0:00:01.057,0:00:02.426
So you've heard of your IQ,

0:00:02.426,0:00:04.293
your general intelligence,

0:00:04.293,0:00:05.942
but what's your Psy-Q?

0:00:05.942,0:00:07.799
How much do you know[br]about what makes you tick,

0:00:07.799,0:00:10.214
and how good are you[br]at predicting other peoples' behavior

0:00:10.214,0:00:12.280
or even your own?

0:00:12.280,0:00:15.159
And how much about what you think[br]you know about psychology is wrong?

0:00:15.159,0:00:19.037
So let's find out by counting down[br]the top 10 myths of psychology.

0:00:19.037,0:00:21.963
So you've probably heard it said[br]that when it comes to their psychology,

0:00:21.963,0:00:24.865
it's almost as if men are from Mars[br]and women are from Venus.

0:00:24.865,0:00:27.024
But how different[br]are men and women really?

0:00:27.024,0:00:30.368
So to find out, let's start by looking[br]at something on which men and women

0:00:30.368,0:00:31.715
really do differ

0:00:31.715,0:00:35.453
and plotting some psychological[br]gender differences on the same scale.

0:00:35.453,0:00:36.916
So one thing that men and women

0:00:36.916,0:00:38.913
do really differ on is how far[br]they can throw a ball.

0:00:38.913,0:00:40.793
So if we look at the data for men here,

0:00:40.793,0:00:43.324
we see what is called[br]a normal distribution curve.

0:00:43.324,0:00:45.112
A few men can throw a ball really far,

0:00:45.112,0:00:46.575
and a few men not far at all,

0:00:46.575,0:00:48.502
but most a kind of average difference.

0:00:48.502,0:00:50.406
And women share[br]the same distribution as well,

0:00:50.406,0:00:51.985
but actually there's[br]quite a big difference.

0:00:51.985,0:00:54.353
In fact, the average man[br]can throw a ball further

0:00:54.353,0:00:57.070
than about 98 percent of all women.

0:00:57.070,0:00:59.647
So now let's look at what[br]some psychological gender differences

0:00:59.647,0:01:02.944
look like on the same standardized scale.

0:01:02.944,0:01:05.220
So any psychologist will tell you[br]that men are better

0:01:05.220,0:01:06.915
at spacial awareness than women,

0:01:06.915,0:01:08.563
so things like map-reading, for example,

0:01:08.563,0:01:09.585
and it's true,

0:01:09.585,0:01:12.023
but let's have a look[br]at the size of this difference.

0:01:12.023,0:01:15.250
It's tiny: the lines are so close together[br]that they almost overlap.

0:01:15.250,0:01:19.244
In fact, the average woman is better[br]than 33 percent of all men,

0:01:19.244,0:01:21.125
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

0:01:21.125,0:01:23.841
then the two genders[br]would be exactly equal.

0:01:23.841,0:01:25.699
And it's worth bearing in mind[br]that this difference

0:01:25.699,0:01:26.976
and the next one I'm going to show you

0:01:26.976,0:01:29.344
are pretty much the biggest[br]psychological gender differences

0:01:29.344,0:01:31.271
ever discovered in psychology.

0:01:31.271,0:01:32.502
So here's the next one.

0:01:32.502,0:01:35.010
Any psychologist will tell you[br]that women are better

0:01:35.010,0:01:36.635
with language and grammar than men.

0:01:36.635,0:01:38.794
So here's performance[br]on the standardized grammar test.

0:01:38.794,0:01:40.861
There go the women. There go to the men.

0:01:40.861,0:01:43.090
Again, yes, women are better on average,

0:01:43.090,0:01:44.553
but the lines are so close

0:01:44.553,0:01:46.457
that 33 percent of men

0:01:46.457,0:01:48.035
are better than the average woman,

0:01:48.035,0:01:49.730
and again, if it was 50 percent,

0:01:49.730,0:01:52.772
that would represent[br]complete gender equality.

0:01:52.772,0:01:54.583
So it's not really[br]a case of Mars and Venus.

