0:00:10.005,0:00:11.585
So you've heard of your IQ,

0:00:11.585,0:00:13.025
your general intelligence,

0:00:13.025,0:00:14.557
but what's your Psy-Q?

0:00:14.557,0:00:16.747
How much do you know[br]about what makes you tick,

0:00:16.747,0:00:19.519
and how good are you[br]at predicting other peoples' behavior

0:00:19.519,0:00:21.272
or even your own?

0:00:21.272,0:00:24.575
And how much about what you think[br]you know about psychology is wrong?

0:00:24.575,0:00:27.867
So let's find out by counting down[br]the top 10 myths of psychology.

0:00:28.176,0:00:31.335
So you've probably heard it said[br]that when it comes to their psychology,

0:00:31.335,0:00:33.546
man and women are very different.

0:00:33.546,0:00:36.558
It's almost as if men are from Mars[br]and women are from Venus.

0:00:36.558,0:00:38.574
But how different[br]are men and women really?

0:00:38.574,0:00:42.175
So to find out, let's start by looking[br]at something on which men and women

0:00:42.175,0:00:43.463
really do differ

0:00:43.463,0:00:46.797
and plotting some psychological[br]gender differences on the same scale.

0:00:46.797,0:00:48.272
So one thing that men and women

0:00:48.272,0:00:50.765
do really differ on is how far[br]they can throw a ball.

0:00:50.765,0:00:52.637
So if we look at the data for men here,

0:00:52.637,0:00:54.983
we see what is called[br]a normal distribution curve.

0:00:54.983,0:00:56.879
A few men can throw a ball really far,

0:00:56.879,0:00:58.355
and a few men not far at all,

0:00:58.355,0:01:00.102
but most a kind of average distance.

0:01:00.102,0:01:02.293
And women share[br]the same distribution as well,

0:01:02.293,0:01:04.476
but actually there's[br]quite a big difference.

0:01:04.476,0:01:06.782
In fact, the average man[br]can throw a ball further

0:01:06.782,0:01:08.521
than about 98 percent of all women.

0:01:08.521,0:01:11.498
So now let's look at what[br]some psychological gender differences

0:01:11.498,0:01:13.773
look like on the same standardized scale.

0:01:13.856,0:01:16.667
So any psychologist will tell you[br]that men are better

0:01:16.667,0:01:18.337
at spacial awareness than women,

0:01:18.337,0:01:21.043
so things like map-reading, for example,[br]and it's true,

0:01:21.043,0:01:23.546
but let's have a look[br]at the size of this difference.

0:01:23.546,0:01:26.704
It's tiny: the lines are so close together[br]that they almost overlap.

0:01:26.704,0:01:30.424
In fact, the average woman is better[br]than 33 percent of all men,

0:01:30.424,0:01:32.530
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

0:01:32.530,0:01:34.926
then the two genders[br]would be exactly equal.

0:01:34.926,0:01:38.755
It's worth bearing in mind that this and[br]the next difference I'm going to show you

0:01:38.755,0:01:41.542
are pretty much the biggest[br]psychological gender differences

0:01:41.542,0:01:43.054
ever discovered in psychology.

0:01:43.054,0:01:44.289
Here's the next one.

0:01:44.289,0:01:46.785
Any psychologist will tell you[br]that women are better

0:01:46.785,0:01:48.498
with language and grammar than men.

0:01:48.498,0:01:51.124
So here's performance[br]on the standardized grammar test.

0:01:51.124,0:01:53.101
There go the women. There go to the men.

0:01:53.101,0:01:56.294
Again, yes, women are better on average,[br]but the lines are so close

0:01:56.294,0:01:58.584
that 33 percent of men

0:01:58.584,0:02:00.378
are better than the average woman,

0:02:00.378,0:02:02.142
and again, if it was 50 percent,

0:02:02.142,0:02:04.488
that would represent[br]complete gender equality.

0:02:04.831,0:02:07.168
So it's not really[br]a case of Mars and Venus.

0:02:07.168,0:02:09.706
It's more a case of, if anything,[br]Mars and Snickers:

0:02:09.706,0:02:11.375
basically the same, but, you know,

0:02:11.375,0:02:13.758
one's maybe slightly[br]nuttier than the other.

