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

[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.