1
00:00:00,857 --> 00:00:03,716
You've heard of your I.Q.,
your general intelligence,

2
00:00:03,716 --> 00:00:05,392
but what's your Psy-Q?

3
00:00:05,392 --> 00:00:07,629
How much do you know
about what makes you tick,

4
00:00:07,629 --> 00:00:10,374
and how good are you
at predicting other people's behavior

5
00:00:10,374 --> 00:00:11,880
or even your own?

6
00:00:11,880 --> 00:00:15,159
And how much of what you think you know
about psychology is wrong?

7
00:00:15,159 --> 00:00:18,947
Let's find out by counting down
the top 10 myths of psychology.

8
00:00:18,947 --> 00:00:22,343
You've probably heard it said
that when it comes to their psychology,

9
00:00:22,343 --> 00:00:25,225
it's almost as if men are from Mars
and women are from Venus.

10
00:00:25,235 --> 00:00:27,264
But how different
are men and women really?

11
00:00:27,264 --> 00:00:29,518
To find out, let's start
by looking at something

12
00:00:29,518 --> 00:00:31,495
on which men and women really do differ

13
00:00:31,495 --> 00:00:34,943
and plotting some psychological
gender differences on the same scale.

14
00:00:34,943 --> 00:00:37,116
One thing men and women
do really differ on

15
00:00:37,116 --> 00:00:38,913
is how far they can throw a ball.

16
00:00:38,913 --> 00:00:40,803
So if we look at the data for men here,

17
00:00:40,803 --> 00:00:43,274
we see what is called
a normal distribution curve.

18
00:00:43,274 --> 00:00:46,482
A few men can throw a ball really far,
and a few men not far at all,

19
00:00:46,482 --> 00:00:48,252
but most a kind of average distance.

20
00:00:48,252 --> 00:00:50,416
And women share
the same distribution as well,

21
00:00:50,416 --> 00:00:52,465
but actually there's
quite a big difference.

22
00:00:52,465 --> 00:00:54,913
In fact, the average man
can throw a ball further

23
00:00:54,913 --> 00:00:56,620
than about 98 percent of all women.

24
00:00:56,620 --> 00:00:59,647
So now let's look at what
some psychological gender differences

25
00:00:59,647 --> 00:01:02,504
look like on the same standardized scale.

26
00:01:02,504 --> 00:01:04,090
Any psychologist will tell you

27
00:01:04,090 --> 00:01:06,635
that men are better
at spatial awareness than women --

28
00:01:06,635 --> 00:01:09,373
so things like map-reading, 
for example -- and it's true,

29
00:01:09,373 --> 00:01:11,863
but let's have a look
at the size of this difference.

30
00:01:11,863 --> 00:01:15,250
It's tiny; the lines are so close
together they almost overlap.

31
00:01:15,250 --> 00:01:19,244
In fact, the average woman is better
than 33 percent of all men,

32
00:01:19,244 --> 00:01:21,125
and of course, if that was 50 percent,

33
00:01:21,125 --> 00:01:23,181
then the two genders
would be exactly equal.

34
00:01:23,181 --> 00:01:26,839
It's worth bearing in mind that this
difference and the next one I'll show you

35
00:01:26,839 --> 00:01:29,664
are pretty much the biggest
psychological gender differences

36
00:01:29,664 --> 00:01:31,101
ever discovered in psychology.

37
00:01:31,101 --> 00:01:32,212
So here's the next one.

38
00:01:32,212 --> 00:01:34,650
Any psychologist will tell you
that women are better

39
00:01:34,650 --> 00:01:36,315
with language and grammar than men.

40
00:01:36,315 --> 00:01:38,904
So here's performance
on the standardized grammar test.

41
00:01:38,904 --> 00:01:40,861
There go the women. There go the men.

42
00:01:40,861 --> 00:01:44,560
Again, yes, women are better on average,
but the lines are so close

43
00:01:44,560 --> 00:01:48,047
that 33 percent of men
are better than the average woman,

44
00:01:48,047 --> 00:01:49,720
and again, if it was 50 percent,

45
00:01:49,720 --> 00:01:52,462
that would represent
complete gender equality.

46
00:01:52,462 --> 00:01:54,583
So it's not really
a case of Mars and Venus.

47
00:01:54,583 --> 00:01:57,250
It's more a case of, if anything,
Mars and Snickers:

48
00:01:57,250 --> 00:02:01,612
basically the same, but one's maybe 
slightly nuttier than the other.

