1
00:00:00,857 --> 00:00:02,186
So you've heard of your IQ,

2
00:00:02,186 --> 00:00:03,693
your general intelligence,

3
00:00:03,693 --> 00:00:05,392
but what's your Psy-Q?

4
00:00:05,392 --> 00:00:07,629
How much do you know
about what makes you tick,

5
00:00:07,629 --> 00:00:10,374
and how good are you
at predicting other peoples' behavior

6
00:00:10,374 --> 00:00:11,880
or even your own?

7
00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:15,159
And how much about what you think
you know about psychology is wrong?

8
00:00:15,159 --> 00:00:18,947
So let's find out by counting down
the top 10 myths of psychology.

9
00:00:18,947 --> 00:00:22,343
So you've probably heard it said
that when it comes to their psychology,

10
00:00:22,343 --> 00:00:25,225
it's almost as if men are from Mars
and women are from Venus.

11
00:00:25,235 --> 00:00:27,334
But how different
are men and women really?

12
00:00:27,334 --> 00:00:30,808
So to find out, let's start by looking
at something on which men and women

13
00:00:30,808 --> 00:00:31,595
really do differ

14
00:00:31,595 --> 00:00:34,943
and plotting some psychological
gender differences on the same scale.

15
00:00:34,943 --> 00:00:36,426
So one thing that men and women

16
00:00:36,426 --> 00:00:38,913
do really differ on is how far
they can throw a ball.

17
00:00:38,913 --> 00:00:40,803
So if we look at the data for men here,

18
00:00:40,803 --> 00:00:43,274
we see what is called
a normal distribution curve.

19
00:00:43,274 --> 00:00:45,112
A few men can throw a ball really far,

20
00:00:45,112 --> 00:00:46,565
and a few men not far at all,

21
00:00:46,565 --> 00:00:48,292
but most a kind of average distance.

22
00:00:48,292 --> 00:00:50,476
And women share
the same distribution as well,

23
00:00:50,476 --> 00:00:52,565
but actually there's
quite a big difference.

24
00:00:52,565 --> 00:00:54,913
In fact, the average man
can throw a ball further

25
00:00:54,913 --> 00:00:56,620
than about 98 percent of all women.

26
00:00:56,620 --> 00:00:59,647
So now let's look at what
some psychological gender differences

27
00:00:59,647 --> 00:01:02,504
look like on the same standardized scale.

28
00:01:02,504 --> 00:01:05,020
So any psychologist will tell you
that men are better

29
00:01:05,020 --> 00:01:06,555
at spacial awareness than women,

30
00:01:06,555 --> 00:01:08,513
so things like map-reading, for example,

31
00:01:08,513 --> 00:01:09,505
and it's true,

32
00:01:09,505 --> 00:01:12,023
but let's have a look
at the size of this difference.

33
00:01:12,023 --> 00:01:15,250
It's tiny: the lines are so close together
that they almost overlap.

34
00:01:15,250 --> 00:01:19,244
In fact, the average woman is better
than 33 percent of all men,

35
00:01:19,244 --> 00:01:21,125
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

36
00:01:21,125 --> 00:01:23,341
then the two genders
would be exactly equal.

37
00:01:23,341 --> 00:01:25,729
And it's worth bearing in mind
that this difference

38
00:01:25,729 --> 00:01:27,536
and the next one I'm going to show you

39
00:01:27,536 --> 00:01:29,374
are pretty much the biggest
psychological gender differences

40
00:01:29,374 --> 00:01:30,931
ever discovered in psychology.

41
00:01:30,931 --> 00:01:32,032
So here's the next one.

42
00:01:32,032 --> 00:01:34,540
Any psychologist will tell you
that women are better

43
00:01:34,540 --> 00:01:36,225
with language and grammar than men.

44
00:01:36,225 --> 00:01:38,794
So here's performance
on the standardized grammar test.

45
00:01:38,794 --> 00:01:40,861
There go the women. There go to the men.

