WEBVTT

00:00:01.373 --> 00:00:04.031
You've heard of your IQ,
your general intelligence,

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

00:00:05.769 --> 00:00:07.975
How much do you know
about what makes you tick,

00:00:07.999 --> 00:00:10.758
and how good are you
at predicting other people's behavior

00:00:10.782 --> 00:00:12.027
or even your own?

00:00:12.051 --> 00:00:15.176
And how much of what you think you know
about psychology is wrong?

00:00:15.200 --> 00:00:18.550
Let's find out by counting down
the top myths of psychology.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:19.081 --> 00:00:22.462
You've probably heard it said
that when it comes to their psychology,

00:00:22.486 --> 00:00:25.420
it's almost as if men are from Mars
and women are from Venus.

00:00:25.444 --> 00:00:27.539
But how different
are men and women, really?

00:00:27.563 --> 00:00:29.822
To find out, let's start
by looking at something

00:00:29.846 --> 00:00:31.736
on which men and women really do differ

00:00:31.760 --> 00:00:35.037
and plotting some psychological
gender differences on the same scale.

00:00:35.061 --> 00:00:37.092
One thing men and women
do really differ on

00:00:37.116 --> 00:00:38.697
is how far they can throw a ball.

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

00:00:40.638 --> 00:00:43.105
we see what is called
a normal distribution curve.

00:00:43.129 --> 00:00:46.215
A few men can throw a ball really far,
a few men, not far at all,

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

00:00:48.065 --> 00:00:50.223
And women share
the same distribution as well,

00:00:50.247 --> 00:00:52.398
but actually, there's
quite a big difference.

00:00:52.422 --> 00:00:54.749
In fact, the average man
can throw a ball further

00:00:54.773 --> 00:00:56.596
than about 98 percent of all women.

NOTE Paragraph

00:00:56.620 --> 00:01:00.046
Now let's look at what some psychological
gender differences look like

00:01:00.070 --> 00:01:01.579
on the same standardized scale.

00:01:02.504 --> 00:01:04.066
Any psychologist will tell you

00:01:04.090 --> 00:01:06.661
that men are better
at spatial awareness than women --

00:01:06.685 --> 00:01:09.266
things like map-reading,
for example -- and it's true.

00:01:09.290 --> 00:01:11.793
But let's have a look
at the size of this difference.

00:01:11.817 --> 00:01:14.974
It's tiny; the lines are so close
together, they almost overlap.

00:01:14.998 --> 00:01:18.802
In fact, the average woman is better
than 33 percent of all men,

00:01:18.826 --> 00:01:20.938
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

00:01:20.962 --> 00:01:23.173
then the two genders
would be exactly equal.

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

00:01:27.316 --> 00:01:30.161
are pretty much the biggest
psychological gender differences

00:01:30.185 --> 00:01:31.628
ever discovered in psychology.

NOTE Paragraph

00:01:31.652 --> 00:01:32.804
Here's the next one.

00:01:32.828 --> 00:01:34.283
Any psychologist will tell you

00:01:34.307 --> 00:01:36.992
that women are better
with language and grammar than men.

00:01:37.016 --> 00:01:39.447
Here's performance
on the standardized grammar test.

00:01:39.471 --> 00:01:41.171
There, the women. There go the men.

00:01:41.195 --> 00:01:43.145
Again, yes, women are better on average,

00:01:43.169 --> 00:01:44.416
but the lines are so close

00:01:44.440 --> 00:01:47.554
that 33 percent of men
are better than the average woman.

00:01:47.578 --> 00:01:49.122
And again, if it was 50 percent,

00:01:49.146 --> 00:01:51.923
that would represent
complete gender equality.

00:01:52.345 --> 00:01:54.424
So it's not really
a case of Mars and Venus.

00:01:54.448 --> 00:01:56.997
It's more a case of, if anything,
Mars and Snickers:

00:01:57.021 --> 00:02:00.686
basically the same, but one's maybe
slightly nuttier than the other.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:00.710 --> 00:02:04.476
When making a cake, do you prefer
to use a recipe book with pictures?

00:02:05.272 --> 00:02:06.451
Yeah, a few people.

00:02:06.475 --> 00:02:08.233
Have a friend talk you through?

00:02:08.984 --> 00:02:11.266
Or have a go, making it up
as you go along?