49
00:02:01,612 --> 00:02:03,638
I won't say which.

50
00:02:03,638 --> 00:02:05,503
Now we've got you warmed up.

51
00:02:05,503 --> 00:02:08,539
Let's psychoanalyze you using
the famous Rorschach inkblot test.

52
00:02:08,539 --> 00:02:12,122
So you can probably see two, I dunno,
two bears or two people or something.

53
00:02:12,122 --> 00:02:13,875
But what do you think they're doing?

54
00:02:13,875 --> 00:02:17,059
Put your hand up if you think
they're saying hello.

55
00:02:17,059 --> 00:02:18,870
Not many people. Okay.

56
00:02:18,870 --> 00:02:21,337
Put your hands up if you think
they are high-fiving.

57
00:02:21,337 --> 00:02:23,307
Okay. What if you think they're fighting?

58
00:02:23,307 --> 00:02:24,562
Only a few people there.

59
00:02:24,562 --> 00:02:27,639
Okay, so if you think they're
saying hello or high-fiving,

60
00:02:27,639 --> 00:02:29,630
then that means you're a friendly person.

61
00:02:29,630 --> 00:02:31,220
If you think they're fighting,

62
00:02:31,220 --> 00:02:33,536
you're a bit more of a 
nasty, aggressive person.

63
00:02:33,536 --> 00:02:35,476
Are you a lover or a fighter, basically.

64
00:02:35,476 --> 00:02:36,763
What about this one?

65
00:02:36,763 --> 00:02:40,385
This isn't really a voting one, so on 
three everyone shout out what you see.

66
00:02:40,385 --> 00:02:43,549
One, two, three.
(Audience shouting)

67
00:02:43,549 --> 00:02:45,241
I heard hamster. Who said hamster?

68
00:02:45,241 --> 00:02:46,778
That was very worrying.

69
00:02:46,778 --> 00:02:48,291
A guy there said hamster.

70
00:02:48,291 --> 00:02:51,599
Well, you should see
some kind of two-legged animal here,

71
00:02:51,599 --> 00:02:53,983
and then the mirror image of them there.

72
00:02:53,983 --> 00:02:57,414
If you didn't, then this means
that you have difficulty

73
00:02:57,414 --> 00:03:01,504
processing complex situations
where there's a lot going on.

74
00:03:01,504 --> 00:03:03,729
Except, of course,
it doesn't mean that at all.

75
00:03:03,729 --> 00:03:06,400
Rorschach inkblot tests
have basically no validity

76
00:03:06,400 --> 00:03:08,675
when it comes to diagnosing
people's personality

77
00:03:08,675 --> 00:03:11,136
and are not used
by modern-day psychologists.

78
00:03:11,136 --> 00:03:14,555
In fact, one recent study found
that when you do try

79
00:03:14,555 --> 00:03:17,614
to diagnose people's personalities
using Rorschach inkblot tests,

80
00:03:17,614 --> 00:03:19,356
schizophrenia was diagnosed

81
00:03:19,356 --> 00:03:23,349
in about one sixth of apparently
perfectly normal participants.

82
00:03:23,349 --> 00:03:26,182
So if you didn't do that well on this,

83
00:03:26,182 --> 00:03:28,736
maybe you are not
a very visual type of person.

84
00:03:28,736 --> 00:03:31,105
So let's do another
quick quiz to find out.

85
00:03:31,105 --> 00:03:34,883
When making a cake, do you prefer to --
so hands up for each one again --

86
00:03:34,883 --> 00:03:37,652
do you prefer to use
a recipe book with pictures?

87
00:03:37,652 --> 00:03:39,672
Yeah, a few people.

88
00:03:39,672 --> 00:03:42,412
Have a friend talk you through?

89
00:03:42,412 --> 00:03:45,075
Or have a go, making it up
as you go along?

90
00:03:45,075 --> 00:03:46,567
Quite a few people there.

91
00:03:46,567 --> 00:03:48,287
Okay, so if you said A,

92
00:03:48,287 --> 00:03:50,459
then this means that you
are a visual learner

93
00:03:50,459 --> 00:03:53,987
and you learn best when information
is presented in a visual style.

94
00:03:53,987 --> 00:03:56,569
If you said B, it means
you're an auditory learner,

95
00:03:56,569 --> 00:04:00,294
that you learn best when information
is presented to you in an auditory format.

