1
00:00:01,373 --> 00:00:04,031
You've heard of your IQ,
your general intelligence,

2
00:00:04,055 --> 00:00:05,745
but what's your Psy-Q?

3
00:00:05,769 --> 00:00:07,975
How much do you know
about what makes you tick,

4
00:00:07,999 --> 00:00:10,758
and how good are you
at predicting other people's behavior

5
00:00:10,782 --> 00:00:12,027
or even your own?

6
00:00:12,051 --> 00:00:15,176
And how much of what you think you know
about psychology is wrong?

7
00:00:15,200 --> 00:00:18,550
Let's find out by counting down
the top myths of psychology.

8
00:00:19,081 --> 00:00:22,462
You've probably heard it said
that when it comes to their psychology,

9
00:00:22,486 --> 00:00:25,420
it's almost as if men are from Mars
and women are from Venus.

10
00:00:25,444 --> 00:00:27,539
But how different
are men and women, really?

11
00:00:27,563 --> 00:00:29,822
To find out, let's start
by looking at something

12
00:00:29,846 --> 00:00:31,736
on which men and women really do differ

13
00:00:31,760 --> 00:00:35,037
and plotting some psychological
gender differences on the same scale.

14
00:00:35,061 --> 00:00:37,092
One thing men and women
do really differ on

15
00:00:37,116 --> 00:00:38,697
is how far they can throw a ball.

16
00:00:38,721 --> 00:00:40,614
So if we look at the data for men here,

17
00:00:40,638 --> 00:00:43,105
we see what is called
a normal distribution curve.

18
00:00:43,129 --> 00:00:46,215
A few men can throw a ball really far,
a few men, not far at all,

19
00:00:46,239 --> 00:00:48,041
but most, a kind of average distance.

20
00:00:48,065 --> 00:00:50,223
And women share
the same distribution as well,

21
00:00:50,247 --> 00:00:52,398
but actually, there's
quite a big difference.

22
00:00:52,422 --> 00:00:54,749
In fact, the average man
can throw a ball further

23
00:00:54,773 --> 00:00:56,596
than about 98 percent of all women.

24
00:00:56,620 --> 00:01:00,046
Now let's look at what some psychological
gender differences look like

25
00:01:00,070 --> 00:01:01,579
on the same standardized scale.

26
00:01:02,504 --> 00:01:04,066
Any psychologist will tell you

27
00:01:04,090 --> 00:01:06,661
that men are better
at spatial awareness than women --

28
00:01:06,685 --> 00:01:09,266
things like map-reading,
for example -- and it's true.

29
00:01:09,290 --> 00:01:11,793
But let's have a look
at the size of this difference.

30
00:01:11,817 --> 00:01:14,974
It's tiny; the lines are so close
together, they almost overlap.

31
00:01:14,998 --> 00:01:18,802
In fact, the average woman is better
than 33 percent of all men,

32
00:01:18,826 --> 00:01:20,938
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

33
00:01:20,962 --> 00:01:23,173
then the two genders
would be exactly equal.

34
00:01:23,570 --> 00:01:27,292
It's worth bearing in mind that this
difference and the next one I'll show you

35
00:01:27,316 --> 00:01:30,161
are pretty much the biggest
psychological gender differences

36
00:01:30,185 --> 00:01:31,628
ever discovered in psychology.

37
00:01:31,652 --> 00:01:32,804
Here's the next one.

38
00:01:32,828 --> 00:01:34,283
Any psychologist will tell you

39
00:01:34,307 --> 00:01:36,992
that women are better
with language and grammar than men.

40
00:01:37,016 --> 00:01:39,447
Here's performance
on the standardized grammar test.

41
00:01:39,471 --> 00:01:41,171
There, the women. There go the men.

42
00:01:41,195 --> 00:01:43,145
Again, yes, women are better on average,

43
00:01:43,169 --> 00:01:44,416
but the lines are so close

44
00:01:44,440 --> 00:01:47,554
that 33 percent of men
are better than the average woman.