00:02:12.052 --> 00:02:13.276
Quite a few people there.

00:02:13.300 --> 00:02:14.828
OK, so if you said A,

00:02:14.852 --> 00:02:17.339
then this means
that you're a visual learner,

00:02:17.363 --> 00:02:20.634
and you learn best when information
is presented in a visual style.

00:02:20.658 --> 00:02:23.308
If you said B, it means
you're an auditory learner,

00:02:23.332 --> 00:02:27.106
that you learn best when information
is presented to you in an auditory format.

00:02:27.130 --> 00:02:30.037
And if you said C, it means
that you're a kinesthetic learner,

00:02:30.061 --> 00:02:33.450
that you learn best when you get stuck in
and do things with your hands.

NOTE Paragraph

00:02:33.474 --> 00:02:35.658
Except, of course,
as you've probably guessed,

00:02:35.682 --> 00:02:38.496
that it doesn't, because
the whole thing is a complete myth.

00:02:38.520 --> 00:02:42.258
Learning styles are made up and are not
supported by scientific evidence.

00:02:42.282 --> 00:02:45.702
We know this because in tightly
controlled experimental studies

00:02:45.726 --> 00:02:47.896
when learners are given material to learn,

00:02:47.920 --> 00:02:50.549
either in their preferred style
or an opposite style,

00:02:50.573 --> 00:02:54.238
it makes no difference at all
to the amount of information they retain.

00:02:54.262 --> 00:02:56.328
And if you think about it
for just a second,

00:02:56.352 --> 00:02:58.178
it's obvious that this has to be true.

00:02:58.202 --> 00:03:02.609
It's obvious that the best presentation
format depends not on you,

00:03:02.633 --> 00:03:04.323
but on what you're trying to learn.

00:03:04.347 --> 00:03:07.803
Could you learn to drive a car,
for example, just by listening to someone

00:03:07.827 --> 00:03:08.999
telling you what to do,

00:03:09.023 --> 00:03:10.508
with no kinesthetic experience?

00:03:10.532 --> 00:03:14.157
Could you solve simultaneous equations
by talking them through in your head,

00:03:14.181 --> 00:03:15.454
without writing them down?

00:03:15.478 --> 00:03:18.757
Could you revise for your architecture
exams using interpretive dance

00:03:18.781 --> 00:03:20.328
if you're a kinesthetic learner?

00:03:20.352 --> 00:03:23.147
No; what you need to do is match
the material to be learned

00:03:23.171 --> 00:03:24.478
to the presentation format,

00:03:24.502 --> 00:03:25.819
not you.

NOTE Paragraph

00:03:26.981 --> 00:03:28.900
I know many of you are A-level students

00:03:28.924 --> 00:03:31.215
that will have recently gotten
your GCSE results.

00:03:31.239 --> 00:03:33.716
And if you didn't quite get
what you were hoping for,

00:03:33.740 --> 00:03:36.032
then you can't really blame
your learning style.

00:03:36.056 --> 00:03:39.491
But one thing that you might want
to think about blaming is your genes.

00:03:39.515 --> 00:03:43.414
So what this is all about is that a recent
study at University College London

00:03:43.438 --> 00:03:47.567
found that 58 percent of the variation
between different students

00:03:47.591 --> 00:03:49.112
and their GCSE results

00:03:49.136 --> 00:03:50.890
was down to genetic factors.

00:03:50.914 --> 00:03:54.211
That sounds like a very precise figure.
So how can we tell?

00:03:54.235 --> 00:03:57.457
Well, when we want to unpack
the relative contributions

00:03:57.481 --> 00:03:59.581
of genes and the environment,

00:03:59.605 --> 00:04:01.612
what we can do is a twin study.

00:04:01.636 --> 00:04:05.315
Identical twins share
100 percent of their environment

00:04:05.339 --> 00:04:07.386
and 100 percent of their genes,

00:04:07.410 --> 00:04:10.856
whereas nonidentical twins
share 100 percent of their environment,

00:04:10.880 --> 00:04:14.430
but just like any brother and sister,
share only 50 percent of their genes.

00:04:14.454 --> 00:04:18.745
So by comparing how similar
GCSE results are in identical twins

00:04:18.769 --> 00:04:20.840
versus nonidentical twins

00:04:20.864 --> 00:04:22.240
and doing some clever maths,

00:04:22.264 --> 00:04:26.235
we can get an idea of how much variation
in performance is due to the environment,

00:04:26.259 --> 00:04:27.942
and how much is due to genes.