0:01:54.583,0:01:57.300
It's more a case of, if anything,[br]Mars and Snickers:

0:01:57.300,0:01:58.902
basically the same, but, you know,

0:01:58.902,0:02:01.990
one's maybe slightly[br]nuttier than the other.

0:02:01.990,0:02:03.708
I won't say which.

0:02:03.708,0:02:05.473
Right. Now we've got you warmed up.

0:02:05.473,0:02:08.909
Let's psychoanalyze you using[br]the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

0:02:08.909,0:02:12.462
So you can probably see two, I dunno,[br]two bears or two people or something.

0:02:12.462,0:02:13.925
But what do you think they're doing?

0:02:13.925,0:02:17.059
Put your hand up if you think[br]they're saying hello.

0:02:17.059,0:02:18.870
Not many people. Okay.

0:02:18.870,0:02:21.657
Put your hands up if you think[br]they are high-fiving.

0:02:21.657,0:02:24.257
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

0:02:24.257,0:02:25.372
Only a few people there.

0:02:25.372,0:02:27.949
Okay, so if you think they're[br]saying hello or high-fiving,

0:02:27.949,0:02:29.830
then that means you're a friendly person.

0:02:29.830,0:02:31.710
If you think they're fighting,[br]that means you're a bit more

0:02:31.710,0:02:33.336
of a nasty, aggressive person.

0:02:33.336,0:02:35.216
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

0:02:35.216,0:02:36.656
All right, what about this one?

0:02:36.656,0:02:37.863
This isn't really a voting one,

0:02:37.863,0:02:39.675
so on three, everyone[br]shout out what you see.

0:02:39.675,0:02:42.229
One, two, three.

0:02:42.229,0:02:45.781
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

0:02:45.781,0:02:47.128
That was very worrying.

0:02:47.128,0:02:48.591
A guy there said hamster.

0:02:48.591,0:02:52.329
Well, you should see[br]some kind of two-legged animal here,

0:02:52.329,0:02:54.303
and then the mirror image of them there.

0:02:54.303,0:02:57.414
If you didn't, then this means[br]that you have difficulty

0:02:57.414,0:02:59.109
processing complex situations

0:02:59.109,0:03:01.524
where there's a lot going on.

0:03:01.524,0:03:03.729
Except, of course,[br]it doesn't mean that at all.

0:03:03.729,0:03:06.400
Rorschach inkblot tests[br]have basically no validity

0:03:06.400,0:03:08.675
when it comes to diagnosing[br]people's personality

0:03:08.675,0:03:11.136
and are not used[br]by modern-day psychologists.

0:03:11.136,0:03:12.785
In fact, one recent study found

0:03:12.785,0:03:16.035
that when you do try[br]to diagnose people's personality[br]

0:03:16.035,0:03:17.684
using Rorschach inkblot tests,

0:03:17.684,0:03:19.356
schizophrenia was diagnosed

0:03:19.356,0:03:23.349
in about one sixth of apparently[br]perfectly normal participants.

0:03:23.349,0:03:26.182
So if you didn't do that well on this,

0:03:26.182,0:03:28.736
maybe you are not[br]a very visual type of person.

0:03:28.736,0:03:31.105
So let's do another[br]quick quiz to find out.

0:03:31.105,0:03:33.473
When making a cake, do you prefer to

0:03:33.473,0:03:35.005
-- so hands up for each one again --

0:03:35.005,0:03:37.652
do you prefer to use[br]a recipe book with pictures?

0:03:37.652,0:03:39.672
Yeah, a few people.

0:03:39.672,0:03:42.412
Have a friend talk you through?

0:03:42.412,0:03:45.245
Or have a go, making it up[br]as you go along?

0:03:45.245,0:03:46.777
Quite a few people there.

0:03:46.777,0:03:48.287
Okay, so if you said a,

0:03:48.287,0:03:50.609
then this means that you[br]are a visual learner

0:03:50.609,0:03:52.187
and you learn best when information

0:03:52.187,0:03:54.091
is presented in a visual style.

