9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So you've heard of your IQ,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
your general intelligence,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but what's your Psy-Q?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
How much do you know[br]about what makes you tick,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and how good are you[br]at predicting other peoples' behavior

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
or even your own?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And how much about what you think[br]you know about psychology is wrong?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So let's find out by counting down[br]the top 10 myths of psychology.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So you've probably heard it said[br]that when it comes to their psychology,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it's almost as if men are from Mars[br]and women are from Venus.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But how different[br]are men and women really?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So to find out, let's start by looking[br]at something on which men and women

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
really do differ

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and plotting some psychological[br]gender differences on the same scale.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So one thing that men and women

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
do really differ on is how far[br]they can throw a ball.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So if we look at the data for men here,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
we see what is called[br]a normal distribution curve.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
A few men can throw a ball really far,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and a few men not far at all,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but most a kind of average difference.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And women share[br]the same distribution as well,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but actually there's[br]quite a big difference.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In fact, the average man[br]can throw a ball further

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
than about 98 percent of all women.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So now let's look at what[br]some psychological gender differences

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
look like on the same standardized scale.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So any psychologist will tell you[br]that men are better

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
at spacial awareness than women,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so things like map-reading, for example,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and it's true,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but let's have a look[br]at the size of this difference.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's tiny: the lines are so close together[br]that they almost overlap.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In fact, the average woman is better[br]than 33 percent of all men,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
then the two genders[br]would be exactly equal.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And it's worth bearing in mind[br]that this difference

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the next one I'm going to show you

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
are pretty much the biggest[br]psychological gender differences

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
ever discovered in psychology.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So here's the next one.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Any psychologist will tell you[br]that women are better

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
with language and grammar than men.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So here's performance[br]on the standardized grammar test.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There go the women. There go to the men.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Again, yes, women are better on average,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but the lines are so close

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that 33 percent of men

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
are better than the average woman,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and again, if it was 50 percent,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that would represent[br]complete gender equality.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So it's not really[br]a case of Mars and Venus.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's more a case of, if anything,[br]Mars and Snickers:

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
basically the same, but, you know,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
one's maybe slightly[br]nuttier than the other.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I won't say which.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Right. Now we've got you warmed up.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Let's psychoanalyze you using[br]the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So you can probably see two, I dunno,[br]two bears or two people or something.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But what do you think they're doing?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Put your hand up if you think[br]they're saying hello.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Not many people. Okay.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Put your hands up if you think[br]they are high-fiving.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Only a few people there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Okay, so if you think they're[br]saying hello or high-fiving,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
then that means you're a friendly person.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you think they're fighting,[br]that means you're a bit more

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
of a nasty, aggressive person.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
All right, what about this one?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This isn't really a voting one,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so on three, everyone[br]shout out what you see.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
One, two, three.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That was very worrying.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
A guy there said hamster.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Well, you should see[br]some kind of two-legged animal here,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and then the mirror image of them there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you didn't, then this means[br]that you have difficulty

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
processing complex situations

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
where there's a lot going on.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Except, of course,[br]it doesn't mean that at all.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Rorschach inkblot tests[br]have basically no validity

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
when it comes to diagnosing[br]people's personality

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and are not used[br]by modern-day psychologists.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In fact, one recent study found

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that when you do try[br]to diagnose people's personality[br]

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
using Rorschach inkblot tests,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
schizophrenia was diagnosed

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in about one sixth of apparently[br]perfectly normal participants.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So if you didn't do that well on this,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
maybe you are not[br]a very visual type of person.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So let's do another[br]quick quiz to find out.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
When making a cake, do you prefer to

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
-- so hands up for each one again --

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
do you prefer to use[br]a recipe book with pictures?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Yeah, a few people.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Have a friend talk you through?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Or have a go, making it up[br]as you go along?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Quite a few people there.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Okay, so if you said a,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
then this means that you[br]are a visual learner

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and you learn best when information

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is presented in a visual style.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you said b, it means[br]you're an auditory learner,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that you learn best when information[br]is presented to you in an auditory format,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and if you said c,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it means that you're[br]a kinesthetic learner,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that you learn best when you get stuck in

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and do things with your hands.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Except, of course,[br]as you've probably guessed,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that it doesn't, because[br]the whole thing is a complete myth.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Learning styles are made up

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and are not supported[br]by scientific evidence.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So we know this because in[br]tightly controlled experimental studies,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
when learners are given material to learn

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
either in their preferred style[br]or an opposite style,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it makes no difference at all

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to the amount of information[br]that they retain.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And if you think about it[br]for just a second,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it's just obvious[br]that this has to be true.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's obvious that[br]the best presentation format

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
depends not on you,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but on what you're trying to learn.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Could you learn to drive a car,[br]for example,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
just by listening to someone[br]telling you what to do

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
with no kinesthetic experience?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Could you solve simultaneous equations

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
by talking them through in your head[br]and without writing them down?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Could you ?? for your architecture exams