45
00:01:47,578 --> 00:01:49,122
And again, if it was 50 percent,

46
00:01:49,146 --> 00:01:51,923
that would represent
complete gender equality.

47
00:01:52,345 --> 00:01:54,424
So it's not really
a case of Mars and Venus.

48
00:01:54,448 --> 00:01:56,997
It's more a case of, if anything,
Mars and Snickers:

49
00:01:57,021 --> 00:02:00,686
basically the same, but one's maybe
slightly nuttier than the other.

50
00:02:00,710 --> 00:02:04,476
When making a cake, do you prefer
to use a recipe book with pictures?

51
00:02:05,272 --> 00:02:06,451
Yeah, a few people.

52
00:02:06,475 --> 00:02:08,233
Have a friend talk you through?

53
00:02:08,984 --> 00:02:11,266
Or have a go, making it up
as you go along?

54
00:02:12,052 --> 00:02:13,276
Quite a few people there.

55
00:02:13,300 --> 00:02:14,828
OK, so if you said A,

56
00:02:14,852 --> 00:02:17,339
then this means
that you're a visual learner,

57
00:02:17,363 --> 00:02:20,634
and you learn best when information
is presented in a visual style.

58
00:02:20,658 --> 00:02:23,308
If you said B, it means
you're an auditory learner,

59
00:02:23,332 --> 00:02:27,106
that you learn best when information
is presented to you in an auditory format.

60
00:02:27,130 --> 00:02:30,037
And if you said C, it means
that you're a kinesthetic learner,

61
00:02:30,061 --> 00:02:33,450
that you learn best when you get stuck in
and do things with your hands.

62
00:02:33,474 --> 00:02:35,658
Except, of course,
as you've probably guessed,

63
00:02:35,682 --> 00:02:38,496
that it doesn't, because
the whole thing is a complete myth.

64
00:02:38,520 --> 00:02:42,258
Learning styles are made up and are not
supported by scientific evidence.

65
00:02:42,282 --> 00:02:45,702
We know this because in tightly
controlled experimental studies

66
00:02:45,726 --> 00:02:47,896
when learners are given material to learn,

67
00:02:47,920 --> 00:02:50,549
either in their preferred style
or an opposite style,

68
00:02:50,573 --> 00:02:54,238
it makes no difference at all
to the amount of information they retain.

69
00:02:54,262 --> 00:02:56,328
And if you think about it
for just a second,

70
00:02:56,352 --> 00:02:58,178
it's obvious that this has to be true.

71
00:02:58,202 --> 00:03:02,609
It's obvious that the best presentation
format depends not on you,

72
00:03:02,633 --> 00:03:04,323
but on what you're trying to learn.

73
00:03:04,347 --> 00:03:07,803
Could you learn to drive a car,
for example, just by listening to someone

74
00:03:07,827 --> 00:03:08,999
telling you what to do,

75
00:03:09,023 --> 00:03:10,508
with no kinesthetic experience?

76
00:03:10,532 --> 00:03:14,157
Could you solve simultaneous equations
by talking them through in your head,

77
00:03:14,181 --> 00:03:15,454
without writing them down?

78
00:03:15,478 --> 00:03:18,757
Could you revise for your architecture
exams using interpretive dance

79
00:03:18,781 --> 00:03:20,328
if you're a kinesthetic learner?

80
00:03:20,352 --> 00:03:23,147
No; what you need to do is match
the material to be learned

81
00:03:23,171 --> 00:03:24,478
to the presentation format,

82
00:03:24,502 --> 00:03:25,819
not you.

83
00:03:26,981 --> 00:03:28,900
I know many of you are A-level students

84
00:03:28,924 --> 00:03:31,215
that will have recently gotten
your GCSE results.

85
00:03:31,239 --> 00:03:33,716
And if you didn't quite get
what you were hoping for,

86
00:03:33,740 --> 00:03:36,032
then you can't really blame
your learning style.