96
00:04:00,294 --> 00:04:03,229
And if you said C, it means
that you're a kinesthetic learner,

97
00:04:03,229 --> 00:04:06,630
that you learn best when you get stuck in
and do things with your hands.

98
00:04:06,630 --> 00:04:08,788
Except, of course,
as you've probably guessed,

99
00:04:08,788 --> 00:04:11,607
that it doesn't, because
the whole thing is a complete myth.

100
00:04:11,607 --> 00:04:15,465
Learning styles are made up and are 
not supported by scientific evidence.

101
00:04:15,465 --> 00:04:19,021
So we know this because in
tightly controlled experimental studies,

102
00:04:19,021 --> 00:04:21,142
when learners are given material to learn

103
00:04:21,142 --> 00:04:23,762
either in their preferred style
or an opposite style,

104
00:04:23,762 --> 00:04:27,338
it makes no difference at all to the
amount of information that they retain.

105
00:04:27,338 --> 00:04:29,404
And if you think about it
for just a second,

106
00:04:29,404 --> 00:04:31,482
it's just obvious
that this has to be true.

107
00:04:31,482 --> 00:04:34,054
It's obvious that
the best presentation format

108
00:04:34,054 --> 00:04:37,352
depends not on you,
but on what you're trying to learn.

109
00:04:37,357 --> 00:04:39,479
Could you learn to drive a car,
for example,

110
00:04:39,479 --> 00:04:41,897
just by listening to someone
telling you what to do

111
00:04:41,897 --> 00:04:43,525
with no kinesthetic experience?

112
00:04:43,525 --> 00:04:45,341
Could you solve simultaneous equations

113
00:04:45,341 --> 00:04:48,487
by talking them through in your head
and without writing them down?

114
00:04:48,487 --> 00:04:50,588
Could you revise 
for your architecture exams

115
00:04:50,588 --> 00:04:53,261
using interpretive dance
if you're a kinesthetic learner?

116
00:04:53,261 --> 00:04:56,202
No. What you need to do 
is match the material to be learned

117
00:04:56,202 --> 00:04:59,977
to the presentation format, not you.

118
00:04:59,977 --> 00:05:02,126
I know many of you are A-level students

119
00:05:02,126 --> 00:05:04,418
that will have recently gotten
your GCSE results.

120
00:05:04,418 --> 00:05:06,976
And if you didn't quite get
what you were hoping for,

121
00:05:06,976 --> 00:05:09,323
then you can't really blame
your learning style,

122
00:05:09,323 --> 00:05:12,950
but one thing that you might want
to think about blaming is your genes.

123
00:05:12,950 --> 00:05:16,635
So what this is all about is a
recent study at University College London

124
00:05:16,635 --> 00:05:19,189
found that 58 percent of the variation

125
00:05:19,189 --> 00:05:22,440
between different students
and their GCSE results

126
00:05:22,440 --> 00:05:24,097
was down to genetic factors.

127
00:05:24,097 --> 00:05:27,233
That sounds like a very precise figure,
so how can we tell?

128
00:05:27,233 --> 00:05:30,738
Well, when we want to unpack
the relative contributions

129
00:05:30,738 --> 00:05:32,842
of genes and the environment,

130
00:05:32,842 --> 00:05:35,071
what we can do is do a twin study.

131
00:05:35,071 --> 00:05:38,647
So identical twins share
100 percent of their environment

132
00:05:38,647 --> 00:05:40,551
and 100 percent of their genes,

133
00:05:40,551 --> 00:05:43,773
whereas non-identical twins
share 100 percent of their environment,

134
00:05:43,773 --> 00:05:47,509
but just like any brother and sister,
share only 50 percent of their genes.

135
00:05:47,509 --> 00:05:51,707
So by comparing how similar
GCSE results are in identical twins

136
00:05:51,707 --> 00:05:54,018
versus non-identical twins,

137
00:05:54,018 --> 00:05:55,364
and doing some clever math,

138
00:05:55,364 --> 00:05:59,265
we can an idea of how much variation
and performance is due to the environment

139
00:05:59,265 --> 00:06:01,401
and how much is due to genes.

140
00:06:01,401 --> 00:06:05,178
And it turns out that it's
about 58 percent due to genes.

141
00:06:05,178 --> 00:06:08,941
So this isn't to undermine the hard work
that you and your teachers here put in.

