1
00:00:10,005 --> 00:00:11,747
So you've heard of your IQ,

2
00:00:11,747 --> 00:00:13,155
your general intelligence,

3
00:00:13,155 --> 00:00:14,779
but what's your Psy-Q?

4
00:00:14,779 --> 00:00:16,884
How much do you know
about what makes you tick,

5
00:00:16,884 --> 00:00:19,519
and how good are you
at predicting other peoples' behavior

6
00:00:19,519 --> 00:00:21,272
or even your own?

7
00:00:21,272 --> 00:00:24,315
And how much about what you think
you know about psychology is wrong?

8
00:00:24,315 --> 00:00:27,867
So let's find out by counting down
the top 10 myths of psychology.

9
00:00:28,176 --> 00:00:31,335
So you've probably heard it said
that when it comes to their psychology,

10
00:00:31,335 --> 00:00:33,546
man and women are very different.

11
00:00:33,546 --> 00:00:36,558
It's almost as if men are from Mars
and women are from Venus.

12
00:00:36,558 --> 00:00:38,750
But how different
are men and women really?

13
00:00:38,750 --> 00:00:42,175
So to find out, let's start by looking
at something on which men and women

14
00:00:42,175 --> 00:00:43,463
really do differ

15
00:00:43,463 --> 00:00:46,797
and plotting some psychological
gender differences on the same scale.

16
00:00:46,797 --> 00:00:48,352
So one thing that men and women

17
00:00:48,352 --> 00:00:50,765
do really differ on is how far
they can throw a ball.

18
00:00:50,765 --> 00:00:52,337
So if we look at the data for men here,

19
00:00:52,337 --> 00:00:54,513
we see what is called
a normal distribution curve.

20
00:00:54,513 --> 00:00:56,279
A few men can throw a ball really far,

21
00:00:56,279 --> 00:00:57,855
and a few men not far at all,

22
00:00:57,855 --> 00:00:59,732
but most a kind of average distance.

23
00:00:59,732 --> 00:01:01,643
And women share
the same distribution as well,

24
00:01:01,643 --> 00:01:03,516
but actually there's
quite a big difference.

25
00:01:03,516 --> 00:01:05,962
In fact, the average man
can throw a ball further

26
00:01:05,962 --> 00:01:08,251
than about 98 percent of all women.

27
00:01:08,251 --> 00:01:10,898
So now let's look at what
some psychological gender differences

28
00:01:10,898 --> 00:01:13,311
look like on the same standardized scale.

29
00:01:13,856 --> 00:01:16,667
So any psychologist will tell you
that men are better

30
00:01:16,667 --> 00:01:18,337
at spacial awareness than women,

31
00:01:18,337 --> 00:01:20,213
so things like map-reading, for example,

32
00:01:20,213 --> 00:01:21,041
and it's true,

33
00:01:21,041 --> 00:01:23,476
but let's have a look
at the size of this difference.

34
00:01:23,476 --> 00:01:26,594
It's tiny: the lines are so close together
that they almost overlap.

35
00:01:26,594 --> 00:01:30,424
In fact, the average woman is better
than 33 percent of all men,

36
00:01:30,424 --> 00:01:32,530
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

37
00:01:32,530 --> 00:01:35,016
then the two genders
would be exactly equal.

38
00:01:35,016 --> 00:01:36,966
And it's worth bearing in mind
that this difference

39
00:01:36,966 --> 00:01:38,335
and the next one I'm going to show you

40
00:01:38,335 --> 00:01:40,872
are pretty much the biggest
psychological gender differences

41
00:01:40,872 --> 00:01:42,669
ever discovered in psychology.

42
00:01:42,669 --> 00:01:43,854
So here's the next one.

43
00:01:43,854 --> 00:01:46,175
Any psychologist will tell you
that women are better

44
00:01:46,175 --> 00:01:48,128
with language and grammar than men.

45
00:01:48,128 --> 00:01:50,424
So here's performance
on the standardized grammar test.

46
00:01:50,424 --> 00:01:52,221
There go the women. There go to the men.

