WEBVTT 00:00:01.507 --> 00:00:02.946 So you've heard of your IQ, 00:00:02.946 --> 00:00:04.293 your general intelligence, 00:00:04.293 --> 00:00:05.942 but what's your Psy-Q? 00:00:05.942 --> 00:00:07.799 How much do you know about what makes you tick, 00:00:07.799 --> 00:00:10.214 and how good are you at predicting other peoples' behavior 00:00:10.214 --> 00:00:12.280 or even your own? 00:00:12.280 --> 00:00:15.159 And how much about what you think you know about psychology is wrong? 00:00:15.159 --> 00:00:19.037 So let's find out by counting down the top 10 myths of psychology. NOTE Paragraph 00:00:19.037 --> 00:00:21.963 So you've probably heard it said that when it comes to their psychology, 00:00:21.963 --> 00:00:24.865 it's almost as if men are from Mars and women are from Venus. 00:00:24.865 --> 00:00:27.024 But how different are men and women really? 00:00:27.024 --> 00:00:30.368 So to find out, let's start by looking at something on which men and women 00:00:30.368 --> 00:00:31.715 really do differ 00:00:31.715 --> 00:00:35.453 and plotting some psychological gender differences on the same scale. 00:00:35.453 --> 00:00:36.916 So one thing that men and women 00:00:36.916 --> 00:00:38.913 do really differ on is how far they can throw a ball. 00:00:38.913 --> 00:00:40.793 So if we look at the data for men here, 00:00:40.793 --> 00:00:43.324 we see what is called a normal distribution curve. 00:00:43.324 --> 00:00:45.112 A few men can throw a ball really far, 00:00:45.112 --> 00:00:46.575 and a few men not far at all, 00:00:46.575 --> 00:00:48.502 but most a kind of average difference. 00:00:48.502 --> 00:00:50.406 And women share the same distribution as well, 00:00:50.406 --> 00:00:51.985 but actually there's quite a big difference. 00:00:51.985 --> 00:00:54.353 In fact, the average man can throw a ball further 00:00:54.353 --> 00:00:57.070 than about 98 percent of all women. 00:00:57.070 --> 00:00:59.647 So now let's look at what some psychological gender differences 00:00:59.647 --> 00:01:02.944 look like on the same standardized scale. 00:01:02.944 --> 00:01:05.220 So any psychologist will tell you that men are better 00:01:05.220 --> 00:01:06.915 at spacial awareness than women, 00:01:06.915 --> 00:01:08.563 so things like map-reading, for example, 00:01:08.563 --> 00:01:09.585 and it's true, 00:01:09.585 --> 00:01:12.023 but let's have a look at the size of this difference. 00:01:12.023 --> 00:01:15.250 It's tiny: the lines are so close together that they almost overlap. 00:01:15.250 --> 00:01:19.244 In fact, the average woman is better than 33 percent of all men, 00:01:19.244 --> 00:01:21.125 and of course, if that was 50 percent, 00:01:21.125 --> 00:01:23.841 then the two genders would be exactly equal. 00:01:23.841 --> 00:01:25.699 And it's worth bearing in mind that this difference 00:01:25.699 --> 00:01:26.976 and the next one I'm going to show you 00:01:26.976 --> 00:01:29.344 are pretty much the biggest psychological gender differences 00:01:29.344 --> 00:01:31.271 ever discovered in psychology. 00:01:31.271 --> 00:01:32.502 So here's the next one. 00:01:32.502 --> 00:01:35.010 Any psychologist will tell you that women are better 00:01:35.010 --> 00:01:36.635 with language and grammar than men. 00:01:36.635 --> 00:01:38.794 So here's performance on the standardized grammar test. 00:01:38.794 --> 00:01:40.861 There go the women. There go to the men. 00:01:40.861 --> 00:01:43.090 Again, yes, women are better on average, 00:01:43.090 --> 00:01:44.553 but the lines are so close 00:01:44.553 --> 00:01:46.457 that 33 percent of men 00:01:46.457 --> 00:01:48.035 are better than the average woman, 00:01:48.035 --> 00:01:49.730 and again, if it was 50 percent, 00:01:49.730 --> 00:01:52.772 that would represent complete gender equality. 00:01:52.772 --> 00:01:54.583 So it's not really a case of Mars and Venus. 