0:00:10.857,0:00:12.186
So you've heard of your IQ,

0:00:12.186,0:00:13.693
your general intelligence,

0:00:13.693,0:00:15.392
but what's your Psy-Q?

0:00:15.392,0:00:17.629
How much do you knowabout what makes you tick,

0:00:17.629,0:00:20.374
and how good are youat predicting other peoples' behavior

0:00:20.374,0:00:21.880
or even your own?

0:00:21.880,0:00:25.159
And how much about what you thinkyou know about psychology is wrong?

0:00:25.159,0:00:28.947
So let's find out by counting downthe top 10 myths of psychology.

0:00:28.947,0:00:32.343
So you've probably heard it saidthat when it comes to their psychology,

0:00:32.343,0:00:35.225
it's almost as if men are from Marsand women are from Venus.

0:00:35.235,0:00:37.334
But how differentare men and women really?

0:00:37.334,0:00:40.808
So to find out, let's start by lookingat something on which men and women

0:00:40.808,0:00:41.595
really do differ

0:00:41.595,0:00:44.943
and plotting some psychologicalgender differences on the same scale.

0:00:44.943,0:00:46.426
So one thing that men and women

0:00:46.426,0:00:48.913
do really differ on is how farthey can throw a ball.

0:00:48.913,0:00:50.803
So if we look at the data for men here,

0:00:50.803,0:00:53.274
we see what is calleda normal distribution curve.

0:00:53.274,0:00:55.112
A few men can throw a ball really far,

0:00:55.112,0:00:56.565
and a few men not far at all,

0:00:56.565,0:00:58.292
but most a kind of average distance.

0:00:58.292,0:01:00.476
And women sharethe same distribution as well,

0:01:00.476,0:01:02.565
but actually there'squite a big difference.

0:01:02.565,0:01:04.913
In fact, the average mancan throw a ball further

0:01:04.913,0:01:06.620
than about 98 percent of all women.

0:01:06.620,0:01:09.647
So now let's look at whatsome psychological gender differences

0:01:09.647,0:01:12.504
look like on the same standardized scale.

0:01:12.504,0:01:15.020
So any psychologist will tell youthat men are better

0:01:15.020,0:01:16.555
at spacial awareness than women,

0:01:16.555,0:01:18.513
so things like map-reading, for example,

0:01:18.513,0:01:19.505
and it's true,

0:01:19.505,0:01:22.023
but let's have a lookat the size of this difference.

0:01:22.023,0:01:25.250
It's tiny: the lines are so close togetherthat they almost overlap.

0:01:25.250,0:01:29.244
In fact, the average woman is betterthan 33 percent of all men,

0:01:29.244,0:01:31.125
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

0:01:31.125,0:01:33.341
then the two genderswould be exactly equal.

0:01:33.341,0:01:35.729
And it's worth bearing in mindthat this difference

0:01:35.729,0:01:37.536
and the next one I'm going to show you

0:01:37.536,0:01:39.374
are pretty much the biggestpsychological gender differences

0:01:39.374,0:01:40.931
ever discovered in psychology.

0:01:40.931,0:01:42.032
So here's the next one.

0:01:42.032,0:01:44.540
Any psychologist will tell youthat women are better

0:01:44.540,0:01:46.225
with language and grammar than men.

0:01:46.225,0:01:48.794
So here's performanceon the standardized grammar test.

0:01:48.794,0:01:50.861
There go the women. There go to the men.

0:01:50.861,0:01:53.090
Again, yes, women are better on average,

0:01:53.090,0:01:54.553
but the lines are so close

0:01:54.553,0:01:56.417
that 33 percent of men

0:01:56.417,0:01:58.035
are better than the average woman,

0:01:58.035,0:01:59.720
and again, if it was 50 percent,

0:01:59.720,0:02:02.462
that would representcomplete gender equality.

0:02:02.462,0:02:04.583
So it's not reallya case of Mars and Venus.

