0:00:01.373,0:00:04.031
You've heard of your IQ,[br]your general intelligence,

0:00:04.055,0:00:05.745
but what's your Psy-Q?

0:00:05.769,0:00:07.975
How much do you know[br]about what makes you tick,

0:00:07.999,0:00:10.758
and how good are you[br]at predicting other people's behavior

0:00:10.782,0:00:12.027
or even your own?

0:00:12.051,0:00:15.176
And how much of what you think you know[br]about psychology is wrong?

0:00:15.200,0:00:18.550
Let's find out by counting down[br]the top myths of psychology.

0:00:19.081,0:00:22.462
You've probably heard it said[br]that when it comes to their psychology,

0:00:22.486,0:00:25.420
it's almost as if men are from Mars[br]and women are from Venus.

0:00:25.444,0:00:27.539
But how different[br]are men and women, really?

0:00:27.563,0:00:29.822
To find out, let's start[br]by looking at something

0:00:29.846,0:00:31.736
on which men and women really do differ

0:00:31.760,0:00:35.037
and plotting some psychological[br]gender differences on the same scale.

0:00:35.061,0:00:37.092
One thing men and women[br]do really differ on

0:00:37.116,0:00:38.697
is how far they can throw a ball.

0:00:38.721,0:00:40.614
So if we look at the data for men here,

0:00:40.638,0:00:43.105
we see what is called[br]a normal distribution curve.

0:00:43.129,0:00:46.215
A few men can throw a ball really far,[br]a few men, not far at all,

0:00:46.239,0:00:48.041
but most, a kind of average distance.

0:00:48.065,0:00:50.223
And women share[br]the same distribution as well,

0:00:50.247,0:00:52.398
but actually, there's[br]quite a big difference.

0:00:52.422,0:00:54.749
In fact, the average man[br]can throw a ball further

0:00:54.773,0:00:56.596
than about 98 percent of all women.

0:00:56.620,0:01:00.046
Now let's look at what some psychological[br]gender differences look like

0:01:00.070,0:01:01.579
on the same standardized scale.

0:01:02.504,0:01:04.066
Any psychologist will tell you

0:01:04.090,0:01:06.661
that men are better[br]at spatial awareness than women --

0:01:06.685,0:01:09.266
things like map-reading,[br]for example -- and it's true.

0:01:09.290,0:01:11.793
But let's have a look[br]at the size of this difference.

0:01:11.817,0:01:14.974
It's tiny; the lines are so close[br]together, they almost overlap.

0:01:14.998,0:01:18.802
In fact, the average woman is better[br]than 33 percent of all men,

0:01:18.826,0:01:20.938
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

0:01:20.962,0:01:23.173
then the two genders[br]would be exactly equal.

0:01:23.570,0:01:27.292
It's worth bearing in mind that this[br]difference and the next one I'll show you

0:01:27.316,0:01:30.161
are pretty much the biggest[br]psychological gender differences

0:01:30.185,0:01:31.628
ever discovered in psychology.

0:01:31.652,0:01:32.804
Here's the next one.

0:01:32.828,0:01:34.283
Any psychologist will tell you

0:01:34.307,0:01:36.992
that women are better[br]with language and grammar than men.

0:01:37.016,0:01:39.447
Here's performance[br]on the standardized grammar test.

0:01:39.471,0:01:41.171
There, the women. There go the men.

0:01:41.195,0:01:43.145
Again, yes, women are better on average,

0:01:43.169,0:01:44.416
but the lines are so close

0:01:44.440,0:01:47.554
that 33 percent of men[br]are better than the average woman.

0:01:47.578,0:01:49.122
And again, if it was 50 percent,

0:01:49.146,0:01:51.923
that would represent[br]complete gender equality.

0:01:52.345,0:01:54.424
So it's not really[br]a case of Mars and Venus.

0:01:54.448,0:01:56.997
It's more a case of, if anything,[br]Mars and Snickers:

0:01:57.021,0:02:00.686
basically the same, but one's maybe[br]slightly nuttier than the other.

0:02:00.710,0:02:04.476
When making a cake, do you prefer[br]to use a recipe book with pictures?