142
00:06:08,941 --> 00:06:12,072
If you didn't quite get the GCSE results
that you were hoping for,

143
00:06:12,072 --> 00:06:16,578
then you can always try blaming
your parents, or at least their genes.

144
00:06:16,578 --> 00:06:18,606
One thing that you shouldn't blame

145
00:06:18,606 --> 00:06:21,068
is being a left-brained
or right-brained learner,

146
00:06:21,068 --> 00:06:22,879
because again, this is a myth.

147
00:06:22,879 --> 00:06:25,636
So the myth here is that
the left brain is logical,

148
00:06:25,636 --> 00:06:27,435
it's good with equations like this,

149
00:06:27,435 --> 00:06:31,534
and the right brain is more creative,
so the right brain is better at music.

150
00:06:31,534 --> 00:06:34,465
But again, this is a myth
because nearly everything that you do

151
00:06:34,465 --> 00:06:37,275
involves nearly all parts
of your brain talking together,

152
00:06:37,275 --> 00:06:40,595
even just the most mundane thing
like having a normal conversation.

153
00:06:40,595 --> 00:06:43,938
However, perhaps one reason
why this myth has survived

154
00:06:43,938 --> 00:06:46,180
is that there is
a slight grain of truth to it.

155
00:06:46,180 --> 00:06:47,790
So a related version of the myth

156
00:06:47,790 --> 00:06:51,073
is that left-handed people are
more creative than right-handed people,

157
00:06:51,073 --> 00:06:54,527
which kind of makes sense because
your brain controls the opposite hands,

158
00:06:54,527 --> 00:06:55,887
so left-handed people,

159
00:06:55,887 --> 00:06:58,313
the right side of the brain
is slightly more active

160
00:06:58,313 --> 00:07:00,118
than the left-hand side of the brain,

161
00:07:00,118 --> 00:07:02,606
and the idea is the right-hand side
is more creative.

162
00:07:02,606 --> 00:07:04,003
Now, it isn't true per se

163
00:07:04,003 --> 00:07:07,204
that left-handed people are more creative
than right-handed people.

164
00:07:07,204 --> 00:07:09,619
What is true that ambidextrous people,

165
00:07:09,619 --> 00:07:12,312
or people who use both hands
for different tasks,

166
00:07:12,312 --> 00:07:16,074
are more creative thinkers
than one-handed people,

167
00:07:16,074 --> 00:07:17,807
because being ambidextrous involves

168
00:07:17,807 --> 00:07:20,536
having both sides of the brain
talk to each other a lot,

169
00:07:20,536 --> 00:07:24,298
which seems to be involved
in creating flexible thinking.

170
00:07:24,298 --> 00:07:26,113
The myth of the creative left-hander

171
00:07:26,113 --> 00:07:28,171
arises from the fact
that being ambidextrous

172
00:07:28,171 --> 00:07:31,298
is more common amongst 
left-handers than right-handers,

173
00:07:31,298 --> 00:07:34,347
so a grain of truth in the idea
of the creative left-hander,

174
00:07:34,347 --> 00:07:35,694
but not much.

175
00:07:35,694 --> 00:07:38,131
A related myth that you've
probably heard of

176
00:07:38,131 --> 00:07:40,504
is that we only use
10 percent of our brains.

177
00:07:40,504 --> 00:07:42,030
This is, again, a complete myth.

178
00:07:42,030 --> 00:07:44,749
Nearly everything that we do,
even the most mundane thing,

179
00:07:44,749 --> 00:07:46,932
uses nearly all of our brains.

180
00:07:46,932 --> 00:07:50,693
That said, it is of course true

181
00:07:50,693 --> 00:07:55,273
that most of us don't use our brainpower
quite as well as we could.

182
00:07:55,273 --> 00:07:58,239
So what could we do
to boost our brainpower?

183
00:07:58,239 --> 00:08:00,377
Maybe we could listen
to a nice bit of Mozart.

184
00:08:00,377 --> 00:08:03,095
Have you heard of the idea
of the Mozart effect?

185
00:08:03,095 --> 00:08:06,052
So the idea is that listening 
to Mozart makes you smarter

186
00:08:06,052 --> 00:08:08,221
and improves your 
performance on I.Q. tests.

187
00:08:08,221 --> 00:08:10,326
Now again, what's interesting
about this myth

188
00:08:10,326 --> 00:08:13,767
is that although it's basically a myth,
there is a grain of truth to it.