0:02:04.583,0:02:07.250
It's more a case of, if anything,Mars and Snickers:

0:02:07.250,0:02:08.901
basically the same, but, you know,

0:02:08.901,0:02:11.990
one's maybe slightlynuttier than the other.

0:02:11.990,0:02:13.708
I won't say which.

0:02:13.708,0:02:15.503
Right. Now we've got you warmed up.

0:02:15.503,0:02:18.539
Let's psychoanalyze you usingthe famous Rorschach inkblot test.

0:02:18.539,0:02:22.122
So you can probably see two, I dunno,two bears or two people or something.

0:02:22.122,0:02:23.875
But what do you think they're doing?

0:02:23.875,0:02:27.059
Put your hand up if you thinkthey're saying hello.

0:02:27.059,0:02:28.870
Not many people. Okay.

0:02:28.870,0:02:31.337
Put your hands up if you thinkthey are high-fiving.

0:02:31.337,0:02:33.307
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

0:02:33.307,0:02:34.482
Only a few people there.

0:02:34.482,0:02:37.639
Okay, so if you think they'resaying hello or high-fiving,

0:02:37.639,0:02:39.630
then that means you're a friendly person.

0:02:39.630,0:02:42.410
If you think they're fighting,that means you're a bit more

0:02:42.410,0:02:43.876
of a nasty, aggressive person.

0:02:43.876,0:02:45.806
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

0:02:45.806,0:02:48.303
What about this one?This isn't really a voting one,

0:02:48.303,0:02:50.535
so on three, everyoneshout out what you see.

0:02:50.535,0:02:53.549
One, two, three.

0:02:53.549,0:02:55.241
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

0:02:55.241,0:02:56.778
That was very worrying.

0:02:56.778,0:02:58.291
A guy there said hamster.

0:02:58.291,0:03:01.599
Well, you should seesome kind of two-legged animal here,

0:03:01.599,0:03:03.983
and then the mirror image of them there.

0:03:03.983,0:03:07.414
If you didn't, then this meansthat you have difficulty

0:03:07.414,0:03:09.109
processing complex situations

0:03:09.109,0:03:11.524
where there's a lot going on.

0:03:11.524,0:03:13.729
Except, of course,it doesn't mean that at all.

0:03:13.729,0:03:16.400
Rorschach inkblot testshave basically no validity

0:03:16.400,0:03:18.675
when it comes to diagnosingpeople's personality

0:03:18.675,0:03:21.136
and are not usedby modern-day psychologists.

0:03:21.136,0:03:22.785
In fact, one recent study found

0:03:22.785,0:03:26.035
that when you do tryto diagnose people's personality

0:03:26.035,0:03:27.684
using Rorschach inkblot tests,

0:03:27.684,0:03:29.356
schizophrenia was diagnosed

0:03:29.356,0:03:33.349
in about one sixth of apparentlyperfectly normal participants.

0:03:33.349,0:03:36.182
So if you didn't do that well on this,

0:03:36.182,0:03:38.736
maybe you are nota very visual type of person.

0:03:38.736,0:03:41.105
So let's do anotherquick quiz to find out.

0:03:41.105,0:03:43.153
When making a cake, do you prefer to

0:03:43.153,0:03:45.005
-- so hands up for each one again --

0:03:45.005,0:03:47.652
do you prefer to usea recipe book with pictures?

0:03:47.652,0:03:49.672
Yeah, a few people.

0:03:49.672,0:03:52.412
Have a friend talk you through?

0:03:52.412,0:03:55.245
Or have a go, making it upas you go along?

0:03:55.245,0:03:56.777
Quite a few people there.

0:03:56.777,0:03:58.287
Okay, so if you said a,

0:03:58.287,0:04:00.459
then this means that youare a visual learner

0:04:00.459,0:04:02.187
and you learn best when information

0:04:02.187,0:04:04.091
is presented in a visual style.

