0:00:00.857,0:00:03.716
You've heard of your I.Q.,[br]your general intelligence,

0:00:03.716,0:00:05.392
but what's your Psy-Q?

0:00:05.392,0:00:07.629
How much do you know[br]about what makes you tick,

0:00:07.629,0:00:10.374
and how good are you[br]at predicting other people's behavior

0:00:10.374,0:00:11.880
or even your own?

0:00:11.880,0:00:15.159
And how much of what you think you know[br]about psychology is wrong?

0:00:15.159,0:00:18.947
Let's find out by counting down[br]the top 10 myths of psychology.

0:00:18.947,0:00:22.343
You've probably heard it said[br]that when it comes to their psychology,

0:00:22.343,0:00:25.225
it's almost as if men are from Mars[br]and women are from Venus.

0:00:25.235,0:00:27.264
But how different[br]are men and women really?

0:00:27.264,0:00:29.518
To find out, let's start[br]by looking at something

0:00:29.518,0:00:31.495
on which men and women really do differ

0:00:31.495,0:00:34.943
and plotting some psychological[br]gender differences on the same scale.

0:00:34.943,0:00:37.116
One thing men and women[br]do really differ on

0:00:37.116,0:00:38.913
is how far they can throw a ball.

0:00:38.913,0:00:40.803
So if we look at the data for men here,

0:00:40.803,0:00:43.274
we see what is called[br]a normal distribution curve.

0:00:43.274,0:00:46.482
A few men can throw a ball really far,[br]and a few men not far at all,

0:00:46.482,0:00:48.252
but most a kind of average distance.

0:00:48.252,0:00:50.416
And women share[br]the same distribution as well,

0:00:50.416,0:00:52.465
but actually there's[br]quite a big difference.

0:00:52.465,0:00:54.913
In fact, the average man[br]can throw a ball further

0:00:54.913,0:00:56.620
than about 98 percent of all women.

0:00:56.620,0:00:59.647
So now let's look at what[br]some psychological gender differences

0:00:59.647,0:01:02.504
look like on the same standardized scale.

0:01:02.504,0:01:04.090
Any psychologist will tell you

0:01:04.090,0:01:06.635
that men are better[br]at spatial awareness than women --

0:01:06.635,0:01:09.373
so things like map-reading, [br]for example -- and it's true,

0:01:09.373,0:01:11.863
but let's have a look[br]at the size of this difference.

0:01:11.863,0:01:15.250
It's tiny; the lines are so close[br]together 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,

0:01:21.125,0:01:23.181
then the two genders[br]would be exactly equal.

0:01:23.181,0:01:26.839
It's worth bearing in mind that this[br]difference and the next one I'll show you

0:01:26.839,0:01:29.664
are pretty much the biggest[br]psychological gender differences

0:01:29.664,0:01:31.101
ever discovered in psychology.

0:01:31.101,0:01:32.212
So here's the next one.

0:01:32.212,0:01:34.650
Any psychologist will tell you[br]that women are better

0:01:34.650,0:01:36.315
with language and grammar than men.

0:01:36.315,0:01:38.904
So here's performance[br]on the standardized grammar test.

0:01:38.904,0:01:40.861
There go the women. There go the men.

0:01:40.861,0:01:44.560
Again, yes, women are better on average,[br]but the lines are so close

0:01:44.560,0:01:48.047
that 33 percent of men[br]are better than the average woman,

0:01:48.047,0:01:49.720
and again, if it was 50 percent,

0:01:49.720,0:01:52.462
that would represent[br]complete gender equality.

0:01:52.462,0:01:54.583
So it's not really[br]a case of Mars and Venus.

0:01:54.583,0:01:57.250
It's more a case of, if anything,[br]Mars and Snickers:

0:01:57.250,0:02:01.612
basically the same, but one's maybe [br]slightly nuttier than the other.

0:02:01.612,0:02:03.638
I won't say which.

0:02:03.638,0:02:05.503
Now we've got you warmed up.

0:02:05.503,0:02:08.539
Let's psychoanalyze you using[br]the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

0:02:08.539,0:02:12.122
So you can probably see two, I dunno,[br]two bears or two people or something.

