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.

[airsucker.livejournal.com]

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

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.