87
00:03:36,056 --> 00:03:39,491
But one thing that you might want
to think about blaming is your genes.

88
00:03:39,515 --> 00:03:43,414
So what this is all about is that a recent
study at University College London

89
00:03:43,438 --> 00:03:47,567
found that 58 percent of the variation
between different students

90
00:03:47,591 --> 00:03:49,112
and their GCSE results

91
00:03:49,136 --> 00:03:50,890
was down to genetic factors.

92
00:03:50,914 --> 00:03:54,211
That sounds like a very precise figure.
So how can we tell?

93
00:03:54,235 --> 00:03:57,457
Well, when we want to unpack
the relative contributions

94
00:03:57,481 --> 00:03:59,581
of genes and the environment,

95
00:03:59,605 --> 00:04:01,612
what we can do is a twin study.

96
00:04:01,636 --> 00:04:05,315
Identical twins share
100 percent of their environment

97
00:04:05,339 --> 00:04:07,386
and 100 percent of their genes,

98
00:04:07,410 --> 00:04:10,856
whereas nonidentical twins
share 100 percent of their environment,

99
00:04:10,880 --> 00:04:14,430
but just like any brother and sister,
share only 50 percent of their genes.

100
00:04:14,454 --> 00:04:18,745
So by comparing how similar
GCSE results are in identical twins

101
00:04:18,769 --> 00:04:20,840
versus nonidentical twins

102
00:04:20,864 --> 00:04:22,240
and doing some clever maths,

103
00:04:22,264 --> 00:04:26,235
we can get an idea of how much variation
in performance is due to the environment,

104
00:04:26,259 --> 00:04:27,942
and how much is due to genes.

105
00:04:27,966 --> 00:04:31,390
And it turns out that it's about
58 percent due to genes.

106
00:04:31,897 --> 00:04:35,909
This isn't to undermine the hard work
that you and your teachers here put in.

107
00:04:35,933 --> 00:04:39,072
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results
that you were hoping for,

108
00:04:39,096 --> 00:04:41,218
then you can always try
blaming your parents,

109
00:04:41,242 --> 00:04:42,828
or at least their genes.

110
00:04:43,392 --> 00:04:45,037
One thing that you shouldn't blame

111
00:04:45,061 --> 00:04:47,609
is being a left-brained
or right-brained learner,

112
00:04:47,633 --> 00:04:49,569
because again, this is a myth.

113
00:04:49,593 --> 00:04:52,860
The myth here is that
the left brain is logical,

114
00:04:52,884 --> 00:04:54,573
it's good with equations like this,

115
00:04:54,597 --> 00:04:58,229
and the right brain is more creative,
so the right brain is better at music.

116
00:04:58,253 --> 00:04:59,513
But again, this is a myth,

117
00:04:59,537 --> 00:05:01,068
because nearly everything you do

118
00:05:01,092 --> 00:05:03,816
involves nearly all parts
of your brain talking together,

119
00:05:03,840 --> 00:05:07,136
even just the most mundane thing
like having a normal conversation.

120
00:05:07,692 --> 00:05:10,569
However, perhaps one reason
why this myth has survived

121
00:05:10,593 --> 00:05:12,961
is that there is
a slight grain of truth to it.

122
00:05:12,985 --> 00:05:16,720
A related version of the myth is that
left-handed people are more creative

123
00:05:16,744 --> 00:05:17,993
than right-handed people,

124
00:05:18,017 --> 00:05:21,450
which kind of makes sense because
your brain controls the opposite hand.

125
00:05:21,474 --> 00:05:25,163
So in left-handed people, the right side
of the brain is slightly more active

126
00:05:25,187 --> 00:05:26,985
than the left side of the brain,

127
00:05:27,009 --> 00:05:29,515
and the idea is the right-hand side
is more creative.