47
00:01:52,221 --> 00:01:54,434
Again, yes, women are better on average,

48
00:01:54,434 --> 00:01:55,757
but the lines are so close

49
00:01:55,757 --> 00:01:58,584
that 33 percent of men

50
00:01:58,584 --> 00:02:00,378
are better than the average woman,

51
00:02:00,378 --> 00:02:02,142
and again, if it was 50 percent,

52
00:02:02,142 --> 00:02:04,322
that would represent
complete gender equality.

53
00:02:04,831 --> 00:02:07,168
So it's not really
a case of Mars and Venus.

54
00:02:07,168 --> 00:02:09,706
It's more a case of, if anything,
Mars and Snickers:

55
00:02:09,706 --> 00:02:11,275
basically the same, but, you know,

56
00:02:11,275 --> 00:02:13,520
one's maybe slightly
nuttier than the other.

57
00:02:14,348 --> 00:02:15,957
I won't say which.

58
00:02:16,236 --> 00:02:17,916
Right. Now we've got you warmed up.

59
00:02:17,916 --> 00:02:21,229
Let's psychoanalyze you using
the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

60
00:02:21,229 --> 00:02:24,937
So you can probably see two, I don't know
two bears or two people or something.

61
00:02:24,937 --> 00:02:26,763
But what do you think they're doing?

62
00:02:26,763 --> 00:02:29,288
Put your hand up if you think
they're saying hello.

63
00:02:30,059 --> 00:02:31,385
Not many people. Okay.

64
00:02:31,385 --> 00:02:33,998
Put your hands up if you think
they are high-fiving.

65
00:02:33,998 --> 00:02:36,693
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

66
00:02:36,693 --> 00:02:37,920
Only a few people there.

67
00:02:37,920 --> 00:02:40,338
Okay, so if you think they're
saying hello or high-fiving,

68
00:02:40,338 --> 00:02:42,354
then that means you're a friendly person.

69
00:02:42,354 --> 00:02:44,511
If you think they're fighting,
that means you're a bit more

70
00:02:44,511 --> 00:02:45,967
of a nasty, aggressive person.

71
00:02:45,967 --> 00:02:47,696
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

72
00:02:47,696 --> 00:02:50,285
What about this one?
This isn't really a voting one,

73
00:02:50,285 --> 00:02:52,667
so on three, everyone
shout out what you see.

74
00:02:52,667 --> 00:02:54,355
One, two, three.

75
00:02:54,355 --> 00:02:56,043
(Audience shouting)

76
00:02:57,376 --> 00:02:58,971
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

77
00:02:58,971 --> 00:03:00,510
That was very worrying.

78
00:03:00,510 --> 00:03:02,229
A guy there said hamster.

79
00:03:02,229 --> 00:03:05,227
Well, you should see
some kind of two-legged animal here,

80
00:03:05,227 --> 00:03:07,523
and then the mirror image of them there.

81
00:03:07,523 --> 00:03:10,511
If you didn't, then this means
that you have difficulty

82
00:03:10,511 --> 00:03:12,391
processing complex situations

83
00:03:12,391 --> 00:03:14,721
where there's a lot going on.

84
00:03:14,721 --> 00:03:16,763
Except, of course,
it doesn't mean that at all.

85
00:03:16,763 --> 00:03:19,280
Rorschach inkblot tests
have basically no validity

86
00:03:19,280 --> 00:03:21,699
when it comes to diagnosing
people's personality

87
00:03:21,699 --> 00:03:24,343
and are not used
by modern-day psychologists.

88
00:03:24,343 --> 00:03:26,255
In fact, one recent study found

89
00:03:26,255 --> 00:03:28,892
that when you do try
to diagnose people's personality

90
00:03:28,892 --> 00:03:30,811
using Rorschach inkblot tests,

91
00:03:30,811 --> 00:03:32,088
schizophrenia was diagnosed

92
00:03:32,088 --> 00:03:35,399
in about one sixth of apparently
perfectly normal participants.

93
00:03:36,952 --> 00:03:39,532
So if you didn't do that well on this,

94
00:03:39,532 --> 00:03:42,120
maybe you are not
a very visual type of person.