0:03:54.091,0:03:56.599
If you said b, it means[br]you're an auditory learner,

0:03:56.599,0:04:00.314
that you learn best when information[br]is presented to you in an auditory format,

0:04:00.314,0:04:01.684
and if you said c,

0:04:01.684,0:04:03.449
it means that you're[br]a kinesthetic learner,

0:04:03.449,0:04:05.190
that you learn best when you get stuck in

0:04:05.190,0:04:06.514
and do things with your hands.

0:04:06.514,0:04:08.278
Except, of course,[br]as you've probably guessed,

0:04:08.278,0:04:11.297
that it doesn't, because[br]the whole thing is a complete myth.

0:04:11.297,0:04:13.015
Learning styles are made up

0:04:13.015,0:04:15.755
and are not supported[br]by scientific evidence.

0:04:15.755,0:04:19.191
So we know this because in[br]tightly controlled experimental studies,

0:04:19.191,0:04:21.142
when learners are given material to learn

0:04:21.142,0:04:23.812
either in their preferred style[br]or an opposite style,

0:04:23.812,0:04:25.228
it makes no difference at all

0:04:25.228,0:04:27.411
to the amount of information[br]that they retain.

0:04:27.411,0:04:29.384
And if you think about it[br]for just a second,

0:04:29.384,0:04:31.242
it's just obvious[br]that this has to be true.

0:04:31.242,0:04:34.144
It's obvious that[br]the best presentation format

0:04:34.144,0:04:35.932
depends not on you,

0:04:35.932,0:04:37.627
but on what you're trying to learn.

0:04:37.627,0:04:39.299
Could you learn to drive a car,[br]for example,

0:04:39.299,0:04:41.667
just by listening to someone[br]telling you what to do

0:04:41.667,0:04:43.525
with no kinesthetic experience?

0:04:43.525,0:04:45.591
Could you solve simultaneous equations

0:04:45.591,0:04:48.447
by talking them through in your head[br]and without writing them down?

0:04:48.447,0:04:51.558
Could you ?? for your architecture exams

0:04:51.558,0:04:53.161
using interpretive dance[br]if you're a kinesthetic learner?

0:04:53.161,0:04:54.972
No. What you need to do is match

0:04:54.972,0:04:58.617
the material to be learned[br]to the presentation format,

0:04:58.617,0:05:00.498
not you.

0:05:00.498,0:05:02.216
So, I know many of you[br]are A-level students

0:05:02.216,0:05:04.468
that will have recently gotten[br]your ???? results.

0:05:04.468,0:05:06.906
And if you didn't quite get[br]what you were hoping for,

0:05:06.906,0:05:08.973
then you can't really blame[br]your learning style,

0:05:08.973,0:05:12.966
but one thing that you might want[br]to think about blaming is your genes.

0:05:12.966,0:05:14.220
So what this is all about

0:05:14.220,0:05:16.635
is a recent study[br]at University College London

0:05:16.635,0:05:19.189
found that 58 percent of the variation

0:05:19.189,0:05:22.440
between different students[br]and their ??? results

0:05:22.440,0:05:24.297
was down to genetic factors.

0:05:24.297,0:05:25.923
So that sounds a very precise figure,

0:05:25.923,0:05:27.223
so how can we tell?

0:05:27.223,0:05:29.568
Well, when we want to unpack[br]the relative contributions

0:05:29.568,0:05:32.842
of genes and the environment,

0:05:32.842,0:05:35.071
what we can do is do a twin study.

0:05:35.071,0:05:38.647
So identical twins share[br]100 percent of their environment

0:05:38.647,0:05:40.551
and 100 percent of their genes,

0:05:40.551,0:05:44.103
whereas non-identical twins[br]share 100 percent of their environment,

0:05:44.103,0:05:45.589
but just like any brother and sister,

0:05:45.589,0:05:47.447
share only 50 percent of their genes.

0:05:47.447,0:05:50.837
So by comparing how similar[br]??? results are in identical twins

0:05:50.837,0:05:54.018
versus non-identical twins,

0:05:54.018,0:05:55.364
and doing some clever math,

0:05:55.364,0:05:59.265
we can an idea of how much variation[br]and performance is due to the environment

0:05:59.265,0:06:01.401
and how much is due to genes.

0:06:01.401,0:06:05.348
And it turns out that it's[br]about 58 percent due to genes.