46
00:01:40,861 --> 00:01:43,090
Again, yes, women are better on average,

47
00:01:43,090 --> 00:01:44,553
but the lines are so close

48
00:01:44,553 --> 00:01:46,417
that 33 percent of men

49
00:01:46,417 --> 00:01:48,035
are better than the average woman,

50
00:01:48,035 --> 00:01:49,720
and again, if it was 50 percent,

51
00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:52,462
that would represent
complete gender equality.

52
00:01:52,462 --> 00:01:54,583
So it's not really
a case of Mars and Venus.

53
00:01:54,583 --> 00:01:57,250
It's more a case of, if anything,
Mars and Snickers:

54
00:01:57,250 --> 00:01:58,902
basically the same, but, you know,

55
00:01:58,902 --> 00:02:01,990
one's maybe slightly
nuttier than the other.

56
00:02:01,990 --> 00:02:03,708
I won't say which.

57
00:02:03,708 --> 00:02:05,503
Right. Now we've got you warmed up.

58
00:02:05,503 --> 00:02:08,539
Let's psychoanalyze you using
the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

59
00:02:08,539 --> 00:02:12,122
So you can probably see two, I dunno,
two bears or two people or something.

60
00:02:12,122 --> 00:02:13,875
But what do you think they're doing?

61
00:02:13,875 --> 00:02:17,059
Put your hand up if you think
they're saying hello.

62
00:02:17,059 --> 00:02:18,870
Not many people. Okay.

63
00:02:18,870 --> 00:02:21,337
Put your hands up if you think
they are high-fiving.

64
00:02:21,337 --> 00:02:23,307
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

65
00:02:23,307 --> 00:02:24,482
Only a few people there.

66
00:02:24,482 --> 00:02:27,639
Okay, so if you think they're
saying hello or high-fiving,

67
00:02:27,639 --> 00:02:29,630
then that means you're a friendly person.

68
00:02:29,630 --> 00:02:32,410
If you think they're fighting,
that means you're a bit more

69
00:02:32,410 --> 00:02:33,876
of a nasty, aggressive person.

70
00:02:33,876 --> 00:02:35,806
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

71
00:02:35,806 --> 00:02:38,303
What about this one?
This isn't really a voting one,

72
00:02:38,303 --> 00:02:40,535
so on three, everyone
shout out what you see.

73
00:02:40,535 --> 00:02:43,549
One, two, three.

74
00:02:43,549 --> 00:02:45,241
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

75
00:02:45,241 --> 00:02:46,778
That was very worrying.

76
00:02:46,778 --> 00:02:48,291
A guy there said hamster.

77
00:02:48,291 --> 00:02:51,599
Well, you should see
some kind of two-legged animal here,

78
00:02:51,599 --> 00:02:53,983
and then the mirror image of them there.

79
00:02:53,983 --> 00:02:57,414
If you didn't, then this means
that you have difficulty

80
00:02:57,414 --> 00:02:59,109
processing complex situations

81
00:02:59,109 --> 00:03:01,524
where there's a lot going on.

82
00:03:01,524 --> 00:03:03,729
Except, of course,
it doesn't mean that at all.

83
00:03:03,729 --> 00:03:06,400
Rorschach inkblot tests
have basically no validity

84
00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:08,675
when it comes to diagnosing
people's personality

85
00:03:08,675 --> 00:03:11,136
and are not used
by modern-day psychologists.

86
00:03:11,136 --> 00:03:12,785
In fact, one recent study found

87
00:03:12,785 --> 00:03:16,035
that when you do try
to diagnose people's personality


88
00:03:16,035 --> 00:03:17,684
using Rorschach inkblot tests,

89
00:03:17,684 --> 00:03:19,356
schizophrenia was diagnosed

90
00:03:19,356 --> 00:03:23,349
in about one sixth of apparently
perfectly normal participants.

91
00:03:23,349 --> 00:03:26,182
So if you didn't do that well on this,

92
00:03:26,182 --> 00:03:28,736
maybe you are not
a very visual type of person.

93
00:03:28,736 --> 00:03:31,105
So let's do another
quick quiz to find out.

