yksinkertaisesti on eroja, niin lue ihmeessä tämä kirja.

Jos kehitystavoitteenasi on kuitenkin oppia persoonallisuudesta ja psykologiasta, niin tutustu Big Five -teoriaan. Se on hyvä lähtökohta inhimillisen monimuotoisuuden ymmärtämiselle.

[Simona Puidokaite · Rating 1 out of 5]

Not worth the time! The book is based on DISC method that lacks scientific basis and this lack is clearly seen on every page. Each of four profiles are presented as somewhat divine truths though actually sound more like astrology just for the office. Author makes bold statements throughout the book but does not provide a single reference to any research where these statements are coming from… (So am I Blue now as I asked for more details?). It can be an entertaining read in the same way when you read horoscopes or tarot cards, but something to take seriously? No, if you have your critical thinking switched on.

[Thomas Stroemquist · Rating 1 out of 5]

Obviously, the 4-type personality profiling or assessment has been quite popular for a very long time. Hippocrates apparently kicked it off with his original 4 'temperaments'; Melancholic, Sanguine, Phlegmatic, and Choleric. It has subsequently been modernized, e.g. into the (oddly S&M associative) DISC (Dominance, Inducement, Submission, and Compliance) model. The one described in this book goes with colors instead, and I very much prefer that to the more Tarot-sounding "Winning from Within"-nomenclature; The Thinker, The Dreamer, The Warrior & The Lover :-S
 
Regardless of what you name them, one underlying problem with dividing people into 4 different personality types is of course that no-one is a pure 'type'. This is readily acknowledged, but oddly little discussed, in the literature I've been in contact with (including this book). Another mistake, in my opinion, is the exclusion of group dynamics. Very much is focused on teaching us how to "handle" a single person by determining his personality type and use the theories and 'methods' taught. While I certainly admit that being made aware of someone else's view point is often an eye-opener, I don't always agree that the way to cope is to 'play along'. If I happen upon a Red (Choleric, Dominant, Warrior...) that disrupts the work in a team by screaming and intimidating, my initial reflex is not to look in the book and find out how I can stroke his ego - more likely I'll strike him on top of his head with the book and tell him to behave like a decent person and not a spoiled kid. I can imagine that tells you all you need to know to place me in my 'type' if you've read this book.

The personality type theory also has the drawback of colliding with many others (which are happily and uncritically used). As an example; early in this book, the author speaks about learning and presents a model by Edgar Dale which can be summarized by saying that the more active you are, the more you remember about what you were supposed to learn. The passive end is reading and listening (10 & 20 %, respectively) - the other end of the scale is "dramatic presentation" (90 %). Now, could this really be independent of one's personality type? I have troubles picturing something I would dread more than dramatic presentation and I dare bet that the only thing about that ordeal I would remember is exactly how painful I thought it was. Rest would probably be somewhere in a total blackout...
 
One part I appreciated was the discussion about how all the different types are needed and that the diversity actually works for the best; if everyone's a energetic entertainer, who are they going to entertain? Or if all are driven leaders, who is there to lead? Which I particularly liked, since leadership is such a buzzword right now and I have actually gotten the response "well everyone is responsible for leading themselves" to that question.
 
What I liked less was the informal, 'spoken language' type of narrative, giving a somewhat flippant impression. It doesn't help either with the many, not all convincing, examples of the types through anecdotes that contain people with suspiciously "pure" personality types. Add to this some sloppy editing (admittedly not a lot, but still) and the overall result feels shaky. Even when the result sometimes are unintentionally funny: "Blue behavior: Some basics to remember. Blue persons: 1) Keeps their distance. 2) Either stands or sits."

[sophia · Rating 1 out of 5]

This books is based on an outdated DISC assesment which was invented in the 1920s. To be honest, i expected it to be more psylcology based but ended up not bringing anything new to the table, just simply categorising people like the hogwarts houses.