128
00:05:29,539 --> 00:05:32,765
Now, it isn't true per se
that left-handed people are more creative

129
00:05:32,789 --> 00:05:34,040
than right-handed people.

130
00:05:34,064 --> 00:05:36,354
But what is true is that
ambidextrous people,

131
00:05:36,378 --> 00:05:39,040
or people who use both hands
for different tasks,

132
00:05:39,064 --> 00:05:42,819
are more creative thinkers
than one-handed people,

133
00:05:42,843 --> 00:05:44,610
because being ambidextrous involves

134
00:05:44,634 --> 00:05:47,326
having both sides of the brain
talk to each other a lot,

135
00:05:47,350 --> 00:05:51,214
which seems to be involved
in creative and flexible thinking.

136
00:05:51,238 --> 00:05:54,007
The myth of the creative left-hander
arises from the fact

137
00:05:54,031 --> 00:05:56,831
that being ambidextrous
is more common amongst left-handers

138
00:05:56,855 --> 00:05:58,010
than right-handers,

139
00:05:58,034 --> 00:06:01,140
so a grain of truth in the idea
of the creative left-hander,

140
00:06:01,164 --> 00:06:02,427
but not much.

141
00:06:02,967 --> 00:06:05,058
A related myth that you've
probably heard of

142
00:06:05,082 --> 00:06:07,374
is that we only use
10 percent of our brains.

143
00:06:07,398 --> 00:06:08,974
This is, again, a complete myth.

144
00:06:08,998 --> 00:06:11,738
Nearly everything that we do,
even the most mundane thing,

145
00:06:11,762 --> 00:06:13,614
uses nearly all of our brains.

146
00:06:15,074 --> 00:06:17,234
That said, it is of course true

147
00:06:17,258 --> 00:06:21,814
that most of us don't use our brainpower
quite as well as we could.

148
00:06:22,273 --> 00:06:24,728
So what could we do
to boost our brainpower?

149
00:06:24,752 --> 00:06:27,007
Maybe we could listen
to a nice bit of Mozart.

150
00:06:27,031 --> 00:06:29,636
Have you heard of the idea
of the Mozart effect?

151
00:06:29,660 --> 00:06:32,593
The idea is that listening
to Mozart makes you smarter

152
00:06:32,617 --> 00:06:35,177
and improves your performance on IQ tests.

153
00:06:35,503 --> 00:06:37,612
Now again, what's interesting
about this myth

154
00:06:37,636 --> 00:06:41,048
is that although it's basically a myth,
there is a grain of truth to it.

155
00:06:41,072 --> 00:06:43,332
So the original study found that

156
00:06:43,356 --> 00:06:46,409
participants who were played
Mozart music for a few minutes

157
00:06:46,433 --> 00:06:48,400
did better on a subsequent IQ test

158
00:06:48,424 --> 00:06:51,575
than participants who simply
sat in silence.

159
00:06:52,026 --> 00:06:55,636
But a follow-up study recruited
some people who liked Mozart music

160
00:06:55,660 --> 00:06:57,217
and then another group of people

161
00:06:57,241 --> 00:06:59,748
who were fans of
the horror stories of Stephen King.

162
00:06:59,772 --> 00:07:03,491
And they played the people
the music or the stories.

163
00:07:03,515 --> 00:07:06,000
The people who preferred
Mozart music to the stories

164
00:07:06,024 --> 00:07:08,807
got a bigger IQ boost
from the Mozart than the stories,

165
00:07:08,831 --> 00:07:11,668
but the people who preferred
the stories to the Mozart music

166
00:07:11,692 --> 00:07:14,826
got a bigger IQ boost
from listening to the Stephen King stories

167
00:07:14,850 --> 00:07:16,036
than the Mozart music.

168
00:07:16,060 --> 00:07:18,808
So the truth is that listening
to something that you enjoy

169
00:07:18,832 --> 00:07:21,973
perks you up a bit
and gives you a temporary IQ boost

170
00:07:21,997 --> 00:07:23,652
on a narrow range of tasks.