00:01:54.583 --> 00:01:57.300 It's more a case of, if anything, Mars and Snickers: 00:01:57.300 --> 00:01:58.902 basically the same, but, you know, 00:01:58.902 --> 00:02:01.990 one's maybe slightly nuttier than the other. 00:02:01.990 --> 00:02:03.708 I won't say which. NOTE Paragraph 00:02:03.708 --> 00:02:05.473 Right. Now we've got you warmed up. 00:02:05.473 --> 00:02:08.909 Let's psychoanalyze you using the famous Rorschach inkblot test. 00:02:08.909 --> 00:02:12.462 So you can probably see two, I dunno, two bears or two people or something. 00:02:12.462 --> 00:02:13.925 But what do you think they're doing? 00:02:13.925 --> 00:02:17.059 Put your hand up if you think they're saying hello. 00:02:17.059 --> 00:02:18.870 Not many people. Okay. 00:02:18.870 --> 00:02:21.657 Put your hands up if you think they are high-fiving. 00:02:21.657 --> 00:02:24.257 Okay. What if you think they're fighting? 00:02:24.257 --> 00:02:25.372 Only a few people there. 00:02:25.372 --> 00:02:27.949 Okay, so if you think they're saying hello or high-fiving, 00:02:27.949 --> 00:02:29.830 then that means you're a friendly person. 00:02:29.830 --> 00:02:31.710 If you think they're fighting, that means you're a bit more 00:02:31.710 --> 00:02:33.336 of a nasty, aggressive person. 00:02:33.336 --> 00:02:35.216 Are you a lover or a fighter, basically. 00:02:35.216 --> 00:02:36.656 All right, what about this one? 00:02:36.656 --> 00:02:37.863 This isn't really a voting one, 00:02:37.863 --> 00:02:39.675 so on three, everyone shout out what you see. 00:02:39.675 --> 00:02:42.229 One, two, three. 00:02:42.229 --> 00:02:45.781 I heard hamster. Who said hamster? 00:02:45.781 --> 00:02:47.128 That was very worrying. 00:02:47.128 --> 00:02:48.591 A guy there said hamster. 00:02:48.591 --> 00:02:52.329 Well, you should see some kind of two-legged animal here, 00:02:52.329 --> 00:02:54.303 and then the mirror image of them there. 00:02:54.303 --> 00:02:57.414 If you didn't, then this means that you have difficulty 00:02:57.414 --> 00:02:59.109 processing complex situations 00:02:59.109 --> 00:03:01.524 where there's a lot going on. NOTE Paragraph 00:03:01.524 --> 00:03:03.729 Except, of course, it doesn't mean that at all. 00:03:03.729 --> 00:03:06.400 Rorschach inkblot tests have basically no validity 00:03:06.400 --> 00:03:08.675 when it comes to diagnosing people's personality 00:03:08.675 --> 00:03:11.136 and are not used by modern-day psychologists. 00:03:11.136 --> 00:03:12.785 In fact, one recent study found 00:03:12.785 --> 00:03:16.035 that when you do try to diagnose people's personality 00:03:16.035 --> 00:03:17.684 using Rorschach inkblot tests, 00:03:17.684 --> 00:03:19.356 schizophrenia was diagnosed 00:03:19.356 --> 00:03:23.349 in about one sixth of apparently perfectly normal participants. NOTE Paragraph 00:03:23.349 --> 00:03:26.182 So if you didn't do that well on this, 00:03:26.182 --> 00:03:28.736 maybe you are not a very visual type of person. 00:03:28.736 --> 00:03:31.105 So let's do another quick quiz to find out. 00:03:31.105 --> 00:03:33.473 When making a cake, do you prefer to 00:03:33.473 --> 00:03:35.005 -- so hands up for each one again -- 00:03:35.005 --> 00:03:37.652 do you prefer to use a recipe book with pictures? 00:03:37.652 --> 00:03:39.672 Yeah, a few people. 00:03:39.672 --> 00:03:42.412 Have a friend talk you through? 00:03:42.412 --> 00:03:45.245 Or have a go, making it up as you go along? 00:03:45.245 --> 00:03:46.777 Quite a few people there. 00:03:46.777 --> 00:03:48.287 Okay, so if you said a, 00:03:48.287 --> 00:03:50.609 then this means that you are a visual learner 00:03:50.609 --> 00:03:52.187 and you learn best when information 00:03:52.187 --> 00:03:54.091 is presented in a visual style. 