0:02:14.233,0:02:15.957
I won't say which.

0:02:16.236,0:02:17.916
Right. Now we've got you warmed up.

0:02:17.916,0:02:21.229
Let's psychoanalyze you using[br]the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

0:02:21.229,0:02:24.937
So you can probably see, I don't know,[br]two bears or two people or something.

0:02:24.937,0:02:26.763
But what do you think they're doing?

0:02:26.763,0:02:29.288
Put your hand up if you think[br]they're saying hello.

0:02:30.059,0:02:31.385
Not many people. Okay.

0:02:31.385,0:02:33.998
Put your hands up if you think[br]they are high-fiving.

0:02:33.998,0:02:36.693
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

0:02:36.693,0:02:37.920
Only a few people there.

0:02:37.920,0:02:40.668
Okay, so if you think they're[br]saying hello or high-fiving,

0:02:40.668,0:02:42.634
then that means you're a friendly person.

0:02:42.634,0:02:45.401
If you think they're fighting,[br]that means you're a bit more

0:02:45.401,0:02:46.887
of a nasty, aggressive person.

0:02:46.887,0:02:48.936
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

0:02:48.936,0:02:51.425
What about this one?[br]This isn't really a voting one,

0:02:51.425,0:02:53.539
so on three, everyone[br]shout out what you see.

0:02:53.539,0:02:55.055
One, two, three.

0:02:55.055,0:02:56.733
(Audience shouting)

0:02:57.034,0:02:58.971
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

0:02:58.971,0:03:00.510
That was very worrying.

0:03:00.510,0:03:02.229
A guy there said hamster.

0:03:02.229,0:03:05.227
Well, you should see[br]some kind of two-legged animal here,

0:03:05.227,0:03:07.523
and then the mirror image of them there.

0:03:07.523,0:03:10.511
If you didn't, then this means[br]that you have difficulty

0:03:10.511,0:03:12.391
processing complex situations

0:03:12.391,0:03:14.367
where there's a lot going on.

0:03:14.367,0:03:16.763
Except, of course,[br]it doesn't mean that at all.

0:03:16.763,0:03:19.280
Rorschach inkblot tests[br]have basically no validity

0:03:19.280,0:03:21.699
when it comes to diagnosing[br]people's personality

0:03:21.699,0:03:24.343
and are not used[br]by modern-day psychologists.

0:03:24.343,0:03:26.255
In fact, one recent study found

0:03:26.255,0:03:28.892
that when you do try[br]to diagnose people's personality

0:03:28.892,0:03:30.811
using Rorschach inkblot tests,

0:03:30.811,0:03:32.578
schizophrenia was diagnosed

0:03:32.578,0:03:36.302
in about one sixth of apparently[br]perfectly normal participants.

0:03:36.952,0:03:39.532
So if you didn't do that well on this,

0:03:39.532,0:03:41.946
maybe you are not[br]a very visual type of person.

0:03:41.946,0:03:43.955
So let's do another[br]quick quiz to find out.

0:03:43.955,0:03:46.409
When making a cake, do you prefer to

0:03:46.409,0:03:48.175
- so hands up for each one again -

0:03:48.175,0:03:50.829
do you prefer to use[br]a recipe book with pictures?

0:03:51.658,0:03:52.805
Yeah, a few people.

0:03:52.805,0:03:54.784
Have a friend talk you through?

0:03:55.354,0:03:57.967
Or have a go, making it up[br]as you go along?

0:03:58.811,0:04:00.182
Quite a few people there.

0:04:00.182,0:04:01.926
Okay, so if you said a,

0:04:01.926,0:04:04.094
then this means[br]that you are a visual learner

0:04:04.094,0:04:05.822
and you learn best when information

0:04:05.822,0:04:07.574
is presented in a visual style.

0:04:07.574,0:04:10.052
If you said b, it means[br]you're an auditory learner,

0:04:10.052,0:04:13.864
that you learn best when information[br]is presented to you in an auditory format,

0:04:13.864,0:04:14.966
and if you said c,

0:04:14.966,0:04:16.969
it means that you're[br]a kinesthetic learner,

0:04:16.969,0:04:18.977
that you learn best when you get stuck in

0:04:18.977,0:04:20.449
and do things with your hands.