0:02:05.272,0:02:06.451
Yeah, a few people.

0:02:06.475,0:02:08.233
Have a friend talk you through?

0:02:08.984,0:02:11.266
Or have a go, making it up[br]as you go along?

0:02:12.052,0:02:13.276
Quite a few people there.

0:02:13.300,0:02:14.828
OK, so if you said A,

0:02:14.852,0:02:17.339
then this means[br]that you're a visual learner,

0:02:17.363,0:02:20.634
and you learn best when information[br]is presented in a visual style.

0:02:20.658,0:02:23.308
If you said B, it means[br]you're an auditory learner,

0:02:23.332,0:02:27.106
that you learn best when information[br]is presented to you in an auditory format.

0:02:27.130,0:02:30.037
And if you said C, it means[br]that you're a kinesthetic learner,

0:02:30.061,0:02:33.450
that you learn best when you get stuck in[br]and do things with your hands.

0:02:33.474,0:02:35.658
Except, of course,[br]as you've probably guessed,

0:02:35.682,0:02:38.496
that it doesn't, because[br]the whole thing is a complete myth.

0:02:38.520,0:02:42.258
Learning styles are made up and are not[br]supported by scientific evidence.

0:02:42.282,0:02:45.702
We know this because in tightly[br]controlled experimental studies

0:02:45.726,0:02:47.896
when learners are given material to learn,

0:02:47.920,0:02:50.549
either in their preferred style[br]or an opposite style,

0:02:50.573,0:02:54.238
it makes no difference at all[br]to the amount of information they retain.

0:02:54.262,0:02:56.328
And if you think about it[br]for just a second,

0:02:56.352,0:02:58.178
it's obvious that this has to be true.

0:02:58.202,0:03:02.609
It's obvious that the best presentation[br]format depends not on you,

0:03:02.633,0:03:04.323
but on what you're trying to learn.

0:03:04.347,0:03:07.803
Could you learn to drive a car,[br]for example, just by listening to someone

0:03:07.827,0:03:08.999
telling you what to do,

0:03:09.023,0:03:10.508
with no kinesthetic experience?

0:03:10.532,0:03:14.157
Could you solve simultaneous equations[br]by talking them through in your head,

0:03:14.181,0:03:15.454
without writing them down?

0:03:15.478,0:03:18.757
Could you revise for your architecture[br]exams using interpretive dance

0:03:18.781,0:03:20.328
if you're a kinesthetic learner?

0:03:20.352,0:03:23.147
No; what you need to do is match[br]the material to be learned

0:03:23.171,0:03:24.478
to the presentation format,

0:03:24.502,0:03:25.819
not you.

0:03:26.981,0:03:28.900
I know many of you are A-level students

0:03:28.924,0:03:31.215
that will have recently gotten[br]your GCSE results.

0:03:31.239,0:03:33.716
And if you didn't quite get[br]what you were hoping for,

0:03:33.740,0:03:36.032
then you can't really blame[br]your learning style.

0:03:36.056,0:03:39.491
But one thing that you might want[br]to think about blaming is your genes.

0:03:39.515,0:03:43.414
So what this is all about is that a recent[br]study at University College London

0:03:43.438,0:03:47.567
found that 58 percent of the variation[br]between different students

0:03:47.591,0:03:49.112
and their GCSE results

0:03:49.136,0:03:50.890
was down to genetic factors.

0:03:50.914,0:03:54.211
That sounds like a very precise figure.[br]So how can we tell?

0:03:54.235,0:03:57.457
Well, when we want to unpack[br]the relative contributions

0:03:57.481,0:03:59.581
of genes and the environment,

0:03:59.605,0:04:01.612
what we can do is a twin study.

0:04:01.636,0:04:05.315
Identical twins share[br]100 percent of their environment

0:04:05.339,0:04:07.386
and 100 percent of their genes,

0:04:07.410,0:04:10.856
whereas nonidentical twins[br]share 100 percent of their environment,

0:04:10.880,0:04:14.430
but just like any brother and sister,[br]share only 50 percent of their genes.