0:02:12.122,0:02:13.875
But what do you think they're doing?

0:02:13.875,0:02:17.059
Put your hand up if you think[br]they're saying hello.

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

0:02:18.870,0:02:21.337
Put your hands up if you think[br]they are high-fiving.

0:02:21.337,0:02:23.307
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

0:02:23.307,0:02:24.562
Only a few people there.

0:02:24.562,0:02:27.639
Okay, so if you think they're[br]saying hello or high-fiving,

0:02:27.639,0:02:29.630
then that means you're a friendly person.

0:02:29.630,0:02:31.220
If you think they're fighting,

0:02:31.220,0:02:33.536
you're a bit more of a [br]nasty, aggressive person.

0:02:33.536,0:02:35.476
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

0:02:35.476,0:02:36.763
What about this one?

0:02:36.763,0:02:40.385
This isn't really a voting one, so on [br]three everyone shout out what you see.

0:02:40.385,0:02:43.549
One, two, three.[br](Audience shouting)

0:02:43.549,0:02:45.241
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

0:02:45.241,0:02:46.778
That was very worrying.

0:02:46.778,0:02:48.291
A guy there said hamster.

0:02:48.291,0:02:51.599
Well, you should see[br]some kind of two-legged animal here,

0:02:51.599,0:02:53.983
and then the mirror image of them there.

0:02:53.983,0:02:57.414
If you didn't, then this means[br]that you have difficulty

0:02:57.414,0:03:01.504
processing complex situations[br]where there's a lot going on.

0:03:01.504,0:03:03.729
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.

0:03:11.136,0:03:14.555
In fact, one recent study found[br]that when you do try

0:03:14.555,0:03:17.614
to diagnose people's personalities[br]using Rorschach inkblot tests,

0:03:17.614,0:03:19.356
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.

0:03:31.105,0:03:34.883
When making a cake, do you prefer to --[br]so hands up for each one again --

0:03:34.883,0:03:37.652
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?

0:03:42.412,0:03:45.075
Or have a go, making it up[br]as you go along?

0:03:45.075,0:03:46.567
Quite a few people there.

0:03:46.567,0:03:48.287
Okay, so if you said A,

0:03:48.287,0:03:50.459
then this means that you[br]are a visual learner

0:03:50.459,0:03:53.987
and you learn best when information[br]is presented in a visual style.

0:03:53.987,0:03:56.569
If you said B, it means[br]you're an auditory learner,

0:03:56.569,0:04:00.294
that you learn best when information[br]is presented to you in an auditory format.

0:04:00.294,0:04:03.229
And if you said C, it means[br]that you're a kinesthetic learner,

0:04:03.229,0:04:06.630
that you learn best when you get stuck in[br]and do things with your hands.

0:04:06.630,0:04:08.788
Except, of course,[br]as you've probably guessed,

0:04:08.788,0:04:11.607
that it doesn't, because[br]the whole thing is a complete myth.

0:04:11.607,0:04:15.465
Learning styles are made up and are [br]not supported by scientific evidence.

0:04:15.465,0:04:19.021
So we know this because in[br]tightly controlled experimental studies,

0:04:19.021,0:04:21.142
when learners are given material to learn

0:04:21.142,0:04:23.762
either in their preferred style[br]or an opposite style,

0:04:23.762,0:04:27.338
it makes no difference at all to the[br]amount of information that they retain.

0:04:27.338,0:04:29.404
And if you think about it[br]for just a second,

0:04:29.404,0:04:31.482
it's just obvious[br]that this has to be true.

0:04:31.482,0:04:34.054
It's obvious that[br]the best presentation format

0:04:34.054,0:04:37.352
depends not on you,[br]but on what you're trying to learn.

0:04:37.357,0:04:39.479
Could you learn to drive a car,[br]for example,

0:04:39.479,0:04:41.897
just by listening to someone[br]telling you what to do

0:04:41.897,0:04:43.525
with no kinesthetic experience?