0:04:20.449,0:04:22.712
Except, of course,[br]as you've probably guessed,

0:04:22.712,0:04:25.633
that it doesn't, because[br]the whole thing is a complete myth.

0:04:25.633,0:04:27.011
Learning styles are made up

0:04:27.011,0:04:29.277
and are not supported[br]by scientific evidence.

0:04:29.277,0:04:32.597
So we know this because in[br]tightly controlled experimental studies,

0:04:32.597,0:04:34.768
when learners are given material to learn

0:04:34.768,0:04:37.405
either in their preferred style[br]or an opposite style,

0:04:37.405,0:04:38.860
it makes no difference at all

0:04:38.860,0:04:41.090
to the amount of information[br]that they retain.

0:04:41.090,0:04:43.195
And if you think about it[br]for just a second,

0:04:43.195,0:04:45.292
it's just obvious[br]that this has to be true.

0:04:45.292,0:04:47.475
It's obvious that[br]the best presentation format

0:04:47.475,0:04:49.332
depends not on you,

0:04:49.332,0:04:51.159
but on what you're trying to learn.

0:04:51.159,0:04:53.287
Could you learn to drive a car,[br]for example,

0:04:53.287,0:04:55.737
just by listening to someone[br]telling you what to do

0:04:55.737,0:04:57.275
with no kinesthetic experience?

0:04:57.275,0:04:59.196
Could you solve simultaneous equations

0:04:59.196,0:05:02.427
by talking them through in your head[br]and without writing them down?

0:05:02.427,0:05:04.512
Could you revise[br]for your architecture exams

0:05:04.512,0:05:07.211
using interpretive dance[br]if you're a kinesthetic learner?

0:05:07.211,0:05:08.920
No. What you need to do is match

0:05:08.920,0:05:11.542
the material to be learned[br]to the presentation format,

0:05:11.542,0:05:12.512
not you.

0:05:13.635,0:05:15.670
So, I know many of you[br]are A-level students

0:05:15.670,0:05:17.990
that will have recently gotten[br]your GCSE results.

0:05:17.990,0:05:20.492
And if you didn't quite get[br]what you were hoping for,

0:05:20.492,0:05:22.775
then you can't really blame[br]your learning style,

0:05:22.775,0:05:26.235
but one thing that you might want[br]to think about blaming is your genes.

0:05:26.499,0:05:27.859
So what this is all about

0:05:27.859,0:05:30.323
is a recent study[br]at University College London

0:05:30.323,0:05:32.491
found that 58 percent of the variation

0:05:32.491,0:05:35.704
between different students[br]and their GCSE results

0:05:35.704,0:05:37.663
was down to genetic factors.

0:05:37.663,0:05:39.713
So that sounds a very precise figure,

0:05:39.713,0:05:41.152
so how can we tell?

0:05:41.152,0:05:44.285
Well, when we want to unpack[br]the relative contributions

0:05:44.285,0:05:46.231
of genes and the environment,

0:05:46.231,0:05:48.489
what we can do is do a twin study.

0:05:48.489,0:05:52.145
So identical twins share 100 percent[br]of their environment

0:05:52.145,0:05:54.154
and 100 percent of their genes,

0:05:54.154,0:05:57.429
whereas non-identical twins[br]share 100 percent of their environment,

0:05:57.429,0:05:59.202
but just like any brother and sister,

0:05:59.202,0:06:00.990
share only 50 percent of their genes.

0:06:00.990,0:06:05.671
So by comparing how similar GCSE[br]results are in identical twins

0:06:05.671,0:06:07.188
versus non-identical twins,

0:06:07.188,0:06:08.799
and doing some clever math,

0:06:08.799,0:06:12.761
we can an idea of how much variation[br]and performance is due to the environment

0:06:12.761,0:06:14.668
and how much is due to genes.

0:06:14.668,0:06:17.987
And it turns out that it's about[br]58 percent due to genes.

0:06:20.902,0:06:24.568
So this isn't to undermine the hard work[br]that you and your teachers here put in.