0:04:14.454,0:04:18.745
So by comparing how similar[br]GCSE results are in identical twins

0:04:18.769,0:04:20.840
versus nonidentical twins

0:04:20.864,0:04:22.240
and doing some clever maths,

0:04:22.264,0:04:26.235
we can get an idea of how much variation[br]in performance is due to the environment,

0:04:26.259,0:04:27.942
and how much is due to genes.

0:04:27.966,0:04:31.390
And it turns out that it's about[br]58 percent due to genes.

0:04:31.897,0:04:35.909
This isn't to undermine the hard work[br]that you and your teachers here put in.

0:04:35.933,0:04:39.072
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results[br]that you were hoping for,

0:04:39.096,0:04:41.218
then you can always try[br]blaming your parents,

0:04:41.242,0:04:42.828
or at least their genes.

0:04:43.392,0:04:45.037
One thing that you shouldn't blame

0:04:45.061,0:04:47.609
is being a left-brained[br]or right-brained learner,

0:04:47.633,0:04:49.569
because again, this is a myth.

0:04:49.593,0:04:52.860
The myth here is that[br]the left brain is logical,

0:04:52.884,0:04:54.573
it's good with equations like this,

0:04:54.597,0:04:58.229
and the right brain is more creative,[br]so the right brain is better at music.

0:04:58.253,0:04:59.513
But again, this is a myth,

0:04:59.537,0:05:01.068
because nearly everything you do

0:05:01.092,0:05:03.816
involves nearly all parts[br]of your brain talking together,

0:05:03.840,0:05:07.136
even just the most mundane thing[br]like having a normal conversation.

0:05:07.692,0:05:10.569
However, perhaps one reason[br]why this myth has survived

0:05:10.593,0:05:12.961
is that there is[br]a slight grain of truth to it.

0:05:12.985,0:05:16.720
A related version of the myth is that[br]left-handed people are more creative

0:05:16.744,0:05:17.993
than right-handed people,

0:05:18.017,0:05:21.450
which kind of makes sense because[br]your brain controls the opposite hand.

0:05:21.474,0:05:25.163
So in left-handed people, the right side[br]of the brain is slightly more active

0:05:25.187,0:05:26.985
than the left side of the brain,

0:05:27.009,0:05:29.515
and the idea is the right-hand side[br]is more creative.

0:05:29.539,0:05:32.765
Now, it isn't true per se[br]that left-handed people are more creative

0:05:32.789,0:05:34.040
than right-handed people.

0:05:34.064,0:05:36.354
But what is true is that[br]ambidextrous people,

0:05:36.378,0:05:39.040
or people who use both hands[br]for different tasks,

0:05:39.064,0:05:42.819
are more creative thinkers[br]than one-handed people,

0:05:42.843,0:05:44.610
because being ambidextrous involves

0:05:44.634,0:05:47.326
having both sides of the brain[br]talk to each other a lot,

0:05:47.350,0:05:51.214
which seems to be involved[br]in creative and flexible thinking.

0:05:51.238,0:05:54.007
The myth of the creative left-hander[br]arises from the fact

0:05:54.031,0:05:56.831
that being ambidextrous[br]is more common amongst left-handers

0:05:56.855,0:05:58.010
than right-handers,

0:05:58.034,0:06:01.140
so a grain of truth in the idea[br]of the creative left-hander,

0:06:01.164,0:06:02.427
but not much.

0:06:02.967,0:06:05.058
A related myth that you've[br]probably heard of

0:06:05.082,0:06:07.374
is that we only use[br]10 percent of our brains.

0:06:07.398,0:06:08.974
This is, again, a complete myth.

0:06:08.998,0:06:11.738
Nearly everything that we do,[br]even the most mundane thing,

0:06:11.762,0:06:13.614
uses nearly all of our brains.

0:06:15.074,0:06:17.234
That said, it is of course true

0:06:17.258,0:06:21.814
that most of us don't use our brainpower[br]quite as well as we could.

0:06:22.273,0:06:24.728
So what could we do[br]to boost our brainpower?

0:06:24.752,0:06:27.007
Maybe we could listen[br]to a nice bit of Mozart.