[Nona · Rating 1 out of 5]

One of the stupidest self help books I have ever read. Don't bother except if you want to read it as comedy.

There's nothing revolutionary about it. No science behind it. The author splits all people into 4 categories, which is the stupidest thing and has been debunked years ago. Human beings are complex and cannot be categorized in this fashion. Heck, even plants are more complex than this!

I'm going to go have fun reading the 5* reviews now. They must be as absurd as this book.

[Oskar · Rating 2 out of 5]

The most useful takeaway from the book is that there are different types of people. You need to adapt to that and treat people differently. The framework that the book uses to classify people is perhaps best thought of as an example of how you could group different people. It is in no way the only or best way to classify people. The book has zero references to scientific studies and instead focuses on the personal experiences of one individual. That doesn't mean that the book and the ideas aren't useful, but they are definitely not undisputed facts.

All in all, if you value examples and an easy and useful mental framework then this is for you. If you want facts, look elsewhere.

[Moonkiszt · Rating 5 out of 5]

Yep. I'm a yellow. And I have a story about it. . . . jk.

This book reminded me of all the ones that were thrown at us in the 80's, and the tests we were given to make sure our personality types were properly distributed throughout the office, and no one was allowed to shriek about moved cheese, because that was going to happen.

I did enjoy the mental process of putting all my co-workers, friends and families in their proper boxes. It was harder to recognize combos, and then hilarious to realize how spot on the author is in his observations (he did have help from an old Greek. . . .). I imagined what might happen if we put this concept into our educational system, starting with kindergarteners. . . .that was a hilarious day dream! Give a kid a lego and see who he/she is!

Worth the read, understanding it is not science, but anything that gets us all to a less hostile work / home / community environment is a benefit. 3 stars from me . . . *bam*!

[Ed · Rating 4 out of 5]

An excellent insight into the people in your life, this book will scream at you about who you are as a person and who those closest to you are.

[Yara Yu · Rating 3 out of 5]

السلوك البشري يختلف من إنسان لأخر وهو أمر غاية في التعقيد وبالتالي التعامل مع كل شخصية عن طريق طبيعتها وشخصيتها
كتاب جيد عن السلوكيات البشرية المختلفة والأنماط الأربعة من البشر الأحمر ، الأصفر ، الأخضر ، الأزرق
مميزات كل شخصية وعيوبها وكيفية التعامل معاها
ستجد نفسك تبحث عن شخصيتك فيها وشخصيات من حولك
الغريب في الأمر أني وجدت نفسي أجمع صفات من كل الشخصيات لإعطاء شخصية خامسة لم يذكرها الكاتب 😂

[Alexander Theofanidis · Rating 1 out of 5]

Ειλικρινά, αισθάνομαι λίγο ηλίθιος που το αγόρασα...

Κάτι σαν new age σκουπίδι, σχεδόν 400 σελίδες ακατάσχετης μωρολογίας, γραμμένο για ηλίθιους ή νήπια, με πρόφαση την ψυχολογία (...for the dummiest of dummies), γραμμένο με μοναδικό σκοπό να βγάλει λεφτά ο συγγραφέας (και ο εκδότης).
Το βιβλίο βασίζεται στη μέθοδο DISC (ω πόσα λογοπαίγνια συγκρατώ αυτή τη στιγμή...) που στερείται επιστημονικής βάσης και αυτή η έλλειψη φαίνεται ξεκάθαρα σε κάθε σελίδα. Κάθε ένα από τα τέσσερα προφίλ (συνταγματάρχης Μουστάρδας, Κύριος Κόκκινος, Μπλε Κουρακάο και Κίτρινο της Χολής;) παρουσιάζονται ως αλήθειες εξ αποκαλύψεως χωρίς επιστημονικό έρεισμα, με την αυθεντία που μόνο ένας αγράμματος παππούς που νουθετεί το 3 ετών εγγόνι του μπορεί να επικαλεστεί από το πουθενά.
Έρευνες, μελέτες, διπλές τυφλές δοκιμές ΟΥΤΕ ΣΤΑ ΟΝΕΙΡΑ ΣΑΣ. Το είπε ο Τόμας Έρικσον, ρουφήχτε το σαν αυγό και σκάστε.
Βρίσκεται μόλις ένα κλικ πάνω από τον απόλυτο πάτο που αντιπροσωπεύουν τα βιβλία αστρολογίας και τα εγχειρίδια αυτοβοήθειας και είναι φρικαλέο ακόμη και στο πως δομείται.
Συμπέρασμα: Αν δείτε ότι ο συγγραφέας ενός βιβλίου παραδίδει Χ σεμινάρια το χρόνο (και αισθάνεται τόσο περήφανος γι' αυτό ώστε να το περιλαμβάνει στο "αυτί" του βιβλίου) απομακρυνθείτε σβέλτα και μην πετάτε τα κερδισμένα με κόπο χρήματά σας για να κάνετε ακόμη πιο πλούσιο ένα τέτοιο βλακάθαρμα (νεολογισμός).