0:06:24.568,0:06:27.656
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results[br]that you were hoping for,

0:06:27.656,0:06:31.159
then you can always try blaming[br]your parents, or at least their genes.

0:06:31.399,0:06:33.344
One thing that you shouldn't blame

0:06:33.344,0:06:35.966
is being a left brained[br]or right brained learner,

0:06:35.966,0:06:37.748
because again, this is a myth.

0:06:37.748,0:06:41.205
So the myth here[br]is that the left brain is logical,

0:06:41.205,0:06:43.059
it's good with equations like this,

0:06:43.059,0:06:44.851
and the right brain is more creative,

0:06:44.851,0:06:46.695
so the right brain is better at music.

0:06:46.695,0:06:49.675
But again, this is a myth[br]because nearly everything that you do

0:06:49.675,0:06:52.401
involves nearly all parts[br]of your brain talking together,

0:06:52.401,0:06:56.095
even just the most mundane thing[br]like having a normal conversation.

0:06:56.095,0:06:59.040
However, perhaps one reason[br]why this myth has survived

0:06:59.040,0:07:01.267
is that there is[br]a slight grain of truth to it.

0:07:01.267,0:07:03.251
So a related version of the myth

0:07:03.251,0:07:06.527
is that left-handed people are more[br]creative than right-handed people,

0:07:06.527,0:07:10.654
which kind of makes sense because[br]your brain controls the opposite hands,

0:07:10.654,0:07:11.813
so left-handed people,

0:07:11.813,0:07:14.218
the right side of the brain[br]is slightly more active

0:07:14.218,0:07:15.964
than the left hand side of the brain,

0:07:15.964,0:07:18.371
and the idea is the right-hand side[br]is more creative.

0:07:18.371,0:07:19.691
Now, it isn't true per se

0:07:19.691,0:07:22.769
that left-handed people are more creative[br]than right-handed people.

0:07:22.769,0:07:24.668
What is true that ambidextrous people,

0:07:24.668,0:07:27.415
or people who use both hands[br]for different tasks,

0:07:27.415,0:07:31.026
are more creative thinkers[br]than one-handed people,

0:07:31.026,0:07:33.655
because being ambidextrous involves

0:07:33.655,0:07:36.337
having both sides of the brain[br]talk to each other a lot,

0:07:36.337,0:07:39.878
which seems to be involved[br]in creative and flexible thinking.

0:07:40.272,0:07:42.409
The myth of the creative left-hander

0:07:42.409,0:07:44.505
arises from the fact[br]that being ambidextrous

0:07:44.505,0:07:46.558
is more common amongst left-handers

0:07:46.558,0:07:47.791
than right handers,

0:07:47.791,0:07:50.659
so a grain of truth in the idea[br]of the creative left-hander,

0:07:50.659,0:07:52.114
but not much.

0:07:52.461,0:07:54.568
A related myth that you've[br]probably heard of

0:07:54.568,0:07:56.999
is that we only use[br]10 percent of our brains.

0:07:56.999,0:07:58.788
This is, again, a complete myth.

0:07:58.788,0:08:01.496
Nearly everything that we do,[br]even the most mundane thing,

0:08:01.496,0:08:04.025
uses nearly all of our brains.

0:08:04.025,0:08:06.651
That said, it is of course true

0:08:06.651,0:08:09.166
that most of us don't use our brainpower

0:08:09.166,0:08:12.456
quite as well as we could[br]most of the time.

0:08:12.456,0:08:15.215
So what could we do[br]to boost our brain power?

0:08:15.215,0:08:17.472
Maybe we could listen[br]to a nice bit of Mozart.

0:08:17.472,0:08:19.896
So have you heard of the idea[br]of the Mozart effect?

0:08:19.896,0:08:21.890
So the idea is that listening to Mozart

0:08:21.890,0:08:25.707
makes you smarter and improves[br]your performance on IQ tests.

0:08:25.742,0:08:27.914
Now again, what's interesting[br]about this myth

0:08:27.914,0:08:29.767
is that although it's basically a myth,

0:08:29.767,0:08:31.419
there is a grain of truth to it.

