You've heard of your I.Q., your general intelligence, but what's your Psy-Q? How much do you know about what makes you tick, and how good are you at predicting other people's behavior or even your own? And how much of what you think you know about psychology is wrong? Let's find out by counting down the top 10 myths of psychology.
You've probably heard it said that when it comes to their psychology, it's almost as if men are from Mars and women are from Venus. But how different are men and women really? To find out, let's start by looking at something on which men and women really do differ and plotting some psychological gender differences on the same scale. One thing men and women do really differ on is how far they can throw a ball. So if we look at the data for men here, we see what is called a normal distribution curve. A few men can throw a ball really far, and a few men not far at all, but most a kind of average distance. And women share the same distribution as well, but actually there's quite a big difference. In fact, the average man can throw a ball further than about 98 percent of all women. So now let's look at what some psychological gender differences look like on the same standardized scale. Any psychologist will tell you that men are better at spatial awareness than women -- so things like map-reading, for example -- and it's true, but let's have a look at the size of this difference. It's tiny; the lines are so close together they almost overlap. In fact, the average woman is better than 33 percent of all men, and of course, if that was 50 percent, then the two genders would be exactly equal. It's worth bearing in mind that this difference and the next one I'll show you are pretty much the biggest psychological gender differences ever discovered in psychology. So here's the next one. Any psychologist will tell you that women are better with language and grammar than men. So here's performance on the standardized grammar test. There go the women. There go the men. Again, yes, women are better on average, but the lines are so close that 33 percent of men are better than the average woman, and again, if it was 50 percent, that would represent complete gender equality. So it's not really a case of Mars and Venus. It's more a case of, if anything, Mars and Snickers: basically the same, but one's maybe slightly nuttier than the other. I won't say which.
Now we've got you warmed up. Let's psychoanalyze you using the famous Rorschach inkblot test. So you can probably see two, I dunno, two bears or two people or something. But what do you think they're doing? Put your hand up if you think they're saying hello. Not many people. Okay. Put your hands up if you think they are high-fiving. Okay. What if you think they're fighting? Only a few people there. Okay, so if you think they're saying hello or high-fiving, then that means you're a friendly person. If you think they're fighting, you're a bit more of a nasty, aggressive person. Are you a lover or a fighter, basically. What about this one? This isn't really a voting one, so on three everyone shout out what you see. One, two, three. (Audience shouting) I heard hamster. Who said hamster? That was very worrying. A guy there said hamster. Well, you should see some kind of two-legged animal here, and then the mirror image of them there. If you didn't, then this means that you have difficulty processing complex situations where there's a lot going on.
Except, of course, it doesn't mean that at all. Rorschach inkblot tests have basically no validity when it comes to diagnosing people's personality and are not used by modern-day psychologists. In fact, one recent study found that when you do try to diagnose people's personalities using Rorschach inkblot tests, schizophrenia was diagnosed in about one sixth of apparently perfectly normal participants.
So if you didn't do that well on this, maybe you are not a very visual type of person. So let's do another quick quiz to find out. When making a cake, do you prefer to -- so hands up for each one again -- do you prefer to use a recipe book with pictures? Yeah, a few people. Have a friend talk you through? Or have a go, making it up as you go along? Quite a few people there. Okay, so if you said A, then this means that you are a visual learner and you learn best when information is presented in a visual style. If you said B, it means you're an auditory learner, that you learn best when information is presented to you in an auditory format. And if you said C, it means that you're a kinesthetic learner, that you learn best when you get stuck in and do things with your hands.
Except, of course, as you've probably guessed, that it doesn't, because the whole thing is a complete myth. Learning styles are made up and are not supported by scientific evidence. So we know this because in tightly controlled experimental studies, when learners are given material to learn either in their preferred style or an opposite style, it makes no difference at all to the amount of information that they retain. And if you think about it for just a second, it's just obvious that this has to be true. It's obvious that the best presentation format depends not on you, but on what you're trying to learn. Could you learn to drive a car, for example, just by listening to someone telling you what to do with no kinesthetic experience? Could you solve simultaneous equations by talking them through in your head and without writing them down? Could you revise for your architecture exams using interpretive dance if you're a kinesthetic learner? No. What you need to do is match the material to be learned to the presentation format, not you.