ΑΝ ΘΕΛΕΤΕ ΝΑ ΑΝΑΓΝΩΡΙΣΕΤΕ ΕΝΑΝ ΗΛΙΘΙΟ, ΔΕΙΤΕ ΠΟΙΟΙ ΕΒΑΛΑΝ 5 ΑΣΤΕΡΑΚΙΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΚΘΕΙΑΖΟΥΝ ΕΙΛΙΚΡΙΝΑ ΤΟ ΒΙΒΛΙΟ (αγνοήστε τους εμφανείς κολαούζους και κράχτες, εστιάστε στους αφελείς ηλίθιους που θεώρησαν ότι το πνευματικό ισοδύναμο ενός συνδυασμού ισχαιμικού/εγκεφαλικού ήταν η απόλυτη αποκάλυψη στη ζωή τους).

[Michelle · Rating 1 out of 5]

*zero stars*

If I could, I would give this book negative stars.

As someone getting a graduate degree in psychology, I feel deeply insulted. This book is pure and utter garbage. I want to scream. What a waste of ink and paper.

This man really pulled some imaginary bullshit out of his ass, and moulded it into a recycled version of the four temperaments theory. A theory that is not relevant for modern psychology. To top things off, he based everything on the DISC assessment system which is so outdated it wasn’t even considered proper scientific methodology when it was popularised in the 1920s.

Nothing in this book holds up to scrutiny because the “theory”—if you can even call it that—is not just flimsy but also reductive. And how could it not be with a ‘four type’ framework that relies on a categorical system instead of a dimensional one. The only way this framework could be more reductive is if I said: reds are narcissist with anger management issues, yellows have ADHD with a sprinkle of mania, blues have autism and subclinical OCD, and greens suffer from a subclinical anxiety disorder with a side of depression. They’re also all conservatives somehow?

Not to mention that there are no sources and all the claims he makes are simply that: unfounded claims. The “evidence” is anecdotal at best and blatant fabrications at worst. No statement is backed by data or studies. (Naturally, there is no bibliography either. But really, how could there be.)

Please don’t read this book. It will leave you dumber than you started.

[Vivian · Rating 3 out of 5]

Easy to approach overview of human interrelations.

So if you've been exposed to Myers-Briggs or basic psychology then the breakdown into four types is not going to be difficult to grasp, at all. The value in this book is rather than it merely being a categorical reference it explains how to approach, give feedback, criticism, workflow, etc. for the different types. Generally, people grok those that are similar to themselves, but others who approach activity differently may be perplexing at times. Erikson provides a plethora of anecdotal examples to illustrate each instance.

Of course, being what I am personality wise I found this to be a bit too much chitchat in style, but that also made me laugh since the book kinda was pointing out different strategies. I found this a useful refresher course.