189
00:08:13,767 --> 00:08:15,541
So the original study found that

190
00:08:15,541 --> 00:08:19,322
participants who were played
Mozart music for a few minutes

191
00:08:19,322 --> 00:08:21,621
did better on a subsequent I.Q. test

192
00:08:21,621 --> 00:08:25,034
than participants who simply
sat in silence.

193
00:08:25,034 --> 00:08:28,758
But a follow-up study recruited
some people who liked Mozart music

194
00:08:28,758 --> 00:08:30,539
and then another group of people

195
00:08:30,539 --> 00:08:33,207
who were fans of 
the horror stories of Stephen King.

196
00:08:33,207 --> 00:08:36,771
And they played the people
the music or the stories.

197
00:08:36,771 --> 00:08:39,279
The people who preferred
Mozart music to the stories

198
00:08:39,279 --> 00:08:42,010
got a bigger I.Q. boost
from the Mozart than the stories,

199
00:08:42,010 --> 00:08:44,848
but the people who preferred
the stories to the Mozart music

200
00:08:44,848 --> 00:08:47,955
got a bigger I.Q. boost
from listening to the Stephen King stories

201
00:08:47,955 --> 00:08:49,170
than the Mozart music.

202
00:08:49,170 --> 00:08:51,933
So the truth is that listening
to something that you enjoy

203
00:08:51,933 --> 00:08:55,184
perks you up a bit
and gives you a temporary I.Q. boost

204
00:08:55,184 --> 00:08:57,111
on a narrow range of tasks.

205
00:08:57,111 --> 00:08:59,479
There's no suggestion that
listening to Mozart,

206
00:08:59,479 --> 00:09:01,104
or indeed Stephen King stories,

207
00:09:01,104 --> 00:09:04,526
is going to make you any smarter
in the long run.

208
00:09:04,526 --> 00:09:07,466
Another version of the Mozart myth

209
00:09:07,466 --> 00:09:12,324
is that listening to Mozart can make you
not only cleverer but healthier, too.

210
00:09:12,324 --> 00:09:14,392
Unfortunately, this doesn't
seem to be true

211
00:09:14,392 --> 00:09:17,451
of someone who listened
to the music of Mozart almost every day,

212
00:09:17,451 --> 00:09:19,169
Mozart himself,

213
00:09:19,169 --> 00:09:22,149
who suffered from gonorrhea,
smallpox, arthritis,

214
00:09:22,149 --> 00:09:26,663
and, what most people think eventually
killed him in the end, syphilis.

215
00:09:26,673 --> 00:09:30,035
This suggests that Mozart
should have bit more careful, perhaps,

216
00:09:30,035 --> 00:09:32,613
when choosing his sexual partners.

217
00:09:32,613 --> 00:09:34,772
But how do we choose a partner?

218
00:09:34,772 --> 00:09:39,798
So a myth that I have to say
is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists

219
00:09:39,798 --> 00:09:43,421
is that our preferences in a romantic 
partner are a product of our culture,

220
00:09:43,421 --> 00:09:45,352
that they're very culturally specific.

221
00:09:45,352 --> 00:09:47,496
But in fact, the data don't back this up.

222
00:09:47,496 --> 00:09:51,541
A famous study surveyed people from
32 different cultures across the globe,

223
00:09:51,541 --> 00:09:53,117
from Americans to Zulus,

224
00:09:53,117 --> 00:09:55,483
on what they look for in a partner.

225
00:09:55,483 --> 00:09:57,852
And in every single culture
across the globe,

226
00:09:57,852 --> 00:10:01,567
men placed more value
on physical attractiveness in a partner

227
00:10:01,567 --> 00:10:02,867
than did women,

228
00:10:02,867 --> 00:10:04,608
and in every single culture, too,

229
00:10:04,608 --> 00:10:09,222
women placed more importance than did men
on ambition and high earning power.

230
00:10:09,222 --> 00:10:10,605
In every culture, too,

231
00:10:10,605 --> 00:10:13,130
men preferred women
who were younger than themselves,

232
00:10:13,130 --> 00:10:15,939
an average of, I think it was 2.66 years,

233
00:10:15,939 --> 00:10:17,588
and in every culture, too,

234
00:10:17,588 --> 00:10:20,188
women preferred men
who were older than them,

235
00:10:20,188 --> 00:10:22,998
so an average of 3.42 years,

236
00:10:22,998 --> 00:10:26,713
which is why we've got here
"Everybody needs a Sugar Daddy."