00:04:27.966 --> 00:04:31.390
And it turns out that it's about
58 percent due to genes.

00:04:31.897 --> 00:04:35.909
This isn't to undermine the hard work
that you and your teachers here put in.

00:04:35.933 --> 00:04:39.072
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results
that you were hoping for,

00:04:39.096 --> 00:04:41.218
then you can always try
blaming your parents,

00:04:41.242 --> 00:04:42.828
or at least their genes.

NOTE Paragraph

00:04:43.392 --> 00:04:45.037
One thing that you shouldn't blame

00:04:45.061 --> 00:04:47.609
is being a left-brained
or right-brained learner,

00:04:47.633 --> 00:04:49.569
because again, this is a myth.

00:04:49.593 --> 00:04:52.860
The myth here is that
the left brain is logical,

00:04:52.884 --> 00:04:54.573
it's good with equations like this,

00:04:54.597 --> 00:04:58.229
and the right brain is more creative,
so the right brain is better at music.

00:04:58.253 --> 00:04:59.513
But again, this is a myth,

00:04:59.537 --> 00:05:01.068
because nearly everything you do

00:05:01.092 --> 00:05:03.816
involves nearly all parts
of your brain talking together,

00:05:03.840 --> 00:05:07.136
even just the most mundane thing
like having a normal conversation.

00:05:07.692 --> 00:05:10.569
However, perhaps one reason
why this myth has survived

00:05:10.593 --> 00:05:12.961
is that there is
a slight grain of truth to it.

00:05:12.985 --> 00:05:16.720
A related version of the myth is that
left-handed people are more creative

00:05:16.744 --> 00:05:17.993
than right-handed people,

00:05:18.017 --> 00:05:21.450
which kind of makes sense because
your brain controls the opposite hand.

00:05:21.474 --> 00:05:25.163
So in left-handed people, the right side
of the brain is slightly more active

00:05:25.187 --> 00:05:26.985
than the left side of the brain,

00:05:27.009 --> 00:05:29.515
and the idea is the right-hand side
is more creative.

00:05:29.539 --> 00:05:32.765
Now, it isn't true per se
that left-handed people are more creative

00:05:32.789 --> 00:05:34.040
than right-handed people.

00:05:34.064 --> 00:05:36.354
But what is true is that
ambidextrous people,

00:05:36.378 --> 00:05:39.040
or people who use both hands
for different tasks,

00:05:39.064 --> 00:05:42.819
are more creative thinkers
than one-handed people,

00:05:42.843 --> 00:05:44.610
because being ambidextrous involves

00:05:44.634 --> 00:05:47.326
having both sides of the brain
talk to each other a lot,

00:05:47.350 --> 00:05:51.214
which seems to be involved
in creative and flexible thinking.

00:05:51.238 --> 00:05:54.007
The myth of the creative left-hander
arises from the fact

00:05:54.031 --> 00:05:56.831
that being ambidextrous
is more common amongst left-handers

00:05:56.855 --> 00:05:58.010
than right-handers,

00:05:58.034 --> 00:06:01.140
so a grain of truth in the idea
of the creative left-hander,

00:06:01.164 --> 00:06:02.427
but not much.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:02.967 --> 00:06:05.058
A related myth that you've
probably heard of

00:06:05.082 --> 00:06:07.374
is that we only use
10 percent of our brains.

00:06:07.398 --> 00:06:08.974
This is, again, a complete myth.

00:06:08.998 --> 00:06:11.738
Nearly everything that we do,
even the most mundane thing,

00:06:11.762 --> 00:06:13.614
uses nearly all of our brains.

NOTE Paragraph

00:06:15.074 --> 00:06:17.234
That said, it is of course true

00:06:17.258 --> 00:06:21.814
that most of us don't use our brainpower
quite as well as we could.

00:06:22.273 --> 00:06:24.728
So what could we do
to boost our brainpower?

00:06:24.752 --> 00:06:27.007
Maybe we could listen
to a nice bit of Mozart.

00:06:27.031 --> 00:06:29.636
Have you heard of the idea
of the Mozart effect?

