More on those 50 myths of pop psychology

[sarahmichigan]

The brief review I wrote of the "50 Great Myths" book really could have been a post unto itself. I don't want to spoil the book if any of you are interested in reading it (and I hope a few of you will seek it out!), but here are a few further thoughts.

Top 5 of the myths I wish would DIE! DIE! DIE! right now:

1. Most people use only 10 percent of their brain power. I thought this had been thoroughly debunked for quite some time, but I still see it pop up on the 'net and in self-help books.

2. The Polygraph ("lie detector") Test is an accurate means of detecting dishonesty. It's interesting that the gov't has banned its use in most workplaces but still uses this next-to-useless test on some gov't employees...

3. It's better to express anger to others than to hold it in. SO not true. Expressing anger, whether verbally or by punching a pillow, generally makes you angrier and more aggressive.

4. There's recently been a massive epidemic of infantile autism. Also, not true. Diagnostics have gotten better, more autism is being *reported* and diagnostic criteria has loosened over the years, but there's no epidemic. Related, I wish the conspiracy theorists who link vaccines and autism would take a long walk off a short pier.

5. Abstinence is the only realistic treatment goal for alcoholics. There's a lot of evidence that many people -- particularly ones with shorter-lived and milder alcohol problems -- can learn "controlled drinking."

Myths that I don't think the authors "shattered" very well:

1. IQ testing is biased against some groups (they claim the tests aren't, but I have my doubts, and their rationale wasn't convincing to me).

2. Electroconvulsive (Shock) Therapy is a physically dangerous and brutal treatment. It might not be as dangerous or painful as in the past, and some people with severe depression do seem to benefit from it, but we still don't know exactly how it works. And, the authors merely state, but do not back up, the assertion that ECT is not used to punish patients who are difficult.

Myths that are so kooky I find it hard to believe that anyone takes them seriously:

1. ESP is a well-established scientific phenomenon.  Really? I didn't think this was a common perception- my impression is that people who take ESP seriously don't care that much about the scientific validity and will believe in it regardless of the evidence against ESP.

2. Visual perceptions are accompanied by tiny emissions from the eyes. I had no idea that many people believed this. Bizarre.

3. Psychiatric hospital admissions and crimes increase during full moons. Again, really? Do people still believe this twaddle?

I love that instead of just telling you what ISN'T true, the authors were careful to explain what we DO know is TRUE about each subject touched upon. They also give you a "tool kit" of skills and thought processes for evaluating the veracity of claims.

Comments

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

I've read suggestions that polygraphs probably give more false positives than true positives. I think that was in Innumeracy, and assuming about 5% of the subjects were actually lying.

There's no consensus on whether autism is actually increasing. I do think it's hard to deny that people with Aspergers have been much more likely to have the opportunity to reproduce for the last 15-20 years than before that. 150 years ago, someone with Aspergers would have been that weird guy who sweeps the stables and barely talks; today he's just as likely to be a successful programmer or engineer. But no one really knows whether Aspergers parents are more likely to have fully autistic kids.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Yes, polygraphs give way more false positives than false negatives, because it really just measures if you're nervous, and a question make you jumpy even if you're not lying.

They cite a study by Gernsbacher et al for the claim that autism rates are not increasing. I couldn't find the scholarly paper, but here's a paper, also by Gernsbacher, more for a general audience, Three Reasons Not to Believe in
an Autism Epidemic:

http://www.autcom.org/pdf/Epidemic.pdf

Same with the scholarly article by Grinker (2007). Couldn't find it, but here's an interview with him where he says there's no epidemic:

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/interview_with_roy_richard_grinker/

More on doubts that autism is increasing here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/extract/107/2/411

And a study that says that kids formerly given other diagnoses (such as "retardation") are getting sort of "re-branded" as autistic, also furthering the impression that autism rates are increasing:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18384386

[pstscrpt.livejournal.com]

More false positives than false negatives isn't nearly so damning. This was saying that, if the polygraph says you're lying, it's probably wrong.