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
using interpretive dance[br]if you're a kinesthetic learner?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
No. What you need to do is match

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the material to be learned[br]to the presentation format,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
not you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, I know many of you[br]are A-level students

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that will have recently gotten[br]your ???? results.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And if you didn't quite get[br]what you were hoping for,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
then you can't really blame[br]your learning style,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but one thing that you might want[br]to think about blaming is your genes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So what this is all about

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is a recent study[br]at University College London

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
found that 58 percent of the variation

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
between different students[br]and their ??? results

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
was down to genetic factors.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So that sounds a very precise figure,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so how can we tell?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Well, when we want to unpack[br]the relative contributions

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
of genes and the environment,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
what we can do is do a twin study.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So identical twins share[br]100 percent of their environment

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and 100 percent of their genes,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
whereas non-identical twins[br]share 100 percent of their environment,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but just like any brother and sister,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
share only 50 percent of their genes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So by comparing how similar[br]??? results are in identical twins

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
versus non-identical twins,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and doing some clever math,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
we can an idea of how much variation[br]and performance is due to the environment

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and how much is due to genes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And it turns out that it's[br]about 58 percent due to genes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So this isn't to undermine the hard work[br]that you and your teachers here put in.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
If you didn't quite get the ??? results[br]that you were hoping for,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
then you can always try blaming[br]your parents, or at least their genes.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
One thing that you shouldn't blame

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is being a left brained[br]or right brained learner,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because again, this is a myth.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So the myth here is that[br]the left brain is logical,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it's good with equations like this,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the right brain is more creative,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so the right brain is better at music.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But again, this is a myth[br]because nearly everything that you do

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
involves nearly all parts[br]of your brain talking together,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
even just the most mundane thing[br]like having a normal conversation.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
However, perhaps one reason[br]why this myth has survived

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is that there is[br]a slight grain of truth to it.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So a related version of the myth

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is that left-handed people are[br]more creative than right-handed people,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
which kind of makes sense because[br]your brain controls the opposite hands,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so left-handed people,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the right side of the brain[br]is slightly more active

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
than the left hand side of the brain,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the idea is the right-hand side[br]is more creative.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now, it isn't true per se

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that left-handed people are more creative[br]than right-handed people.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What is true that ambidextrous people,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
or people who use both hands[br]for different tasks,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
are more creative thinkers[br]than one-handed people,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because being ambidextrous involves

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
having both sides of the brain[br]talk to each other a lot,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
which seems to be involved[br]in creating flexible thinking.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The myth of the creative left-hander

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
arises from the fact[br]that being ambidextrous

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is more common amongst left-handers

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
than right handers,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so a grain of truth in the idea[br]of the creative left-hander,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but not much.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
A related myth that you've[br]probably heard of

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is that we only use[br]10 percent of our brains.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This is, again, a complete myth.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Nearly everything that we do,[br]even the most mundane thing,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
uses nearly all of our brains.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
That said, it is of course true

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that most of us don't use our brainpower

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
quite as well as we could.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So what could we do[br]to boost our brain power?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Maybe we could listen[br]to a nice bit of Mozart.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So have you heard of the idea[br]of the Mozart effect?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So the idea is that listening to Mozart

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
makes you smarter and improves[br]your performance on IQ tests.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Now again, what's interesting[br]about this myth

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is that although it's basically a myth,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
there is a grain of truth to it.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So the original study found that

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
participants who were played[br]Mozart music for a few minutes

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
did better on a subsequent IQ test

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
than participants who simply[br]sat in silence.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But a follow-up study recruited[br]some people who like Mozart music

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and then another group of people

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
who were fans of the horror stories[br]of Stephen King.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And they played the people[br]the music or the stories.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The people who preferred[br]Mozart music to the stories

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
got a bigger IQ boost[br]from the Mozart than the stories,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but the people who preferred[br]the stories to the Mozart music

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
got a bigger IQ boost

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
from listening to the Stephen King stories[br]than the Mozart music.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So the truth is that listening[br]to something that you enjoy

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
perks you up a bit[br]and gives you a temporary IQ boost

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
on a narrow range of tasks.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
There's no suggestion that[br]listening to Mozart

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
or indeed Stephen King stories

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is going to make you any smarter[br]in the long run.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So another version of the Mozart myth

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is that listening to Mozart can make you[br]not only cleverer but healthier, too.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Unfortunately, this doesn't[br]seem to be true

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
of someone who listened[br]to the music of Mozart almost every day,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Mozart himself,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
who suffered from gonorrhea,[br]smallpox, arthritis,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and what most people think[br]eventually killed him in the end,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
syphilis.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This suggests that Mozart[br]should have bit more careful, perhaps,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
when choosing his sexual partners.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But how do we choose a partner?