94
00:03:31,105 --> 00:03:33,153
When making a cake, do you prefer to

95
00:03:33,153 --> 00:03:35,005
-- so hands up for each one again --

96
00:03:35,005 --> 00:03:37,652
do you prefer to use
a recipe book with pictures?

97
00:03:37,652 --> 00:03:39,672
Yeah, a few people.

98
00:03:39,672 --> 00:03:42,412
Have a friend talk you through?

99
00:03:42,412 --> 00:03:45,245
Or have a go, making it up
as you go along?

100
00:03:45,245 --> 00:03:46,777
Quite a few people there.

101
00:03:46,777 --> 00:03:48,287
Okay, so if you said a,

102
00:03:48,287 --> 00:03:50,459
then this means that you
are a visual learner

103
00:03:50,459 --> 00:03:52,187
and you learn best when information

104
00:03:52,187 --> 00:03:54,091
is presented in a visual style.

105
00:03:54,091 --> 00:03:56,599
If you said b, it means
you're an auditory learner,

106
00:03:56,599 --> 00:04:00,394
that you learn best when information
is presented to you in an auditory format,

107
00:04:00,394 --> 00:04:01,254
and if you said c,

108
00:04:01,254 --> 00:04:03,269
it means that you're
a kinesthetic learner,

109
00:04:03,269 --> 00:04:05,280
that you learn best when you get stuck in

110
00:04:05,280 --> 00:04:06,714
and do things with your hands.

111
00:04:06,714 --> 00:04:08,948
Except, of course,
as you've probably guessed,

112
00:04:08,948 --> 00:04:11,777
that it doesn't, because
the whole thing is a complete myth.

113
00:04:11,777 --> 00:04:13,215
Learning styles are made up

114
00:04:13,215 --> 00:04:15,755
and are not supported
by scientific evidence.

115
00:04:15,755 --> 00:04:19,191
So we know this because in
tightly controlled experimental studies,

116
00:04:19,191 --> 00:04:21,142
when learners are given material to learn

117
00:04:21,142 --> 00:04:23,812
either in their preferred style
or an opposite style,

118
00:04:23,812 --> 00:04:25,218
it makes no difference at all

119
00:04:25,218 --> 00:04:27,421
to the amount of information
that they retain.

120
00:04:27,421 --> 00:04:29,504
And if you think about it
for just a second,

121
00:04:29,504 --> 00:04:31,602
it's just obvious
that this has to be true.

122
00:04:31,602 --> 00:04:34,144
It's obvious that
the best presentation format

123
00:04:34,144 --> 00:04:35,672
depends not on you,

124
00:04:35,672 --> 00:04:37,357
but on what you're trying to learn.

125
00:04:37,357 --> 00:04:39,479
Could you learn to drive a car,
for example,

126
00:04:39,479 --> 00:04:41,897
just by listening to someone
telling you what to do

127
00:04:41,897 --> 00:04:43,525
with no kinesthetic experience?

128
00:04:43,525 --> 00:04:45,341
Could you solve simultaneous equations

129
00:04:45,341 --> 00:04:48,487
by talking them through in your head
and without writing them down?

130
00:04:48,487 --> 00:04:50,448
Could you ?? for your architecture exams

131
00:04:50,448 --> 00:04:53,161
using interpretive dance
if you're a kinesthetic learner?

132
00:04:53,161 --> 00:04:54,972
No. What you need to do is match

133
00:04:54,972 --> 00:04:58,617
the material to be learned
to the presentation format,

134
00:04:58,617 --> 00:05:00,078
not you.

135
00:05:00,078 --> 00:05:02,126
So, I know many of you
are A-level students

136
00:05:02,126 --> 00:05:04,418
that will have recently gotten
your ???? results.

137
00:05:04,418 --> 00:05:06,976
And if you didn't quite get
what you were hoping for,

138
00:05:06,976 --> 00:05:09,323
then you can't really blame
your learning style,

139
00:05:09,323 --> 00:05:12,966
but one thing that you might want
to think about blaming is your genes.