I know many of you are A-level students that will have recently gotten your GCSE results. And if you didn't quite get what you were hoping for, then you can't really blame your learning style, but one thing that you might want to think about blaming is your genes. So what this is all about is a recent study at University College London found that 58 percent of the variation between different students and their GCSE results was down to genetic factors. That sounds like a very precise figure, so how can we tell? Well, when we want to unpack the relative contributions of genes and the environment, what we can do is do a twin study. So identical twins share 100 percent of their environment and 100 percent of their genes, whereas non-identical twins share 100 percent of their environment, but just like any brother and sister, share only 50 percent of their genes. So by comparing how similar GCSE results are in identical twins versus non-identical twins, and doing some clever math, we can an idea of how much variation and performance is due to the environment and how much is due to genes. And it turns out that it's about 58 percent due to genes. So this isn't to undermine the hard work that you and your teachers here put in. If you didn't quite get the GCSE results that you were hoping for, then you can always try blaming your parents, or at least their genes.
One thing that you shouldn't blame is being a left-brained or right-brained learner, because again, this is a myth. So the myth here is that the left brain is logical, it's good with equations like this, and the right brain is more creative, so the right brain is better at music. But again, this is a myth because nearly everything that you do involves nearly all parts of your brain talking together, even just the most mundane thing like having a normal conversation. However, perhaps one reason why this myth has survived is that there is a slight grain of truth to it. So a related version of the myth is that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people, which kind of makes sense because your brain controls the opposite hands, so left-handed people, the right side of the brain is slightly more active than the left-hand side of the brain, and the idea is the right-hand side is more creative. Now, it isn't true per se that left-handed people are more creative than right-handed people. What is true that ambidextrous people, or people who use both hands for different tasks, are more creative thinkers than one-handed people, because being ambidextrous involves having both sides of the brain talk to each other a lot, which seems to be involved in creating flexible thinking. The myth of the creative left-hander arises from the fact that being ambidextrous is more common amongst left-handers than right-handers, so a grain of truth in the idea of the creative left-hander, but not much.
That said, it is of course true that most of us don't use our brainpower quite as well as we could. So what could we do to boost our brainpower? Maybe we could listen to a nice bit of Mozart. Have you heard of the idea of the Mozart effect? So the idea is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter and improves your performance on I.Q. tests. Now again, what's interesting about this myth is that although it's basically a myth, there is a grain of truth to it. So the original study found that participants who were played Mozart music for a few minutes did better on a subsequent I.Q. test than participants who simply sat in silence. But a follow-up study recruited some people who liked Mozart music and then another group of people who were fans of the horror stories of Stephen King. And they played the people the music or the stories. The people who preferred Mozart music to the stories got a bigger I.Q. boost from the Mozart than the stories, but the people who preferred the stories to the Mozart music got a bigger I.Q. boost from listening to the Stephen King stories than the Mozart music. So the truth is that listening to something that you enjoy perks you up a bit and gives you a temporary I.Q. boost on a narrow range of tasks. There's no suggestion that listening to Mozart, or indeed Stephen King stories, is going to make you any smarter in the long run.
Another version of the Mozart myth is that listening to Mozart can make you not only cleverer but healthier, too. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be true of someone who listened to the music of Mozart almost every day, Mozart himself, who suffered from gonorrhea, smallpox, arthritis, and, what most people think eventually killed him in the end, syphilis. This suggests that Mozart should have bit more careful, perhaps, when choosing his sexual partners. But how do we choose a partner?
So a myth that I have to say is sometimes spread a bit by sociologists is that our preferences in a romantic partner are a product of our culture, that they're very culturally specific. But in fact, the data don't back this up. A famous study surveyed people from [37] different cultures across the globe, from Americans to Zulus, on what they look for in a partner. And in every single culture across the globe, men placed more value on physical attractiveness in a partner than did women, and in every single culture, too, women placed more importance than did men on ambition and high earning power. In every culture, too, men preferred women who were younger than themselves, an average of, I think it was 2.66 years, and in every culture, too, women preferred men who were older than them, so an average of 3.42 years, which is why we've got here "Everybody needs a Sugar Daddy."
So moving on from trying to score with a partner to trying to score in basketball or football or whatever your sport is. The myth here is that sportsmen go through hot-hand streaks, Americans call them, or purple patches, we sometimes say in England, where they just can't miss, like this guy here. But in fact, what happens is that if you analyze the pattern of hits and misses statistically, it turns out that it's nearly always at random. Your brain creates patterns from the randomness. If you toss a coin, a streak of heads or tails is going to come out somewhere in the randomness, and because the brain likes to see patterns where there are none, we look at these streaks and attribute meanings to them and say, "Yeah he's really on form today," whereas actually you would get the same pattern if you were just getting hits and misses at random.