0:04:43.525,0:04:45.341
Could you solve simultaneous equations

0:04:45.341,0:04:48.487
by talking them through in your head[br]and without writing them down?

0:04:48.487,0:04:50.588
Could you revise [br]for your architecture exams

0:04:50.588,0:04:53.261
using interpretive dance[br]if you're a kinesthetic learner?

0:04:53.261,0:04:56.202
No. What you need to do [br]is match the material to be learned

0:04:56.202,0:04:59.977
to the presentation format, not you.

0:04:59.977,0:05:02.126
I know many of you are A-level students

0:05:02.126,0:05:04.418
that will have recently gotten[br]your GCSE results.

0:05:04.418,0:05:06.976
And if you didn't quite get[br]what you were hoping for,

0:05:06.976,0:05:09.323
then you can't really blame[br]your learning style,

0:05:09.323,0:05:12.950
but one thing that you might want[br]to think about blaming is your genes.

0:05:12.950,0:05:16.635
So what this is all about is a[br]recent study 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 GCSE results

0:05:22.440,0:05:24.097
was down to genetic factors.

0:05:24.097,0:05:27.233
That sounds like a very precise figure,[br]so how can we tell?

0:05:27.233,0:05:30.738
Well, when we want to unpack[br]the relative contributions

0:05:30.738,0:05:32.842
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,

0:05:40.551,0:05:43.773
whereas non-identical twins[br]share 100 percent of their environment,

0:05:43.773,0:05:47.509
but just like any brother and sister,[br]share only 50 percent of their genes.

0:05:47.509,0:05:51.707
So by comparing how similar[br]GCSE results are in identical twins

0:05:51.707,0:05:54.018
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.

0:06:01.401,0:06:05.178
And it turns out that it's[br]about 58 percent due to genes.

0:06:05.178,0:06:08.941
So this isn't to undermine the hard work[br]that you and your teachers here put in.

0:06:08.941,0:06:12.072
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results[br]that you were hoping for,

0:06:12.072,0:06:16.578
then you can always try blaming[br]your parents, or at least their genes.

0:06:16.578,0:06:18.606
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.

0:06:22.879,0:06:25.636
So the myth here is that[br]the left brain is logical,

0:06:25.636,0:06:27.435
it's good with equations like this,

0:06:27.435,0:06:31.534
and the right brain is more creative,[br]so the right brain is better at music.

0:06:31.534,0:06:34.465
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

0:06:43.938,0:06:46.180
is that there is[br]a slight grain of truth to it.

0:06:46.180,0:06:47.790
So a related version of the myth

0:06:47.790,0:06:51.073
is that left-handed people are[br]more creative than right-handed people,

0:06:51.073,0:06:54.527
which kind of makes sense because[br]your brain controls the opposite hands,

0:06:54.527,0:06:55.887
so left-handed people,

0:06:55.887,0:06:58.313
the right side of the brain[br]is slightly more active

0:06:58.313,0:07:00.118
than the left-hand side of the brain,

0:07:00.118,0:07:02.606
and the idea is the right-hand side[br]is more creative.

0:07:02.606,0:07:04.003
Now, it isn't true per se

0:07:04.003,0:07:07.204
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,

0:07:16.074,0:07:17.807
because being ambidextrous involves

0:07:17.807,0:07:20.536
having both sides of the brain[br]talk to each other a lot,

0:07:20.536,0:07:24.298
which seems to be involved[br]in creating flexible thinking.

0:07:24.298,0:07:26.113
The myth of the creative left-hander

0:07:26.113,0:07:28.171
arises from the fact[br]that being ambidextrous

0:07:28.171,0:07:31.298
is more common amongst [br]left-handers than right-handers,

0:07:31.298,0:07:34.347
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.

0:07:35.694,0:07:38.131
A related myth that you've[br]probably heard of

0:07:38.131,0:07:40.504
is that we only use[br]10 percent of our brains.

0:07:40.504,0:07:42.030
This is, again, a complete myth.

0:07:42.030,0:07:44.749
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

0:07:50.693,0:07:55.273
that most of us don't use our brainpower[br]quite as well as we could.