140
00:05:12,966 --> 00:05:14,220
So what this is all about

141
00:05:14,220 --> 00:05:16,635
is a recent study
at University College London

142
00:05:16,635 --> 00:05:19,189
found that 58 percent of the variation

143
00:05:19,189 --> 00:05:22,440
between different students
and their ??? results

144
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:24,097
was down to genetic factors.

145
00:05:24,097 --> 00:05:25,923
So that sounds a very precise figure,

146
00:05:25,923 --> 00:05:27,223
so how can we tell?

147
00:05:27,223 --> 00:05:30,738
Well, when we want to unpack
the relative contributions

148
00:05:30,738 --> 00:05:32,842
of genes and the environment,

149
00:05:32,842 --> 00:05:35,071
what we can do is do a twin study.

150
00:05:35,071 --> 00:05:38,647
So identical twins share
100 percent of their environment

151
00:05:38,647 --> 00:05:40,551
and 100 percent of their genes,

152
00:05:40,551 --> 00:05:43,773
whereas non-identical twins
share 100 percent of their environment,

153
00:05:43,773 --> 00:05:45,589
but just like any brother and sister,

154
00:05:45,589 --> 00:05:47,447
share only 50 percent of their genes.

155
00:05:47,447 --> 00:05:50,837
So by comparing how similar
??? results are in identical twins

156
00:05:50,837 --> 00:05:54,018
versus non-identical twins,

157
00:05:54,018 --> 00:05:55,364
and doing some clever math,

158
00:05:55,364 --> 00:05:59,265
we can an idea of how much variation
and performance is due to the environment

159
00:05:59,265 --> 00:06:01,401
and how much is due to genes.

160
00:06:01,401 --> 00:06:05,178
And it turns out that it's
about 58 percent due to genes.

161
00:06:05,178 --> 00:06:08,941
So this isn't to undermine the hard work
that you and your teachers here put in.

162
00:06:08,941 --> 00:06:12,012
If you didn't quite get the ??? results
that you were hoping for,

163
00:06:12,012 --> 00:06:16,888
then you can always try blaming
your parents, or at least their genes.

164
00:06:16,888 --> 00:06:18,606
One thing that you shouldn't blame

165
00:06:18,606 --> 00:06:21,068
is being a left brained
or right brained learner,

166
00:06:21,068 --> 00:06:22,879
because again, this is a myth.

167
00:06:22,879 --> 00:06:25,636
So the myth here is that
the left brain is logical,

168
00:06:25,636 --> 00:06:27,435
it's good with equations like this,

169
00:06:27,435 --> 00:06:29,264
and the right brain is more creative,

170
00:06:29,264 --> 00:06:31,517
so the right brain is better at music.

171
00:06:31,517 --> 00:06:34,465
But again, this is a myth
because nearly everything that you do

172
00:06:34,465 --> 00:06:37,275
involves nearly all parts
of your brain talking together,

173
00:06:37,275 --> 00:06:40,595
even just the most mundane thing
like having a normal conversation.

174
00:06:40,595 --> 00:06:43,938
However, perhaps one reason
why this myth has survived

175
00:06:43,938 --> 00:06:46,180
is that there is
a slight grain of truth to it.

176
00:06:46,180 --> 00:06:47,790
So a related version of the myth

177
00:06:47,790 --> 00:06:51,073
is that left-handed people are
more creative than right-handed people,

178
00:06:51,073 --> 00:06:54,527
which kind of makes sense because
your brain controls the opposite hands,

179
00:06:54,527 --> 00:06:55,887
so left-handed people,

180
00:06:55,887 --> 00:06:58,313
the right side of the brain
is slightly more active

181
00:06:58,313 --> 00:07:00,118
than the left hand side of the brain,

182
00:07:00,118 --> 00:07:02,606
and the idea is the right-hand side
is more creative.

183
00:07:02,606 --> 00:07:04,003
Now, it isn't true per se

184
00:07:04,003 --> 00:07:07,204
that left-handed people are more creative
than right-handed people.