So an exception to this, however, is penalty shootouts. A recent study looking at penalty shootouts in football shows that players who represent countries with a very bad record in penalty shootouts, like, for example, England, tend to be quicker to take their shots than countries with a better record, and presumably as a result, they're more likely to miss.
Which raises the question of if there's any way that we could improve people's performance. And one thing you might think about doing is punishing people for their misses and seeing if that improves them. This idea, the effect that punishment can improve performance, is what participants thought they were testing in Milgram's famous learning and punishment experiment that you've probably heard about if you're a psychology student. The story goes that participants were prepared to give what they believed to be fatal electric shocks to a fellow participant when they got a question wrong, just because someone in a white coat told them to.
But this story is a myth for three reasons. Firstly and most crucially, the lab coat wasn't white, it was in fact grey. Secondly, the participants were told before the study and reminded any time they raised a concern, that although the shocks were painful, they were not fatal and indeed caused no permanent damage whatsoever. And thirdly, participants didn't give the shocks just because someone in the coat told them to. When they were interviewed after the study, all the participants said that they firmly believed that the learning and punishment study served a worthy scientific purpose which would have enduring gains for science as opposed to the momentary nonfatal discomfort caused to the participants.
Okay, so I've been talking for about 12 minutes now, and you've probably been sitting there listening to me, analyzing my speech patterns and body language and trying to work out if you should take any notice of what I'm saying, whether I'm telling the truth or whether I'm lying, but if so you've probably completely failed, because although we all think we can catch a liar from their body language and speech patterns, hundreds of psychological tests over the years have shown that all of us, including police officers and detectives, are basically at chance when it comes to detecting lies from body language and verbal patterns. Interestingly, there is one exception: TV appeals for missing relatives. It's quite easy to predict when the relatives are missing and when the appealers have in fact murdered the relatives themselves. So hoax appealers are more likely to shake their heads, to look away, and to make errors in their speech, whereas genuine appealers are more likely to express hope that the person will return safely and to avoid brutal language. So, for example, they might say "taken from us" rather than "killed."