0:07:55.273,0:07:58.239
So what could we do[br]to boost our brainpower?

0:07:58.239,0:08:00.377
Maybe we could listen[br]to a nice bit of Mozart.

0:08:00.377,0:08:03.095
Have you heard of the idea[br]of the Mozart effect?

0:08:03.095,0:08:06.052
So the idea is that listening [br]to Mozart makes you smarter

0:08:06.052,0:08:08.221
and improves your [br]performance on I.Q. tests.

0:08:08.221,0:08:10.326
Now again, what's interesting[br]about this myth

0:08:10.326,0:08:13.767
is that although it's basically a myth,[br]there is a grain of truth to it.

0:08:13.767,0:08:15.541
So the original study found that

0:08:15.541,0:08:19.322
participants who were played[br]Mozart music for a few minutes

0:08:19.322,0:08:21.621
did better on a subsequent I.Q. test

0:08:21.621,0:08:25.034
than participants who simply[br]sat in silence.

0:08:25.034,0:08:28.758
But a follow-up study recruited[br]some people who liked Mozart music

0:08:28.758,0:08:30.539
and then another group of people

0:08:30.539,0:08:33.207
who were fans of [br]the horror stories 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

0:08:39.279,0:08:42.010
got a bigger I.Q. boost[br]from the Mozart than the stories,

0:08:42.010,0:08:44.848
but the people who preferred[br]the stories to the Mozart music

0:08:44.848,0:08:47.955
got a bigger I.Q. boost[br]from listening to the Stephen King stories

0:08:47.955,0:08:49.170
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 I.Q. 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,

0:09:01.104,0:09:04.526
is going to make you any smarter[br]in the long run.

0:09:04.526,0:09:07.466
Another version of the Mozart myth

0:09:07.466,0:09:12.324
is that listening to Mozart can make you[br]not only cleverer but healthier, too.

0:09:12.324,0:09:14.392
Unfortunately, this doesn't[br]seem to be true

0:09:14.392,0:09:17.451
of someone who listened[br]to the music of Mozart almost every day,

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

0:09:19.169,0:09:22.149
who suffered from gonorrhea,[br]smallpox, arthritis,

0:09:22.149,0:09:26.663
and, what most people think eventually[br]killed him in the end, syphilis.

0:09:26.673,0:09:30.035
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?

0:09:34.772,0:09:39.798
So a myth that I have to say[br]is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

0:09:39.798,0:09:43.421
is that our preferences in a romantic [br]partner are a product of our culture,

0:09:43.421,0:09:45.352
that they're very culturally specific.

0:09:45.352,0:09:47.496
But in fact, the data don't back this up.

0:09:47.496,0:09:51.541
A famous study surveyed people from[br]32 different cultures across the globe,

0:09:51.541,0:09:53.117
from Americans to Zulus,

0:09:53.117,0:09:55.483
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,

0:10:04.608,0:10:09.222
women placed more importance than did men[br]on ambition and high earning power.

0:10:09.222,0:10:10.605
In every culture, too,

0:10:10.605,0:10:13.130
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

0:10:29.290,0:10:33.212
to trying to score in basketball[br]or football or whatever your sport is.

0:10:33.212,0:10:37.353
The myth here is that sportsmen go through[br]hot-hand streaks, Americans call them,

0:10:37.353,0:10:39.553
or purple patches,[br]we sometimes say in England,

0:10:39.553,0:10:42.393
where they just can't miss,[br]like this guy here.

0:10:42.393,0:10:46.077
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.

0:10:52.579,0:10:53.936
If you toss a coin,

0:10:53.936,0:10:57.572
a streak of heads or tails is going [br]to come out somewhere in the randomness,

0:10:57.572,0:11:00.683
and because the brain likes to see[br]patterns where there are none,

0:11:00.683,0:11:03.284
we look at these streaks[br]and attribute meanings to them

0:11:03.284,0:11:05.591
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

0:11:05.591,0:11:07.901
whereas actually you would[br]get the same pattern

0:11:07.901,0:11:10.546
if you were just getting[br]hits and misses at random.

