He was legendary while still at High School – sort of an alpha male amongst the protonerds, he programmed computers in machine code and had written a Pascal compiler. He was also an ardent Randian at the time, being seen as a liberalist outsider at Norway’s most conservative High School.

We both attended the University of Oslo. I knew him through the Science Fiction society, and through the Bulletin Board system, and through his interest in almost absolutely everything because we frequented many of the same discussion fora. His character sometimes fascineted me more than his knowledge.

He did not suffer fools gladly, nor did he observe social niceties. I will probably never know whether it was because he would not or could not. It is true that he very often clashed with collaborators, and that he did not hold jobs very long. There would always be two sets of reasons why – his and everybody else’s. And whereas he insisted that his relatively secluded existence was of his own choosing, I don’t think his life was very happy. Indeed, as from 1995 and onwards, people who knew I was familiar with him showed concern that his aggressive writing style had lost some of its spark. He had stared to sound bitter.

Knowing Erik, I know that anything I write about him would have been flatly rejected by him as «sludder» (hogwash). It is as if he did not want to be understood – which Psychologists would explain as a defence mechanism: To claim control where there is none. Nonetheless, here is – as I understand it – the thesis of his life:

The only way to improve your work or life is by understanding and examining why you do what you do.

And this is about the only point where I agree with Erik 100%. I see Erik’s life’s work as fundamentally correct: Most men lead lives not only in quiet desperation, but in blissful ignorance. Very few of my fellow Psychologists, nor anybody else, take any interest in philosophy, epistemology, nor the theories of science. Most people think science is a set of facts. It is not: What makes science valuable is the questions science asks, the justifications for asking those questions, and the methods for finding and evaluating the answers. All facts are temporary, and science is the key to improving or replacing them with more useful facts. Without an understanding of science, your view of the world lacks fundamentally important aspects.

Which is where Smallpaul here misses the point: Eriks legacy is not the works he produced, but his reflections on them. It is easy to recognize good artifacts, but not to understand why they are good. Everybody underestimates the reasons why the artifacts became good. This is amply demonstrated by the tragic attempts at copying, say, the iPhone with no understanding of why it is so popular. No, the iPhone is not popular because of Apple’s position in the marked, if your IT manager says so, he is incompetent and must be fired.

Erik’s peculiar brand of objectivity – he insisted that facts should speak for themselves and that the messenger was unimportant – did not always extend to himself. I have no idea how honest he was when the subject matter was technology or those areas where I pledge ignorance, but he and I often “discussed” psychology and philosophy. It occurs to me that his main philosophical objection to radical behaviorism was that he didn’t like me. I do want to speculate about the reasons why his objectivity often appeared clouded by emotion, but I don’t want to bother you with it. I don’t think I have sorted it out for myself yet.

Erik thought himself excepted from the confines of societal norms. He never, though, escaped them. It seems to me that his ambition was to get the rest of the world to accept him as he was, one individual by one, rather than adjusting himself to a point where he would fit in better. I think the alternative would have been a wiser and more efficient choice, and told him so from time to time. I don’t think I had any effect on him.

Although Erik insisted, vehemently, ardently, obsessively, that it’s impossible to escape from the natural laws discovered (or yet undiscovered) by science, his self-medication against the painful disease that haunted him through his last decennium indicates that he might have thought himself exempt from physical laws – his death was most likely due to side effects from abuse of anti-inflammatory drugs.

Erik was a character. His demeanor regularly ruined good discussions, and his view of the world only reinforced his withdrawal from society. His flames could be enjoyable unless one were at the receiving end. Among his few friends, this was never discussed much, rather, he sought friends who admired his lifestyle but would never chose it themselves.

His ways were never really challenged by anybody he trusted, at least not close to successfully. Rather, he generally received and was comforted by the message that it is okay to be the man he was. I think we should have known better, and I’m sorry I didn’t do better.

More From roffe

• The Punitive Society and its Effect on Compliance
• Mythmaking: How introductory psychology texts present B.F. Skinner’s analysis of cognition
• Raves

roffe Recommends

• Why We Hate Fat People (Eff the Nobodies) | Laota's Gallery  (Laota's Gallery)
• Why Can’t You Be More Like Me? (Advice From Self-Obsorbed A-Holes) | Laota's Gallery  (Laota's Gallery)

Ask roffe To Recommend Your Posts

Blant ting som har vært diskutert er om personlighet bør beskrives som typer (altså at mennesker kan være eksempler på ferdig definerte kategorier), eller om personlighet bør beskrives som trekk. I våre dager ser det ut til at de fleste er enige om at trekk er det som bør gjelde.

Nå viser det seg at det er sammenheng mellom personlighet og trivsel, og at hvis personligheten ikke passer til miljøet, kan det bli vanskelig å holde motivasjonen oppe. Så hva slags personlighet trives i skolen? De fem store er typisk

Hva slags personlighet legger skolen opp til at skal trives, da?

Andre opplever det nok annerledes. Denne gjennomgåelsen er ekstremt enkel, tester som viser hvor en sjøl ligger i forhold til de fem store har typisk massevis av spørsmål. Men noe som hadde vært kult var å lage en sånn test for skolen også – altså at elevene fylte ut et spørreskjema som viste hvilken personlighet skolen har. Det kunne sagt noe om hva slags personlighet skolen oppmuntrer, og kanskje også noe om hvordan forksjellige personligheter oppfatter skolen.