Speaking of which, it's about time I killed this talk, but before I do, I just want to give you in 30 seconds the overarching myth of psychology. So the myth is that psychology is just a collection of interesting theories, all of which say something useful and all of which have something to offer. What I hope to have shown you in the past few minutes is that this isn't true. What we need to do is assess psychological theories by seeing what predictions they make, whether that is that listening to Mozart makes you smarter, that you learn better when information is presented in your preferred learning style or whatever it is, all of these are testable empirical predictions, and the only way we can make progress is to test these predictions against the data in tightly controlled experimental studies. And it's only by doing so that we can hope to discover which of these theories are well supported, and which, like all the ones I've told you about today, are myths.
你可能听过这本书， 描述心理学时 男人仿佛来自火星， 女人来自金星。 但男人和女人间 究竟有多大的差异？ 为了找到答案， 让我们看看男女在 哪些方面存在明显的差别， 然后再把这些心理学上的性别差异 在同一张图上表现出来。 那么男女差异的其中一项是 扔球距离的远近。 当我们看男性的数据。 我们看到一条所谓的 标准分布曲线。 有些男性可以把球扔很远， 有些男性却稍逊一点， 但大多数都在平均距离附近。 女性的表现也呈现了 相同的分布曲线， 但实际上却存在相当大的差异。 事实上，男性平均来说 可以把球扔得更远， 超过了98％的女性。 那么现在我们来看看 男女在心理上的一些差别， 还是以同样的标准来比较。 任何心理学家都会告诉你 男人比女人的空间感更好—— 例如， 像阅读地图这样的事 ——这的确是事实， 不过让我们看看这种差异到底有多大。 差异非常小, 线条如此接近， 近乎重叠。 事实上，女性平均来说比 33％的男性的表现要好， 当然，如果这百分比是50％， 那么，男性和女性将是完全相同。 请记住这种差异， 我马上要说的下一个例子 几乎是心理学迄今为止发现的 男女心理上的最大差异。 那么就是这个。 任何心理学家都会告诉你 女性在语言和语法方面比男性更好。 这表现在标准化语法测试上。 这是女性曲线（紫色）， 这是男性曲线（青色）。 没错，女性在平均水平上更好， 但线条很接近， 33％的男性表现超过了女性平均值， 同样，如果这百分比是50％ 这将代表完全的性别无差异。 因此，这不是火星和金星的对比， 它更像巧克力棒Mars和Snickers的差别， 基本相同，但一种可能比另一种稍甜。 我不会说到底哪种更甜。
现在，你们大概有所了解了， 让我们用著名的Rorschach 墨迹测试法对你进行心理分析。 也许你看到两个，我说不好， 两只熊，两个人或者别的什么。 你觉得他们在做什么？ 认为他们在打招呼的请举手。 没多少人，好的。 认为他们在击掌的请举手。 好的，认为他们在打斗的呢？ 不是很多。 那么如果你认为他们是在打招呼或击掌， 这意味着你是一个友善的人。 如果你认为他们在打斗， 说明你不是很受欢迎，带点攻击性。 基本可以判断你很友善 还是不太好相处。 那么这个呢？ 这回我们不需要举手表决， 数3个数，每个人喊出你所看到的。 1，2，3。 （观众喊） 我听到了仓鼠，谁说的仓鼠？ 这就有点让人不安了。 那里一个家伙说仓鼠。 你们应该看到某种两足动物， 以及对称的镜像。 如果你看不出来， 这意味着你在处理复杂形势， 同时处理很多信息的时候 会感到很困难。
当然你可能已经猜到， 这样的结论不太可靠， 因为整个学习过程要比这复杂得多。 这种学习方式只是人为定义的， 并没有科学证据的支持。 我们了解到这些， 是因为在严格对照的实验研究里， 给学习者提供的学习资料 要么是他们喜欢的学习方式， 要么就是他们不喜欢的， 事实证明他们所掌握的信息数量 完全没有区别。 如果你仔细思考一下， 很明显，这是真实的。 最好的呈现方式 不取决于你， 而取决于你尝试学习的东西。 例如，你学开车的时候， 只是通过听别人口头传授， 而不需要任何动觉的经验吗？ 你在解联立方程的时候， 只是通过单纯的大脑思考， 而不用把它们写下来吗？ 如果你是一个动觉学习者， 在复习建筑学考试的时候 能使用诠释性的舞蹈吗？ 当然不行，你需要做的 是要将需要学习的材料 与它表现的形式相匹配， 而不是与你习惯的方式。