0:04:04.091,0:04:06.599
If you said b, it meansyou're an auditory learner,

0:04:06.599,0:04:10.394
that you learn best when informationis presented to you in an auditory format,

0:04:10.394,0:04:11.254
and if you said c,

0:04:11.254,0:04:13.269
it means that you'rea kinesthetic learner,

0:04:13.269,0:04:15.280
that you learn best when you get stuck in

0:04:15.280,0:04:16.714
and do things with your hands.

0:04:16.714,0:04:18.947
Except, of course,as you've probably guessed,

0:04:18.947,0:04:21.777
that it doesn't, becausethe whole thing is a complete myth.

0:04:21.777,0:04:23.215
Learning styles are made up

0:04:23.215,0:04:25.755
and are not supportedby scientific evidence.

0:04:25.755,0:04:29.191
So we know this because intightly controlled experimental studies,

0:04:29.191,0:04:31.142
when learners are given material to learn

0:04:31.142,0:04:33.812
either in their preferred styleor an opposite style,

0:04:33.812,0:04:35.218
it makes no difference at all

0:04:35.218,0:04:37.421
to the amount of informationthat they retain.

0:04:37.421,0:04:39.504
And if you think about itfor just a second,

0:04:39.504,0:04:41.602
it's just obviousthat this has to be true.

0:04:41.602,0:04:44.144
It's obvious thatthe best presentation format

0:04:44.144,0:04:45.672
depends not on you,

0:04:45.672,0:04:47.357
but on what you're trying to learn.

0:04:47.357,0:04:49.479
Could you learn to drive a car,for example,

0:04:49.479,0:04:51.897
just by listening to someonetelling you what to do

0:04:51.897,0:04:53.525
with no kinesthetic experience?

0:04:53.525,0:04:55.341
Could you solve simultaneous equations

0:04:55.341,0:04:58.487
by talking them through in your headand without writing them down?

0:04:58.487,0:05:00.448
Could you ?? for your architecture exams

0:05:00.448,0:05:03.161
using interpretive danceif you're a kinesthetic learner?

0:05:03.161,0:05:04.972
No. What you need to do is match

0:05:04.972,0:05:08.617
the material to be learnedto the presentation format,

0:05:08.617,0:05:10.078
not you.

0:05:10.078,0:05:12.126
So, I know many of youare A-level students

0:05:12.126,0:05:14.418
that will have recently gottenyour ???? results.

0:05:14.418,0:05:16.976
And if you didn't quite getwhat you were hoping for,

0:05:16.976,0:05:19.323
then you can't really blameyour learning style,

0:05:19.323,0:05:22.966
but one thing that you might wantto think about blaming is your genes.

0:05:22.966,0:05:24.220
So what this is all about

0:05:24.220,0:05:26.635
is a recent studyat University College London

0:05:26.635,0:05:29.189
found that 58 percent of the variation

0:05:29.189,0:05:32.440
between different studentsand their ??? results

0:05:32.440,0:05:34.097
was down to genetic factors.

0:05:34.097,0:05:35.923
So that sounds a very precise figure,

0:05:35.923,0:05:37.223
so how can we tell?

0:05:37.223,0:05:40.738
Well, when we want to unpackthe relative contributions

0:05:40.738,0:05:42.842
of genes and the environment,

0:05:42.842,0:05:45.071
what we can do is do a twin study.

0:05:45.071,0:05:48.647
So identical twins share100 percent of their environment

0:05:48.647,0:05:50.551
and 100 percent of their genes,

0:05:50.551,0:05:53.773
whereas non-identical twinsshare 100 percent of their environment,

0:05:53.773,0:05:55.589
but just like any brother and sister,

0:05:55.589,0:05:57.447
share only 50 percent of their genes.

0:05:57.447,0:06:00.837
So by comparing how similar??? results are in identical twins

0:06:00.837,0:06:04.018
versus non-identical twins,

0:06:04.018,0:06:05.364
and doing some clever math,

0:06:05.364,0:06:09.265
we can an idea of how much variationand performance is due to the environment

0:06:09.265,0:06:11.401
and how much is due to genes.