[Kareem Adawy · Rating 1 out of 5]

قريت 140 صفحة واستخسرت اكمل الباقي، كلامه بديهي وملوش وجهة معينة، اللي هو تعالي اقولك انواع الشخصيات الاربعة وفي الآخر اقولك ان معظم الناس مزيج من الاربع شخصيات ومبنفعش نعمم. بعدين هقولك ازاي نتعامل مع الشخصيات الاربعة اللي معظم الناس مخلطة بينها ومينفعش نعمم عليها!

مش هاين عليا اسيب الريفيو فاضي، فتعالى أناقش معاك مبدأ الكاتب ريان هوليداي وازاي تحدد ان الكتاب اللي قدامك ميستهلش منك وقت اكتر من كده.

عدد الصفحات اللي هتقراها قبل ما تفكس للكتاب = 100 - عدد سنوات عمرك.

يعني لو انت 20 سنة، يبقى تقرا 80 صفحة، لو 60 سنة يبقى تقرا 40 صفحة بس وهكذا.. إيه المنطق بقى؟ إن كل ما عمرك زاد كل ما زادت قدرتك على الحكم ع اللي بتقرا وقلت وقتك اللي ممكن تضيعه .. مش مؤمن بالمبدأ اوي، بس حبيت أشاركه معاكم عشان شايفه انترستنج.

[Cassandra Kay Silva · Rating 2 out of 5]

A very very basic personality profiling book. There are definitely better resources for this type of information and this lacks the vigorous research and depth that I would expect from a work on this topic. Its really a "book for the masses" which isn't necessarily a bad thing. But it was weird that the author said that most people were two to three of the colours but never went through what these combinations would look like or how this might play out. It was all just focused on the main four but with no appropriations for what was accepted as "the majority of the population". It was all just too simplified to be useful in my opinion.

[Andy · Rating 2 out of 5]

People are different! Not everyone sees the world the way you do!
If this is a new idea to you, then the four-colors personality type system is as good as another I guess for discovering that concept. The author gets points for admitting that this idea is ancient, going back to the 4 humors of the Hippocratic tradition. He also gets bonus points for interviewing people who just read his book and revealing how the experience apparently accomplished next to nothing in getting the readers to appreciate different personality types!!!
It's sad though that if this system has been around for decades and used on millions of people, that there's not some kind of evaluation data on how this training has any impact on productivity or workplace satisfaction or something.

[Thomas Edmund · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm not usually into personality classifications, they always seem little more than astrology type Barnum descriptions, but what is good about Erikson's book is that he doesn't overdo trying to classify people so much as provide useful advice for dealing with each behaviour pattern.

So even if you don't buy into ideas of people being any particular type you can still use each piece of advice to address a particular situation, e.g. if someone is acting like a 'red' you can still use Erikson's advice on giving feedback or managing that situation.

[Lynn · Rating 4 out of 5]

Terrible Title Okay Book

Reading the profile for this book made me curious, so I had to read the entire book. The author has lumped the entire human race into four basic personality categories, Red, Yellow, Green, and Blue. For the record, no one believes they are surrounded by idiots, unless of course it might be a Red or the type-A and very dominant personality category.

I confess to being able to think of someone who fit into the Red and Blue category almost perfectly, but anyone I know with the Green and Yellow categories have mixed color personality traits.

Yellows are outgoing and cheerful talkers who never listen to anyone else, but they communicate well. Greens are agreeable and easygoing and make excellent listeners, do not change well.

The Blue personality is the perfectionist who does everything well, always knows the answers to everything, is always on time, and will be upset if you aren’t.

I found this interesting if a little like a horoscope and you can fit anyone into them if you try hard enough. It did say that people could be a little of multiple categories, so maybe even all of them at one time or another. There was a section where the author discussed a party where alcohol was served and people who were absolutely one color when sober was a completely different color when drinking.

My conclusion is that you should read this for yourself, but I took it with a grain of salt. It was interesting enough to rate 3.5 stars rounded up to 4.