00:03:54.091 --> 00:03:56.599 If you said b, it means you're an auditory learner, 00:03:56.599 --> 00:04:00.314 that you learn best when information is presented to you in an auditory format, 00:04:00.314 --> 00:04:01.684 and if you said c, 00:04:01.684 --> 00:04:03.449 it means that you're a kinesthetic learner, 00:04:03.449 --> 00:04:05.190 that you learn best when you get stuck in 00:04:05.190 --> 00:04:06.514 and do things with your hands. NOTE Paragraph 00:04:06.514 --> 00:04:08.278 Except, of course, as you've probably guessed, 00:04:08.278 --> 00:04:11.297 that it doesn't, because the whole thing is a complete myth. 00:04:11.297 --> 00:04:13.015 Learning styles are made up 00:04:13.015 --> 00:04:15.755 and are not supported by scientific evidence. 00:04:15.755 --> 00:04:19.191 So we know this because in tightly controlled experimental studies, 00:04:19.191 --> 00:04:21.142 when learners are given material to learn 00:04:21.142 --> 00:04:23.812 either in their preferred style or an opposite style, 00:04:23.812 --> 00:04:25.228 it makes no difference at all 00:04:25.228 --> 00:04:27.411 to the amount of information that they retain. 00:04:27.411 --> 00:04:29.384 And if you think about it for just a second, 00:04:29.384 --> 00:04:31.242 it's just obvious that this has to be true. 00:04:31.242 --> 00:04:34.144 It's obvious that the best presentation format 00:04:34.144 --> 00:04:35.932 depends not on you, 00:04:35.932 --> 00:04:37.627 but on what you're trying to learn. 00:04:37.627 --> 00:04:39.299 Could you learn to drive a car, for example, 00:04:39.299 --> 00:04:41.667 just by listening to someone telling you what to do 00:04:41.667 --> 00:04:43.525 with no kinesthetic experience? 00:04:43.525 --> 00:04:45.591 Could you solve simultaneous equations 00:04:45.591 --> 00:04:48.447 by talking them through in your head and without writing them down? 00:04:48.447 --> 00:04:51.558 Could you ?? for your architecture exams 00:04:51.558 --> 00:04:53.161 using interpretive dance if you're a kinesthetic learner? 00:04:53.161 --> 00:04:54.972 No. What you need to do is match 00:04:54.972 --> 00:04:58.617 the material to be learned to the presentation format, 00:04:58.617 --> 00:05:00.498 not you. NOTE Paragraph 00:05:00.498 --> 00:05:02.216 So, I know many of you are A-level students 00:05:02.216 --> 00:05:04.468 that will have recently gotten your ???? results. 00:05:04.468 --> 00:05:06.906 And if you didn't quite get what you were hoping for, 00:05:06.906 --> 00:05:08.973 then you can't really blame your learning style, 00:05:08.973 --> 00:05:12.966 but one thing that you might want to think about blaming is your genes. 00:05:12.966 --> 00:05:14.220 So what this is all about 00:05:14.220 --> 00:05:16.635 is a recent study at University College London 00:05:16.635 --> 00:05:19.189 found that 58 percent of the variation 00:05:19.189 --> 00:05:22.440 between different students and their ??? results 00:05:22.440 --> 00:05:24.297 was down to genetic factors. 00:05:24.297 --> 00:05:25.923 So that sounds a very precise figure, 00:05:25.923 --> 00:05:27.223 so how can we tell? 00:05:27.223 --> 00:05:29.568 Well, when we want to unpack the relative contributions 00:05:29.568 --> 00:05:32.842 of genes and the environment, 00:05:32.842 --> 00:05:35.071 what we can do is do a twin study. 00:05:35.071 --> 00:05:38.647 So identical twins share 100 percent of their environment 00:05:38.647 --> 00:05:40.551 and 100 percent of their genes, 00:05:40.551 --> 00:05:44.103 whereas non-identical twins share 100 percent of their environment, 00:05:44.103 --> 00:05:45.589 but just like any brother and sister, 00:05:45.589 --> 00:05:47.447 share only 50 percent of their genes. 00:05:47.447 --> 00:05:50.837 So by comparing how similar ??? results are in identical twins 00:05:50.837 --> 00:05:54.018 versus non-identical twins, 00:05:54.018 --> 00:05:55.364 and doing some clever math, 00:05:55.364 --> 00:05:59.265 we can an idea of how much variation and performance is due to the environment 00:05:59.265 --> 00:06:01.401 and how much is due to genes. 00:06:01.401 --> 00:06:05.348 And it turns out that it's about 58 percent due to genes. 