95
00:03:42,120 --> 00:03:43,955
So let's do another
quick quiz to find out.

96
00:03:43,955 --> 00:03:46,409
When making a cake, do you prefer to

97
00:03:46,409 --> 00:03:48,175
- so hands up for each one again -

98
00:03:48,175 --> 00:03:50,829
do you prefer to use
a recipe book with pictures?

99
00:03:51,781 --> 00:03:52,805
Yeah, a few people.

100
00:03:52,805 --> 00:03:54,784
Have a friend talk you through?

101
00:03:55,354 --> 00:03:57,967
Or have a go, making it up
as you go along?

102
00:03:58,997 --> 00:04:00,617
Quite a few people there.

103
00:04:00,617 --> 00:04:01,926
Okay, so if you said a,

104
00:04:01,926 --> 00:04:04,094
then this means
that you are a visual learner

105
00:04:04,094 --> 00:04:05,822
and you learn best when information

106
00:04:05,822 --> 00:04:07,574
is presented in a visual style.

107
00:04:07,574 --> 00:04:10,052
If you said b, it means
you're an auditory learner,

108
00:04:10,052 --> 00:04:13,564
that you learn best when information
is presented to you in an auditory format,

109
00:04:13,564 --> 00:04:14,966
and if you said c,

110
00:04:14,966 --> 00:04:17,136
it means that you're
a kinesthetic learner,

111
00:04:17,136 --> 00:04:18,567
that you learn best when you get stuck in

112
00:04:18,567 --> 00:04:20,199
and do things with your hands.

113
00:04:20,199 --> 00:04:21,762
Except, of course,
as you've probably guessed,

114
00:04:21,762 --> 00:04:24,543
that it doesn't, because
the whole thing is a complete myth.

115
00:04:24,543 --> 00:04:26,351
Learning styles are made up

116
00:04:26,351 --> 00:04:28,737
and are not supported
by scientific evidence.

117
00:04:29,277 --> 00:04:32,597
So we know this because in
tightly controlled experimental studies,

118
00:04:32,597 --> 00:04:34,768
when learners are given material to learn

119
00:04:34,768 --> 00:04:37,405
either in their preferred style
or an opposite style,

120
00:04:37,405 --> 00:04:38,860
it makes no difference at all

121
00:04:38,860 --> 00:04:41,090
to the amount of information
that they retain.

122
00:04:41,090 --> 00:04:43,015
And if you think about it
for just a second,

123
00:04:43,015 --> 00:04:44,522
it's just obvious
that this has to be true.

124
00:04:44,522 --> 00:04:47,475
It's obvious that
the best presentation format

125
00:04:47,475 --> 00:04:49,332
depends not on you,

126
00:04:49,332 --> 00:04:51,159
but on what you're trying to learn.

127
00:04:51,159 --> 00:04:52,947
Could you learn to drive a car,
for example,

128
00:04:52,947 --> 00:04:55,277
just by listening to someone
telling you what to do

129
00:04:55,277 --> 00:04:56,885
with no kinesthetic experience?

130
00:04:56,885 --> 00:04:59,076
Could you solve simultaneous equations

131
00:04:59,076 --> 00:05:02,017
by talking them through in your head
and without writing them down?

132
00:05:02,017 --> 00:05:03,892
Could you revise
for your architecture exams

133
00:05:03,892 --> 00:05:06,521
using interpretive dance
if you're a kinesthetic learner?

134
00:05:06,521 --> 00:05:08,460
No. What you need to do is match

135
00:05:08,460 --> 00:05:10,912
the material to be learned
to the presentation format,

136
00:05:10,912 --> 00:05:12,512
not you.

137
00:05:13,783 --> 00:05:15,670
So, I know many of youare A-level students

138
00:05:15,670 --> 00:05:17,870
that will have recently gotten
your GCSE results.

139
00:05:17,870 --> 00:05:20,492
And if you didn't quite get
what you were hoping for,

140
00:05:20,492 --> 00:05:22,605
then you can't really blame
your learning style,

141
00:05:22,605 --> 00:05:26,235
but one thing that you might want
to think about blaming is your genes.