0:06:11.401,0:06:15.178
And it turns out that it'sabout 58 percent due to genes.

0:06:15.178,0:06:18.941
So this isn't to undermine the hard workthat you and your teachers here put in.

0:06:18.941,0:06:22.012
If you didn't quite get the ??? resultsthat you were hoping for,

0:06:22.012,0:06:26.888
then you can always try blamingyour parents, or at least their genes.

0:06:26.888,0:06:28.606
One thing that you shouldn't blame

0:06:28.606,0:06:31.068
is being a left brainedor right brained learner,

0:06:31.068,0:06:32.879
because again, this is a myth.

0:06:32.879,0:06:35.636
So the myth here is thatthe left brain is logical,

0:06:35.636,0:06:37.435
it's good with equations like this,

0:06:37.435,0:06:39.264
and the right brain is more creative,

0:06:39.264,0:06:41.517
so the right brain is better at music.

0:06:41.517,0:06:44.465
But again, this is a mythbecause nearly everything that you do

0:06:44.465,0:06:47.275
involves nearly all partsof your brain talking together,

0:06:47.275,0:06:50.595
even just the most mundane thinglike having a normal conversation.

0:06:50.595,0:06:53.938
However, perhaps one reasonwhy this myth has survived

0:06:53.938,0:06:56.180
is that there isa slight grain of truth to it.

0:06:56.180,0:06:57.790
So a related version of the myth

0:06:57.790,0:07:01.073
is that left-handed people aremore creative than right-handed people,

0:07:01.073,0:07:04.527
which kind of makes sense becauseyour brain controls the opposite hands,

0:07:04.527,0:07:05.887
so left-handed people,

0:07:05.887,0:07:08.313
the right side of the brainis slightly more active

0:07:08.313,0:07:10.118
than the left hand side of the brain,

0:07:10.118,0:07:12.606
and the idea is the right-hand sideis more creative.

0:07:12.606,0:07:14.003
Now, it isn't true per se

0:07:14.003,0:07:17.204
that left-handed people are more creativethan right-handed people.

0:07:17.204,0:07:19.619
What is true that ambidextrous people,

0:07:19.619,0:07:22.312
or people who use both handsfor different tasks,

0:07:22.312,0:07:26.074
are more creative thinkersthan one-handed people,

0:07:26.074,0:07:27.807
because being ambidextrous involves

0:07:27.807,0:07:30.536
having both sides of the braintalk to each other a lot,

0:07:30.536,0:07:34.298
which seems to be involvedin creating flexible thinking.

0:07:34.298,0:07:36.113
The myth of the creative left-hander

0:07:36.113,0:07:38.171
arises from the factthat being ambidextrous

0:07:38.171,0:07:40.098
is more common amongst left-handers

0:07:40.098,0:07:41.282
than right handers,

0:07:41.282,0:07:44.347
so a grain of truth in the ideaof the creative left-hander,

0:07:44.347,0:07:45.694
but not much.

0:07:45.694,0:07:48.131
A related myth that you'veprobably heard of

0:07:48.131,0:07:50.504
is that we only use10 percent of our brains.

0:07:50.504,0:07:52.030
This is, again, a complete myth.

0:07:52.030,0:07:54.749
Nearly everything that we do,even the most mundane thing,

0:07:54.749,0:07:56.932
uses nearly all of our brains.

0:07:56.932,0:08:00.693
That said, it is of course true

0:08:00.693,0:08:03.363
that most of us don't use our brainpower

0:08:03.363,0:08:05.267
quite as well as we could.

0:08:05.267,0:08:08.239
So what could we doto boost our brain power?

0:08:08.239,0:08:10.377
Maybe we could listento a nice bit of Mozart.

0:08:10.377,0:08:13.255
So have you heard of the ideaof the Mozart effect?

0:08:13.255,0:08:15.222
So the idea is that listening to Mozart

0:08:15.222,0:08:18.221
makes you smarter and improvesyour performance on IQ tests.