171
00:07:23,676 --> 00:07:26,020
There's no suggestion that
listening to Mozart,

172
00:07:26,044 --> 00:07:27,645
or indeed Stephen King stories,

173
00:07:27,669 --> 00:07:30,755
is going to make you any smarter
in the long run.

174
00:07:31,619 --> 00:07:33,913
Another version of the Mozart myth

175
00:07:33,937 --> 00:07:38,986
is that listening to Mozart can make you
not only cleverer but healthier, too.

176
00:07:39,501 --> 00:07:41,565
Unfortunately, this doesn't
seem to be true

177
00:07:41,589 --> 00:07:44,610
of someone who listened
to the music of Mozart almost every day,

178
00:07:44,634 --> 00:07:45,796
Mozart himself,

179
00:07:45,820 --> 00:07:48,975
who suffered from gonorrhea,
smallpox, arthritis,

180
00:07:48,999 --> 00:07:53,065
and, what most people think eventually
killed him in the end, syphilis.

181
00:07:53,851 --> 00:07:57,246
This suggests that Mozart should have been
a bit more careful, perhaps,

182
00:07:57,270 --> 00:07:59,416
when choosing his sexual partners.

183
00:07:59,440 --> 00:08:01,313
But how do we choose a partner?

184
00:08:01,337 --> 00:08:06,596
So a myth that I have to say
is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

185
00:08:06,620 --> 00:08:10,164
is that our preferences in a romantic
partner are a product of our culture,

186
00:08:10,188 --> 00:08:12,051
that they're very culturally specific.

187
00:08:12,075 --> 00:08:14,326
But in fact, the data don't back this up.

188
00:08:14,350 --> 00:08:18,401
A famous study surveyed people from
[37] different cultures across the globe

189
00:08:18,425 --> 00:08:19,840
from Americans to Zulus,

190
00:08:19,864 --> 00:08:21,896
on what they look for in a partner.

191
00:08:22,269 --> 00:08:24,445
And in every single culture
across the globe,

192
00:08:24,469 --> 00:08:28,346
men placed more value
on physical attractiveness in a partner

193
00:08:28,370 --> 00:08:29,536
than did women,

194
00:08:29,560 --> 00:08:31,149
and in every single culture, too,

195
00:08:31,173 --> 00:08:35,995
women placed more importance than did men
on ambition and high earning power.

196
00:08:36,019 --> 00:08:37,257
In every culture, too,

197
00:08:37,281 --> 00:08:39,796
men preferred women
who were younger than themselves,

198
00:08:39,820 --> 00:08:42,817
an average of, I think it was 2.66 years.

199
00:08:42,841 --> 00:08:44,290
And in every culture, too,

200
00:08:44,314 --> 00:08:46,899
women preferred men
who were older than them,

201
00:08:46,923 --> 00:08:49,666
so an average of 3.42 years,

202
00:08:49,690 --> 00:08:52,803
which is why we've got here,
"Everybody needs a Sugar Daddy."

203
00:08:52,827 --> 00:08:53,827
(Laughter)

204
00:08:53,851 --> 00:08:56,150
So moving on from trying
to score with a partner

205
00:08:56,174 --> 00:08:59,837
to trying to score in basketball
or football or whatever your sport is.

206
00:08:59,861 --> 00:09:03,993
The myth here is that sportsmen go through
"hot hand" streaks, Americans call them,

207
00:09:04,017 --> 00:09:06,321
or "purple patches,"
we sometimes say in England,

208
00:09:06,345 --> 00:09:08,853
where they just can't miss,
like this guy here.

209
00:09:08,877 --> 00:09:12,763
But in fact, what happens is that
if you analyze the pattern

210
00:09:12,787 --> 00:09:14,406
of hits and misses statistically,

211
00:09:14,430 --> 00:09:16,861
it turns out that it's
nearly always at random.