[airsucker.livejournal.com]

Our divorce rate is not 50%. In one or two groups, yes, but this is not true as a whole.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Yep, there's lots of other bits of "common knowledge" I'd like to debunk- this book was specifically about psychology-related ones, though.

[bernmarx.livejournal.com]

Autism: Technically, autism can't be an epidemic because it's not (medically) contagious (although there's currently an, um, epidemic of using the word "epidemic" for things that aren't contagious ;) ).

IQ test: I haven't read their book, but I think it depends on which IQ tests. It's difficult to see where the bias would be in, say, shape matching questions, but certainly when we get into IQ tests that depend on language interpretation skills (even indirectly), there's a bias towards people who speak dialects close to the standard (which, in the US, is effectively a racial and economic bias).

Full moon madness: I've seen several programs in my life on this topic. Quite a few cops apparently believe it, which tends to have a detrimental effect on how they do their jobs. Unfortunately, it can be a self-fulfilling prophecy (cops think crimes will go up, they act jumpy and are more likely to see crimes, they respond in certain ways that increase the defensiveness of people on the streets, and so on). It's been a while since I've seen a program on it, though, so maybe it's not as widely believed as it once was.

[laughlovelive.livejournal.com]

Regarding the anger one, I find if I "vent" to either this journal or to someone, it very much helps dissipate the anger. I've always been like that, and it's not just anger--frustration and other emotions are the same. If I get it out - yell, cry, write, whatever - I calm down and am more rational and reasonable. However, I try not to think my experience is universal, so I don't know if that's true for everyone.

I've never taken a "professional" IQ test, so I don't know anything about them, though I do very strongly believe that the standardized tests that we force children to take in school are biased towards middle class, white, suburbanite children.

And I totally agree with you on all points on the autism myth. I sometimes wonder if my brother has some form of autism, but he doesn't have all the symptoms....I don't know. Perhaps I just want an excuse for his social awkwardness.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I don't think the anger issue is so much "your mileage may vary" as that it's a very ingrained myth and one that you're going to feel resistant about because of personal experience. You may feel better immediately after venting, but the research shows that often you have a rebound and feel worse after venting (especially in a loud and angry way). And, you may attribute feeling better to the venting, but anger just normally fades with time, and you might actually be slowing down the act of "letting it go" by repeatedly telling the story that makes you angry.

Also, there's probably the issue of confirmation bias- you believe that venting makes you feel better, so you remember the times you felt better after venting. But you forget the times you decided to just "let it go" and forget about it and distract yourself with a funny movie. Or, you never try another method, and if you did, you might discover that distracting yourself or practicing a Buddhist kind of "letting go" might help you get over being angrier much faster than if you vent to friends or punch a pillow.

[firecat]

So I wonder if people on the autism spectrum are better at fooling a lie detector.

I agree that "It's better to express anger to others than to hold it in" is a myth if it's stated as a universal fact. But I don't think that "It's better to hold anger in than to express it to others" is true either. I think it depends on context and on the individual.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

There's an awful lot of data showing that- if not universally- then broadly speaking, it's better not to "vent" and do angry things like yelling and punching pillows. They also mention that coupling anger with productive problem solving *can* be helpful.

But, usually, retelling the incident that made you angry or punching pillows makes you hold onto the anger longer. If you just practiced "letting it go," it's likely the anger would dissipate on its own.

And, as I said to laughlovelive above, I think there's some confirmation bias- because you (the general "you") believe the myth, you remember the times you felt better after venting or punching a pillow and tend to forget that other time when you decided just to distract yourself with a funny movie, and your anger actually dissipated faster.

[firecat]

I'll have to read the original book to know more about the studies, but my guess is that experimental design was limited to making someone angry about something specific in the moment, and the studies did not test anger that builds up over time regarding long-term situations.