0:08:31.419,0:08:33.573
So the original study found

0:08:33.573,0:08:37.153
that participants who were played[br]Mozart music for a few minutes

0:08:37.153,0:08:39.176
did better on a subsequent IQ test

0:08:39.176,0:08:42.030
than participants who simply[br]sat in silence.

0:08:42.671,0:08:46.217
But a follow-up study recruited[br]some people who liked Mozart music

0:08:46.217,0:08:47.758
and then another group of people

0:08:47.758,0:08:50.297
who were fans of the horror stories[br]of Stephen King.

0:08:50.435,0:08:54.167
And they played the people[br]the music or the stories.

0:08:54.167,0:08:56.773
The people who preferred[br]Mozart music to the stories

0:08:56.773,0:08:59.622
got a bigger IQ boost[br]from the Mozart than the stories,

0:08:59.622,0:09:02.538
but the people who preferred[br]the stories to the Mozart music

0:09:02.538,0:09:03.701
got a bigger IQ boost

0:09:03.701,0:09:06.811
from listening to the Stephen King stories[br]than the Mozart music.

0:09:06.811,0:09:09.583
So the truth is that listening[br]to something that you enjoy

0:09:09.583,0:09:12.488
perks you up a bit[br]and gives you a temporary IQ boost

0:09:12.488,0:09:14.288
on a narrow range of tasks.

0:09:14.288,0:09:16.513
There's no suggestion[br]that listening to Mozart

0:09:16.513,0:09:18.309
or indeed Stephen King stories

0:09:18.309,0:09:20.886
is going to make you any smarter[br]in the long run.

0:09:22.046,0:09:24.614
So another version of the Mozart myth

0:09:24.614,0:09:29.513
is that listening to Mozart can make you[br]not only cleverer but healthier, too.

0:09:29.513,0:09:31.921
Unfortunately, this doesn't seem[br]to be true

0:09:31.921,0:09:34.954
of someone who listened[br]to the music of Mozart almost every day,

0:09:34.954,0:09:36.299
Mozart himself,

0:09:36.299,0:09:39.665
who suffered from gonorrhea,[br]smallpox, arthritis,

0:09:39.665,0:09:42.520
and what most people think[br]eventually killed him in the end,

0:09:42.520,0:09:43.848
syphilis.

0:09:44.516,0:09:47.554
This suggests that Mozart[br]should have bit more careful, perhaps,

0:09:47.554,0:09:49.464
when choosing his sexual partners.

0:09:49.812,0:09:51.863
But how do we choose a partner?

0:09:51.863,0:09:57.359
So a myth, but I have to say[br]is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

0:09:57.359,0:09:59.545
is that our preferences[br]in a romantic partner

0:09:59.545,0:10:01.115
are a product of our culture,

0:10:01.115,0:10:02.958
that they're very culturally specific,

0:10:02.958,0:10:04.911
but in fact, the data don't back this up.

0:10:04.911,0:10:09.298
So a famous study surveyed people from[br]32 different cultures across the globe,

0:10:09.298,0:10:10.612
from Americans to Zulus,

0:10:10.612,0:10:12.997
on what they look for in a partner.

0:10:12.997,0:10:15.259
And in every single culture[br]across the globe,

0:10:15.259,0:10:18.847
men placed more value[br]on physical attractiveness in a partner

0:10:18.847,0:10:20.132
than did women,

0:10:20.132,0:10:21.734
and in every single culture, too,

0:10:21.734,0:10:23.707
women placed more importance than did men

0:10:23.707,0:10:26.334
on ambition and high earning power.

0:10:26.334,0:10:27.843
In every culture, too,

0:10:27.843,0:10:30.419
men preferred women[br]who were younger than themselves,

0:10:30.419,0:10:33.219
an average of I think it was 2.66 years,

0:10:33.219,0:10:34.839
and in every culture, too,

0:10:34.839,0:10:37.477
women preferred men[br]who were older than them,

0:10:37.477,0:10:40.035
so an average of 3.42 years,

0:10:40.035,0:10:43.797
which is why we've got here[br]"Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy."