0:06:27.031,0:06:29.636
Have you heard of the idea[br]of the Mozart effect?

0:06:29.660,0:06:32.593
The idea is that listening[br]to Mozart makes you smarter

0:06:32.617,0:06:35.177
and improves your performance on IQ tests.

0:06:35.503,0:06:37.612
Now again, what's interesting[br]about this myth

0:06:37.636,0:06:41.048
is that although it's basically a myth,[br]there is a grain of truth to it.

0:06:41.072,0:06:43.332
So the original study found that

0:06:43.356,0:06:46.409
participants who were played[br]Mozart music for a few minutes

0:06:46.433,0:06:48.400
did better on a subsequent IQ test

0:06:48.424,0:06:51.575
than participants who simply[br]sat in silence.

0:06:52.026,0:06:55.636
But a follow-up study recruited[br]some people who liked Mozart music

0:06:55.660,0:06:57.217
and then another group of people

0:06:57.241,0:06:59.748
who were fans of[br]the horror stories of Stephen King.

0:06:59.772,0:07:03.491
And they played the people[br]the music or the stories.

0:07:03.515,0:07:06.000
The people who preferred[br]Mozart music to the stories

0:07:06.024,0:07:08.807
got a bigger IQ boost[br]from the Mozart than the stories,

0:07:08.831,0:07:11.668
but the people who preferred[br]the stories to the Mozart music

0:07:11.692,0:07:14.826
got a bigger IQ boost[br]from listening to the Stephen King stories

0:07:14.850,0:07:16.036
than the Mozart music.

0:07:16.060,0:07:18.808
So the truth is that listening[br]to something that you enjoy

0:07:18.832,0:07:21.973
perks you up a bit[br]and gives you a temporary IQ boost

0:07:21.997,0:07:23.652
on a narrow range of tasks.

0:07:23.676,0:07:26.020
There's no suggestion that[br]listening to Mozart,

0:07:26.044,0:07:27.645
or indeed Stephen King stories,

0:07:27.669,0:07:30.755
is going to make you any smarter[br]in the long run.

0:07:31.619,0:07:33.913
Another version of the Mozart myth

0:07:33.937,0:07:38.986
is that listening to Mozart can make you[br]not only cleverer but healthier, too.

0:07:39.501,0:07:41.565
Unfortunately, this doesn't[br]seem to be true

0:07:41.589,0:07:44.610
of someone who listened[br]to the music of Mozart almost every day,

0:07:44.634,0:07:45.796
Mozart himself,

0:07:45.820,0:07:48.975
who suffered from gonorrhea,[br]smallpox, arthritis,

0:07:48.999,0:07:53.065
and, what most people think eventually[br]killed him in the end, syphilis.

0:07:53.851,0:07:57.246
This suggests that Mozart should have been[br]a bit more careful, perhaps,

0:07:57.270,0:07:59.416
when choosing his sexual partners.

0:07:59.440,0:08:01.313
But how do we choose a partner?

0:08:01.337,0:08:06.596
So a myth that I have to say[br]is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

0:08:06.620,0:08:10.164
is that our preferences in a romantic[br]partner are a product of our culture,

0:08:10.188,0:08:12.051
that they're very culturally specific.

0:08:12.075,0:08:14.326
But in fact, the data don't back this up.

0:08:14.350,0:08:18.401
A famous study surveyed people from[br][37] different cultures across the globe

0:08:18.425,0:08:19.840
from Americans to Zulus,

0:08:19.864,0:08:21.896
on what they look for in a partner.

0:08:22.269,0:08:24.445
And in every single culture[br]across the globe,

0:08:24.469,0:08:28.346
men placed more value[br]on physical attractiveness in a partner

0:08:28.370,0:08:29.536
than did women,

0:08:29.560,0:08:31.149
and in every single culture, too,

0:08:31.173,0:08:35.995
women placed more importance than did men[br]on ambition and high earning power.

0:08:36.019,0:08:37.257
In every culture, too,

0:08:37.281,0:08:39.796
men preferred women[br]who were younger than themselves,

0:08:39.820,0:08:42.817
an average of, I think it was 2.66 years.