00:06:05.348 --> 00:06:09.551 So this isn't to undermine the hard work that you and your teachers here put in. 00:06:09.551 --> 00:06:12.012 If you didn't quite get the ??? results that you were hoping for, 00:06:12.012 --> 00:06:16.888 then you can always try blaming your parents, or at least their genes. NOTE Paragraph 00:06:16.888 --> 00:06:18.606 One thing that you shouldn't blame 00:06:18.606 --> 00:06:21.068 is being a left brained or right brained learner, 00:06:21.068 --> 00:06:22.879 because again, this is a myth. 00:06:22.879 --> 00:06:26.176 So the myth here is that the left brain is logical, 00:06:26.176 --> 00:06:27.755 it's good with equations like this, 00:06:27.755 --> 00:06:29.264 and the right brain is more creative, 00:06:29.264 --> 00:06:31.447 so the right brain is better at music. 00:06:31.447 --> 00:06:34.465 But again, this is a myth because nearly everything that you do 00:06:34.465 --> 00:06:37.275 involves nearly all parts of your brain talking together, 00:06:37.275 --> 00:06:40.595 even just the most mundane thing like having a normal conversation. 00:06:40.595 --> 00:06:43.938 However, perhaps one reason why this myth has survived 00:06:43.938 --> 00:06:46.260 is that there is a slight grain of truth to it. 00:06:46.260 --> 00:06:48.420 So a related version of the myth 00:06:48.420 --> 00:06:51.113 is that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people, 00:06:51.113 --> 00:06:54.457 which kind of makes sense because your brain controls the opposite hands, 00:06:54.457 --> 00:06:55.757 so left-handed people, 00:06:55.757 --> 00:06:57.963 the right side of the brain is slightly more active 00:06:57.963 --> 00:06:59.588 than the left hand side of the brain, 00:06:59.588 --> 00:07:02.606 and the idea is the right-hand side is more creative. 00:07:02.606 --> 00:07:04.603 Now, it isn't true per se 00:07:04.603 --> 00:07:07.204 that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. 00:07:07.204 --> 00:07:09.619 What is true that ambidextrous people, 00:07:09.619 --> 00:07:12.312 or people who use both hands for different tasks, 00:07:12.312 --> 00:07:16.074 are more creative thinkers than one-handed people, 00:07:16.074 --> 00:07:17.977 because being ambidextrous involves 00:07:17.977 --> 00:07:20.206 having both sides of the brain talk to each other a lot, 00:07:20.206 --> 00:07:24.548 which seems to be involved in creating flexible thinking. 00:07:24.548 --> 00:07:26.313 The myth of the creative left-hander 00:07:26.313 --> 00:07:28.171 arises from the fact that being ambidextrous 00:07:28.171 --> 00:07:30.098 is more common amongst left-handers 00:07:30.098 --> 00:07:31.282 than right handers, 00:07:31.282 --> 00:07:34.347 so a grain of truth in the idea of the creative left-hander, 00:07:34.347 --> 00:07:35.694 but not much. NOTE Paragraph 00:07:35.694 --> 00:07:38.991 A related myth that you've probably heard of 00:07:38.991 --> 00:07:41.034 is that we only use 10 percent of our brains. 00:07:41.034 --> 00:07:42.520 This is, again, a complete myth. 00:07:42.520 --> 00:07:44.749 Nearly everything that we do, even the most mundane thing, 00:07:44.749 --> 00:07:46.932 uses nearly all of our brains. NOTE Paragraph 00:07:46.932 --> 00:07:50.693 That said, it is of course true 00:07:50.693 --> 00:07:53.363 that most of us don't use our brainpower 00:07:53.363 --> 00:07:55.267 quite as well as we could. 00:07:55.267 --> 00:07:58.239 So what could we do to boost our brain power? 00:07:58.239 --> 00:08:01.397 Maybe we could listen to a nice bit of Mozart. 00:08:01.397 --> 00:08:03.255 So have you heard of the idea of the Mozart effect? 00:08:03.255 --> 00:08:05.112 So the idea is that listening to Mozart 00:08:05.112 --> 00:08:08.781 makes you smarter and improves your performance on IQ tests. 