我知道许多在座的人是优等生， 最近刚拿到你的GCSE （中等教育普通证书）的结果。 如果你没有完全 得到你预期的成绩， 你真的不能责怪 你的学习方式， 但你也许可以考虑责怪的 事情之一就是你的基因。 这里有伦敦大学学院 最近做的一项研究， 发现在不同学生 和他们的GCSE成绩之间 有58%的差异来自遗传因素。 这听起来是一个精确的数字， 我们是怎么确定它的？ 当我们想解开关于基因和环境 相互作用的问题， 我们可以做双胞胎研究。 同卵双胞胎有100%相同的环境 以及100%相同的基因， 然而，异卵双胞胎 有100％相同的环境， 但像任何兄弟姐妹一样， 只有一半相同的基因。 因此，通过比较同卵双胞胎 与异卵双胞胎的 GCSE的成绩， 做一些巧妙的计算后， 我们就可以知道有多少 表现和差异来自环境， 有多少是受基因的影响。 而结果证明， 约58％的差异是基因导致的。 所以，并不是说你和你老师们的 辛苦付出没起到什么作用。 如果你没有得到你预期的 GCSE成绩， 那么你可以尝试去埋怨 你的父母，或至少他们的基因。
有一件你不应该去埋怨的事情， 是关于左脑学习者 或右脑学习者， 因为，这同样也是个错误观念。 它描述的是 左脑是主管逻辑， 它擅于解方程式， 而右脑更富有创意， 在音乐方面表现更佳。 但同样，这是一个错误观念， 因为几乎你所做的每件事情 都牵涉你大脑所有 部位的相互沟通联系， 就算是最平凡的日常对话都如此。 然而，这个错误观念至今仍然存在的 一个原因可能是 这里包含着小部分事实。 它的另一个说法 是说左撇子比右撇子更有创造力， 这种说法有点道理， 因为你的大脑控制相反的手， 因此，左撇子的人， 他的右脑比右撇子的人 更加活跃一点， 而共识恰恰是右脑更有创造力。 但这个左撇子比右撇子 更有创造力的观念 本身并不太站得住脚。 事实上，双手灵巧的人 或两手可以处理不同事情的人， 比单手使用者更富有创意， 因为双手使用者需要 让大脑两侧进行 大量的互动和沟通， 这似乎与创造灵活的思维相关。 左撇子更有创意的错误观念 源自善用双手者 在左撇子中比右撇子中 更常见这一事实， 所以说，左撇子更有创意 这个说法有些道理， 但并不完全正确。
我们大多数人不能 有效地运用我们的大脑， 这种说法当然是真的。 那么我们要怎样充分调动 我们大脑的潜能呢？ 或许我们可以听一段莫扎特的音乐。 你们听说过莫扎特效应吗？ 它说的是听莫扎特的音乐 会使你更聪明， 并能提升你在智商测验中的表现。 它的有趣之处在于 虽然这基本上也是个错误观念， 但也并不是完全错误。 最初的研究发现 听过几分钟莫扎特音乐的参与者 在随后的智商测验中的表现 比只是静静坐着的参与者要好。 但一项后续研究，招募了 一些喜欢莫扎特音乐的人 以及另外一组人， 他们喜欢Stephen King的恐怖故事。 参与者都需要听音乐或听故事。 更喜欢听莫扎特音乐的人 比爱听故事的人 在听过莫扎特音乐后 表现出了更高的智商， 但对于更喜欢听故事的人来说， 听Stephen King的故事， 相比听莫扎特的音乐，会让他们的智商 呈现更显著的增长。 那么事实就是， 当你在听喜欢的东西时， 会使你振作一点， 让你在有限的工作中 会表现出暂时的智商增长。 不过并没有证据表明听莫扎特音乐， 或听Stephen King的故事 会让你彻底变得更聪明。
还有一个时常被社会学家提到的观念， 那就是我们对于恋爱对象的偏好 是一种文化下的产物， 具有文化特定性。 但实际上，数据分析的结果 并不支持这种看法。 有一项知名的研究，对来自全球37个 不同文化背景的人进行了调查， 从美洲人到南非祖鲁部落人， 关于他们如何择偶。 而在全世界任何一个文化中， 男性都会比女性更多的注重 另一半的外表， 同样在任何一个文化中， 女性都比男性更重视另一半的 事业心和经济能力。 另外，在任何一个文化中， 男性更喜欢比自己年轻的女性， 我记得平均要年轻2.66岁， 同样在任何文化中， 女性都更喜欢比她们年纪大的男性， 平均年长3.42岁， 这就是为什么人们常说 “每个人（女性）都需要傍大款。“
好了，目前我已经讲了约12分钟， 你们可能一直在那里听我讲， 分析我讲话的模式和身体语言， 并试图记住我说过的一些话， 并分辨它们究竟是事实， 还是我在撒谎， 如果你这样做的话， 你大概没得出什么正确结论， 因为，虽然我们认为， 我们能够通过身体语言和说话方式 来判断一个人是不是在说谎， 但是多年来的数百个心理学研究却发现 我们所有的人，包括警察和侦探， 当想要透过说话者的身体语言和 说话方式来测谎时， 其实都是在碰运气。 有趣的是，有一个例外： 当电视上有人呼吁寻找失踪的亲人， 我们很容易就能判断 亲人是真的失踪了， 还是发出呼吁的人 已经谋杀了自己的亲人。 说谎的呼吁者更可能会摇头， 目光游移不定， 而且他们的言辞中错误频频， 相反，真正的呼吁人通常 更会表达对失踪者安全归来的期待， 并避免使用极端的语言。 例如，他们可能会说 “离开了我们”，而不是“被杀害了”。
说到这里， 差不多该结束这次演讲了， 不过在结束以前， 我想用30秒来总结一下 关于心理学总体的一个错误观念。 这个观念是，心理学 只是对有趣理论的收集， 只是提供一些实用的， 指导性的理论而已。 在刚才的演讲中 我希望已经让你们知道了， 这种说法并不正确。 我们需要做的是， 通过心理学所做的预测 来评估这些心理学理论， 无论是听莫扎特音乐能让你更聪明， 或当信息以你较喜欢的学习模式 呈现出来，你会学得更好， 无论它是什么，所有这些 都是可检验的以经验为依据的预测， 我们唯一能取得进展的方式就是 在严格的对照实验研究中 用数据去检验这些预测。 只有这样，我们才能期待去发现 哪些理论有充分的证据支持， 而哪些，就像我今天介绍过的， 是错误的观念。
联系客服