Also I wonder if any of the studies controlled for the level of physical arousal. Given a particular irritant, some people get more aroused than others.

Also I wonder if they studied the self-reported quality of the anger, as opposed to just the physical arousal symptoms.

When the myth is "it's better to vent than to hold it in," you have to define "better." Does this refer merely to how long the physical arousal lasts, or does it refer also to the internal sense of the quality of the arousal (how the person feels)?

If we're talking just physical arousal, then I agree ignoring it will make it go away faster. But ignoring it might also feel very painful/difficult while the arousal lasts. Whereas if you do something with the arousal, it might stick around longer, but the arousal might start to feel better internally.

For me, if my anger level (the physical arousal I feel) is "mild" or "moderate," and the anger is due to an immediate one-time irritant (as opposed to a repetitive irritant or a long-term situation) then it will dissipate quickly if I don't do anything. And since I mostly don't like feeling that low level of arousal, I tend to choose the method that will make it go away the fastest.

But if my physical arousal/anger is very strong, then suppressing my desire to do something physical feels really painful. The same applies if my physical arousal includes both anger and anxiety (which is often the case). I will still be aroused for a while if I do something physical (cry/scream/punch pillows/yell), and I might be aroused for longer, but the arousal doesn't feel as painful.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Here are some of the studies referenced and related links if you want to look at it yourself:

1. Bushman, Baumeister & Stack, 1999

http://books.google.com/books?id=Ab02eJm-FTUC&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197&dq=anger+catharsis+bushman+baumeister&source=bl&ots=SVcvLyp-sU&sig=BKVhlz7vrHYqq70u7q04ukNszm4&hl=en&ei=TQDzS3SFoJQHzqeZog0&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CBoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=anger%20catharsis%20bushman%20baumeister&f=false

2. Lewis & Bucher, 1992

http://www.dialectictherapy.com/2010/02/27/myths-about-anger/

3. Littrell, 1998 (also refers to the value of anger paired with problem-solving)

http://www.psychotherapybrownbag.com/psychotherapy_brown_bag_a/2009/03/common-factors-of-therapy-part-1.html

4. Tavris 1988

http://books.google.com/books?id=9NMsTpe1bAUC&pg=PA132&lpg=PA132&dq=tavris+anger+catharsis&source=bl&ots=PqzMZqqeN2&sig=AzUfnQJEtdCGUBDzCJ7YmxuuxfE&hl=en&ei=dQHzS8jaIYWyMMn5kY8O&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBIQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=tavris%20anger%20catharsis&f=false

[firecat]

Thanks!

[firecat]

After reading those links, I would rephrase the myth as follows:

Anger and other negative emotions create "pressure" that must be "vented" in order for the feelings to go away.

I don't believe in the pressure cooker theory of emotion. I do think that retelling, yelling, punching pillows, etc., can be useful tools for handling anger, but they aren't the only useful tools by a long shot.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I do think that retelling, yelling, punching pillows, etc., can be useful tools for handling anger, but they aren't the only useful tools by a long shot.

You can think that if you want, but the studies -- on larger numbers of peole-- suggest that physical expressions of anger (punching pillows, etc.) don't diffuse anger any faster, though it's possible, as you mentioed, that they may help you change the *quality* of the anger.

All the studies cited that look at physical and some verbal expressions of anger suggest that acting out heightens physical signs of arousal and/or outward expressions of aggression.

I know it's hard to accept findings that go against your intuition or personal experience, but that's another thing they address in the book. Intuition can be helpful in interpersonal areas and areas of emotion, but it's not a good guide to assessing whether scientific claims are true or not.

And, it's tempting to see oneself as the exception to a rule, but one is usually not. My brother-in-law, for instance, believes the repeated findings that memory is imperfect and people will often make up details they can't remember, but he is adamant that HE does not do that- if he doesn't remember a detail, he'll just say he doesn't remember- he won't fill in blanks. Statistically speaking, he's probably wrong about that.

