WEBVTT 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So you've heard of your IQ, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 your general intelligence, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but what's your Psy-Q? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 How much do you know about what makes you tick, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and how good are you at predicting other peoples' behavior 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or even your own? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And how much about what you think you know about psychology is wrong? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So let's find out by counting down the top 10 myths of psychology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So you've probably heard it said that when it comes to their psychology, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's almost as if men are from Mars and women are from Venus. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But how different are men and women really? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So to find out, let's start by looking at something on which men and women 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 really do differ 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and plotting some psychological gender differences on the same scale. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So one thing that men and women 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 do really differ on is how far they can throw a ball. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So if we look at the data for men here, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we see what is called a normal distribution curve. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A few men can throw a ball really far, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and a few men not far at all, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but most a kind of average difference. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And women share the same distribution as well, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but actually there's quite a big difference. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, the average man can throw a ball further 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than about 98 percent of all women. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So now let's look at what some psychological gender differences 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 look like on the same standardized scale. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So any psychologist will tell you that men are better 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 at spacial awareness than women, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so things like map-reading, for example, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it's true, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but let's have a look at the size of this difference. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's tiny: the lines are so close together that they almost overlap. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, the average woman is better than 33 percent of all men, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and of course, if that was 50 percent, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 then the two genders would be exactly equal. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it's worth bearing in mind that this difference 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the next one I'm going to show you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are pretty much the biggest psychological gender differences 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 ever discovered in psychology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So here's the next one. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Any psychologist will tell you that women are better 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with language and grammar than men. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So here's performance on the standardized grammar test. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There go the women. There go to the men. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Again, yes, women are better on average, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the lines are so close 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that 33 percent of men 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are better than the average woman, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and again, if it was 50 percent, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that would represent complete gender equality. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So it's not really a case of Mars and Venus. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's more a case of, if anything, Mars and Snickers: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 basically the same, but, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 one's maybe slightly nuttier than the other. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I won't say which. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Right. Now we've got you warmed up. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Let's psychoanalyze you using the famous Rorschach inkblot test. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So you can probably see two, I dunno, two bears or two people or something. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But what do you think they're doing? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Put your hand up if you think they're saying hello. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Not many people. Okay. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Put your hands up if you think they are high-fiving. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Okay. What if you think they're fighting? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Only a few people there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Okay, so if you think they're saying hello or high-fiving, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 then that means you're a friendly person. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you think they're fighting, that means you're a bit more 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of a nasty, aggressive person. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Are you a lover or a fighter, basically. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 All right, what about this one? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This isn't really a voting one, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so on three, everyone shout out what you see. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 One, two, three. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 I heard hamster. Who said hamster? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That was very worrying. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A guy there said hamster. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, you should see some kind of two-legged animal here, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and then the mirror image of them there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you didn't, then this means that you have difficulty 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 processing complex situations 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where there's a lot going on. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Except, of course, it doesn't mean that at all. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Rorschach inkblot tests have basically no validity 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when it comes to diagnosing people's personality 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and are not used by modern-day psychologists. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In fact, one recent study found 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that when you do try to diagnose people's personality 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 using Rorschach inkblot tests, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 schizophrenia was diagnosed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in about one sixth of apparently perfectly normal participants. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So if you didn't do that well on this, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 maybe you are not a very visual type of person. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So let's do another quick quiz to find out. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When making a cake, do you prefer to 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 -- so hands up for each one again -- 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 do you prefer to use a recipe book with pictures? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Yeah, a few people. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Have a friend talk you through? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Or have a go, making it up as you go along? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Quite a few people there. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Okay, so if you said a, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 then this means that you are a visual learner 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you learn best when information 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is presented in a visual style. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you said b, it means you're an auditory learner, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that you learn best when information is presented to you in an auditory format, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and if you said c, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it means that you're a kinesthetic learner, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that you learn best when you get stuck in 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and do things with your hands. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Except, of course, as you've probably guessed, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that it doesn't, because the whole thing is a complete myth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Learning styles are made up 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and are not supported by scientific evidence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So we know this because in tightly controlled experimental studies, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when learners are given material to learn 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 either in their preferred style or an opposite style, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it makes no difference at all 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to the amount of information that they retain. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if you think about it for just a second, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's just obvious that this has to be true. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's obvious that the best presentation format 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 depends not on you, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but on what you're trying to learn. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Could you learn to drive a car, for example, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 just by listening to someone telling you what to do 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with no kinesthetic experience? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Could you solve simultaneous equations 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by talking them through in your head and without writing them down? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Could you ?? for your architecture exams 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 using interpretive dance if you're a kinesthetic learner? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 No. What you need to do is match 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the material to be learned to the presentation format, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 not you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, I know many of you are A-level students 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that will have recently gotten your ???? results. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And if you didn't quite get what you were hoping for, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 then you can't really blame your learning style, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but one thing that you might want to think about blaming is your genes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So what this is all about 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is a recent study at University College London 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 found that 58 percent of the variation 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 between different students and their ??? results 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 was down to genetic factors. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So that sounds a very precise figure, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so how can we tell? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Well, when we want to unpack the relative contributions 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of genes and the environment, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what we can do is do a twin study. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So identical twins share 100 percent of their environment 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and 100 percent of their genes, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whereas non-identical twins share 100 percent of their environment, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but just like any brother and sister, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 share only 50 percent of their genes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So by comparing how similar ??? results are in identical twins 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 versus non-identical twins, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and doing some clever math, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we can an idea of how much variation and performance is due to the environment 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and how much is due to genes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And it turns out that it's about 58 percent due to genes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So this isn't to undermine the hard work that you and your teachers here put in. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 If you didn't quite get the ??? results that you were hoping for, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 then you can always try blaming your parents, or at least their genes. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 One thing that you shouldn't blame 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is being a left brained or right brained learner, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because again, this is a myth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the myth here is that the left brain is logical, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's good with equations like this, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the right brain is more creative, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so the right brain is better at music. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But again, this is a myth because nearly everything that you do 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 involves nearly all parts of your brain talking together, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 even just the most mundane thing like having a normal conversation. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 However, perhaps one reason why this myth has survived 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that there is a slight grain of truth to it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So a related version of the myth 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which kind of makes sense because your brain controls the opposite hands, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so left-handed people, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the right side of the brain is slightly more active 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than the left hand side of the brain, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the idea is the right-hand side is more creative. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now, it isn't true per se 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What is true that ambidextrous people, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or people who use both hands for different tasks, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are more creative thinkers than one-handed people, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because being ambidextrous involves 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 having both sides of the brain talk to each other a lot, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which seems to be involved in creating flexible thinking. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The myth of the creative left-hander 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 arises from the fact that being ambidextrous 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is more common amongst left-handers 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than right handers, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so a grain of truth in the idea of the creative left-hander, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but not much. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A related myth that you've probably heard of 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that we only use 10 percent of our brains. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This is, again, a complete myth. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Nearly everything that we do, even the most mundane thing, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 uses nearly all of our brains. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 That said, it is of course true 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that most of us don't use our brainpower 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 quite as well as we could. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So what could we do to boost our brain power? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Maybe we could listen to a nice bit of Mozart. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So have you heard of the idea of the Mozart effect? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the idea is that listening to Mozart 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 makes you smarter and improves your performance on IQ tests. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Now again, what's interesting about this myth 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that although it's basically a myth, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 there is a grain of truth to it. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the original study found that 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 participants who were played Mozart music for a few minutes 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 did better on a subsequent IQ test 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than participants who simply sat in silence. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But a follow-up study recruited some people who like Mozart music 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and then another group of people 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who were fans of the horror stories of Stephen King. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And they played the people the music or the stories. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The people who preferred Mozart music to the stories 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 got a bigger IQ boost from the Mozart than the stories, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but the people who preferred the stories to the Mozart music 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 got a bigger IQ boost 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from listening to the Stephen King stories than the Mozart music. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the truth is that listening to something that you enjoy 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 perks you up a bit and gives you a temporary IQ boost 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on a narrow range of tasks. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 There's no suggestion that listening to Mozart 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or indeed Stephen King stories 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is going to make you any smarter in the long run. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So another version of the Mozart myth 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that listening to Mozart can make you not only cleverer but healthier, too. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be true 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of someone who listened to the music of Mozart almost every day, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Mozart himself, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 who suffered from gonorrhea, smallpox, arthritis, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and what most people think eventually killed him in the end, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 syphilis. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This suggests that Mozart should have bit more careful, perhaps, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when choosing his sexual partners. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But how do we choose a partner? 