185
00:07:07,204 --> 00:07:09,619
What is true that ambidextrous people,

186
00:07:09,619 --> 00:07:12,312
or people who use both hands
for different tasks,

187
00:07:12,312 --> 00:07:16,074
are more creative thinkers
than one-handed people,

188
00:07:16,074 --> 00:07:17,807
because being ambidextrous involves

189
00:07:17,807 --> 00:07:20,536
having both sides of the brain
talk to each other a lot,

190
00:07:20,536 --> 00:07:24,298
which seems to be involved
in creating flexible thinking.

191
00:07:24,298 --> 00:07:26,113
The myth of the creative left-hander

192
00:07:26,113 --> 00:07:28,171
arises from the fact
that being ambidextrous

193
00:07:28,171 --> 00:07:30,098
is more common amongst left-handers

194
00:07:30,098 --> 00:07:31,282
than right handers,

195
00:07:31,282 --> 00:07:34,347
so a grain of truth in the idea
of the creative left-hander,

196
00:07:34,347 --> 00:07:35,694
but not much.

197
00:07:35,694 --> 00:07:38,131
A related myth that you've
probably heard of

198
00:07:38,131 --> 00:07:40,504
is that we only use
10 percent of our brains.

199
00:07:40,504 --> 00:07:42,030
This is, again, a complete myth.

200
00:07:42,030 --> 00:07:44,749
Nearly everything that we do,
even the most mundane thing,

201
00:07:44,749 --> 00:07:46,932
uses nearly all of our brains.

202
00:07:46,932 --> 00:07:50,693
That said, it is of course true

203
00:07:50,693 --> 00:07:53,363
that most of us don't use our brainpower

204
00:07:53,363 --> 00:07:55,267
quite as well as we could.

205
00:07:55,267 --> 00:07:58,239
So what could we do
to boost our brain power?

206
00:07:58,239 --> 00:08:00,377
Maybe we could listen
to a nice bit of Mozart.

207
00:08:00,377 --> 00:08:03,255
So have you heard of the idea
of the Mozart effect?

208
00:08:03,255 --> 00:08:05,222
So the idea is that listening to Mozart

209
00:08:05,222 --> 00:08:08,221
makes you smarter and improves
your performance on IQ tests.

210
00:08:08,221 --> 00:08:10,326
Now again, what's interesting
about this myth

211
00:08:10,326 --> 00:08:12,247
is that although it's basically a myth,

212
00:08:12,247 --> 00:08:13,841
there is a grain of truth to it.

213
00:08:13,841 --> 00:08:15,421
So the original study found that

214
00:08:15,421 --> 00:08:19,322
participants who were played
Mozart music for a few minutes

215
00:08:19,322 --> 00:08:21,621
did better on a subsequent IQ test

216
00:08:21,621 --> 00:08:25,034
than participants who simply
sat in silence.

217
00:08:25,034 --> 00:08:28,758
But a follow-up study recruited
some people who liked Mozart music

218
00:08:28,758 --> 00:08:30,539
and then another group of people

219
00:08:30,539 --> 00:08:33,207
who were fans of the horror stories
of Stephen King.

220
00:08:33,207 --> 00:08:36,771
And they played the people
the music or the stories.

221
00:08:36,771 --> 00:08:39,279
The people who preferred
Mozart music to the stories

222
00:08:39,279 --> 00:08:41,900
got a bigger IQ boost
from the Mozart than the stories,

223
00:08:41,900 --> 00:08:44,758
but the people who preferred
the stories to the Mozart music

224
00:08:44,758 --> 00:08:46,105
got a bigger IQ boost

225
00:08:46,105 --> 00:08:49,170
from listening to the Stephen King stories
than the Mozart music.

226
00:08:49,170 --> 00:08:51,933
So the truth is that listening
to something that you enjoy

227
00:08:51,933 --> 00:08:55,184
perks you up a bit
and gives you a temporary IQ boost

228
00:08:55,184 --> 00:08:57,111
on a narrow range of tasks.