[firecat]

physical expressions of anger (punching pillows, etc.) don't diffuse anger any faster

I agree with that.

though it's possible, as you mentioed, that they may help you change the *quality* of the anger.

That's why I consider them part of the toolbox. Diffusing the physical sensations faster is not the only important aspect of handling anger. Sometimes changing the quality of the anger matters too.

As for personal experience vs. scientific claims, yes, I agree. If you think I'm claiming my personal experience trumps the scientific claim, you're misunderstanding my point.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

OK, I was kind of puzzled and probably did misunderstand your point, then. This plus the comment on your own post has helped clarify, so thanks for being patient with me.

[firecat]

Sorry I was unclear. I am enjoying this conversation.

[simianpower.livejournal.com]

"tiny emissions from the eyes"?? Really? The eyes are passive receivers, not transmitters. Unless you've got some sort of cyberpunk laser implants or something.

Oh, and "twaddle" is an awesome word.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

You know how sometimes in cartoons or illustrations, they show a dotted line from the eye to an object to show that someone is looking at the object? Or think about Superman's heat vision. Apparently, some people get confused, and on some surveys as many as 30 percent of people believe the "tiny emissions" theory.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

Oh, and "twaddle" is an awesome word.

I've heard it before, but with a totally different definition ...

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

... still uses this next-to-useless test on some gov't employees ...

It's still used extensively for (supposedly) very important security screenings.

There's a lot of evidence that many people -- particularly ones with shorter-lived and milder alcohol problems -- can learn "controlled drinking."

Yeah, but if that gets out, then all the alcoholics are gonna think that this means them. Better to just make them think they all need a 12-step for life. Honestly, i think most people (myself included) could get a heck of a lot out of a 12-step ...

... but we still don't know exactly how [ECT] works.

While she admits that it's not a scientifically based opinion, my wife describes ECT as a process that "destroys souls".

... crimes increase during full moons.

I always thought this was true in some areas, but only because there's more light.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I don't agree that MORE knowledge is bad, with maybe a very few exceptions.

And, I'm not a big fan of the 12 step program, even though I am a fan of *some* of the steps in it.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

That comment was somewhat tongue-in-cheek; i forgot the emoticon. :)

That said, though, while i generally agree with the idea the spreading knowledge is unilaterally good, i also believe that sometimes -- just sometimes -- it's possible to not be ready for certain bits of knowledge. Who gets to make that call? I dunno -- that's probably where it gets very very icky.

Re the 12-step: Nothing's perfect, of course; like anything (religions, systems of government, statistics, reason, etc.) a program can be used incorrectly, or downright misused for ill gain. However, from what limited (but not insubstantial) exposure to the overall AA thing i've had, i've been overwhelmingly impressed on the whole. There's a call to be honest with the self at its core, and a series of steps for hammering away with that honestly. I think it can be pretty powerful is used correctly. IMHO.

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Right, but the 12 steps fail a lot of people. They have a decent success rate for people who stick with the program, but a majority of people who attend don't stick with it.

Having other viable alternatives can only be good for the people who have issues with AA.

You say maybe people who should really just quit drinking will think they can learn controlled drinking and that's a bad thing. But, perhaps having other alternatives easily available would get people into treatment who avoid AA exactly because they know they'll have to quit drinking altogether.

Also, there's some evidence that AA promotes "all or nothing" thinking, and people who fall off the wagon go on benders because, remember, they "have no control" and "once an alcoholic, always an alcoholic." But with controlled drinking programs, they're also taught how to get back on program faster after a slip.

(part 1 of 2)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

Sure ... these are all fair arguments. To some degree, i'm now more curious about the meta-issue of when a little more knowledge is dangerous, and how anyone can qualified to make that call for someone else.

For completeness, tho, i'll add the following comments, all provided IMHO as food for further thinking/discussion.

