Top 10 Myths of Popular Psychology

[fossilhound]

Got it on my desktop as a PDF. This one'll go around at our first faculty meeting. We start 13 September.

 

[Thethirdeye]

Evidence. http://www.psychologicalscience.org/journals/pspi/pdf/pspi411.pdf
http://www.csom.umn.edu/assets/98275.pdf

I believe that I was understand wrongly. My point was that if we should choose between low self-esteem and high self-esteem, high self-esteem is always better. But as I told you, I cannot agree with the measures of self-esteem, because we still cannot objectively estimate the "Self Esteem". I said that the PhD that said that low self-esteemed people are better in their relationships than high self-esteemed people, didn't have evidence for her claim. Again the difference between high self-esteem and narcissism is that high self-esteem leads to better opinion about yourself, but you don't believe that others are inferior. And narcissism makes you feel superior relating to the others. So the difference between this two is the relation with the others, not the view of yourself. While I agree with this two reports, I just don't agree with their view of the negative side of high "self-esteem". They mistake it with narcissism. Self-esteem itself doesn't bring the feeling of "superiority".

For example:

'Thus, high self-esteem may refer to an accurate, justified,
balanced appreciation of one’s worth as a person and
one’s successes and competencies, but it can also refer to an inflated,
arrogant, grandiose, unwarranted sense of conceited superiority
over others."

 

[Jeff Corey]

Got it on my desktop as a PDF. This one'll go around at our first faculty meeting. We start 13 September.

Check out their references. You can probably print some of those out. Someone here posted some newer ones, that google could probably find.

And for those who have an audiovisual style, rather than a reading learning style, here's a clip. ; )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk

 

[majamin]

Check out their references. You can probably print some of those out. Someone here posted some newer ones, that google could probably find.

And for those who have an audiovisual style, rather than a reading learning style, here's a clip. ; )
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIv9rz2NTUk

I enjoyed that video, thanks Jeff.

There does seem to be a push to identify the "learning style" of each student, and to blindly, at all costs, present material in this modality because of the fear that "you won't get through to her/him otherwise". Subsequently the push is to modify the lesson to represent the spectrum of "learning styles" in the room.

If I could summarize what Willingham argues in the video ... that there are appropriate ways to present certain concepts, and that forcing materials to be presented through a specific learning style does not only not make sense in many cases, research does not show it to be significantly beneficial at all. People are more adept at certain tasks, such as auditory memorization. This does not imply that a person who has this specific attribute will perform better if it's presented in this way. A better presentation that suits the topic, which probably incorporate a mix of sensory information (when appropriate, of course), is most likely the most beneficial.

 

[fuelair]

That doesn't stop people in the education business. Another example of similar thinking was in an article I read a few years ago (when I worked as a clerk in a state education agency), which tried to determine how effective a particular new practice was. It found no result, but still described this as "no evidence that use of the improved method leads to improved results"... then how can they call the method an improvement?...

It's a change, change shows you are trying, ergo change is always good.

 

[Jeff Corey]

I enjoyed that video, thanks Jeff.

There does seem to be a push to identify the "learning style" of each student, and to blindly, at all costs, present material in this modality because of the fear that "you won't get through to her/him otherwise". Subsequently the push is to modify the lesson to represent the spectrum of "learning styles" in the room.

If I could summarize what Willingham argues in the video ... that there are appropriate ways to present certain concepts, and that forcing materials to be presented through a specific learning style does not only not make sense in many cases, research does not show it to be significantly beneficial at all. People are more adept at certain tasks, such as auditory memorization. This does not imply that a person who has this specific attribute will perform better if it's presented in this way. A better presentation that suits the topic, which probably incorporate a mix of sensory information (when appropriate, of course), is most likely the most beneficial.

Definitely. I use a lot of classroom demonstrations, powerpoint presentations, frequent quizzes with feedback and other activities to avoid 80 minute lectures.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Orphia Nay, "It sounds like a good book. Has anyone read it? "

I assigned it (and Gilovich's How We Know What Isn't So) to my Critical Thinking class, starting Sept. 9. It's on my desk right next to me.

I'll take that as a recommendation, then.

I'm enjoying your posts in this thread.

look, as I said in my original post, antisocial behavior and other kind of negative aspects of the personality depend more of the worldview, temperament, morals and belief systems of the person, not of the self-esteem. So the problem with the conspiracy theorists is not their self-esteem but their distorted worldview. And again there is big difference between high self-esteem and narcissistic personality disorder.

I think what you're saying is that narcissism is separate from high self-esteem. The book and the articles seem to be saying narcissism is a subset of self-esteem.

 

[Baylor]

Thank you Orphia.

One of my degrees is in psychology and I can assure you, there are sooooooooooooooo many MYTHcopentions about psychology. When I tell people I have a degree is Psy, the most common response is "really, are you going to analyze me?"

 

[fossilhound]

Thank you Orphia.

One of my degrees is in psychology and I can assure you, there are sooooooooooooooo many MYTHcopentions about psychology. When I tell people I have a degree is Psy, the most common response is "really, are you going to analyze me?"

Well.. are you gonna analyze me?

 

[Baylor]

Well.. are you gonna analyze me?

Don't get me started on the diagnosis I gave you based solely on your avatar.