0:08:18.221,0:08:20.326
Now again, what's interestingabout this myth

0:08:20.326,0:08:22.247
is that although it's basically a myth,

0:08:22.247,0:08:23.841
there is a grain of truth to it.

0:08:23.841,0:08:25.421
So the original study found that

0:08:25.421,0:08:29.322
participants who were playedMozart music for a few minutes

0:08:29.322,0:08:31.621
did better on a subsequent IQ test

0:08:31.621,0:08:35.034
than participants who simplysat in silence.

0:08:35.034,0:08:38.758
But a follow-up study recruitedsome people who liked Mozart music

0:08:38.758,0:08:40.539
and then another group of people

0:08:40.539,0:08:43.207
who were fans of the horror storiesof Stephen King.

0:08:43.207,0:08:46.771
And they played the peoplethe music or the stories.

0:08:46.771,0:08:49.279
The people who preferredMozart music to the stories

0:08:49.279,0:08:51.900
got a bigger IQ boostfrom the Mozart than the stories,

0:08:51.900,0:08:54.758
but the people who preferredthe stories to the Mozart music

0:08:54.758,0:08:56.105
got a bigger IQ boost

0:08:56.105,0:08:59.170
from listening to the Stephen King storiesthan the Mozart music.

0:08:59.170,0:09:01.933
So the truth is that listeningto something that you enjoy

0:09:01.933,0:09:05.184
perks you up a bitand gives you a temporary IQ boost

0:09:05.184,0:09:07.111
on a narrow range of tasks.

0:09:07.111,0:09:09.479
There's no suggestion thatlistening to Mozart

0:09:09.479,0:09:11.104
or indeed Stephen King stories

0:09:11.104,0:09:14.936
is going to make you any smarterin the long run.

0:09:14.936,0:09:17.466
So another version of the Mozart myth

0:09:17.466,0:09:22.324
is that listening to Mozart can make younot only cleverer but healthier, too.

0:09:22.324,0:09:24.392
Unfortunately, this doesn'tseem to be true

0:09:24.392,0:09:27.451
of someone who listenedto the music of Mozart almost every day,

0:09:27.451,0:09:29.169
Mozart himself,

0:09:29.169,0:09:32.149
who suffered from gonorrhea,smallpox, arthritis,

0:09:32.149,0:09:35.043
and what most people thinkeventually killed him in the end,

0:09:35.043,0:09:36.920
syphilis.

0:09:36.920,0:09:40.035
This suggests that Mozartshould have bit more careful, perhaps,

0:09:40.035,0:09:42.613
when choosing his sexual partners.

0:09:42.613,0:09:44.772
But how do we choose a partner?

0:09:44.772,0:09:48.208
So a myth, but I have to sayis sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

0:09:48.208,0:09:52.031
is that our preferencesin a romantic partner

0:09:52.031,0:09:53.711
are a product of our culture,

0:09:53.711,0:09:55.532
that they're very culturally specific,

0:09:55.532,0:09:57.496
but in fact, the data don't back this up.

0:09:57.496,0:10:01.931
So a famous study surveyed people from32 different cultures across the globe,

0:10:01.931,0:10:03.417
from Americans to Zulus,

0:10:03.417,0:10:05.483
on what they look for in a partner.

0:10:05.483,0:10:07.852
And in every single cultureacross the globe,

0:10:07.852,0:10:11.567
men placed more valueon physical attractiveness in a partner

0:10:11.567,0:10:12.867
than did women,

0:10:12.867,0:10:14.608
and in every single culture, too,

0:10:14.608,0:10:16.582
women placed more importance than did men

0:10:16.582,0:10:19.211
on ambition and high earning power.

0:10:19.211,0:10:20.605
In every culture, too,

0:10:20.605,0:10:23.130
men preferred womenwho were younger than themselves,

0:10:23.130,0:10:25.939
an average of I think it was 2.66 years,

0:10:25.939,0:10:27.588
and in every culture, too,

0:10:27.588,0:10:30.188
women preferred menwho were older than them,

0:10:30.188,0:10:32.998
so an average of 3.42 years,

0:10:32.998,0:10:36.713
which is why we've got here"Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy."