229
00:08:57,111 --> 00:08:59,479
There's no suggestion that
listening to Mozart

230
00:08:59,479 --> 00:09:01,104
or indeed Stephen King stories

231
00:09:01,104 --> 00:09:04,936
is going to make you any smarter
in the long run.

232
00:09:04,936 --> 00:09:07,466
So another version of the Mozart myth

233
00:09:07,466 --> 00:09:12,324
is that listening to Mozart can make you
not only cleverer but healthier, too.

234
00:09:12,324 --> 00:09:14,392
Unfortunately, this doesn't
seem to be true

235
00:09:14,392 --> 00:09:17,451
of someone who listened
to the music of Mozart almost every day,

236
00:09:17,451 --> 00:09:19,169
Mozart himself,

237
00:09:19,169 --> 00:09:22,149
who suffered from gonorrhea,
smallpox, arthritis,

238
00:09:22,149 --> 00:09:25,043
and what most people think
eventually killed him in the end,

239
00:09:25,043 --> 00:09:26,920
syphilis.

240
00:09:26,920 --> 00:09:30,035
This suggests that Mozart
should have bit more careful, perhaps,

241
00:09:30,035 --> 00:09:32,613
when choosing his sexual partners.

242
00:09:32,613 --> 00:09:34,772
But how do we choose a partner?

243
00:09:34,772 --> 00:09:38,208
So a myth, but I have to say
is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

244
00:09:38,208 --> 00:09:42,031
is that our preferences
in a romantic partner

245
00:09:42,031 --> 00:09:43,711
are a product of our culture,

246
00:09:43,711 --> 00:09:45,532
that they're very culturally specific,

247
00:09:45,532 --> 00:09:47,496
but in fact, the data don't back this up.

248
00:09:47,496 --> 00:09:51,931
So a famous study surveyed people from
32 different cultures across the globe,

249
00:09:51,931 --> 00:09:53,417
from Americans to Zulus,

250
00:09:53,417 --> 00:09:55,483
on what they look for in a partner.

251
00:09:55,483 --> 00:09:57,852
And in every single culture
across the globe,

252
00:09:57,852 --> 00:10:01,567
men placed more value
on physical attractiveness in a partner

253
00:10:01,567 --> 00:10:02,867
than did women,

254
00:10:02,867 --> 00:10:04,608
and in every single culture, too,

255
00:10:04,608 --> 00:10:06,582
women placed more importance than did men

256
00:10:06,582 --> 00:10:09,211
on ambition and high earning power.

257
00:10:09,211 --> 00:10:10,605
In every culture, too,

258
00:10:10,605 --> 00:10:13,130
men preferred women
who were younger than themselves,

259
00:10:13,130 --> 00:10:15,939
an average of I think it was 2.66 years,

260
00:10:15,939 --> 00:10:17,588
and in every culture, too,

261
00:10:17,588 --> 00:10:20,188
women preferred men
who were older than them,

262
00:10:20,188 --> 00:10:22,998
so an average of 3.42 years,

263
00:10:22,998 --> 00:10:26,713
which is why we've got here
"Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy."

264
00:10:26,713 --> 00:10:29,290
So moving on from trying
to score with a partner

265
00:10:29,290 --> 00:10:33,214
to trying to score in basketball
or football or whatever your sport is.

266
00:10:33,214 --> 00:10:35,072
So the myth here is that sportsmen

267
00:10:35,072 --> 00:10:37,353
go through hot hand streaks,
Americans call them,

268
00:10:37,353 --> 00:10:39,553
or purple patches,
we sometimes say in England,

269
00:10:39,553 --> 00:10:40,993
where they just can't miss,

270
00:10:40,993 --> 00:10:42,386
like this guy here.

271
00:10:42,386 --> 00:10:46,077
But in fact, what happens is that
if you analyze the pattern

272
00:10:46,077 --> 00:10:47,865
of hits and misses statistically,

273
00:10:47,865 --> 00:10:50,164
it turns out that it's
nearly always at random.

274
00:10:50,164 --> 00:10:52,579
Your brain creates patterns
from the randomness.