First off, i'll always agree with the idea that having more options for treatment would be good. I'm 100% with you on that. AA started in a grass-roots way to respond to a need. For many people, however, it fills a gap that is failed to be covered by what's out there (especially in our health-insurance-driven mental-health-avoidant system). I think that when the public at large thinks of AA as a panacea for people with drinking problems, they're way off. ... and interestingly enough, i think it annoys many people in AA also, because i don't think it hails itself as such a thing, either

... which leads well to my next point. You're absolutely right that the majority of folks to attend AA don't stick with it. What's interesting (tho i know correlation rarely implies cause) is that this fact has not been true for all of AA's history, as i understand it. My understanding is that this fact became the norm right around the time that people started being referred to AA by outside sources -- like the countless folks who are required to attend AA programs as a condition of not going to jail after multiple DUI offenses.

Both of these points relate back to the basic AA idea that the program only works for people who are ready to use it. It's not a treatment for alcoholism. It's a path for those who are alcoholics and have hit a point where they're ready to work a program. It's more like going to college than it is like a medical treatment; your classes, professors and textbooks can't make you learn the material.

The program, as it were, also means not drinking. In that regard, people who can't stomach the idea of quitting drinking entirely should avoid AA, because it's not a program to "get control of your drinking", it's a program for those who can't control their drinking*.

*(... or at least truly believe they can't. I know a few rare folks who worked AA programs for years and then found that they could use other things to maintain their psychological well-being enough to not drink, or (even rarer) very occasionally drink. What's interesting is that -- at least in AA terms -- it then becomes arguable whether or not these folks were truly alcoholics in the first place.)

So i guess the end conclusion of all this is that whether or not the original myth you posted above is really a myth comes down to how you define "alcoholic". In AA terms, afaik them, an alcoholic is someone who has a permanent physical allergy to alcohol that invokes a reaction that is utterly disabling and uncontrollable. For such a person, the AA concepts of "having no control" and "once an alcoholic ..." are true.

Now, that said, are there people who have other drinking problems (which might be called alcoholism by some, but not by AA terms)? Definitely. Should there be treatment options for these people other than AA? Definitely (especially since AA is deliberately not for people that it would not define as alcoholic). Could some of these treatments avoid an "all or nothing" approach to alcohol? Definitely. Should people know this? Definitely.

... which i guess brings us full circle. I'd definitely agree that people knowing all of this stuff would be for the best. I also agree that your original myth above is, indeed, a myth, if you replace the word "alcoholics" with "people with drinking problems" (or just accept that that's all the word "alcoholics" really means).

(cont'd below)

Re: (part 1 of 2)

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I have an issue with logic of the idea that "Well, if they can quit without AA then they weren't truly alcoholic" or "If they can quit and then later go on to do controlled drinking, they weren't true alcoholics."

Just anecdotally, I know someone who had such a bad drinking problem in her 20s and 30s that she would drink a fifth of hard liquor a day after work, every day. She went 10 years completely abstinent, and later was able to drink a beer or a glass of wine here and there- on the order of less than one drink a month. I think it's hard to look at how much she was drinking (and how much it affected her personal relationships and health) and say she wasn't a "true" alcoholic.

But, anecdotes aside, AA doesn't get to define what alcoholism is. An addiction to any substance is defined by psychologists a) dependence and growing tolerance and b) for it to affect your personal or work life or get you in trouble with the law. There are CLEARLY people who fit that definition who successfully learn to drink in moderation.

Further, the idea that "alcoholics who can learn controlled drinking through professional treatment aren't really alcoholics because alcoholics can't drink responsibly" sounds like fallacious reasoning to me, but I'm having trouble pinning down which fallacy it's committing- sounds a bit like a tautology, but there might be something else going on. *pondering*

Re: (part 1 of 2)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

Sure ... my own anecdote is similar: a friend who drank very detrimentally for years, joined AA to get clean, then eventually found that he didn't need the program because he had moved on to other ways to stay emotionally healthy. (I still believe he doesn't drink though, so in his case, the abstinence is still there, just not the program.)