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So a myth, but I have to say is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that our preferences in a romantic partner 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are a product of our culture, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that they're very culturally specific, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but in fact, the data don't back this up. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So a famous study surveyed people from 32 different cultures across the globe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from Americans to Zulus, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on what they look for in a partner. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And in every single culture across the globe, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 men placed more value on physical attractiveness in a partner 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 than did women, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and in every single culture, too, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 women placed more importance than did men 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 on ambition and high earning power. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 In every culture, too, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 men preferred women who were younger than themselves, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 an average of I think it was 2.66 years, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and in every culture, too, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 women preferred men who were older than them, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 so an average of 3.42 years, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which is why we've got here "Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So moving on from trying to score with a partner 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to trying to score in basketball or football or whatever your sport is. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the myth here is that sportsmen 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 go through hot hand streaks, Americans call them, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or purple patches, we sometimes say in England, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 where they just can't miss, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 like this guy here. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But in fact, what happens is that if you analyze the pattern 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of hits and misses statistically, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it turns out that it's nearly always at random. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Your brain creates patterns from the randomness. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So if you toss a coin, you know, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 a streak of heads or tails is going to come out somewhere in randomness, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and becomes the brain likes to see patterns where there are none, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 we look at these streaks and attribute meanings to them 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and say, "Yeah he's really on form today," 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whereas actually you would get the same pattern 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 if you were just getting hits and misses at random. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So an exception to this, however, is penalty shootouts. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 A recent study looking at penalty shootouts in football 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 shows that players who represent countries 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 with a very bad record in penalty shootouts, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 like, for example, England, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 tend to be quicker to take their shots than countries with a better record, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and presumably as a result, they're more likely to miss. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Which raises the question 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 of if there's any way that we could improve people's performance, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and one thing you might think about doing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is punishing people for their misses 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and seeing if that improves things. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 This idea, the effect that punishment can improve performance, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is what participants thought they were testing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in Milgram's famous learning and punishment experiment 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that you've probably heard about if you're a psychology student. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 The story goes that participants were prepared to give 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 what they believed to be fatal electric shocks to a fellow participant 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 when they got a question wrong, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 just because someone in a white coat told them too. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 But this story is a myth for three reasons. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Firstly and most crucially, the lab coat wasn't white. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It was, in fact, grey. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Secondly, the participants were told before the study 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and reminded any time they raised a concern, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that although the shocks were painful, they were not fatal 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and indeed caused no permanent damage whatsoever. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 And thirdly, participants didn't give the shocks 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 just because someone in the coat told them to. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 When they were interviewed after the study, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all the participants said that they firmly believed 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that the learning and punishment study served a worthy scientific purpose 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which would have enduring gains for science 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 as opposed to the momentary non-fatal discomfort 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 caused to the participants. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Okay, so I've been talking for about 12 minutes now, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and you've probably been sitting there 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 listening to me, analyzing my speech patterns and body language 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and trying to work out if you should take any notice of what I'm saying, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whether I'm telling the truth or whether I'm lying, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but if so you've probably completely failed, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 because although we all think we can catch a liar 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 from their body language and speech patterns, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 hundreds of psychological tests over the years have shown 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that all of us, including police officers and detectives, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 are basically at chance when it comes to detecting lies from body language 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and verbal patterns. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Interestingly, there is one exception: 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 TV appeals for missing relatives. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 It's quite easy to predict when the relatives are missing 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and when the appealers have in fact murdered the relatives themselves. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So hoax appealers are more likely to shake their heads, to look away, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and to make errors in their speech, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whereas genuine appealers are more likely 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 to express hope that the person will return safely 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and to avoid brutal language. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So, for example, they might say "taken from us" rather than "killed." 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Speaking of which, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 it's about time I killed this talk, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 but before I do, I just want to give you 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in 30 seconds 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 the overarching myth of psychology. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 So the myth is that psychology 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is just a collection of interesting theories, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 all of which say something useful 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and all of which have something to offer. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What I hope to have shown you in the past few minutes 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is that this isn't true. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 What we need to do is assess psychological theories 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 by seeing what predictions they make, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 whether that is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 that you learn better when information 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is presented in your preferred learning style, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 or whatever it is, all of these are testable empirical predictions, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and the only way we can make progress 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 is to test these predictions against the data 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 in tightly controlled experimental studies, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and it's only by doing so that we can hope to discover 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 which of these theories are well-supported, 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 and which, like all the ones I've told you about today, are myths. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 Thank you. 99:59:59.999 --> 99:59:59.999 (Applause)