142
00:05:26,499 --> 00:05:27,859
So what this is all about

143
00:05:27,859 --> 00:05:30,323
is a recent study
at University College London

144
00:05:30,323 --> 00:05:32,491
found that 58 percent of the variation

145
00:05:32,491 --> 00:05:35,704
between different students
and their GCSE results

146
00:05:35,704 --> 00:05:37,663
was down to genetic factors.

147
00:05:37,663 --> 00:05:39,403
So that sounds a very precise figure,

148
00:05:39,403 --> 00:05:40,845
so how can we tell?

149
00:05:41,152 --> 00:05:44,285
Well, when we want to unpack
the relative contributions

150
00:05:44,285 --> 00:05:46,231
of genes and the environment,

151
00:05:46,231 --> 00:05:48,489
what we can do is do a twin study.

152
00:05:48,489 --> 00:05:52,145
So identical twins share100 percent
of their environment

153
00:05:52,145 --> 00:05:54,154
and 100 percent of their genes,

154
00:05:54,154 --> 00:05:57,429
whereas non-identical twins
share 100 percent of their environment,

155
00:05:57,429 --> 00:05:59,202
but just like any brother and sister,

156
00:05:59,202 --> 00:06:00,990
share only 50 percent of their genes.

157
00:06:00,990 --> 00:06:05,671
So by comparing how similar GCSE
results are in identical twins

158
00:06:05,671 --> 00:06:07,188
versus non-identical twins,

159
00:06:07,188 --> 00:06:08,799
and doing some clever math,

160
00:06:08,799 --> 00:06:12,761
we can an idea of how much variation
and performance is due to the environment

161
00:06:12,761 --> 00:06:14,668
and how much is due to genes.

162
00:06:14,668 --> 00:06:17,987
And it turns out that it's about
58 percent due to genes.

163
00:06:20,991 --> 00:06:24,568
So this isn't to undermine the hard work
that you and your teachers here put in.

164
00:06:24,568 --> 00:06:27,336
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results
that you were hoping for,

165
00:06:27,336 --> 00:06:31,159
then you can always try blaming
your parents, or at least their genes.

166
00:06:31,399 --> 00:06:33,344
One thing that you shouldn't blame

167
00:06:33,344 --> 00:06:35,966
is being a left brained
or right brained learner,

168
00:06:35,966 --> 00:06:37,748
because again, this is a myth.

169
00:06:37,748 --> 00:06:41,205
So the myth here is that
the left brain is logical,

170
00:06:41,205 --> 00:06:43,059
it's good with equations like this,

171
00:06:43,059 --> 00:06:44,751
and the right brain is more creative,

172
00:06:44,751 --> 00:06:46,585
so the right brain is better at music.

173
00:06:46,585 --> 00:06:49,415
But again, this is a myth
because nearly everything that you do

174
00:06:49,415 --> 00:06:52,321
involves nearly all parts
of your brain talking together,

175
00:06:52,321 --> 00:06:56,095
even just the most mundane thing
like having a normal conversation.

176
00:06:56,095 --> 00:06:59,040
However, perhaps one reason
why this myth has survived

177
00:06:59,040 --> 00:07:01,267
is that there is
a slight grain of truth to it.

178
00:07:01,267 --> 00:07:03,251
So a related version of the myth

179
00:07:03,251 --> 00:07:06,237
is that left-handed people are more
creative than right-handed people,

180
00:07:06,237 --> 00:07:09,624
which kind of makes sense because
your brain controls the opposite hands,

181
00:07:09,624 --> 00:07:10,973
so left-handed people,

182
00:07:10,973 --> 00:07:13,278
the right side of the brain
is slightly more active

183
00:07:13,278 --> 00:07:14,704
than the left hand side of the brain,

184
00:07:14,704 --> 00:07:17,381
and the idea is the right-hand side
is more creative.

185
00:07:17,381 --> 00:07:19,691
Now, it isn't true per se

186
00:07:19,691 --> 00:07:22,519
that left-handed people are more creative
than right-handed people.