212
00:09:16,885 --> 00:09:19,230
Your brain creates patterns
from the randomness.

213
00:09:19,254 --> 00:09:20,770
If you toss a coin,

214
00:09:20,794 --> 00:09:24,593
a streak of heads or tails is going
to come out somewhere in the randomness,

215
00:09:24,617 --> 00:09:27,750
and because the brain likes to see
patterns where there are none,

216
00:09:27,774 --> 00:09:30,365
we look at these streaks
and attribute meaning to them

217
00:09:30,389 --> 00:09:32,414
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

218
00:09:32,438 --> 00:09:34,670
whereas actually you would
get the same pattern

219
00:09:34,694 --> 00:09:37,111
if you were just getting
hits and misses at random.

220
00:09:38,591 --> 00:09:41,745
An exception to this, however,
is penalty shootouts.

221
00:09:41,769 --> 00:09:44,690
A recent study looking at
penalty shootouts in football

222
00:09:44,714 --> 00:09:46,808
showed that players
who represent countries

223
00:09:46,832 --> 00:09:49,142
with a very bad record
in penalty shootouts,

224
00:09:49,166 --> 00:09:51,325
like, for example, England,

225
00:09:51,349 --> 00:09:55,236
tend to be quicker to take their shots
than countries with a better record,

226
00:09:55,260 --> 00:09:58,505
and presumably as a result,
they're more likely to miss.

227
00:09:58,894 --> 00:10:00,710
Which raises the question

228
00:10:00,734 --> 00:10:03,763
of if there's any way we could improve
people's performance.

229
00:10:03,787 --> 00:10:05,763
And one thing you might think about doing

230
00:10:05,787 --> 00:10:09,172
is punishing people for their misses
and seeing if that improves them.

231
00:10:09,196 --> 00:10:12,735
This idea, the effect that punishment
can improve performance,

232
00:10:12,759 --> 00:10:14,971
was what participants
thought they were testing

233
00:10:14,995 --> 00:10:17,595
in Milgram's famous learning
and punishment experiment

234
00:10:17,619 --> 00:10:20,627
that you've probably heard about
if you're a psychology student.

235
00:10:20,651 --> 00:10:23,194
The story goes that participants
were prepared to give

236
00:10:23,218 --> 00:10:26,514
what they believed to be fatal
electric shocks to a fellow participant

237
00:10:26,538 --> 00:10:28,575
when they got a question wrong,

238
00:10:28,599 --> 00:10:31,330
just because someone
in a white coat told them to.

239
00:10:31,354 --> 00:10:33,653
But this story is a myth
for three reasons.

240
00:10:33,677 --> 00:10:38,557
Firstly, and most crucially, the lab coat
wasn't white. It was, in fact, grey.

241
00:10:38,581 --> 00:10:43,318
Secondly, the participants
were told before the study

242
00:10:43,342 --> 00:10:45,685
and reminded any time
they raised a concern,

243
00:10:45,709 --> 00:10:48,428
that although the shocks were painful,
they were not fatal

244
00:10:48,452 --> 00:10:51,408
and indeed caused
no permanent damage whatsoever.

245
00:10:51,432 --> 00:10:53,798
And thirdly, participants
didn't give the shocks

246
00:10:53,822 --> 00:10:56,620
just because someone
in the coat told them to.

247
00:10:56,644 --> 00:10:58,649
When they were interviewed
after the study,

248
00:10:58,673 --> 00:11:01,080
all the participants said
that they firmly believed

249
00:11:01,104 --> 00:11:04,637
that the learning and punishment study
served a worthy scientific purpose

250
00:11:04,661 --> 00:11:06,786
which would have
enduring gains for science,

251
00:11:06,810 --> 00:11:12,953
as opposed to the momentary, nonfatal
discomfort caused to the participants.