0:10:44.647,0:10:46.923
So moving on from trying[br]to score with a partner

0:10:46.923,0:10:50.454
to trying to score in basketball[br]or football or whatever your sport is.

0:10:50.454,0:10:52.437
So the myth here is that sportsmen

0:10:52.437,0:10:54.937
go through hot hand streaks,[br]Americans call them,

0:10:54.937,0:10:57.140
or purple patches,[br]we sometimes say in England,

0:10:57.140,0:10:58.457
where they just can't miss,

0:10:58.457,0:10:59.739
like this guy here.

0:10:59.739,0:11:03.534
But in fact, what happens is[br]that if you analyze the pattern

0:11:03.534,0:11:05.176
of hits and misses statistically,

0:11:05.176,0:11:07.641
it turns out that it's[br]nearly always at random.

0:11:07.641,0:11:10.011
Your brain creates patterns[br]from the randomness.

0:11:10.011,0:11:11.914
So if you toss a coin, you know,

0:11:11.914,0:11:15.333
a streak of heads or tails is going to[br]come out somewhere in randomness,

0:11:15.333,0:11:18.347
and becomes the brain likes[br]to see patterns where there are none,

0:11:18.347,0:11:20.896
we look at these streaks[br]and attribute meaning to them

0:11:20.896,0:11:22.961
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

0:11:22.961,0:11:25.214
whereas actually you would[br]get the same pattern

0:11:25.214,0:11:28.559
if you were just getting[br]hits and misses at random.

0:11:29.838,0:11:32.851
So an exception to this, however,[br]is penalty shootouts.

0:11:32.851,0:11:36.320
A recent study looking[br]at penalty shootouts in football

0:11:36.320,0:11:38.518
shows that players who represent countries

0:11:38.518,0:11:40.900
with a very bad record[br]in penalty shootouts,

0:11:40.900,0:11:42.633
like, for example, England,

0:11:42.633,0:11:47.199
tend to be quicker to take their shots[br]than countries with a better record,

0:11:47.199,0:11:50.652
and presumably as a result,[br]they're more likely to miss.

0:11:50.652,0:11:52.055
Which raises the question

0:11:52.055,0:11:55.418
of if there's any way that we could[br]improve people's performance,

0:11:55.418,0:11:57.432
and one thing you might think about doing

0:11:57.432,0:11:59.260
is punishing people for their misses

0:11:59.260,0:12:01.062
and seeing if that improves things.

0:12:01.062,0:12:04.709
This idea, the effect that punishment[br]can improve performance,

0:12:04.709,0:12:06.909
is what participants[br]thought they were testing

0:12:06.909,0:12:09.480
in Milgram's famous learning[br]and punishment experiment

0:12:09.480,0:12:12.682
that you've probably heard about[br]if you're a psychology student.

0:12:13.552,0:12:16.200
The story goes that participants[br]were prepared to give

0:12:16.200,0:12:20.014
what they believed to be fatal[br]electric shocks to a fellow participant

0:12:20.014,0:12:22.126
when they got a question wrong,

0:12:22.126,0:12:24.611
just because someone[br]in a white coat told them too.

0:12:24.611,0:12:27.244
But this story is a myth[br]for three reasons.

0:12:27.244,0:12:30.174
Firstly and most crucially,[br]the lab coat wasn't white.

0:12:30.174,0:12:31.741
It was, in fact, grey.

0:12:32.589,0:12:36.722
Secondly, the participants[br]were told before the study

0:12:36.722,0:12:39.197
and reminded any time[br]they raised a concern,

0:12:39.197,0:12:42.139
that although the shocks were painful,[br]they were not fatal

0:12:42.139,0:12:44.956
and indeed caused[br]no permanent damage whatsoever.

0:12:44.956,0:12:47.246
And thirdly, participants[br]didn't give the shocks

0:12:47.246,0:12:49.924
just because someone[br]in the coat told them to.

0:12:49.924,0:12:51.967
When they were interviewed[br]after the study,

0:12:51.967,0:12:54.370
all the participants said[br]that they firmly believed

0:12:54.370,0:12:58.027
that the learning and punishment study[br]served a worthy scientific purpose

0:12:58.027,0:13:00.276
which would have[br]enduring gains for science

0:13:00.276,0:13:04.398
as opposed to the momentary[br]non-fatal discomfort

0:13:04.398,0:13:07.052
caused to the participants.