0:06:05.348,0:06:09.551
So this isn't to undermine the hard work[br]that you and your teachers here put in.

0:06:09.551,0:06:12.012
If you didn't quite get the ??? results[br]that you were hoping for,

0:06:12.012,0:06:16.888
then you can always try blaming[br]your parents, or at least their genes.

0:06:16.888,0:06:18.606
One thing that you shouldn't blame

0:06:18.606,0:06:21.068
is being a left brained[br]or right brained learner,

0:06:21.068,0:06:22.879
because again, this is a myth.

0:06:22.879,0:06:26.176
So the myth here is that[br]the left brain is logical,

0:06:26.176,0:06:27.755
it's good with equations like this,

0:06:27.755,0:06:29.264
and the right brain is more creative,

0:06:29.264,0:06:31.447
so the right brain is better at music.

0:06:31.447,0:06:34.465
But again, this is a myth[br]because nearly everything that you do

0:06:34.465,0:06:37.275
involves nearly all parts[br]of your brain talking together,

0:06:37.275,0:06:40.595
even just the most mundane thing[br]like having a normal conversation.

0:06:40.595,0:06:43.938
However, perhaps one reason[br]why this myth has survived

0:06:43.938,0:06:46.260
is that there is[br]a slight grain of truth to it.

0:06:46.260,0:06:48.420
So a related version of the myth

0:06:48.420,0:06:51.113
is that left-handed people are[br]more creative than right-handed people,

0:06:51.113,0:06:54.457
which kind of makes sense because[br]your brain controls the opposite hands,

0:06:54.457,0:06:55.757
so left-handed people,

0:06:55.757,0:06:57.963
the right side of the brain[br]is slightly more active

0:06:57.963,0:06:59.588
than the left hand side of the brain,

0:06:59.588,0:07:02.606
and the idea is the right-hand side[br]is more creative.

0:07:02.606,0:07:04.603
Now, it isn't true per se

0:07:04.603,0:07:07.204
that left-handed people are more creative[br]than right-handed people.

0:07:07.204,0:07:09.619
What is true that ambidextrous people,

0:07:09.619,0:07:12.312
or people who use both hands[br]for different tasks,

0:07:12.312,0:07:16.074
are more creative thinkers[br]than one-handed people,

0:07:16.074,0:07:17.977
because being ambidextrous involves

0:07:17.977,0:07:20.206
having both sides of the brain[br]talk to each other a lot,

0:07:20.206,0:07:24.548
which seems to be involved[br]in creating flexible thinking.

0:07:24.548,0:07:26.313
The myth of the creative left-hander

0:07:26.313,0:07:28.171
arises from the fact[br]that being ambidextrous

0:07:28.171,0:07:30.098
is more common amongst left-handers

0:07:30.098,0:07:31.282
than right handers,

0:07:31.282,0:07:34.347
so a grain of truth in the idea[br]of the creative left-hander,

0:07:34.347,0:07:35.694
but not much.

0:07:35.694,0:07:38.991
A related myth that you've[br]probably heard of

0:07:38.991,0:07:41.034
is that we only use[br]10 percent of our brains.

0:07:41.034,0:07:42.520
This is, again, a complete myth.

0:07:42.520,0:07:44.749
Nearly everything that we do,[br]even the most mundane thing,

0:07:44.749,0:07:46.932
uses nearly all of our brains.

0:07:46.932,0:07:50.693
That said, it is of course true

0:07:50.693,0:07:53.363
that most of us don't use our brainpower

0:07:53.363,0:07:55.267
quite as well as we could.

0:07:55.267,0:07:58.239
So what could we do[br]to boost our brain power?

0:07:58.239,0:08:01.397
Maybe we could listen[br]to a nice bit of Mozart.

0:08:01.397,0:08:03.255
So have you heard of the idea[br]of the Mozart effect?

0:08:03.255,0:08:05.112
So the idea is that listening to Mozart

0:08:05.112,0:08:08.781
makes you smarter and improves[br]your performance on IQ tests.