00:08:08.781 --> 00:08:10.476 Now again, what's interesting about this myth 00:08:10.476 --> 00:08:12.147 is that although it's basically a myth, 00:08:12.147 --> 00:08:14.051 there is a grain of truth to it. 00:08:14.051 --> 00:08:15.421 So the original study found that 00:08:15.421 --> 00:08:19.322 participants who were played Mozart music for a few minutes 00:08:19.322 --> 00:08:21.621 did better on a subsequent IQ test 00:08:21.621 --> 00:08:24.964 than participants who simply sat in silence. 00:08:24.964 --> 00:08:28.888 But a follow-up study recruited some people who liked Mozart music 00:08:28.888 --> 00:08:30.119 and then another group of people 00:08:30.119 --> 00:08:33.207 who were fans of the horror stories of Stephen King. 00:08:33.207 --> 00:08:36.771 And they played the people the music or the stories. 00:08:36.771 --> 00:08:39.279 The people who preferred Mozart music to the stories 00:08:39.279 --> 00:08:42.320 got a bigger IQ boost from the Mozart than the stories, 00:08:42.320 --> 00:08:44.758 but the people who preferred the stories to the Mozart music 00:08:44.758 --> 00:08:46.105 got a bigger IQ boost 00:08:46.105 --> 00:08:49.170 from listening to the Stephen King stories than the Mozart music. 00:08:49.170 --> 00:08:51.933 So the truth is that listening to something that you enjoy 00:08:51.933 --> 00:08:55.184 perks you up a bit and gives you a temporary IQ boost 00:08:55.184 --> 00:08:57.111 on a narrow range of tasks. 00:08:57.111 --> 00:08:59.479 There's no suggestion that listening to Mozart 00:08:59.479 --> 00:09:01.104 or indeed Stephen King stories 00:09:01.104 --> 00:09:04.936 is going to make you any smarter in the long run. NOTE Paragraph 00:09:04.936 --> 00:09:07.466 So another version of the Mozart myth 00:09:07.466 --> 00:09:12.714 is that listening to Mozart can make you not only cleverer but healthier, too. 00:09:12.714 --> 00:09:14.502 Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be true 00:09:14.502 --> 00:09:17.451 of someone who listened to the music of Mozart almost every day, 00:09:17.451 --> 00:09:19.169 Mozart himself, 00:09:19.169 --> 00:09:22.419 who suffered from gonorrhea, smallpox, arthritis, 00:09:22.419 --> 00:09:25.043 and what most people think eventually killed him in the end, 00:09:25.043 --> 00:09:27.110 syphilis. 00:09:27.110 --> 00:09:30.035 This suggests that Mozart should have bit more careful, perhaps, 00:09:30.035 --> 00:09:32.613 when choosing his sexual partners. 00:09:32.613 --> 00:09:34.772 But how do we choose a partner? NOTE Paragraph 00:09:34.772 --> 00:09:38.208 So a myth, but I have to say is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists 00:09:38.208 --> 00:09:42.341 is that our preferences in a romantic partner 00:09:42.341 --> 00:09:43.711 are a product of our culture, 00:09:43.711 --> 00:09:45.592 that they're very culturally specific, 00:09:45.592 --> 00:09:47.496 but in fact, the data don't back this up. 00:09:47.496 --> 00:09:51.931 So a famous study surveyed people from 32 different cultures across the globe, 00:09:51.931 --> 00:09:53.417 from Americans to Zulus, 00:09:53.417 --> 00:09:55.483 on what they look for in a partner. 00:09:55.483 --> 00:09:57.852 And in every single culture across the globe, 00:09:57.852 --> 00:10:01.567 men placed more value on physical attractiveness in a partner 00:10:01.567 --> 00:10:02.867 than did women, 00:10:02.867 --> 00:10:04.608 and in every single culture, too, 00:10:04.608 --> 00:10:06.582 women placed more importance than did men 00:10:06.582 --> 00:10:09.461 on ambition and high earning power. 