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So a myth, but I have to say[br]is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is that our preferences[br]in a romantic partner

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
are a product of our culture,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that they're very culturally specific,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but in fact, the data don't back this up.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So a famous study surveyed people from[br]32 different cultures across the globe,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
from Americans to Zulus,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
on what they look for in a partner.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And in every single culture[br]across the globe,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
men placed more value[br]on physical attractiveness in a partner

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
than did women,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and in every single culture, too,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
women placed more importance than did men

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
on ambition and high earning power.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
In every culture, too,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
men preferred women[br]who were younger than themselves,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
an average of I think it was 2.66 years,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and in every culture, too,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
women preferred men[br]who were older than them,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
so an average of 3.42 years,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
which is why we've got here[br]"Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So moving on from trying[br]to score with a partner

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to trying to score in basketball[br]or football or whatever your sport is.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So the myth here is that sportsmen

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
go through hot hand streaks,[br]Americans call them,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
or purple patches,[br]we sometimes say in England,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
where they just can't miss,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
like this guy here.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But in fact, what happens is that[br]if you analyze the pattern

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
of hits and misses statistically,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it turns out that it's[br]nearly always at random.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Your brain creates patterns[br]from the randomness.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So if you toss a coin, you know,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
a streak of heads or tails is going[br]to come out somewhere in randomness,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and becomes the brain likes[br]to see patterns where there are none,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
we look at these streaks[br]and attribute meanings to them

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
whereas actually you would[br]get the same pattern

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
if you were just getting[br]hits and misses at random.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So an exception to this, however,[br]is penalty shootouts.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
A recent study looking[br]at penalty shootouts in football

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
shows that players who represent countries

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
with a very bad record[br]in penalty shootouts,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
like, for example, England,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
tend to be quicker to take their shots[br]than countries with a better record,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and presumably as a result,[br]they're more likely to miss.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Which raises the question

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
of if there's any way that we[br]could improve people's performance,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and one thing you might think about doing

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is punishing people for their misses

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and seeing if that improves things.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
This idea, the effect that punishment[br]can improve performance,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is what participants[br]thought they were testing

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in Milgram's famous learning[br]and punishment experiment

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that you've probably heard about[br]if you're a psychology student.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
The story goes that participants[br]were prepared to give

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
what they believed to be fatal[br]electric shocks to a fellow participant

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
when they got a question wrong,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
just because someone[br]in a white coat told them too.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
But this story is a myth[br]for three reasons.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Firstly and most crucially,[br]the lab coat wasn't white.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It was, in fact, grey.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Secondly, the participants[br]were told before the study

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and reminded any time[br]they raised a concern,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that although the shocks were painful,[br]they were not fatal

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and indeed caused[br]no permanent damage whatsoever.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
And thirdly, participants[br]didn't give the shocks

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
just because someone[br]in the coat told them to.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
When they were interviewed[br]after the study,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
all the participants said[br]that they firmly believed

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that the learning and punishment study[br]served a worthy scientific purpose

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
which would have[br]enduring gains for science

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
as opposed to the momentary[br]non-fatal discomfort

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
caused to the participants.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Okay, so I've been talking[br]for about 12 minutes now,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and you've probably been sitting there

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
listening to me, analyzing[br]my speech patterns and body language

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and trying to work out if you should[br]take any notice of what I'm saying,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
whether I'm telling the truth[br]or whether I'm lying,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but if so you've[br]probably completely failed,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
because although we all think[br]we can catch a liar

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
from their body language[br]and speech patterns,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
hundreds of psychological tests[br]over the years have shown

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that all of us, including[br]police officers and detectives,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
are basically at chance when it comes[br]to detecting lies from body language

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and verbal patterns.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Interestingly, there is one exception:

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
TV appeals for missing relatives.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
It's quite easy to predict[br]when the relatives are missing

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and when the appealers have in fact[br]murdered the relatives themselves.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So hoax appealers are more likely[br]to shake their heads, to look away,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and to make errors in their speech,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
whereas genuine appealers are more likely

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
to express hope that the person[br]will return safely

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and to avoid brutal language.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So, for example, they might say[br]"taken from us" rather than "killed."

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Speaking of which,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
it's about time I killed this talk,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
but before I do, I just want to give you

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in 30 seconds

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
the overarching myth of psychology.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
So the myth is that psychology

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is just a collection[br]of interesting theories,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
all of which say something useful

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and all of which have something to offer.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What I hope to have shown you[br]in the past few minutes

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is that this isn't true.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
What we need to do is assess[br]psychological theories

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
by seeing what predictions they make,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
whether that is that listening to Mozart[br]makes you smarter,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
that you learn better when information

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is presented in your[br]preferred learning style,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
or whatever it is, all of these[br]are testable empirical predictions,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and the only way we can make progress

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
is to test these predictions[br]against the data

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
in tightly controlled[br]experimental studies,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and it's only by doing so[br]that we can hope to discover

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
which of these theories[br]are well-supported,

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
and which, like all the ones[br]I've told you about today, are myths.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
Thank you.

9:59:59.000,9:59:59.000
(Applause)