187
00:07:22,519 --> 00:07:24,518
What is true that ambidextrous people,

188
00:07:24,518 --> 00:07:27,415
or people who use both hands
for different tasks,

189
00:07:27,415 --> 00:07:31,026
are more creative thinkers
than one-handed people,

190
00:07:31,026 --> 00:07:33,655
because being ambidextrous involves

191
00:07:33,655 --> 00:07:36,337
having both sides of the brain
talk to each other a lot,

192
00:07:36,337 --> 00:07:39,878
which seems to be involved
in creating flexible thinking.

193
00:07:40,272 --> 00:07:42,409
The myth of the creative left-hander

194
00:07:42,409 --> 00:07:44,505
arises from the fact
that being ambidextrous

195
00:07:44,505 --> 00:07:46,558
is more common amongst left-handers

196
00:07:46,558 --> 00:07:47,791
than right handers,

197
00:07:47,791 --> 00:07:50,659
so a grain of truth in the idea
of the creative left-hander,

198
00:07:50,659 --> 00:07:52,114
but not much.

199
00:07:52,461 --> 00:07:54,568
A related myth that you've
probably heard of

200
00:07:54,568 --> 00:07:56,999
is that we only use
10 percent of our brains.

201
00:07:56,999 --> 00:07:58,568
This is, again, a complete myth.

202
00:07:58,568 --> 00:08:01,496
Nearly everything that we do,
even the most mundane thing,

203
00:08:01,496 --> 00:08:04,025
uses nearly all of our brains.

204
00:08:04,025 --> 00:08:06,651
That said, it is of course true

205
00:08:06,651 --> 00:08:09,166
that most of us don't use our brainpower

206
00:08:09,166 --> 00:08:12,456
quite as well as we could
most of the time.

207
00:08:12,456 --> 00:08:15,215
So what could we do
to boost our brain power?

208
00:08:15,215 --> 00:08:17,472
Maybe we could listen
to a nice bit of Mozart.

209
00:08:17,472 --> 00:08:19,896
So have you heard of the idea
of the Mozart effect?

210
00:08:19,896 --> 00:08:21,890
So the idea is that listening to Mozart

211
00:08:21,890 --> 00:08:25,707
makes you smarter and improves
your performance on IQ tests.

212
00:08:25,742 --> 00:08:27,914
Now again, what's interesting
about this myth

213
00:08:27,914 --> 00:08:29,767
is that although it's basically a myth,

214
00:08:29,767 --> 00:08:31,419
there is a grain of truth to it.

215
00:08:31,419 --> 00:08:33,573
So the original study found

216
00:08:33,573 --> 00:08:37,153
that participants who were played
Mozart music for a few minutes

217
00:08:37,153 --> 00:08:39,176
did better on a subsequent IQ test

218
00:08:39,176 --> 00:08:42,030
than participants who simply
sat in silence.

219
00:08:42,671 --> 00:08:46,372
But a follow-up study recruited
some people who liked Mozart music

220
00:08:46,372 --> 00:08:47,758
and then another group of people

221
00:08:47,758 --> 00:08:50,297
who were fans of the horror stories
of Stephen King.

222
00:08:50,435 --> 00:08:54,167
And they played the people
the music or the stories.

223
00:08:54,167 --> 00:08:56,773
The people who preferred
Mozart music to the stories

224
00:08:56,773 --> 00:08:59,622
got a bigger IQ boost
from the Mozart than the stories,

225
00:08:59,622 --> 00:09:01,968
but the people who preferred
the stories to the Mozart music

226
00:09:01,968 --> 00:09:03,481
got a bigger IQ boost

227
00:09:03,481 --> 00:09:06,511
from listening to the Stephen King stories
than the Mozart music.

228
00:09:06,511 --> 00:09:09,233
So the truth is that listening
to something that you enjoy

229
00:09:09,233 --> 00:09:12,488
perks you up a bit
and gives you a temporary IQ boost

230
00:09:12,488 --> 00:09:14,487
on a narrow range of tasks.