00:06:29.660 --> 00:06:32.593
The idea is that listening
to Mozart makes you smarter

00:06:32.617 --> 00:06:35.177
and improves your performance on IQ tests.

00:06:35.503 --> 00:06:37.612
Now again, what's interesting
about this myth

00:06:37.636 --> 00:06:41.048
is that although it's basically a myth,
there is a grain of truth to it.

00:06:41.072 --> 00:06:43.332
So the original study found that

00:06:43.356 --> 00:06:46.409
participants who were played
Mozart music for a few minutes

00:06:46.433 --> 00:06:48.400
did better on a subsequent IQ test

00:06:48.424 --> 00:06:51.575
than participants who simply
sat in silence.

00:06:52.026 --> 00:06:55.636
But a follow-up study recruited
some people who liked Mozart music

00:06:55.660 --> 00:06:57.217
and then another group of people

00:06:57.241 --> 00:06:59.748
who were fans of
the horror stories of Stephen King.

00:06:59.772 --> 00:07:03.491
And they played the people
the music or the stories.

00:07:03.515 --> 00:07:06.000
The people who preferred
Mozart music to the stories

00:07:06.024 --> 00:07:08.807
got a bigger IQ boost
from the Mozart than the stories,

00:07:08.831 --> 00:07:11.668
but the people who preferred
the stories to the Mozart music

00:07:11.692 --> 00:07:14.826
got a bigger IQ boost
from listening to the Stephen King stories

00:07:14.850 --> 00:07:16.036
than the Mozart music.

00:07:16.060 --> 00:07:18.808
So the truth is that listening
to something that you enjoy

00:07:18.832 --> 00:07:21.973
perks you up a bit
and gives you a temporary IQ boost

00:07:21.997 --> 00:07:23.652
on a narrow range of tasks.

00:07:23.676 --> 00:07:26.020
There's no suggestion that
listening to Mozart,

00:07:26.044 --> 00:07:27.645
or indeed Stephen King stories,

00:07:27.669 --> 00:07:30.755
is going to make you any smarter
in the long run.

NOTE Paragraph

00:07:31.619 --> 00:07:33.913
Another version of the Mozart myth

00:07:33.937 --> 00:07:38.986
is that listening to Mozart can make you
not only cleverer but healthier, too.

00:07:39.501 --> 00:07:41.565
Unfortunately, this doesn't
seem to be true

00:07:41.589 --> 00:07:44.610
of someone who listened
to the music of Mozart almost every day,

00:07:44.634 --> 00:07:45.796
Mozart himself,

00:07:45.820 --> 00:07:48.975
who suffered from gonorrhea,
smallpox, arthritis,

00:07:48.999 --> 00:07:53.065
and, what most people think eventually
killed him in the end, syphilis.

00:07:53.851 --> 00:07:57.246
This suggests that Mozart should have been
a bit more careful, perhaps,

00:07:57.270 --> 00:07:59.416
when choosing his sexual partners.

00:07:59.440 --> 00:08:01.313
But how do we choose a partner?

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:01.337 --> 00:08:06.596
So a myth that I have to say
is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

00:08:06.620 --> 00:08:10.164
is that our preferences in a romantic
partner are a product of our culture,

00:08:10.188 --> 00:08:12.051
that they're very culturally specific.

00:08:12.075 --> 00:08:14.326
But in fact, the data don't back this up.

00:08:14.350 --> 00:08:18.401
A famous study surveyed people from
[37] different cultures across the globe

00:08:18.425 --> 00:08:19.840
from Americans to Zulus,

00:08:19.864 --> 00:08:21.896
on what they look for in a partner.

00:08:22.269 --> 00:08:24.445
And in every single culture
across the globe,

00:08:24.469 --> 00:08:28.346
men placed more value
on physical attractiveness in a partner

00:08:28.370 --> 00:08:29.536
than did women,

00:08:29.560 --> 00:08:31.149
and in every single culture, too,

00:08:31.173 --> 00:08:35.995
women placed more importance than did men
on ambition and high earning power.

00:08:36.019 --> 00:08:37.257
In every culture, too,

00:08:37.281 --> 00:08:39.796
men preferred women
who were younger than themselves,

00:08:39.820 --> 00:08:42.817
an average of, I think it was 2.66 years.