0:08:08.781,0:08:10.476
Now again, what's interesting[br]about this myth

0:08:10.476,0:08:12.147
is that although it's basically a myth,

0:08:12.147,0:08:14.051
there is a grain of truth to it.

0:08:14.051,0:08:15.421
So the original study found that

0:08:15.421,0:08:19.322
participants who were played[br]Mozart music for a few minutes

0:08:19.322,0:08:21.621
did better on a subsequent IQ test

0:08:21.621,0:08:24.964
than participants who simply[br]sat in silence.

0:08:24.964,0:08:28.888
But a follow-up study recruited[br]some people who liked Mozart music

0:08:28.888,0:08:30.119
and then another group of people

0:08:30.119,0:08:33.207
who were fans of the horror stories[br]of Stephen King.

0:08:33.207,0:08:36.771
And they played the people[br]the music or the stories.

0:08:36.771,0:08:39.279
The people who preferred[br]Mozart music to the stories

0:08:39.279,0:08:42.320
got a bigger IQ boost[br]from the Mozart than the stories,

0:08:42.320,0:08:44.758
but the people who preferred[br]the stories to the Mozart music

0:08:44.758,0:08:46.105
got a bigger IQ boost

0:08:46.105,0:08:49.170
from listening to the Stephen King stories[br]than the Mozart music.

0:08:49.170,0:08:51.933
So the truth is that listening[br]to something that you enjoy

0:08:51.933,0:08:55.184
perks you up a bit[br]and gives you a temporary IQ boost

0:08:55.184,0:08:57.111
on a narrow range of tasks.

0:08:57.111,0:08:59.479
There's no suggestion that[br]listening to Mozart

0:08:59.479,0:09:01.104
or indeed Stephen King stories

0:09:01.104,0:09:04.936
is going to make you any smarter[br]in the long run.

0:09:04.936,0:09:07.466
So another version of the Mozart myth

0:09:07.466,0:09:12.714
is that listening to Mozart can make you[br]not only cleverer but healthier, too.

0:09:12.714,0:09:14.502
Unfortunately, this doesn't[br]seem to be true

0:09:14.502,0:09:17.451
of someone who listened[br]to the music of Mozart almost every day,

0:09:17.451,0:09:19.169
Mozart himself,

0:09:19.169,0:09:22.419
who suffered from gonorrhea,[br]smallpox, arthritis,

0:09:22.419,0:09:25.043
and what most people think[br]eventually killed him in the end,

0:09:25.043,0:09:27.110
syphilis.

0:09:27.110,0:09:30.035
This suggests that Mozart[br]should have bit more careful, perhaps,

0:09:30.035,0:09:32.613
when choosing his sexual partners.

0:09:32.613,0:09:34.772
But how do we choose a partner?

0:09:34.772,0:09:38.208
So a myth, but I have to say[br]is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

0:09:38.208,0:09:42.341
is that our preferences[br]in a romantic partner

0:09:42.341,0:09:43.711
are a product of our culture,

0:09:43.711,0:09:45.592
that they're very culturally specific,

0:09:45.592,0:09:47.496
but in fact, the data don't back this up.

0:09:47.496,0:09:51.931
So a famous study surveyed people from[br]32 different cultures across the globe,

0:09:51.931,0:09:53.417
from Americans to Zulus,

0:09:53.417,0:09:55.483
on what they look for in a partner.

0:09:55.483,0:09:57.852
And in every single culture[br]across the globe,

0:09:57.852,0:10:01.567
men placed more value[br]on physical attractiveness in a partner

0:10:01.567,0:10:02.867
than did women,

0:10:02.867,0:10:04.608
and in every single culture, too,

0:10:04.608,0:10:06.582
women placed more importance than did men

0:10:06.582,0:10:09.461
on ambition and high earning power.

0:10:09.461,0:10:10.785
In every culture, too,

0:10:10.785,0:10:13.130
men preferred women[br]who were younger than themselves,

0:10:13.130,0:10:15.939
an average of I think it was 2.66 years,

0:10:15.939,0:10:17.588
and in every culture, too,

0:10:17.588,0:10:20.188
women preferred men[br]who were older than them,

0:10:20.188,0:10:22.998
so an average of 3.42 years,

0:10:22.998,0:10:26.713
which is why we've got here[br]"Everybody Needs A Sugar Daddy."