231
00:09:14,487 --> 00:09:16,513
There's no suggestion
that listening to Mozart

232
00:09:16,513 --> 00:09:18,309
or indeed Stephen King stories

233
00:09:18,309 --> 00:09:20,886
is going to make you any smarter
in the long run.

234
00:09:22,046 --> 00:09:24,614
So another version of the Mozart myth

235
00:09:24,614 --> 00:09:29,513
is that listening to Mozart can make you
not only cleverer but healthier, too.

236
00:09:29,513 --> 00:09:31,921
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem
to be true

237
00:09:31,921 --> 00:09:34,854
of someone who listened
to the music of Mozart almost every day,

238
00:09:34,854 --> 00:09:36,299
Mozart himself,

239
00:09:36,299 --> 00:09:39,665
who suffered from gonorrhea,
smallpox, arthritis,

240
00:09:39,665 --> 00:09:42,289
and what most people think
eventually killed him in the end,

241
00:09:42,289 --> 00:09:43,538
syphilis.

242
00:09:44,516 --> 00:09:47,554
This suggests that Mozart
should have bit more careful, perhaps,

243
00:09:47,554 --> 00:09:49,464
when choosing his sexual partners.

244
00:09:49,812 --> 00:09:51,863
But how do we choose a partner?

245
00:09:51,863 --> 00:09:57,359
So a myth, but I have to say
is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

246
00:09:57,359 --> 00:09:59,545
is that our preferences
in a romantic partner

247
00:09:59,545 --> 00:10:01,115
are a product of our culture,

248
00:10:01,115 --> 00:10:02,818
that they're very culturally specific,

249
00:10:02,818 --> 00:10:04,731
but in fact, the data don't back this up.

250
00:10:04,731 --> 00:10:09,298
So a famous study surveyed people from
32 different cultures across the globe,

251
00:10:09,298 --> 00:10:10,612
from Americans to Zulus,

252
00:10:10,612 --> 00:10:12,997
on what they look for in a partner.

253
00:10:12,997 --> 00:10:15,259
And in every single culture
across the globe,

254
00:10:15,259 --> 00:10:18,847
men placed more value
on physical attractiveness in a partner

255
00:10:18,847 --> 00:10:20,132
than did women,

256
00:10:20,132 --> 00:10:21,564
and in every single culture, too,

257
00:10:21,564 --> 00:10:23,707
women placed more importance than did men

258
00:10:23,707 --> 00:10:26,334
on ambition and high earning power.

259
00:10:26,334 --> 00:10:27,843
In every culture, too,

260
00:10:27,843 --> 00:10:30,419
men preferred women
who were younger than themselves,

261
00:10:30,419 --> 00:10:33,219
an average of I think it was 2.66 years,

262
00:10:33,219 --> 00:10:34,839
and in every culture, too,

263
00:10:34,839 --> 00:10:37,477
women preferred men
who were older than them,

264
00:10:37,477 --> 00:10:40,035
so an average of 3.42 years,

265
00:10:40,035 --> 00:10:43,797
which is why we've got here
"Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy."

266
00:10:44,647 --> 00:10:46,923
So moving on from trying
to score with a partner

267
00:10:46,923 --> 00:10:50,454
to trying to score in basketball
or football or whatever your sport is.

268
00:10:50,454 --> 00:10:52,437
So the myth here is that sportsmen

269
00:10:52,437 --> 00:10:54,937
go through hot hand streaks,
Americans call them,

270
00:10:54,937 --> 00:10:57,000
or purple patches,
we sometimes say in England,

271
00:10:57,000 --> 00:10:58,457
where they just can't miss,

272
00:10:58,457 --> 00:10:59,739
like this guy here.

273
00:10:59,739 --> 00:11:03,731
But in fact, what happens is
that if you analyze the pattern

274
00:11:03,731 --> 00:11:05,176
of hits and misses statistically,

275
00:11:05,176 --> 00:11:07,641
it turns out that it's
nearly always at random.

276
00:11:07,641 --> 00:11:10,011
Your brain creates patterns
from the randomness.