[Kuszma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kezdjük talán azzal, hogy ennek a könyvnek a tónusát elég nehezen fogadtam el. Eleve, hogy lendületből letegezett. Meg hogy folyton belekérdezett a saját szövegébe, valahogy így: "Vajon ez jó vagy rossz? Szerinted?" Mit tudom én, mondd meg te, hisz azért fizetlek. Bratyizós közvetlensége ambivalens hatást váltott ki - úgy voltam vele, hogy napestig hallgatnám ugyan a csávót, de használt autót nem biztos, hogy vennék tőle.

Erikson titka abban áll, hogy egy baromi egyszerű kategorizálási rendszert ajánl fel, ami alapján a környezetünkben élő embereket világos és átlátható módon kezelhetjük. (Elméletileg.) Vannak ugye:
1.) A pirosak, akik dominánsak, kolerikusak, célorientáltak, mennek előre, mint a tank, és nem érdekli őket, kinek taposnak a lábára.
2.) A sárgák, akik innovatívak, kapcsolatközpontúak, kommunikatívak, de hamar elfogy belőlük a benzin, és elvégezetlen feladatokat hagynak maguk után.
3.) A zöldek, akik szeretik a stabilitást, utálják a változást, mindenük a nyugodt munkaközösség, és idegrohamot kapnak, ha valaki járatlan utakra csábítja őket.
4.) És a kékek, akik szőrszálhasogatók, körülményesek, mindenre odafigyelnek - ők azok, akik még mosdóba is csak akkor mennek ki, ha előtte felvezették egy Excel-táblázatba.



No most az efféle könyvek milyensége gyakran ott dől el, hogy el tudom-e helyezni magam az általuk felajánlott osztályozási rendszerben. Na, hát én nem tudtam. Ha mindenképpen meg kéne próbálkoznom vele, hát azt mondanám, nagyon halványsárga személyiség vagyok, néhol narancsszínű elszíneződéssel, a jobb sarokban pár zöld csík, mellettük egy kisebb kék paca. Na, erre mit mondasz, kedves Thomas? Ráadásul nem is az van, hogy én ugyan más vagyok, de mások nem mások, őket nyugodtan szétszortírozhatom mindenféle halmazokba. A környezetemben se pirosak, kékek, sárgák vagy zöldek élnek, hanem inkább lilák, skót kockásak meg pepiták. Fel is ködlik bennem egy rémálomszerű eshetőség: mi van, ha ez a könyv olyasvalaki kezébe kerül, aki híján van az önismeretnek, és úgy hiszi, most kezébe kaparintotta a létezés titkainak kulcsát? Ez az ember szépen magába darálja ezt a kötetet, kisüti, hogy én sárga vagyok, úgyhogy elkezdi rajtam alkalmazni az Erikson-féle "hogyan befolyásoljuk a sárgákat?" leckét. Erőnek erejével betoszogtatja az embereket az előregyártott kategóriákba, téged pirosnak akar látni, őt meg kéknek, aztán csodálkozik, ha megdobálják hatnapos császárzsömlével, vagy ceruzahegyezőt dugnak az orrába.

Amivel csak azt akarom mondani, hogy kezeljük óvatosan ezt a könyvet. A szerző is több helyütt utal rá, hogy ő maga is inkább kombinált egyénekben gondolkodik, olyanokban, akik egy rész kékek, egy rész pirosak - de mégis, rendszeresen olyan példákkal él, amelyekben egyik vagy másik halmaz szélsőségei szerepelnek. Talán mert így látványosabb, így illusztratívabb az egész. Hisz amíg egy domináns égőpiros karakter köré épített anekdotából botegyszerűen le lehet vezetni az általunk javasolt eljárásokat, addig egy flamingórózsaszín egyén esetében hosszas magyarázatokra kényszerülnénk - és azt nem szereti az olvasó.