I won't argue with the points you make above because i don't think it's too important. AA speaks of alcoholism as including the "physical allergy" component (which i believe there is some study to support biochemically, but i don't have the sources; i'll see if i can find 'em for you). Others who define it may not include that point. Like many words, "alcoholic" seems like one where the definition needs to be clarified before folks dig into details. I don't think AA claims to be the defining authority outside of their own context, and i'd support you in the statement that they shouldn't be.

I also understand that their somewhat circular arguments may border on tautology; that's fair to say. However, no part of the AA program (again AFAIK) aims to diagnose the alcoholic (in the AA definition or any other). It's just a grass-roots group to support those who have diagnosed themselves.

(More on the diagnosis aspect below on the thread's "split end".)

I think it's hard to look at how much she was drinking (and how much it affected her personal relationships and health) and say she wasn't a "true" alcoholic.

This is the one point i don't quite agree on. Even outside the AA context, i don't think quantity and regularity of drinking are sufficient metrics to define alcoholism, nor are statements regarding personality shifts that occur as a result. However, i don't have any backing on that with any source that could claim authority on the matter; i state it merely because i think the points you made later about dependence and control matter much more. I add that just for completeness; as i said, definitions often need to be revisited in analytical discussions, anyway.

(part 2 of 2)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

(cont'd from above)

Speaking purely pragmatically, then, would dispelling that myth do good? Hard to say. For every person with a "drinking problem" who avoids AA, you might have a true alcoholic in denial also avoiding AA because they think they only have a "drinking problem". Maybe it'd be a wash.

*IF* there were treatment options for those people that could diagnose which they were and fwd the true alcoholics to AA, and *if* people would use them, then i guess dispelling the myth would be good.

... and then i think there's the point you're making, which is that if the myth were dispelled, people would stop relying on AA as a cure-all for people in both groups, and we'd recognize the need to offer those treatment options. This is also a strong argument.

So i guess in the end i agree with your original point, but with a few semantic clarifications and caveats in play. :D


(Also, sorry that was so long!)

Re: (part 2 of 2)

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

I don't think your counter-examples truly prove that less information is good. I think that if people who are hard drinkers mistakenly think that they can benefit from one of the "controlled drinking" treatments, then they need STILL MORE information! They need to be told by an intake counselor, "You know, based on your history, we think this is not a good treatment match for you. You're more likely to benefit from an abstinence-based approach."

And, just want to mention that there are other modalities besides AA that DO have a goal of abstinence but don't use the 12-step framework (I'm thinking "Rational Recovery" and another one targeted specifically at women that I'm blanking on the name for).

Re: (part 2 of 2)

[http://users.livejournal.com/_earthshine_/]

Re ¶1: Yes, i maybe wasn't clear enough above, but i agree with you on this. If there is some kind of "intake" or "triage" level that can provide that diagnosis, then i absolutely agree that knowing more is better. My argument that dispelling the myth may be a wash only holds if no such diagnosis is available. Again, because AA is not about diagnosis, it's not available there. Is it available elsewhere? I don't know -- i'm sure in some people's lives, depending on their medical coverage, local government programs, or other resources, it is; for others, i'm sure it's not.

Re ¶2;: OK ... yeah, hadn't heard of those. Do you know what the key differences are between those and the AA approach? (Just curious; not necessarily relevant to above.)

Finally, thanks for this exchange -- very cool!

Top 7 alternatives to AA

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

Here's an article discussing some other approaches:

http://www.mentalhelp.net/poc/view_doc.php?type=doc&id=28817

Re: (part 2 of 2)

[sarahmichigan.livejournal.com]

And, here's an article that was written by me that gives a brief overview of some alternatives to AA:

http://www.ehow.com/about_5078984_treatment-programs-alcoholism.html