
Top Myths of Popular Psychology - JacobAldridge
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-09-01/#feature
======
rdtsc
10% of the brain is one of my favorites. It was perpetuated by someone selling
a book that supposedly taught people how to use the "other" part of their
brain ;-) And, it also appeals to people who think with a little trick they
can massively expand their mental capacity. Everyone loves to think there is a
genius sleeping inside of them. All it takes is a magic trick to wake that
genius up.

Self-esteems is a dangerous one. Trying to somehow artificially increase
someone's self esteem I think could be dangerous. It could create an emotional
and cognitive dissonance, something like: "My parents and teachers tell me I
am so awesome, but I know I cannot do things as well as my peers" or "I am
supposed to feel awesome even though I scored in the bottom 30% percent on the
test" from my own experience I have seen kids get disillusioned with their
parents or teachers and basically stop trusting their opinions, or, even
worse, the delusion gets maintained all through adulthood. They grow up
arrogant, they continue to under-perform professionally or academically, yet
they never consider their own lack of skills or smarts as the reason for the
failure, somehow they blame it on others or on circumstances.

~~~
10ren
Coincidentally, brain scans often show around 10% activation (random google
eg. [http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2009/impaired-brain-
act...](http://www.nimh.nih.gov/science-news/2009/impaired-brain-activity-
underlies-impulsive-behaviors-in-women-with-bulimia.shtml))

Only a fraction of a CPU is active during a given time period (eg if no
floating point arithmetic is needed); and we don't use all the muscles in our
body most of the time either. That's a bit different from what the pop-psy
authors meant though.

~~~
gaius
In a untrained person, at maximum effort you can activate about 30% of the
fibres in a muscle. Not the same 30% every time obviously, that's just what
your nervous system has the power to drive. In a trained athlete that goes up
to around 50%. Now that's intriguing; if an untrained person could achieve
full activation (say in a moment of dire need) they could more than triple
their strength...

~~~
Silhouette
> Now that's intriguing; if an untrained person could achieve full activation
> (say in a moment of dire need) they could more than triple their strength...

That one can and does happen. There are recorded instances of seemingly heroic
strength where, for example, parents have lifted a car to rescue a child who
was trapped underneath.

~~~
DerKommissar
My research has led me to believe that only an adrenaline surge can produce
this.

The thing to note about this is that it essentially impossible to not
seriously hurt yourself when you do this. You will tear the muscles. They are
operating at their highest power before the wheels start flying off, and
you'll tear a lot of fibers.

------
evanrmurphy
_Myth #2: It’s Better to Express Anger Than to Hold it in_

I think this is less binary than the article suggests. In addition to
expression and repression of anger, there is also "letting things go." When
you can forget about something that made you mad, you get the satisfaction of
knowing you didn't let it phase you (arguably better than catharsis) without
all the problems associated with revenge and obsession.

I really like this paragraph from <http://paulgraham.com/top.html>:

 _Turning the other cheek turns out to have selfish advantages. Someone who
does you an injury hurts you twice: first by the injury itself, and second by
taking up your time afterward thinking about it. If you learn to ignore
injuries you can at least avoid the second half. I've found I can to some
extent avoid thinking about nasty things people have done to me by telling
myself: this doesn't deserve space in my head. I'm always delighted to find
I've forgotten the details of disputes, because that means I hadn't been
thinking about them. My wife thinks I'm more forgiving than she is, but my
motives are purely selfish._

~~~
10ren
[You probably won't believe me but] you misspelled _faze_ <http://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/faze> <http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/phase>

~~~
trouble
I've always wondered why the correct spelling of 'faze' seems to be gradually
disappearing, considering that the right spelling is actually easier than the
most common misspelling (phase).

~~~
yread
I think it has to do with our tendency to overcorrect spelling rather than use
the simpler ones (at least when the native speakers comment here). I believe
it's exploited in etymology - i.e. even literally authors made errors in
spelling but these are thought to come mostly from trying to be more correct
than neccessary

------
philh
>Yet as astronomer George Abell noted, a mosquito sitting on your arm would
exert a more powerful gravitational force on your body than would the moon.

No it won't. The moon's gravitational force on you is roughly G * m * 5.68 *
10^5 N[1]. (G is the gravitational constant, m is your mass.) A mosquito
weighing 2 mg[1] would have to be within two micrometres of your brain to have
that effect[3].

[1]
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28mass+of+the+moon%29+...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%28mass+of+the+moon%29+%2F+%28%28distance+to+moon+in+metres%29^2%29)

[2]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28mass%29#...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_%28mass%29#10-6_to_one_kg)

[3]
[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*10^-6+%2F+x^2+%3E%3D+...](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2*10^-6+%2F+x^2+%3E%3D+5.68*10^5)

~~~
Shorel
I think it is easier to fix the argument (change the mosquito for a dog, or if
needed change it for your car) than to fix the preconception that the moon
really affect us so much.