0:13:08.143,0:13:11.070
Okay, so I've been talking[br]for about 12 minutes now,

0:13:11.070,0:13:12.925
and you've probably been sitting there

0:13:12.925,0:13:15.983
listening to me, analyzing[br]my speech patterns and body language

0:13:15.983,0:13:19.426
and trying to work out if you should[br]take any notice of what I'm saying,

0:13:19.426,0:13:21.879
whether I'm telling the truth[br]or whether I'm lying,

0:13:21.879,0:13:23.971
but if so you've[br]probably completely failed,

0:13:23.971,0:13:26.290
because although we all think[br]we can catch a liar

0:13:26.290,0:13:28.440
from their body language[br]and speech patterns,

0:13:28.440,0:13:31.154
hundreds of psychological tests[br]over the years have shown

0:13:31.154,0:13:33.844
that all of us, including[br]police officers and detectives,

0:13:33.844,0:13:37.316
are basically at chance when it comes[br]to detecting lies from body language

0:13:37.316,0:13:38.585
and verbal patterns.

0:13:38.585,0:13:40.598
Interestingly, there is one exception:

0:13:40.598,0:13:42.910
TV appeals for missing relatives.

0:13:42.910,0:13:47.123
It's quite easy to predict[br]when the relatives are missing

0:13:47.123,0:13:50.847
and when the appealers have in fact[br]murdered the relatives themselves.

0:13:52.963,0:13:56.726
So hoax appealers are more likely[br]to shake their heads, to look away,

0:13:56.726,0:13:58.582
and to make errors in their speech,

0:13:58.582,0:14:00.581
whereas genuine appealers are more likely

0:14:00.581,0:14:02.961
to express hope that the person[br]will return safely

0:14:02.961,0:14:04.455
and to avoid brutal language.

0:14:04.455,0:14:08.506
So, for example, they might say[br]"taken from us" rather than "killed."

0:14:09.402,0:14:10.589
Speaking of which,

0:14:10.589,0:14:12.224
it's about time I killed this talk,

0:14:12.224,0:14:14.127
but before I do, I just want to give you

0:14:14.127,0:14:15.250
in 30 seconds

0:14:15.250,0:14:17.959
the overarching myth of psychology.

0:14:18.276,0:14:21.325
So the myth of psychology, as I see,

0:14:21.325,0:14:24.873
and one that I don't think textbooks[br]about psychology

0:14:24.873,0:14:27.517
and even university courses[br]do enough to dispel,

0:14:27.517,0:14:29.261
the myth is that psychology

0:14:29.261,0:14:31.396
is just a collection[br]of interesting theories,

0:14:31.396,0:14:33.014
all of which say something useful

0:14:33.014,0:14:35.022
and all of which have something to offer.

0:14:35.022,0:14:37.514
What I hope to have shown you[br]in the past few minutes

0:14:37.514,0:14:38.739
is that this isn't true.

0:14:38.739,0:14:42.224
What we need to do is assess[br]psychological theories

0:14:42.224,0:14:44.017
by seeing what predictions they make,

0:14:44.017,0:14:46.810
whether that is that listening to Mozart[br]makes you smarter,

0:14:46.810,0:14:49.088
that you learn better when information

0:14:49.088,0:14:51.300
is presented in your[br]preferred learning style,

0:14:51.300,0:14:54.892
or whatever it is, all of these[br]are testable empirical predictions,

0:14:54.892,0:14:56.735
and the only way we can make progress

0:14:56.735,0:14:58.885
is to test these predictions[br]against the data

0:14:58.885,0:15:01.011
in tightly controlled[br]experimental studies,

0:15:01.011,0:15:03.771
and it's only by doing so[br]that we can hope to discover

0:15:03.771,0:15:06.712
which of these theoriesare well-supported,

0:15:06.712,0:15:10.332
and which, like all the ones[br]I've told you about today, are myths.

0:15:10.332,0:15:11.341
Thank you.

0:15:11.341,0:15:12.705
(Applause)