237
00:10:26,713 --> 00:10:29,290
So moving on from trying
to score with a partner

238
00:10:29,290 --> 00:10:33,212
to trying to score in basketball
or football or whatever your sport is.

239
00:10:33,212 --> 00:10:37,353
The myth here is that sportsmen go through
hot-hand streaks, Americans call them,

240
00:10:37,353 --> 00:10:39,553
or purple patches,
we sometimes say in England,

241
00:10:39,553 --> 00:10:42,393
where they just can't miss,
like this guy here.

242
00:10:42,393 --> 00:10:46,077
But in fact, what happens is that
if you analyze the pattern

243
00:10:46,077 --> 00:10:47,865
of hits and misses statistically,

244
00:10:47,865 --> 00:10:50,164
it turns out that it's
nearly always at random.

245
00:10:50,164 --> 00:10:52,579
Your brain creates patterns
from the randomness.

246
00:10:52,579 --> 00:10:53,936
If you toss a coin,

247
00:10:53,936 --> 00:10:57,572
a streak of heads or tails is going 
to come out somewhere in the randomness,

248
00:10:57,572 --> 00:11:00,683
and because the brain likes to see
patterns where there are none,

249
00:11:00,683 --> 00:11:03,284
we look at these streaks
and attribute meanings to them

250
00:11:03,284 --> 00:11:05,591
and say, "Yeah he's really on form today,"

251
00:11:05,591 --> 00:11:07,901
whereas actually you would
get the same pattern

252
00:11:07,901 --> 00:11:10,546
if you were just getting
hits and misses at random.

253
00:11:11,406 --> 00:11:14,872
So an exception to this, however,
is penalty shootouts.

254
00:11:14,872 --> 00:11:17,957
A recent study looking
at penalty shootouts in football

255
00:11:17,957 --> 00:11:19,977
shows that players who represent countries

256
00:11:19,977 --> 00:11:22,601
with a very bad record
in penalty shootouts,

257
00:11:22,601 --> 00:11:24,784
like, for example, England,

258
00:11:24,784 --> 00:11:28,545
tend to be quicker to take their shots
than countries with a better record,

259
00:11:28,545 --> 00:11:31,865
and presumably as a result,
they're more likely to miss.

260
00:11:31,865 --> 00:11:33,560
Which raises the question

261
00:11:33,560 --> 00:11:36,949
of if there's any way that we
could improve people's performance.

262
00:11:36,949 --> 00:11:38,947
And one thing you might think about doing

263
00:11:38,947 --> 00:11:42,366
is punishing people for their misses
and seeing if that improves them.

264
00:11:42,366 --> 00:11:45,998
This idea, the effect that punishment
can improve performance,

265
00:11:45,998 --> 00:11:48,204
is what participants
thought they were testing

266
00:11:48,204 --> 00:11:50,736
in Milgram's famous learning
and punishment experiment

267
00:11:50,736 --> 00:11:53,744
that you've probably heard about
if you're a psychology student.

268
00:11:53,744 --> 00:11:56,566
The story goes that participants
were prepared to give

269
00:11:56,566 --> 00:11:59,867
what they believed to be fatal
electric shocks to a fellow participant

270
00:11:59,867 --> 00:12:01,888
when they got a question wrong,

271
00:12:01,888 --> 00:12:04,697
just because someone
in a white coat told them to.

272
00:12:04,697 --> 00:12:07,112
But this story is a myth
for three reasons.

273
00:12:07,112 --> 00:12:12,016
Firstly and most crucially, the lab coat
wasn't white, it was in fact grey.

274
00:12:12,016 --> 00:12:16,423
Secondly, the participants
were told before the study

275
00:12:16,423 --> 00:12:18,930
and reminded any time
they raised a concern,

276
00:12:18,930 --> 00:12:21,763
that although the shocks were painful,
they were not fatal

277
00:12:21,763 --> 00:12:24,505
and indeed caused
no permanent damage whatsoever.

278
00:12:24,505 --> 00:12:26,825
And thirdly, participants
didn't give the shocks

279
00:12:26,825 --> 00:12:29,473
just because someone
in the coat told them to.