Mi mindenesetre legyünk rugalmasabbak. Kezeljük a könyvek annak, ami: egy ajánlásnak, amiből ki lehet ugyan indulni, de nem tanácsos beleragadni. Erikson kétségtelen erénye, hogy a provokatív cím mögött egy pozitív, termékeny megközelítés van: hogy az emberek nem hülyék, csak mások. Igen, tele van a világ olyan figurákkal, akikkel nem passzoltok. Akikkel egyszerűen egymás agyára mentek. Akik máshogy vannak huzalozva. Legszívesebben elkerülnéd őket - de van, hogy nem lehet. Mert ha a barátaidat meg is tudod válogatni, a munkatársaidat aligha. Néha muszáj egy levegőt szívni velük. És a saját életed könnyíted meg, ha ennek érdekében megpróbálod inkább megérteni, miben is más az ő huzalozásuk, mint a tiéd. Nem biztos, hogy ez a könyv a módszertan tekintetében olyat fog nyújtani, amivel ripsz-ropsz megoldódik minden gond. De talán segít abban, hogy merre is érdemes elindulni egy olyan világba, ahol senki sem kap a másiktól agylobot.

[Антония Сарафова · Rating 4 out of 5]

Книгата беше интересна и полезна. Засегна теми, за които дълго ще мисля и които ще продължа да проучвам и използвам в ежедневието си. Информацията беше представена разбираемо. Имаше моменти, които ми се струваха излишни и ми доскучаваше, но това почти винаги присъства при мен като става въпрос за нехудожествена книга. Трябва темата да е точно в десетката, за да ми е напълно интересна през цялото време и да и дам 5 звезди.

Единственото, което не ми стана ясно след като затворих книгата, е моят личностен профил (цвят). Искаше ми се книгата да върви с тест, който да направя, за да разбера кои цветове преобладават при мен. Останах леко объркана в крайна сметка.

[أخضر أخضر · Rating 4 out of 5]

يبين المؤلف في كتابه محاط بالحمقىى الأنماط الأربعة للسلوك البشري أن أسباب سوء التواصل بين الناس، أن كل شخص يعتقد أن الآخر نسخة منه، أو أن على الآخر أن يتعامل معه بما يرد هو، إلا أن هذا غير صحيح، إذ تنقسم البشر إلى أربعة أنماط من السلوك، تلك الأنماط هي التي تُحدد تصرفاتهم، وطريقة تعاملهم، ومن ثمَّ يرى أن الإحاطة بتلك الأنماط السلوكية تُيسر لنا طريقة التواصل، وبالتالي نتعامل معهم وفق سلوكياتهم ونحصل على تواصل جيد معهم، وهذه الأنماط الأربعة يقسِّمها الكاتب على النحو التالي:
الشخص الأحمر، وهو الشخص دائم الغضب الانفعالي، المتسرِّع والمُسيطر، الذي يريد كل شيء في التو واللحظة.
الشخص الأصفر، وهو الشخص المتفائل والمرح، الحسّاس تجاه تصرفات الآخرين، الذي يرى دائمًا أن هناك نور في نهاية النفق.
الشخص الأزرق، وهو الشخص الدقيق المنظَّم، الذي يُحلل كل شيء، يُراع المخاطر، ولا يغامر، فهو شخص محافظ تجاه كل شيء.
الشخص الأخضر، وهو النمط الشائع بين الناس، لأنه يتوسّط جميع الأنماط الثلاثة السابقة في كل شيء، إذ يتصف بالتوازن، لا يسعى إلى إثبات ذاته بالدخول في منافسة مع الآخرين، أو محاولة التفوق عليهم.
كما يبين المؤلف أن الإنسان قد يجمع في نفسه نمطين أو أكثر من هذه الأنماط الأربعة، وبالتالي علينا أن نبذل بعض الجهد حتّى نحصل على تواصل جيّد وفعَّال.

[Jamie · Rating 1 out of 5]

Absolute drivel. Unfinishable.