0:10:26.713,0:10:29.290
So moving on from trying[br]to score with a partner

0:10:29.290,0:10:33.214
to trying to score in basketball[br]or football or whatever your sport is.

0:10:33.214,0:10:35.072
So the myth here is that sportsmen

0:10:35.072,0:10:37.533
go through hot hand streaks,[br]Americans call them,

0:10:37.533,0:10:39.553
or purple patches,[br]we sometimes say in England,

0:10:39.553,0:10:40.993
where they just can't miss,

0:10:40.993,0:10:42.386
like this guy here.

0:10:42.386,0:10:46.077
But in fact, what happens is that[br]if you analyze the pattern

0:10:46.077,0:10:47.865
of hits and misses statistically,

0:10:47.865,0:10:50.164
it turns out that it's[br]nearly always at random.

0:10:50.164,0:10:52.579
Your brain creates patterns[br]from the randomness.

0:10:52.579,0:10:54.436
So if you toss a coin, you know,

0:10:54.436,0:10:57.942
a streak of heads or tails is going[br]to come out somewhere in randomness,

0:10:57.942,0:11:00.473
and becomes the brain likes[br]to see patterns where there are none,

0:11:00.473,0:11:02.934
we look at these streaks[br]and attribute meanings to them

0:11:02.934,0:11:05.001
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

0:11:05.001,0:11:06.951
whereas actually you would[br]get the same pattern

0:11:06.951,0:11:12.036
if you were just getting[br]hits and misses at random.

0:11:12.036,0:11:15.542
So an exception to this, however,[br]is penalty shootouts.

0:11:15.542,0:11:17.957
A recent study looking[br]at penalty shootouts in football

0:11:17.957,0:11:19.977
shows that players who represent countries

0:11:19.977,0:11:22.601
with a very bad record[br]in penalty shootouts,

0:11:22.601,0:11:24.784
like, for example, England,

0:11:24.784,0:11:28.545
tend to be quicker to take their shots[br]than countries with a better record,

0:11:28.545,0:11:31.865
and presumably as a result,[br]they're more likely to miss.

0:11:31.865,0:11:33.560
Which raises the question

0:11:33.560,0:11:37.229
of if there's any way that we[br]could improve people's performance,

0:11:37.229,0:11:38.947
and one thing you might think about doing

0:11:38.947,0:11:40.596
is punishing people for their misses

0:11:40.596,0:11:42.546
and seeing if that improves things.

0:11:42.546,0:11:46.308
This idea, the effect that punishment[br]can improve performance,

0:11:46.308,0:11:48.444
is what participants[br]thought they were testing

0:11:48.444,0:11:50.766
in Milgram's famous learning[br]and punishment experiment

0:11:50.766,0:11:53.784
that you've probably heard about[br]if you're a psychology student.

0:11:53.784,0:11:56.106
The story goes that participants[br]were prepared to give

0:11:56.106,0:11:59.867
what they believed to be fatal[br]electric shocks to a fellow participant

0:11:59.867,0:12:01.888
when they got a question wrong,

0:12:01.888,0:12:04.697
just because someone[br]in a white coat told them too.

0:12:04.697,0:12:07.112
But this story is a myth[br]for three reasons.

0:12:07.112,0:12:10.246
Firstly and most crucially,[br]the lab coat wasn't white.

0:12:10.246,0:12:11.988
It was, in fact, grey.

0:12:11.988,0:12:16.423
Secondly, the participants[br]were told before the study

0:12:16.423,0:12:18.930
and reminded any time[br]they raised a concern,

0:12:18.930,0:12:21.763
that although the shocks were painful,[br]they were not fatal

0:12:21.763,0:12:24.665
and indeed caused[br]no permanent damage whatsoever.

0:12:24.665,0:12:26.825
And thirdly, participants[br]didn't give the shocks

0:12:26.825,0:12:29.843
just because someone[br]in the coat told them to.