280
00:12:29,473 --> 00:12:31,515
When they were interviewed
after the study,

281
00:12:31,515 --> 00:12:34,023
all the participants said
that they firmly believed

282
00:12:34,023 --> 00:12:37,807
that the learning and punishment study
served a worthy scientific purpose

283
00:12:37,807 --> 00:12:40,245
which would have
enduring gains for science

284
00:12:40,245 --> 00:12:46,114
as opposed to the momentary nonfatal
discomfort caused to the participants.

285
00:12:47,025 --> 00:12:49,603
Okay, so I've been talking
for about 12 minutes now,

286
00:12:49,603 --> 00:12:52,289
and you've probably been 
sitting there listening to me,

287
00:12:52,289 --> 00:12:54,509
analyzing my speech patterns 
and body language

288
00:12:54,509 --> 00:12:58,116
and trying to work out if you should
take any notice of what I'm saying,

289
00:12:58,116 --> 00:13:00,577
whether I'm telling the truth
or whether I'm lying,

290
00:13:00,577 --> 00:13:02,759
but if so you've
probably completely failed,

291
00:13:02,759 --> 00:13:05,104
because although we all think
we can catch a liar

292
00:13:05,104 --> 00:13:07,197
from their body language
and speech patterns,

293
00:13:07,197 --> 00:13:09,870
hundreds of psychological tests
over the years have shown

294
00:13:09,870 --> 00:13:12,561
that all of us, including
police officers and detectives,

295
00:13:12,561 --> 00:13:16,061
are basically at chance when it comes
to detecting lies from body language

296
00:13:16,061 --> 00:13:17,642
and verbal patterns.

297
00:13:17,642 --> 00:13:19,686
Interestingly, there is one exception:

298
00:13:19,686 --> 00:13:21,938
TV appeals for missing relatives.

299
00:13:21,938 --> 00:13:24,923
It's quite easy to predict
when the relatives are missing

300
00:13:24,923 --> 00:13:28,254
and when the appealers have in fact
murdered the relatives themselves.

301
00:13:28,254 --> 00:13:31,769
So hoax appealers are more likely
to shake their heads, to look away,

302
00:13:31,769 --> 00:13:33,483
and to make errors in their speech,

303
00:13:33,483 --> 00:13:35,498
whereas genuine appealers are more likely

304
00:13:35,498 --> 00:13:37,843
to express hope that the person
will return safely

305
00:13:37,843 --> 00:13:39,584
and to avoid brutal language.

306
00:13:39,584 --> 00:13:44,187
So, for example, they might say
"taken from us" rather than "killed."

307
00:13:44,187 --> 00:13:46,844
Speaking of which,
it's about time I killed this talk,

308
00:13:46,844 --> 00:13:50,052
but before I do, I just want 
to give you in 30 seconds

309
00:13:50,052 --> 00:13:53,423
the overarching myth of psychology.

310
00:13:53,423 --> 00:13:57,720
So the myth is that psychology is just
a collection of interesting theories,

311
00:13:57,720 --> 00:14:01,241
all of which say something useful
and all of which have something to offer.

312
00:14:01,241 --> 00:14:03,740
What I hope to have shown you
in the past few minutes

313
00:14:03,740 --> 00:14:05,325
is that this isn't true.

314
00:14:05,325 --> 00:14:08,584
What we need to do is assess
psychological theories

315
00:14:08,584 --> 00:14:10,468
by seeing what predictions they make,

316
00:14:10,468 --> 00:14:13,289
whether that is that listening to Mozart
makes you smarter,

317
00:14:13,289 --> 00:14:18,056
that you learn better when information is
presented in your preferred learning style

318
00:14:18,056 --> 00:14:21,521
or whatever it is, all of these
are testable empirical predictions,

319
00:14:21,521 --> 00:14:23,306
and the only way we can make progress

320
00:14:23,306 --> 00:14:25,426
is to test these predictions
against the data

321
00:14:25,426 --> 00:14:27,755
in tightly controlled
experimental studies.

322
00:14:27,755 --> 00:14:30,889
And it's only by doing so
that we can hope to discover

323
00:14:30,889 --> 00:14:33,513
which of these theories
are well supported,

324
00:14:33,513 --> 00:14:36,903
and which, like all the ones
I've told you about today, are myths.

325
00:14:36,903 --> 00:14:38,412
Thank you.

326
00:14:38,412 --> 00:14:41,872
(Applause)