0:08:42.841,0:08:44.290
And in every culture, too,

0:08:44.314,0:08:46.899
women preferred men[br]who were older than them,

0:08:46.923,0:08:49.666
so an average of 3.42 years,

0:08:49.690,0:08:52.803
which is why we've got here,[br]"Everybody needs a Sugar Daddy."

0:08:52.827,0:08:53.827
(Laughter)

0:08:53.851,0:08:56.150
So moving on from trying[br]to score with a partner

0:08:56.174,0:08:59.837
to trying to score in basketball[br]or football or whatever your sport is.

0:08:59.861,0:09:03.993
The myth here is that sportsmen go through[br]"hot hand" streaks, Americans call them,

0:09:04.017,0:09:06.321
or "purple patches,"[br]we sometimes say in England,

0:09:06.345,0:09:08.853
where they just can't miss,[br]like this guy here.

0:09:08.877,0:09:12.763
But in fact, what happens is that[br]if you analyze the pattern

0:09:12.787,0:09:14.406
of hits and misses statistically,

0:09:14.430,0:09:16.861
it turns out that it's[br]nearly always at random.

0:09:16.885,0:09:19.230
Your brain creates patterns[br]from the randomness.

0:09:19.254,0:09:20.770
If you toss a coin,

0:09:20.794,0:09:24.593
a streak of heads or tails is going[br]to come out somewhere in the randomness,

0:09:24.617,0:09:27.750
and because the brain likes to see[br]patterns where there are none,

0:09:27.774,0:09:30.365
we look at these streaks[br]and attribute meaning to them

0:09:30.389,0:09:32.414
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

0:09:32.438,0:09:34.670
whereas actually you would[br]get the same pattern

0:09:34.694,0:09:37.111
if you were just getting[br]hits and misses at random.

0:09:38.591,0:09:41.745
An exception to this, however,[br]is penalty shootouts.

0:09:41.769,0:09:44.690
A recent study looking at[br]penalty shootouts in football

0:09:44.714,0:09:46.808
showed that players[br]who represent countries

0:09:46.832,0:09:49.142
with a very bad record[br]in penalty shootouts,

0:09:49.166,0:09:51.325
like, for example, England,

0:09:51.349,0:09:55.236
tend to be quicker to take their shots[br]than countries with a better record,

0:09:55.260,0:09:58.505
and presumably as a result,[br]they're more likely to miss.

0:09:58.894,0:10:00.710
Which raises the question

0:10:00.734,0:10:03.763
of if there's any way we could improve[br]people's performance.

0:10:03.787,0:10:05.763
And one thing you might think about doing

0:10:05.787,0:10:09.172
is punishing people for their misses[br]and seeing if that improves them.

0:10:09.196,0:10:12.735
This idea, the effect that punishment[br]can improve performance,

0:10:12.759,0:10:14.971
was what participants[br]thought they were testing

0:10:14.995,0:10:17.595
in Milgram's famous learning[br]and punishment experiment

0:10:17.619,0:10:20.627
that you've probably heard about[br]if you're a psychology student.

0:10:20.651,0:10:23.194
The story goes that participants[br]were prepared to give

0:10:23.218,0:10:26.514
what they believed to be fatal[br]electric shocks to a fellow participant

0:10:26.538,0:10:28.575
when they got a question wrong,

0:10:28.599,0:10:31.330
just because someone[br]in a white coat told them to.

0:10:31.354,0:10:33.653
But this story is a myth[br]for three reasons.

0:10:33.677,0:10:38.557
Firstly, and most crucially, the lab coat[br]wasn't white. It was, in fact, grey.

0:10:38.581,0:10:43.318
Secondly, the participants[br]were told before the study

0:10:43.342,0:10:45.685
and reminded any time[br]they raised a concern,

0:10:45.709,0:10:48.428
that although the shocks were painful,[br]they were not fatal

0:10:48.452,0:10:51.408
and indeed caused[br]no permanent damage whatsoever.

0:10:51.432,0:10:53.798
And thirdly, participants[br]didn't give the shocks

0:10:53.822,0:10:56.620
just because someone[br]in the coat told them to.