0:10:36.713,0:10:39.290
So moving on from tryingto score with a partner

0:10:39.290,0:10:43.214
to trying to score in basketballor football or whatever your sport is.

0:10:43.214,0:10:45.072
So the myth here is that sportsmen

0:10:45.072,0:10:47.353
go through hot hand streaks,Americans call them,

0:10:47.353,0:10:49.553
or purple patches,we sometimes say in England,

0:10:49.553,0:10:50.993
where they just can't miss,

0:10:50.993,0:10:52.386
like this guy here.

0:10:52.386,0:10:56.077
But in fact, what happens is thatif you analyze the pattern

0:10:56.077,0:10:57.865
of hits and misses statistically,

0:10:57.865,0:11:00.164
it turns out that it'snearly always at random.

0:11:00.164,0:11:02.579
Your brain creates patternsfrom the randomness.

0:11:02.579,0:11:04.436
So if you toss a coin, you know,

0:11:04.436,0:11:07.862
a streak of heads or tails is goingto come out somewhere in randomness,

0:11:07.862,0:11:10.953
and becomes the brain likesto see patterns where there are none,

0:11:10.953,0:11:13.534
we look at these streaksand attribute meanings to them

0:11:13.534,0:11:15.591
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

0:11:15.591,0:11:17.901
whereas actually you wouldget the same pattern

0:11:17.901,0:11:21.406
if you were just gettinghits and misses at random.

0:11:21.406,0:11:24.872
So an exception to this, however,is penalty shootouts.

0:11:24.872,0:11:27.957
A recent study lookingat penalty shootouts in football

0:11:27.957,0:11:29.977
shows that players who represent countries

0:11:29.977,0:11:32.601
with a very bad recordin penalty shootouts,

0:11:32.601,0:11:34.784
like, for example, England,

0:11:34.784,0:11:38.545
tend to be quicker to take their shotsthan countries with a better record,

0:11:38.545,0:11:41.865
and presumably as a result,they're more likely to miss.

0:11:41.865,0:11:43.560
Which raises the question

0:11:43.560,0:11:47.229
of if there's any way that wecould improve people's performance,

0:11:47.229,0:11:48.947
and one thing you might think about doing

0:11:48.947,0:11:50.596
is punishing people for their misses

0:11:50.596,0:11:52.546
and seeing if that improves things.

0:11:52.546,0:11:55.998
This idea, the effect that punishmentcan improve performance,

0:11:55.998,0:11:58.204
is what participantsthought they were testing

0:11:58.204,0:12:00.736
in Milgram's famous learningand punishment experiment

0:12:00.736,0:12:03.814
that you've probably heard aboutif you're a psychology student.

0:12:03.814,0:12:06.566
The story goes that participantswere prepared to give

0:12:06.566,0:12:09.867
what they believed to be fatalelectric shocks to a fellow participant

0:12:09.867,0:12:11.888
when they got a question wrong,

0:12:11.888,0:12:14.697
just because someonein a white coat told them too.

0:12:14.697,0:12:17.112
But this story is a mythfor three reasons.

0:12:17.112,0:12:20.246
Firstly and most crucially,the lab coat wasn't white.

0:12:20.246,0:12:21.988
It was, in fact, grey.

0:12:21.988,0:12:26.423
Secondly, the participantswere told before the study

0:12:26.423,0:12:28.930
and reminded any timethey raised a concern,

0:12:28.930,0:12:31.763
that although the shocks were painful,they were not fatal

0:12:31.763,0:12:34.505
and indeed causedno permanent damage whatsoever.

0:12:34.505,0:12:36.825
And thirdly, participantsdidn't give the shocks

0:12:36.825,0:12:39.473
just because someonein the coat told them to.