00:08:42.841 --> 00:08:44.290
And in every culture, too,

00:08:44.314 --> 00:08:46.899
women preferred men
who were older than them,

00:08:46.923 --> 00:08:49.666
so an average of 3.42 years,

00:08:49.690 --> 00:08:52.803
which is why we've got here,
"Everybody needs a Sugar Daddy."

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:52.827 --> 00:08:53.827
(Laughter)

NOTE Paragraph

00:08:53.851 --> 00:08:56.150
So moving on from trying
to score with a partner

00:08:56.174 --> 00:08:59.837
to trying to score in basketball
or football or whatever your sport is.

00:08:59.861 --> 00:09:03.993
The myth here is that sportsmen go through
"hot hand" streaks, Americans call them,

00:09:04.017 --> 00:09:06.321
or "purple patches,"
we sometimes say in England,

00:09:06.345 --> 00:09:08.853
where they just can't miss,
like this guy here.

00:09:08.877 --> 00:09:12.763
But in fact, what happens is that
if you analyze the pattern

00:09:12.787 --> 00:09:14.406
of hits and misses statistically,

00:09:14.430 --> 00:09:16.861
it turns out that it's
nearly always at random.

00:09:16.885 --> 00:09:19.230
Your brain creates patterns
from the randomness.

00:09:19.254 --> 00:09:20.770
If you toss a coin,

00:09:20.794 --> 00:09:24.593
a streak of heads or tails is going
to come out somewhere in the randomness,

00:09:24.617 --> 00:09:27.750
and because the brain likes to see
patterns where there are none,

00:09:27.774 --> 00:09:30.365
we look at these streaks
and attribute meaning to them

00:09:30.389 --> 00:09:32.414
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

00:09:32.438 --> 00:09:34.670
whereas actually you would
get the same pattern

00:09:34.694 --> 00:09:37.111
if you were just getting
hits and misses at random.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:38.591 --> 00:09:41.745
An exception to this, however,
is penalty shootouts.

00:09:41.769 --> 00:09:44.690
A recent study looking at
penalty shootouts in football

00:09:44.714 --> 00:09:46.808
showed that players
who represent countries

00:09:46.832 --> 00:09:49.142
with a very bad record
in penalty shootouts,

00:09:49.166 --> 00:09:51.325
like, for example, England,

00:09:51.349 --> 00:09:55.236
tend to be quicker to take their shots
than countries with a better record,

00:09:55.260 --> 00:09:58.505
and presumably as a result,
they're more likely to miss.

NOTE Paragraph

00:09:58.894 --> 00:10:00.710
Which raises the question

00:10:00.734 --> 00:10:03.763
of if there's any way we could improve
people's performance.

00:10:03.787 --> 00:10:05.763
And one thing you might think about doing

00:10:05.787 --> 00:10:09.172
is punishing people for their misses
and seeing if that improves them.

00:10:09.196 --> 00:10:12.735
This idea, the effect that punishment
can improve performance,

00:10:12.759 --> 00:10:14.971
was what participants
thought they were testing

00:10:14.995 --> 00:10:17.595
in Milgram's famous learning
and punishment experiment

00:10:17.619 --> 00:10:20.627
that you've probably heard about
if you're a psychology student.

00:10:20.651 --> 00:10:23.194
The story goes that participants
were prepared to give

00:10:23.218 --> 00:10:26.514
what they believed to be fatal
electric shocks to a fellow participant

00:10:26.538 --> 00:10:28.575
when they got a question wrong,

00:10:28.599 --> 00:10:31.330
just because someone
in a white coat told them to.

NOTE Paragraph

00:10:31.354 --> 00:10:33.653
But this story is a myth
for three reasons.

00:10:33.677 --> 00:10:38.557
Firstly, and most crucially, the lab coat
wasn't white. It was, in fact, grey.

00:10:38.581 --> 00:10:43.318
Secondly, the participants
were told before the study

00:10:43.342 --> 00:10:45.685
and reminded any time
they raised a concern,

00:10:45.709 --> 00:10:48.428
that although the shocks were painful,
they were not fatal

00:10:48.452 --> 00:10:51.408
and indeed caused
no permanent damage whatsoever.

00:10:51.432 --> 00:10:53.798
And thirdly, participants
didn't give the shocks

00:10:53.822 --> 00:10:56.620
just because someone
in the coat told them to.