00:10:09.461 --> 00:10:10.785 In every culture, too, 00:10:10.785 --> 00:10:13.130 men preferred women who were younger than themselves, 00:10:13.130 --> 00:10:15.939 an average of I think it was 2.66 years, 00:10:15.939 --> 00:10:17.588 and in every culture, too, 00:10:17.588 --> 00:10:20.188 women preferred men who were older than them, 00:10:20.188 --> 00:10:22.998 so an average of 3.42 years, 00:10:22.998 --> 00:10:26.713 which is why we've got here "Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy." NOTE Paragraph 00:10:26.713 --> 00:10:29.290 So moving on from trying to score with a partner 00:10:29.290 --> 00:10:33.214 to trying to score in basketball or football or whatever your sport is. 00:10:33.214 --> 00:10:35.072 So the myth here is that sportsmen 00:10:35.072 --> 00:10:37.533 go through hot hand streaks, Americans call them, 00:10:37.533 --> 00:10:39.553 or purple patches, we sometimes say in England, 00:10:39.553 --> 00:10:40.993 where they just can't miss, 00:10:40.993 --> 00:10:42.386 like this guy here. 00:10:42.386 --> 00:10:46.077 But in fact, what happens is that if you analyze the pattern 00:10:46.077 --> 00:10:47.865 of hits and misses statistically, 00:10:47.865 --> 00:10:50.164 it turns out that it's nearly always at random. 00:10:50.164 --> 00:10:52.579 Your brain creates patterns from the randomness. 00:10:52.579 --> 00:10:54.436 So if you toss a coin, you know, 00:10:54.436 --> 00:10:57.942 a streak of heads or tails is going to come out somewhere in randomness, 00:10:57.942 --> 00:11:00.473 and becomes the brain likes to see patterns where there are none, 00:11:00.473 --> 00:11:02.934 we look at these streaks and attribute meanings to them 00:11:02.934 --> 00:11:05.001 and say, "Yeah he's really on form today," 00:11:05.001 --> 00:11:06.951 whereas actually you would get the same pattern 00:11:06.951 --> 00:11:12.036 if you were just getting hits and misses at random. NOTE Paragraph 00:11:12.036 --> 00:11:15.542 So an exception to this, however, is penalty shootouts. 00:11:15.542 --> 00:11:17.957 A recent study looking at penalty shootouts in football 00:11:17.957 --> 00:11:19.977 shows that players who represent countries 00:11:19.977 --> 00:11:22.601 with a very bad record in penalty shootouts, 00:11:22.601 --> 00:11:24.784 like, for example, England, 00:11:24.784 --> 00:11:28.545 tend to be quicker to take their shots than countries with a better record, 00:11:28.545 --> 00:11:31.865 and presumably as a result, they're more likely to miss. NOTE Paragraph 00:11:31.865 --> 00:11:33.560 Which raises the question 00:11:33.560 --> 00:11:37.229 of if there's any way that we could improve people's performance, 00:11:37.229 --> 00:11:38.947 and one thing you might think about doing 00:11:38.947 --> 00:11:40.596 is punishing people for their misses 00:11:40.596 --> 00:11:42.546 and seeing if that improves things. 00:11:42.546 --> 00:11:46.308 This idea, the effect that punishment can improve performance, 00:11:46.308 --> 00:11:48.444 is what participants thought they were testing 00:11:48.444 --> 00:11:50.766 in Milgram's famous learning and punishment experiment 00:11:50.766 --> 00:11:53.784 that you've probably heard about if you're a psychology student. 00:11:53.784 --> 00:11:56.106 The story goes that participants were prepared to give 00:11:56.106 --> 00:11:59.867 what they believed to be fatal electric shocks to a fellow participant 00:11:59.867 --> 00:12:01.888 when they got a question wrong, 00:12:01.888 --> 00:12:04.697 just because someone in a white coat told them too. NOTE Paragraph 00:12:04.697 --> 00:12:07.112 But this story is a myth for three reasons. 00:12:07.112 --> 00:12:10.246 Firstly and most crucially, the lab coat wasn't white. 00:12:10.246 --> 00:12:11.988 It was, in fact, grey. 00:12:11.988 --> 00:12:16.423 Secondly, the participants were told before the study 00:12:16.423 --> 00:12:18.930 and reminded any time they raised a concern, 00:12:18.930 --> 00:12:21.763 that although the shocks were painful, they were not fatal 00:12:21.763 --> 00:12:24.665 and indeed caused no permanent damage whatsoever. 