More From roffe

• Hva med å kunne litt, Isaksen? Om belønning i skolen.
• Hva har sosialisme med arbeidere å gjøre?
• Hvorfor jeg vil ha IT ut av skolen

roffe Recommends

• You Want For Some Good Seafood? | Laota's Gallery  (Laota's Gallery)
• Love for Izea | Laota's Gallery  (Laota's Gallery)

Ask roffe To Recommend Your Posts

Jeg fremstår kanskje litt vel fanatisk her, men den oppvakte leser forstår forhåptentligvis at det jeg har klokkertro på ikke er personlighetstester alene.

More From roffe

• Om mange slags intelligenser i Foreldre & Barn
• Vi vil ikke lede
• Hvor mye taper bedriften din på å droppe personlighetstesting før ansettelse?

roffe Recommends

• Future iPhone May Be Made Out of Glass: via Mashable  (U.S. Green Technology)
• Eco-Fashion Trend of the Week: Milk Material  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask roffe To Recommend Your Posts

Norsk Standard skal hjelpe med å lage ett sertifikat for coaching, og det spørres, betimelig nok, hvor godt sammensatt teamet som gjør jobben er. Jeg ledet i sin tid Veritas’ prosjekt for å lage et kompetansesertifikat for brukere av arbeidspsykologiske tester og fikk noen erfaringer og gjort noen refleksjoner der som jeg tror kan være interessante i forhold til sertifisering av coaching-kurs og coaching-tjenester.

Essensen av det å lage et ordentlig sertifikat er at det finnes bukker, og det finnes havresekker, og de skal ikke møtes. De forskjellige aktørene må balanseres slik at det aldri er tvil om at sertifiseringen reflekterer en samlet og uavhengig interesse. Kunder vil være interessert i strenge krav (for å være sikker på å å få kvalitet); fageksperter vil vite hva slags krav som er ønskelige i en perfekt verden, mulige å måle, men vil f.eks. kunne ri kjepphester; tilbydere vil at kravene skal være lette, slik at sertifisering blir billig; praktikere vil kunne vite hva som er realistisk; etc.

Sertifikatet må være et svar på et krav fra markedet. Noe er galt, og noe blir galt, dersom det ikke er markedet som har drevet frem ønsket om sertifisering. Det må lages et faglig utvalg som skal sette sammen kravene, og dette faglige utvalget skal være ubetalt for å unngå interessekonflikter. Det skal bestå av et representativt tverrsnitt av hele markedet (både tilbydere av tjenester, tilbydere av kurs, brukere, etc.). Fagutvalget må settes sammen slik at markedet er enig i at det er representativt. Klarer man ikke dét, er ikke behovet for sertifisering reelt.

Det man trenger for å lage et sertifikat er a) en standard hvor kravene er formulert, b) en sertifiseringsinstans som kan avgjøre om noe tilfredsstiller standarden og c) (hvis relevant) kursleverandører. Disse må være uavhengige av hverandre: Sertifiseringsinstansen kan f.eks. ikke lage det faglige innholdet og heller ikke arrangere kurs fordi dette vil gå ut over troverdigheten til sertifikatet.

I tilfellet med kompetansesertifikatet for brukere av arbeidspsykologiske tester besto det faglige utvalget av representanter for Norsk Psykologforening og professorer i psykometri (som forvaltere av den faglige kompetansen), HR-personer (som representanter for brukere), testleverandører og rekrutteringsbyråer (som representanter for tilbydere). Jeg ser for meg at for at et sertifikat for coacher må ha med psykologer, kursleverandører, coacher og typiske kunder. Dette gjelder enten det som skal sertifiseres er kurs eller coacher.

Alt kan som kan rangeres i godt eller dårlig kan sertifiseres. Man kan sertifisere prosesser (altså hvordan ting lages), man kan sertifisere produkter (altså ting som er laget), og man kan sertifisere kompetanse (f.eks. kunnskapen til mennesker som skal lage ting). Sertifisering forutsetter at man har en standard og en måte å måle konformitet i forhold til standard (altså i hvilken grad det man ønsker å sertifisere, tilfredsstiller kravene som standarden setter).

Hvordan slik sertifisering bør foregå er beskrevet i en rekke ISO-standarder. De mest relevante er ISO 45011 og ISO 45012 samt ISO 45013 som er blitt erstattet Av ISO 17024. Alle er skåret over stort sett samme lest (og er korte og greie): De er laget av mennesker som har laget mange sertifikater, som har støtt på alle problemene som kan oppstå i forbindelse med å lage sertifikater, og de har funnet kloke løsninger som fungerer godt. Det finnes andre måter å gjøre det på, men det er disse jeg kjenner.

More From roffe

• Hvorfor skolen reproduserer sosial ulikhet og hva som kan gjøres med det.
• Litt om medfødt og tillært kunnskap
• Jørn Hurum og formidling av vitenskap II

roffe Recommends

• Eco-Lifestyle Pick of the Week: No More Bottled Water  (U.S. Green Technology)
• Professional Networking Site LinkedIn.com: The Premier Site for Green Job Seekers  (U.S. Green Technology)

Ask roffe To Recommend Your Posts