0:12:39.473,0:12:41.515
When they were interviewedafter the study,

0:12:41.515,0:12:44.023
all the participants saidthat they firmly believed

0:12:44.023,0:12:47.807
that the learning and punishment studyserved a worthy scientific purpose

0:12:47.807,0:12:50.245
which would haveenduring gains for science

0:12:50.245,0:12:53.844
as opposed to the momentarynon-fatal discomfort

0:12:53.844,0:12:57.025
caused to the participants.

0:12:57.025,0:12:59.603
Okay, so I've been talkingfor about 12 minutes now,

0:12:59.603,0:13:01.429
and you've probably been sitting there

0:13:01.429,0:13:04.509
listening to me, analyzingmy speech patterns and body language

0:13:04.509,0:13:08.116
and trying to work out if you shouldtake any notice of what I'm saying,

0:13:08.116,0:13:10.577
whether I'm telling the truthor whether I'm lying,

0:13:10.577,0:13:12.759
but if so you'veprobably completely failed,

0:13:12.759,0:13:15.104
because although we all thinkwe can catch a liar

0:13:15.104,0:13:17.197
from their body languageand speech patterns,

0:13:17.197,0:13:19.870
hundreds of psychological testsover the years have shown

0:13:19.870,0:13:22.561
that all of us, includingpolice officers and detectives,

0:13:22.561,0:13:26.061
are basically at chance when it comesto detecting lies from body language

0:13:26.061,0:13:27.642
and verbal patterns.

0:13:27.642,0:13:29.686
Interestingly, there is one exception:

0:13:29.686,0:13:31.938
TV appeals for missing relatives.

0:13:31.938,0:13:34.923
It's quite easy to predictwhen the relatives are missing

0:13:34.923,0:13:38.254
and when the appealers have in factmurdered the relatives themselves.

0:13:38.254,0:13:41.769
So hoax appealers are more likelyto shake their heads, to look away,

0:13:41.769,0:13:43.483
and to make errors in their speech,

0:13:43.483,0:13:45.498
whereas genuine appealers are more likely

0:13:45.498,0:13:47.843
to express hope that the personwill return safely

0:13:47.843,0:13:49.584
and to avoid brutal language.

0:13:49.584,0:13:54.187
So, for example, they might say"taken from us" rather than "killed."

0:13:54.187,0:13:55.184
Speaking of which,

0:13:55.184,0:13:56.864
it's about time I killed this talk,

0:13:56.864,0:13:58.772
but before I do, I just want to give you

0:13:58.772,0:14:00.033
in 30 seconds

0:14:00.033,0:14:03.423
the overarching myth of psychology.

0:14:03.423,0:14:05.550
So the myth is that psychology

0:14:05.550,0:14:07.708
is just a collectionof interesting theories,

0:14:07.708,0:14:09.297
all of which say something useful

0:14:09.297,0:14:11.251
and all of which have something to offer.

0:14:11.251,0:14:13.740
What I hope to have shown youin the past few minutes

0:14:13.740,0:14:15.325
is that this isn't true.

0:14:15.325,0:14:18.584
What we need to do is assesspsychological theories

0:14:18.584,0:14:20.468
by seeing what predictions they make,

0:14:20.468,0:14:23.289
whether that is that listening to Mozartmakes you smarter,

0:14:23.289,0:14:25.796
that you learn better when information

0:14:25.796,0:14:28.072
is presented in yourpreferred learning style,

0:14:28.072,0:14:31.521
or whatever it is, all of theseare testable empirical predictions,

0:14:31.521,0:14:33.306
and the only way we can make progress

0:14:33.306,0:14:35.426
is to test these predictionsagainst the data

0:14:35.426,0:14:37.755
in tightly controlledexperimental studies,

0:14:37.755,0:14:40.889
and it's only by doing sothat we can hope to discover

0:14:40.889,0:14:43.513
which of these theoriesare well-supported,

0:14:43.513,0:14:46.903
and which, like all the onesI've told you about today, are myths.

0:14:46.903,0:14:48.412
Thank you.

0:14:48.412,0:14:51.872
(Applause)