00:10:56.644 --> 00:10:58.649
When they were interviewed
after the study,

00:10:58.673 --> 00:11:01.080
all the participants said
that they firmly believed

00:11:01.104 --> 00:11:04.637
that the learning and punishment study
served a worthy scientific purpose

00:11:04.661 --> 00:11:06.786
which would have
enduring gains for science,

00:11:06.810 --> 00:11:12.953
as opposed to the momentary, nonfatal
discomfort caused to the participants.

NOTE Paragraph

00:11:13.929 --> 00:11:16.719
OK, so I've been talking
for about 12 minutes now,

00:11:16.743 --> 00:11:19.332
and you've probably been
sitting there listening to me,

00:11:19.356 --> 00:11:21.611
analyzing my speech patterns
and body language

00:11:21.635 --> 00:11:25.062
and trying to work out if you should
take any notice of what I'm saying,

00:11:25.086 --> 00:11:27.500
whether I'm telling the truth
or whether I'm lying.

00:11:27.524 --> 00:11:29.643
But if so, you've probably
completely failed,

00:11:29.667 --> 00:11:31.980
because although we all think
we can catch a liar

00:11:32.004 --> 00:11:34.182
from their body language
and speech patterns,

00:11:34.206 --> 00:11:37.646
hundreds of psychological tests
over the years have shown that all of us,

00:11:37.670 --> 00:11:39.649
including police officers and detectives,

00:11:39.673 --> 00:11:43.193
are basically at chance when it comes
to detecting lies from body language

00:11:43.217 --> 00:11:44.369
and verbal patterns.

00:11:44.393 --> 00:11:46.307
Interestingly, there is one exception:

00:11:46.331 --> 00:11:48.479
TV appeals for missing relatives.

00:11:48.503 --> 00:11:51.618
It's quite easy to predict
when the relatives are missing

00:11:51.642 --> 00:11:55.071
and when the appealers have, in fact,
murdered the relatives themselves.

00:11:55.095 --> 00:11:58.637
So hoax appealers are more likely
to shake their heads, to look away,

00:11:58.661 --> 00:12:00.364
and to make errors in their speech,

00:12:00.388 --> 00:12:03.069
whereas genuine appealers
are more likely to express hope

00:12:03.093 --> 00:12:04.733
that the person will return safely

00:12:04.757 --> 00:12:06.176
and to avoid brutal language.

00:12:06.200 --> 00:12:10.682
So, for example, they might say
"taken from us" rather than "killed."

NOTE Paragraph

00:12:11.076 --> 00:12:13.617
Speaking of which,
it's about time I killed this talk,

00:12:13.641 --> 00:12:16.593
but before I do, I just want
to give you, in 30 seconds,

00:12:16.617 --> 00:12:19.964
the overarching myth of psychology.

00:12:19.988 --> 00:12:24.642
The myth is that psychology is just
a collection of interesting theories,

00:12:24.666 --> 00:12:28.234
all of which say something useful
and all of which have something to offer.

00:12:28.258 --> 00:12:30.749
What I hope to have shown you
in the past few minutes

00:12:30.773 --> 00:12:32.064
is that this isn't true.

00:12:32.088 --> 00:12:35.481
What we need to do is assess
psychological theories

00:12:35.505 --> 00:12:37.311
by seeing what predictions they make,

00:12:37.335 --> 00:12:40.112
whether that is that listening to Mozart
makes you smarter,

00:12:40.136 --> 00:12:44.597
that you learn better when information is
presented in your preferred learning style

00:12:44.621 --> 00:12:45.796
or whatever it is,

00:12:45.820 --> 00:12:48.365
all of these are testable
empirical predictions,

00:12:48.389 --> 00:12:50.200
and the only way we can make progress

00:12:50.224 --> 00:12:52.326
is to test these predictions
against the data

00:12:52.350 --> 00:12:54.501
in tightly controlled
experimental studies.

00:12:54.525 --> 00:12:57.430
And it's only by doing so
that we can hope to discover

00:12:57.454 --> 00:13:00.054
which of these theories
are well supported,

00:13:00.078 --> 00:13:03.701
and which, like all the ones
I've told you about today, are myths.

NOTE Paragraph

00:13:03.725 --> 00:13:04.953
Thank you.

NOTE Paragraph

00:13:04.977 --> 00:13:08.437
(Applause)