275
00:10:52,579 --> 00:10:54,436
So if you toss a coin, you know,

276
00:10:54,436 --> 00:10:57,862
a streak of heads or tails is going
to come out somewhere in randomness,

277
00:10:57,862 --> 00:11:00,953
and becomes the brain likes
to see patterns where there are none,

278
00:11:00,953 --> 00:11:03,534
we look at these streaks
and attribute meanings to them

279
00:11:03,534 --> 00:11:05,591
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

280
00:11:05,591 --> 00:11:07,901
whereas actually you would
get the same pattern

281
00:11:07,901 --> 00:11:11,406
if you were just getting
hits and misses at random.

282
00:11:11,406 --> 00:11:14,872
So an exception to this, however,
is penalty shootouts.

283
00:11:14,872 --> 00:11:17,957
A recent study looking
at penalty shootouts in football

284
00:11:17,957 --> 00:11:19,977
shows that players who represent countries

285
00:11:19,977 --> 00:11:22,601
with a very bad record
in penalty shootouts,

286
00:11:22,601 --> 00:11:24,784
like, for example, England,

287
00:11:24,784 --> 00:11:28,545
tend to be quicker to take their shots
than countries with a better record,

288
00:11:28,545 --> 00:11:31,865
and presumably as a result,
they're more likely to miss.

289
00:11:31,865 --> 00:11:33,560
Which raises the question

290
00:11:33,560 --> 00:11:37,229
of if there's any way that we
could improve people's performance,

291
00:11:37,229 --> 00:11:38,947
and one thing you might think about doing

292
00:11:38,947 --> 00:11:40,596
is punishing people for their misses

293
00:11:40,596 --> 00:11:42,546
and seeing if that improves things.

294
00:11:42,546 --> 00:11:45,998
This idea, the effect that punishment
can improve performance,

295
00:11:45,998 --> 00:11:48,204
is what participants
thought they were testing

296
00:11:48,204 --> 00:11:50,736
in Milgram's famous learning
and punishment experiment

297
00:11:50,736 --> 00:11:53,814
that you've probably heard about
if you're a psychology student.

298
00:11:53,814 --> 00:11:56,566
The story goes that participants
were prepared to give

299
00:11:56,566 --> 00:11:59,867
what they believed to be fatal
electric shocks to a fellow participant

300
00:11:59,867 --> 00:12:01,888
when they got a question wrong,

301
00:12:01,888 --> 00:12:04,697
just because someone
in a white coat told them too.

302
00:12:04,697 --> 00:12:07,112
But this story is a myth
for three reasons.

303
00:12:07,112 --> 00:12:10,246
Firstly and most crucially,
the lab coat wasn't white.

304
00:12:10,246 --> 00:12:11,988
It was, in fact, grey.

305
00:12:11,988 --> 00:12:16,423
Secondly, the participants
were told before the study

306
00:12:16,423 --> 00:12:18,930
and reminded any time
they raised a concern,

307
00:12:18,930 --> 00:12:21,763
that although the shocks were painful,
they were not fatal

308
00:12:21,763 --> 00:12:24,505
and indeed caused
no permanent damage whatsoever.

309
00:12:24,505 --> 00:12:26,825
And thirdly, participants
didn't give the shocks

310
00:12:26,825 --> 00:12:29,473
just because someone
in the coat told them to.

311
00:12:29,473 --> 00:12:31,515
When they were interviewed
after the study,

312
00:12:31,515 --> 00:12:34,023
all the participants said
that they firmly believed

313
00:12:34,023 --> 00:12:37,807
that the learning and punishment study
served a worthy scientific purpose

314
00:12:37,807 --> 00:12:40,245
which would have
enduring gains for science

315
00:12:40,245 --> 00:12:43,844
as opposed to the momentary
non-fatal discomfort

316
00:12:43,844 --> 00:12:47,025
caused to the participants.