Now, if we simply observe the changes that the menstrual cycle inflicts on
women's mood, then this is something real and with a correlation (depending on
a different phase of the moon for each women), but it is not because of the
moon, it is because of hormones.

In every case, the myth is busted.

------
gcheong
_Myth #6: The Polygraph Test is an Accurate Means of Detecting Lies_

On Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" show they did an episode about this. One of
the more disturbing things I learned is that, despite internal research that
showed no effectiveness whatsoever, Sandia National Laboratories went ahead
with the decision to require random polygraph testing. Also, apparently you
can use your anal sphincter muscles to outwit a polygraph test.

~~~
rdtsc
Actually polygraph tests kind of work but not for the reasons people think
they work. They work only if those administering the polygraph tests manage to
convince those taking the test that the polygraph tests work.

Security agencies, when their administer the polygraph, will ask the subject
how well they are familiar with how polygraphs work. Sometimes they will drop
some polygraph test jargons words into the conversation to see if the subject
reacts to them. Knowing the truth about the polygraph test usually renders the
polygraph test ineffective. Such subjects usually "fail" the test because of
attempt to use "counter-measures".

As for sphincter muscles, the pin in the shoe, some basic breathing tricks --
those are easily detectable by "expert" polygraph administrators.

The danger of polygraph tests is that they actually prevent people who are too
honest to pass, but they will let sociopaths or those who lie slightly to pass
easier.

~~~
tetha
I really, relly like the urban myth about polygraphs.

There was this man, and he was not confessing. Thus, creative police officers
got a lettuce sieve, attached it with some wires to a copier and put a paper
reading "He lied" on the copier.

Given this, they put the sieve on his head and whenever he said something they
had a slight doubt about, they pushed the lie detector button and the lie was
"detected". Eventually the man confessed.

Its an urban legend, but it illustrates the point quite nicely in my opinion.

~~~
quantumhobbit
There was a scene depicting this in "The Wire". They simply put the suspects
hand on the copier surface, he had never seen a copier before, and the lights
freaked him out.

I don't know if the show took inspiration from the urban legend or if maybe
the legend can be traced back to the show. Either way, I highly recommend the
Wire.

------
ghb
Self-esteem is one of the most useless abstractions I know of. Its currency is
tied together with this nonsensical emphasis on "feeling good about yourself"
prevalent today. I really would like to know how popular psychology concretely
became so enamored with ceaseless optimism as a guiding principle in life. I'm
dead serious about this because it's clearly not scientifically discovered nor
is it historically enduring (Aristotle lists such optimism as dangerous and
medieval Christianity would've listed it as pride). Moreover it presupposes
consciousness has some sort of exhaustive mastery over the psyche, such that
it can just pull itself up from the bootstraps were it wished. This leads to a
lot of bad decisions, dangerous decisions, being made and I genuinely think it
would be a contribution to our well-being when we finally throw it out the
window.

------
known
Economic mobility != Social mobility

------
c00p3r
Self-esteem is a tricky thing. Doubts, fears and a state of anxiety are linked
together and are causing and amplifying each other.

It is not so simple. There could be a genetic predisposition for an anxiety,
and doubts and fears (conscious or not) will be the consequence - an attempt
to avoid unpleasant state, while there is no reason for it.

Doubts lowers self-esteem, low self-esteem produce doubts and fears, and so
on.

~~~
tetha
Realizing that fear of failure lowers self esteem and increases the chance to
fail is a very strong step.

~~~
c00p3r
Fear is just a virus - unwanted process which consuming your oxygen and
utilizing your nervous system. Of course, it is here for a purpose, so the
trick is to accept it, analyze the situation (why it arisen?) and just stay
calm and awake.