00:12:24.665 --> 00:12:26.825 And thirdly, participants didn't give the shocks 00:12:26.825 --> 00:12:29.843 just because someone in the coat told them to. 00:12:29.843 --> 00:12:31.515 When they were interviewed after the study, 00:12:31.515 --> 00:12:34.023 all the participants said that they firmly believed 00:12:34.023 --> 00:12:37.807 that the learning and punishment study served a worthy scientific purpose 00:12:37.807 --> 00:12:40.245 which would have enduring gains for science 00:12:40.245 --> 00:12:43.844 as opposed to the momentary non-fatal discomfort 00:12:43.844 --> 00:12:47.025 caused to the participants. NOTE Paragraph 00:12:47.025 --> 00:12:50.183 Okay, so I've been talking for about 12 minutes now, 00:12:50.183 --> 00:12:51.599 and you've probably been sitting there 00:12:51.599 --> 00:12:54.409 listening to me, analyzing my speech patterns and body language 00:12:54.409 --> 00:12:58.556 and trying to work out if you should take any notice of what I'm saying, 00:12:58.556 --> 00:13:00.577 whether I'm telling the truth or whether I'm lying, 00:13:00.577 --> 00:13:02.759 but if so you've probably completely failed, 00:13:02.759 --> 00:13:05.104 because although we all think we can catch a liar 00:13:05.104 --> 00:13:07.217 from their body language and speech patterns, 00:13:07.217 --> 00:13:09.610 hundreds of psychological tests over the years have shown 00:13:09.610 --> 00:13:12.511 that all of us, including police officers and detectives, 00:13:12.511 --> 00:13:15.901 are basically at chance when it comes to detecting lies from body language 00:13:15.901 --> 00:13:17.642 and verbal patterns. 00:13:17.642 --> 00:13:19.686 Interestingly, there is one exception: 00:13:19.686 --> 00:13:21.938 TV appeals for missing relatives. 00:13:21.938 --> 00:13:25.073 It's quite easy to predict when the relatives are missing 00:13:25.073 --> 00:13:28.254 and when the appealers have in fact murdered the relatives themselves. 00:13:28.254 --> 00:13:31.969 So hoax appealers are more likely to shake their heads, to look away, 00:13:31.969 --> 00:13:33.733 and to make errors in their speech, 00:13:33.733 --> 00:13:35.498 whereas genuine appealers are more likely 00:13:35.498 --> 00:13:37.843 to express hope that the person will return safely 00:13:37.843 --> 00:13:39.584 and to avoid brutal language. 00:13:39.584 --> 00:13:44.577 So, for example, they might say "taken from us" rather than "killed." NOTE Paragraph 00:13:44.577 --> 00:13:45.714 Speaking of which, 00:13:45.714 --> 00:13:47.084 it's about time I killed this talk, 00:13:47.084 --> 00:13:48.802 but before I do, I just want to give you 00:13:48.802 --> 00:13:50.033 in 30 seconds 00:13:50.033 --> 00:13:53.423 the overarching myth of psychology. 00:13:53.423 --> 00:13:55.550 So the myth is that psychology 00:13:55.550 --> 00:13:57.988 is just a collection of interesting theories, 00:13:57.988 --> 00:13:59.497 all of which say something useful 00:13:59.497 --> 00:14:01.471 and all of which have something to offer. 00:14:01.471 --> 00:14:03.630 What I hope to have shown you in the past few minutes 00:14:03.630 --> 00:14:05.325 is that this isn't true. 00:14:05.325 --> 00:14:08.994 What we need to do is assess psychological theories 00:14:08.994 --> 00:14:10.828 by seeing what predictions they make, 00:14:10.828 --> 00:14:13.289 whether that is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, 00:14:13.289 --> 00:14:15.936 that you learn better when information 00:14:15.936 --> 00:14:18.072 is presented in your preferred learning style, 00:14:18.072 --> 00:14:21.671 or whatever it is, all of these are testable empirical predictions, 00:14:21.671 --> 00:14:23.366 and the only way we can make progress 00:14:23.366 --> 00:14:25.386 is to test these predictions against the data 00:14:25.386 --> 00:14:27.755 in tightly controlled experimental studies, 00:14:27.755 --> 00:14:30.889 and it's only by doing so that we can hope to discover 00:14:30.889 --> 00:14:33.513 which of these theories are well-supported, 00:14:33.513 --> 00:14:36.903 and which, like all the ones I've told you about today, are myths. NOTE Paragraph 00:14:36.903 --> 00:14:38.412 Thank you. NOTE Paragraph 00:14:38.412 --> 00:14:41.872 (Applause)