317
00:12:47,025 --> 00:12:49,603
Okay, so I've been talking
for about 12 minutes now,

318
00:12:49,603 --> 00:12:51,429
and you've probably been sitting there

319
00:12:51,429 --> 00:12:54,509
listening to me, analyzing
my speech patterns and body language

320
00:12:54,509 --> 00:12:58,116
and trying to work out if you should
take any notice of what I'm saying,

321
00:12:58,116 --> 00:13:00,577
whether I'm telling the truth
or whether I'm lying,

322
00:13:00,577 --> 00:13:02,759
but if so you've
probably completely failed,

323
00:13:02,759 --> 00:13:05,104
because although we all think
we can catch a liar

324
00:13:05,104 --> 00:13:07,197
from their body language
and speech patterns,

325
00:13:07,197 --> 00:13:09,870
hundreds of psychological tests
over the years have shown

326
00:13:09,870 --> 00:13:12,561
that all of us, including
police officers and detectives,

327
00:13:12,561 --> 00:13:16,061
are basically at chance when it comes
to detecting lies from body language

328
00:13:16,061 --> 00:13:17,642
and verbal patterns.

329
00:13:17,642 --> 00:13:19,686
Interestingly, there is one exception:

330
00:13:19,686 --> 00:13:21,938
TV appeals for missing relatives.

331
00:13:21,938 --> 00:13:24,923
It's quite easy to predict
when the relatives are missing

332
00:13:24,923 --> 00:13:28,254
and when the appealers have in fact
murdered the relatives themselves.

333
00:13:28,254 --> 00:13:31,769
So hoax appealers are more likely
to shake their heads, to look away,

334
00:13:31,769 --> 00:13:33,483
and to make errors in their speech,

335
00:13:33,483 --> 00:13:35,498
whereas genuine appealers are more likely

336
00:13:35,498 --> 00:13:37,843
to express hope that the person
will return safely

337
00:13:37,843 --> 00:13:39,584
and to avoid brutal language.

338
00:13:39,584 --> 00:13:44,187
So, for example, they might say
"taken from us" rather than "killed."

339
00:13:44,187 --> 00:13:45,184
Speaking of which,

340
00:13:45,184 --> 00:13:46,864
it's about time I killed this talk,

341
00:13:46,864 --> 00:13:48,772
but before I do, I just want to give you

342
00:13:48,772 --> 00:13:50,033
in 30 seconds

343
00:13:50,033 --> 00:13:53,423
the overarching myth of psychology.

344
00:13:53,423 --> 00:13:55,550
So the myth is that psychology

345
00:13:55,550 --> 00:13:57,708
is just a collection
of interesting theories,

346
00:13:57,708 --> 00:13:59,297
all of which say something useful

347
00:13:59,297 --> 00:14:01,251
and all of which have something to offer.

348
00:14:01,251 --> 00:14:03,740
What I hope to have shown you
in the past few minutes

349
00:14:03,740 --> 00:14:05,325
is that this isn't true.

350
00:14:05,325 --> 00:14:08,584
What we need to do is assess
psychological theories

351
00:14:08,584 --> 00:14:10,468
by seeing what predictions they make,

352
00:14:10,468 --> 00:14:13,289
whether that is that listening to Mozart
makes you smarter,

353
00:14:13,289 --> 00:14:15,796
that you learn better when information

354
00:14:15,796 --> 00:14:18,072
is presented in your
preferred learning style,

355
00:14:18,072 --> 00:14:21,521
or whatever it is, all of these
are testable empirical predictions,

356
00:14:21,521 --> 00:14:23,306
and the only way we can make progress

357
00:14:23,306 --> 00:14:25,426
is to test these predictions
against the data

358
00:14:25,426 --> 00:14:27,755
in tightly controlled
experimental studies,

359
00:14:27,755 --> 00:14:30,889
and it's only by doing so
that we can hope to discover

360
00:14:30,889 --> 00:14:33,513
which of these theories
are well-supported,

361
00:14:33,513 --> 00:14:36,903
and which, like all the ones
I've told you about today, are myths.

362
00:14:36,903 --> 00:14:38,412
Thank you.

363
00:14:38,412 --> 00:14:41,872
(Applause)