252
00:11:13,929 --> 00:11:16,719
OK, so I've been talking
for about 12 minutes now,

253
00:11:16,743 --> 00:11:19,332
and you've probably been
sitting there listening to me,

254
00:11:19,356 --> 00:11:21,611
analyzing my speech patterns
and body language

255
00:11:21,635 --> 00:11:25,062
and trying to work out if you should
take any notice of what I'm saying,

256
00:11:25,086 --> 00:11:27,500
whether I'm telling the truth
or whether I'm lying.

257
00:11:27,524 --> 00:11:29,643
But if so, you've probably
completely failed,

258
00:11:29,667 --> 00:11:31,980
because although we all think
we can catch a liar

259
00:11:32,004 --> 00:11:34,182
from their body language
and speech patterns,

260
00:11:34,206 --> 00:11:37,646
hundreds of psychological tests
over the years have shown that all of us,

261
00:11:37,670 --> 00:11:39,649
including police officers and detectives,

262
00:11:39,673 --> 00:11:43,193
are basically at chance when it comes
to detecting lies from body language

263
00:11:43,217 --> 00:11:44,369
and verbal patterns.

264
00:11:44,393 --> 00:11:46,307
Interestingly, there is one exception:

265
00:11:46,331 --> 00:11:48,479
TV appeals for missing relatives.

266
00:11:48,503 --> 00:11:51,618
It's quite easy to predict
when the relatives are missing

267
00:11:51,642 --> 00:11:55,071
and when the appealers have, in fact,
murdered the relatives themselves.

268
00:11:55,095 --> 00:11:58,637
So hoax appealers are more likely
to shake their heads, to look away,

269
00:11:58,661 --> 00:12:00,364
and to make errors in their speech,

270
00:12:00,388 --> 00:12:03,069
whereas genuine appealers
are more likely to express hope

271
00:12:03,093 --> 00:12:04,733
that the person will return safely

272
00:12:04,757 --> 00:12:06,176
and to avoid brutal language.

273
00:12:06,200 --> 00:12:10,682
So, for example, they might say
"taken from us" rather than "killed."

274
00:12:11,076 --> 00:12:13,617
Speaking of which,
it's about time I killed this talk,

275
00:12:13,641 --> 00:12:16,593
but before I do, I just want
to give you, in 30 seconds,

276
00:12:16,617 --> 00:12:19,964
the overarching myth of psychology.

277
00:12:19,988 --> 00:12:24,642
The myth is that psychology is just
a collection of interesting theories,

278
00:12:24,666 --> 00:12:28,234
all of which say something useful
and all of which have something to offer.

279
00:12:28,258 --> 00:12:30,749
What I hope to have shown you
in the past few minutes

280
00:12:30,773 --> 00:12:32,064
is that this isn't true.

281
00:12:32,088 --> 00:12:35,481
What we need to do is assess
psychological theories

282
00:12:35,505 --> 00:12:37,311
by seeing what predictions they make,

283
00:12:37,335 --> 00:12:40,112
whether that is that listening to Mozart
makes you smarter,

284
00:12:40,136 --> 00:12:44,597
that you learn better when information is
presented in your preferred learning style

285
00:12:44,621 --> 00:12:45,796
or whatever it is,

286
00:12:45,820 --> 00:12:48,365
all of these are testable
empirical predictions,

287
00:12:48,389 --> 00:12:50,200
and the only way we can make progress

288
00:12:50,224 --> 00:12:52,326
is to test these predictions
against the data

289
00:12:52,350 --> 00:12:54,501
in tightly controlled
experimental studies.

290
00:12:54,525 --> 00:12:57,430
And it's only by doing so
that we can hope to discover

291
00:12:57,454 --> 00:13:00,054
which of these theories
are well supported,

292
00:13:00,078 --> 00:13:03,701
and which, like all the ones
I've told you about today, are myths.

293
00:13:03,725 --> 00:13:04,953
Thank you.

294
00:13:04,977 --> 00:13:08,437
(Applause)