0:10:56.644,0:10:58.649
When they were interviewed[br]after the study,

0:10:58.673,0:11:01.080
all the participants said[br]that they firmly believed

0:11:01.104,0:11:04.637
that the learning and punishment study[br]served a worthy scientific purpose

0:11:04.661,0:11:06.786
which would have[br]enduring gains for science,

0:11:06.810,0:11:12.953
as opposed to the momentary, nonfatal[br]discomfort caused to the participants.

0:11:13.929,0:11:16.719
OK, so I've been talking[br]for about 12 minutes now,

0:11:16.743,0:11:19.332
and you've probably been[br]sitting there listening to me,

0:11:19.356,0:11:21.611
analyzing my speech patterns[br]and body language

0:11:21.635,0:11:25.062
and trying to work out if you should[br]take any notice of what I'm saying,

0:11:25.086,0:11:27.500
whether I'm telling the truth[br]or whether I'm lying.

0:11:27.524,0:11:29.643
But if so, you've probably[br]completely failed,

0:11:29.667,0:11:31.980
because although we all think[br]we can catch a liar

0:11:32.004,0:11:34.182
from their body language[br]and speech patterns,

0:11:34.206,0:11:37.646
hundreds of psychological tests[br]over the years have shown that all of us,

0:11:37.670,0:11:39.649
including police officers and detectives,

0:11:39.673,0:11:43.193
are basically at chance when it comes[br]to detecting lies from body language

0:11:43.217,0:11:44.369
and verbal patterns.

0:11:44.393,0:11:46.307
Interestingly, there is one exception:

0:11:46.331,0:11:48.479
TV appeals for missing relatives.

0:11:48.503,0:11:51.618
It's quite easy to predict[br]when the relatives are missing

0:11:51.642,0:11:55.071
and when the appealers have, in fact,[br]murdered the relatives themselves.

0:11:55.095,0:11:58.637
So hoax appealers are more likely[br]to shake their heads, to look away,

0:11:58.661,0:12:00.364
and to make errors in their speech,

0:12:00.388,0:12:03.069
whereas genuine appealers[br]are more likely to express hope

0:12:03.093,0:12:04.733
that the person will return safely

0:12:04.757,0:12:06.176
and to avoid brutal language.

0:12:06.200,0:12:10.682
So, for example, they might say[br]"taken from us" rather than "killed."

0:12:11.076,0:12:13.617
Speaking of which,[br]it's about time I killed this talk,

0:12:13.641,0:12:16.593
but before I do, I just want[br]to give you, in 30 seconds,

0:12:16.617,0:12:19.964
the overarching myth of psychology.

0:12:19.988,0:12:24.642
The myth is that psychology is just[br]a collection of interesting theories,

0:12:24.666,0:12:28.234
all of which say something useful[br]and all of which have something to offer.

0:12:28.258,0:12:30.749
What I hope to have shown you[br]in the past few minutes

0:12:30.773,0:12:32.064
is that this isn't true.

0:12:32.088,0:12:35.481
What we need to do is assess[br]psychological theories

0:12:35.505,0:12:37.311
by seeing what predictions they make,

0:12:37.335,0:12:40.112
whether that is that listening to Mozart[br]makes you smarter,

0:12:40.136,0:12:44.597
that you learn better when information is[br]presented in your preferred learning style

0:12:44.621,0:12:45.796
or whatever it is,

0:12:45.820,0:12:48.365
all of these are testable[br]empirical predictions,

0:12:48.389,0:12:50.200
and the only way we can make progress

0:12:50.224,0:12:52.326
is to test these predictions[br]against the data

0:12:52.350,0:12:54.501
in tightly controlled[br]experimental studies.

0:12:54.525,0:12:57.430
And it's only by doing so[br]that we can hope to discover

0:12:57.454,0:13:00.054
which of these theories[br]are well supported,

0:13:00.078,0:13:03.701
and which, like all the ones[br]I've told you about today, are myths.

0:13:03.725,0:13:04.953
Thank you.

0:13:04.977,0:13:08.437
(Applause)