0:11:11.406,0:11:14.872
So an exception to this, however,[br]is penalty shootouts.

0:11:14.872,0:11:17.957
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

0:11:33.560,0:11:36.949
of if there's any way that we[br]could improve people's performance.

0:11:36.949,0:11:38.947
And one thing you might think about doing

0:11:38.947,0:11:42.366
is punishing people for their misses[br]and seeing if that improves them.

0:11:42.366,0:11:45.998
This idea, the effect that punishment[br]can improve performance,

0:11:45.998,0:11:48.204
is what participants[br]thought they were testing

0:11:48.204,0:11:50.736
in Milgram's famous learning[br]and punishment experiment

0:11:50.736,0:11:53.744
that you've probably heard about[br]if you're a psychology student.

0:11:53.744,0:11:56.566
The story goes that participants[br]were prepared to give

0:11:56.566,0:11:59.867
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 to.

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

0:12:07.112,0:12:12.016
Firstly and most crucially, the lab coat[br]wasn't white, it was in fact grey.

0:12:12.016,0:12:16.423
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

0:12:21.763,0:12:24.505
and indeed caused[br]no permanent damage whatsoever.

0:12:24.505,0:12:26.825
And thirdly, participants[br]didn't give the shocks

0:12:26.825,0:12:29.473
just because someone[br]in the coat told them to.

0:12:29.473,0:12:31.515
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

0:12:40.245,0:12:46.114
as opposed to the momentary nonfatal[br]discomfort caused to the participants.

0:12:47.025,0:12:49.603
Okay, so I've been talking[br]for about 12 minutes now,

0:12:49.603,0:12:52.289
and you've probably been [br]sitting there listening to me,

0:12:52.289,0:12:54.509
analyzing my speech patterns [br]and body language

0:12:54.509,0:12:58.116
and trying to work out if you should[br]take any notice of what I'm saying,

0:12:58.116,0:13:00.577
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

0:13:05.104,0:13:07.197
from their body language[br]and speech patterns,

0:13:07.197,0:13:09.870
hundreds of psychological tests[br]over the years have shown

0:13:09.870,0:13:12.561
that all of us, including[br]police officers and detectives,

0:13:12.561,0:13:16.061
are basically at chance when it comes[br]to detecting lies from body language

0:13:16.061,0:13:17.642
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.

0:13:21.938,0:13:24.923
It's quite easy to predict[br]when the relatives are missing

0:13:24.923,0:13:28.254
and when the appealers have in fact[br]murdered the relatives themselves.

0:13:28.254,0:13:31.769
So hoax appealers are more likely[br]to shake their heads, to look away,

0:13:31.769,0:13:33.483
and to make errors in their speech,

0:13:33.483,0:13:35.498
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.

0:13:39.584,0:13:44.187
So, for example, they might say[br]"taken from us" rather than "killed."

0:13:44.187,0:13:46.844
Speaking of which,[br]it's about time I killed this talk,

0:13:46.844,0:13:50.052
but before I do, I just want [br]to give you in 30 seconds

0:13:50.052,0:13:53.423
the overarching myth of psychology.

0:13:53.423,0:13:57.720
So the myth is that psychology is just[br]a collection of interesting theories,

0:13:57.720,0:14:01.241
all of which say something useful[br]and all of which have something to offer.

0:14:01.241,0:14:03.740
What I hope to have shown you[br]in the past few minutes

0:14:03.740,0:14:05.325
is that this isn't true.

0:14:05.325,0:14:08.584
What we need to do is assess[br]psychological theories

0:14:08.584,0:14:10.468
by seeing what predictions they make,

0:14:10.468,0:14:13.289
whether that is that listening to Mozart[br]makes you smarter,

0:14:13.289,0:14:18.056
that you learn better when information is[br]presented in your preferred learning style

0:14:18.056,0:14:21.521
or whatever it is, all of these[br]are testable empirical predictions,

0:14:21.521,0:14:23.306
and the only way we can make progress

0:14:23.306,0:14:25.426
is to test these predictions[br]against the data

0:14:25.426,0:14:27.755
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)