277
00:11:10,011 --> 00:11:11,914
So if you toss a coin, you know,

278
00:11:11,914 --> 00:11:15,405
a streak of heads or tails is going to
come out somewhere in randomness,

279
00:11:15,405 --> 00:11:17,967
and becomes the brain likes
to see patterns where there are none,

280
00:11:17,967 --> 00:11:20,336
we look at these streaks
and attribute meanings to them

281
00:11:20,336 --> 00:11:22,381
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

282
00:11:22,381 --> 00:11:24,354
whereas actually you would
get the same pattern

283
00:11:24,354 --> 00:11:28,458
if you were just getting
hits and misses at random.

284
00:11:29,838 --> 00:11:32,851
So an exception to this, however,
is penalty shootouts.

285
00:11:32,851 --> 00:11:36,320
A recent study looking
at penalty shootouts in football

286
00:11:36,320 --> 00:11:38,518
shows that players who represent countries

287
00:11:38,518 --> 00:11:40,900
with a very bad record
in penalty shootouts,

288
00:11:40,900 --> 00:11:42,633
like, for example, England,

289
00:11:42,633 --> 00:11:47,199
tend to be quicker to take their shots
than countries with a better record,

290
00:11:47,199 --> 00:11:50,652
and presumably as a result,
they're more likely to miss.

291
00:11:50,652 --> 00:11:52,055
Which raises the question

292
00:11:52,055 --> 00:11:55,545
of if there's any way that we could
improve people's performance,

293
00:11:55,545 --> 00:11:57,432
and one thing you might think about doing

294
00:11:57,432 --> 00:11:59,260
is punishing people for their misses

295
00:11:59,260 --> 00:12:01,062
and seeing if that improves things.

296
00:12:01,062 --> 00:12:04,709
This idea, the effect that punishment
can improve performance,

297
00:12:04,709 --> 00:12:06,599
is what participants
thought they were testing

298
00:12:06,599 --> 00:12:09,480
in Milgram's famous learning
and punishment experiment

299
00:12:09,480 --> 00:12:12,172
that you've probably heard about
if you're a psychology student.

300
00:12:13,552 --> 00:12:16,200
The story goes that participants
were prepared to give

301
00:12:16,200 --> 00:12:20,014
what they believed to be fatal
electric shocks to a fellow participant

302
00:12:20,014 --> 00:12:22,126
when they got a question wrong,

303
00:12:22,126 --> 00:12:24,611
just because someone
in a white coat told them too.

304
00:12:24,611 --> 00:12:27,244
But this story is a myth
for three reasons.

305
00:12:27,244 --> 00:12:30,174
Firstly and most crucially,
the lab coat wasn't white.

306
00:12:30,174 --> 00:12:31,741
It was, in fact, grey.

307
00:12:32,589 --> 00:12:36,722
Secondly, the participants
were told before the study

308
00:12:36,722 --> 00:12:39,197
and reminded any time
they raised a concern,

309
00:12:39,197 --> 00:12:42,139
that although the shocks were painful,
they were not fatal

310
00:12:42,139 --> 00:12:44,956
and indeed caused
no permanent damage whatsoever.

311
00:12:44,956 --> 00:12:47,116
And thirdly, participants
didn't give the shocks

312
00:12:47,116 --> 00:12:49,924
just because someone
in the coat told them to.

313
00:12:49,924 --> 00:12:52,032
When they were interviewed
after the study,

314
00:12:52,032 --> 00:12:54,260
all the participants said
that they firmly believed

315
00:12:54,260 --> 00:12:58,027
that the learning and punishment study
served a worthy scientific purpose

316
00:12:58,027 --> 00:13:00,276
which would have
enduring gains for science

317
00:13:00,276 --> 00:13:04,398
as opposed to the momentary
non-fatal discomfort

318
00:13:04,398 --> 00:13:07,123
caused to the participants.