0:12:29.843,0:12:31.515
When they were interviewed[br]after the study,

0:12:31.515,0:12:34.023
all the participants said[br]that they firmly believed

0:12:34.023,0:12:37.807
that the learning and punishment study[br]served a worthy scientific purpose

0:12:37.807,0:12:40.245
which would have[br]enduring gains for science

0:12:40.245,0:12:43.844
as opposed to the momentary[br]non-fatal discomfort

0:12:43.844,0:12:47.025
caused to the participants.

0:12:47.025,0:12:50.183
Okay, so I've been talking[br]for about 12 minutes now,

0:12:50.183,0:12:51.599
and you've probably been sitting there

0:12:51.599,0:12:54.409
listening to me, analyzing[br]my speech patterns and body language

0:12:54.409,0:12:58.556
and trying to work out if you should[br]take any notice of what I'm saying,

0:12:58.556,0:13:00.577
whether I'm telling the truth[br]or whether I'm lying,

0:13:00.577,0:13:02.759
but if so you've[br]probably completely failed,

0:13:02.759,0:13:05.104
because although we all think[br]we can catch a liar

0:13:05.104,0:13:07.217
from their body language[br]and speech patterns,

0:13:07.217,0:13:09.610
hundreds of psychological tests[br]over the years have shown

0:13:09.610,0:13:12.511
that all of us, including[br]police officers and detectives,

0:13:12.511,0:13:15.901
are basically at chance when it comes[br]to detecting lies from body language

0:13:15.901,0:13:17.642
and verbal patterns.

0:13:17.642,0:13:19.686
Interestingly, there is one exception:

0:13:19.686,0:13:21.938
TV appeals for missing relatives.

0:13:21.938,0:13:25.073
It's quite easy to predict[br]when the relatives are missing

0:13:25.073,0:13:28.254
and when the appealers have in fact[br]murdered the relatives themselves.

0:13:28.254,0:13:31.969
So hoax appealers are more likely[br]to shake their heads, to look away,

0:13:31.969,0:13:33.733
and to make errors in their speech,

0:13:33.733,0:13:35.498
whereas genuine appealers are more likely

0:13:35.498,0:13:37.843
to express hope that the person[br]will return safely

0:13:37.843,0:13:39.584
and to avoid brutal language.

0:13:39.584,0:13:44.577
So, for example, they might say[br]"taken from us" rather than "killed."

0:13:44.577,0:13:45.714
Speaking of which,

0:13:45.714,0:13:47.084
it's about time I killed this talk,

0:13:47.084,0:13:48.802
but before I do, I just want to give you

0:13:48.802,0:13:50.033
in 30 seconds

0:13:50.033,0:13:53.423
the overarching myth of psychology.

0:13:53.423,0:13:55.550
So the myth is that psychology

0:13:55.550,0:13:57.988
is just a collection[br]of interesting theories,

0:13:57.988,0:13:59.497
all of which say something useful

0:13:59.497,0:14:01.471
and all of which have something to offer.

0:14:01.471,0:14:03.630
What I hope to have shown you[br]in the past few minutes

0:14:03.630,0:14:05.325
is that this isn't true.

0:14:05.325,0:14:08.994
What we need to do is assess[br]psychological theories

0:14:08.994,0:14:10.828
by seeing what predictions they make,

0:14:10.828,0:14:13.289
whether that is that listening to Mozart[br]makes you smarter,

0:14:13.289,0:14:15.936
that you learn better when information

0:14:15.936,0:14:18.072
is presented in your[br]preferred learning style,

0:14:18.072,0:14:21.671
or whatever it is, all of these[br]are testable empirical predictions,

0:14:21.671,0:14:23.366
and the only way we can make progress

0:14:23.366,0:14:25.386
is to test these predictions[br]against the data

0:14:25.386,0:14:27.755
in tightly controlled[br]experimental studies,

0:14:27.755,0:14:30.889
and it's only by doing so[br]that we can hope to discover

0:14:30.889,0:14:33.513
which of these theories[br]are well-supported,

0:14:33.513,0:14:36.903
and which, like all the ones[br]I've told you about today, are myths.

0:14:36.903,0:14:38.412
Thank you.

0:14:38.412,0:14:41.872
(Applause)