319
00:13:08,143 --> 00:13:11,109
Okay, so I've been talking
for about 12 minutes now,

320
00:13:11,109 --> 00:13:12,765
and you've probably been sitting there

321
00:13:12,765 --> 00:13:15,573
listening to me, analyzing
my speech patterns and body language

322
00:13:15,573 --> 00:13:19,306
and trying to work out if you should
take any notice of what I'm saying,

323
00:13:19,306 --> 00:13:21,679
whether I'm telling the truth
or whether I'm lying,

324
00:13:21,679 --> 00:13:23,911
but if so you've
probably completely failed,

325
00:13:23,911 --> 00:13:26,100
because although we all think
we can catch a liar

326
00:13:26,100 --> 00:13:28,210
from their body language
and speech patterns,

327
00:13:28,210 --> 00:13:31,154
hundreds of psychological tests
over the years have shown

328
00:13:31,154 --> 00:13:33,694
that all of us, including
police officers and detectives,

329
00:13:33,694 --> 00:13:36,876
are basically at chance when it comes
to detecting lies from body language

330
00:13:36,876 --> 00:13:38,585
and verbal patterns.

331
00:13:38,585 --> 00:13:40,598
Interestingly, there is one exception:

332
00:13:40,598 --> 00:13:42,791
TV appeals for missing relatives.

333
00:13:43,103 --> 00:13:47,123
It's quite easy to predict
when the relatives are missing

334
00:13:47,123 --> 00:13:50,275
and when the appealers have in fact
murdered the relatives themselves.

335
00:13:52,963 --> 00:13:56,726
So hoax appealers are more likely
to shake their heads, to look away,

336
00:13:56,726 --> 00:13:58,753
and to make errors in their speech,

337
00:13:58,753 --> 00:14:00,441
whereas genuine appealers are more likely

338
00:14:00,441 --> 00:14:02,811
to express hope that the person
will return safely

339
00:14:02,811 --> 00:14:04,455
and to avoid brutal language.

340
00:14:04,455 --> 00:14:08,506
So, for example, they might say
"taken from us" rather than "killed."

341
00:14:09,402 --> 00:14:10,589
Speaking of which,

342
00:14:10,589 --> 00:14:11,924
it's about time I killed this talk,

343
00:14:11,924 --> 00:14:13,827
but before I do, I just want to give you

344
00:14:13,827 --> 00:14:15,080
in 30 seconds

345
00:14:15,080 --> 00:14:17,959
the overarching myth of psychology.

346
00:14:18,276 --> 00:14:21,325
So the myth of psychology, as I see,

347
00:14:21,325 --> 00:14:24,873
and one that I don't think textbooks
about psychology

348
00:14:24,873 --> 00:14:27,517
and even universities courses
do enough to dispel,

349
00:14:27,517 --> 00:14:29,261
the myth is that psychology

350
00:14:29,261 --> 00:14:31,477
is just a collection
of interesting theories,

351
00:14:31,477 --> 00:14:33,114
all of which say something useful

352
00:14:33,114 --> 00:14:34,964
and all of which have something to offer.

353
00:14:34,964 --> 00:14:37,224
What I hope to have shown you
in the past few minutes

354
00:14:37,224 --> 00:14:38,639
is that this isn't true.

355
00:14:38,639 --> 00:14:42,224
What we need to do is assess
psychological theories

356
00:14:42,224 --> 00:14:43,917
by seeing what predictions they make,

357
00:14:43,917 --> 00:14:46,550
whether that is that listening to Mozart
makes you smarter,

358
00:14:46,550 --> 00:14:49,088
that you learn better when information

359
00:14:49,088 --> 00:14:51,300
is presented in your
preferred learning style,

360
00:14:51,300 --> 00:14:54,892
or whatever it is, all of these
are testable empirical predictions,

361
00:14:54,892 --> 00:14:57,115
and the only way we can make progress

362
00:14:57,115 --> 00:14:59,036
is to test these predictions
against the data

363
00:14:59,036 --> 00:15:01,202
in tightly controlled
experimental studies,

364
00:15:01,202 --> 00:15:03,771
and it's only by doing so
that we can hope to discover

365
00:15:03,771 --> 00:15:06,712
which of these theoriesare well-supported,

366
00:15:06,712 --> 00:15:10,040
and which, like all the ones
I've told you about today, are myths.

367
00:15:10,040 --> 00:15:11,341
Thank you.

368
00:15:11,341 --> 00:15:12,705
(Applause)