 

[fossilhound]

Don't get me started on the diagnosis I gave you based solely on your avatar.

If you analyzed my avatar, then you nailed me. LOL

Actually, I'm an anthropologist. Told that to a young lady once, and she asked me if I wanted to date her. I said sure! We have a mass spectrometer up in the HSS lab!

I went home alone. (sigh)

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

It’s Better to Express Anger Than to Hold it in-

Anecdotal but that could go both ways.

Blowing up at another person isn't always the best way to go, yes. Sometimes, yes, you should control yourself. Directly confronting someone every time you are angry about something would lead to us all killing one another, yes. Sometimes, you should deal with it. Sometimes, you should keep it to yourself. Sometimes, indulging something makes it weigh more heavily upon your mind. You think about it more. You add fuel to the fire when you express your anger.

However, it can also be very unhealthy to repress and keep things to yourself. Holding back anger could very well lead to it inwardly building and building and becoming poisonous to yourself and much bigger than the original problem. It can lead to it becoming an absolute obsession and can create intense feelings of bitterness and victimization. Sometimes, you need an outlet for anger and frustration. You need to express it both for yourself and to clear the air with the other person. Even the act of expressing it can make it go away. Catharsis and releasing tension and all that. Letting the fire quickly burn itself out.

Also, if the other person actually did something crapped up, it is for their good that your arguably understandable anger is expressed. They need to know that what they did was inappropriate and understand why it was inappropriate. You should discuss the problem with them, even if it is an unpleasant discussion.

Anyone agree? Disagree?

 

[Delvo]

However, it can also be very unhealthy to repress and keep things to yourself.

Repressing/suppressing is not the only other alternative to a "blow-up". Another is to fully acknowledge and admit it, but choose to remain calm and cool about it.

Holding back anger could very well lead to it inwardly building and building

No, it isn't a fluid in a container. Acting enraged contributes to feeling more enraged, and acting calm helps make it easier to let one's mood not be contributes to feeling more calm.

Even the act of expressing it can make it go away... Also, if the other person actually did something crapped up, it is for their good that your arguably understandable anger is expressed.

Expression can take multiple different forms. The myth they're debunking is apparently about the loud, energetic, and violent or quasi-violent form of expression, not a more controlled and collected form of expression.

 

[rjh01]

It’s Better to Express Anger Than to Hold it in-

Anecdotal but that could go both ways.

<too long a post to quote, but I read it>

Anyone agree? Disagree?

I agree. It is all a matter of how you express yourself. If you give an emotional response then you lose. If you give a calm and rational response, preferably without making any allegations of wrong doing, then you stand a chance of winning.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Actually (and again, this is anecdotal), violence, threats, swearing, being loud, making trouble for someone, etc. can be cathartic and calming.

If you hit someone who deserves it, or otherwise do something bad to them, your anger is released. You feel avenged. The balance is righted. You go back to emotional homeostasis.

Action helps.

Not sure if this is a relevant personal anecdote or not but-

I once had a minor emergency in my building when a neighbor's dog walker was trapped in the elevator. I decided to call the fire department instead of the elevator company (the standard protocol in my building whenever someone is stuck in the elevator). And lived to regret it very much. They pulled the woman out, yes, but they were also enormously rude to me and did a lot of really stupid things that I won't go into. Horrible, horrible guys.

They were so rude and boorish that I made a vow to never, ever call them again in a non fire related emergency. When something is on fire, you pretty much have no choice but to call them. If a kitty is stuck up a tree, though? Get a ladder. That's my advice. (The neighbor later told me I did the right thing by asking the fire department to come and told me that I acted very well in the emergency, which was very sweet of her to say, but she was wrong. I made the wrong decision and it was a mistake to let those thugs in to "help", albeit an honest mistake.)

I'm a non confrontation individual and would usually take this sitting down. And snitching, even when someone has done something pretty bad, is usually something I'm not in favor of. It would usually make me feel dirty and low. This time, however, I called 311 (the hotline for government services) and reported the firefighters for their awful behavior towards me. I also complained because they were also really horrible to my father (who had come home from work towards the end of the rescue operation). My father was also very angry at them, as angry as I was or even angrier, and he encouraged me to make a complaint on behalf of both of us. I couldn't just take someone being so rude to my dad- and it was completely and totally unprovoked, too. It was over nothing. They instigated a needless confrontation over absolutely nothing.

Reporting those bastards felt, well, not good exactly - but saying nothing and doing nothing would have felt worse. That would have let resentment and bitterness build, instead of releasing the tension. Doing something - even if all it resulted in was a stern phone call from the government agency to the fire station (it made them really mad, though) - makes you feel at least somewhat empowered and allows you to later on let go of it. Just taking it makes you feel angrier, at yourself and at them.

So, sometimes, you should strike back. It's better for you.

Anyone else have a story about when expressing anger in some way made you feel better and was the right thing to do?

 

[rjh01]

I was a fire warden at work. If a person is trapped in a lift then the fire department CAN get them out. However they may cause damage to the lift. Plus it may delay them getting to a fire. Calling the lift company may be slower, but they do not have to go to any fires, nor will they cause damage to the lift, as they have the right equipment for the job. So, yes, they had a case against EeneyMinnieMoe. But the way they expressed it was poor.

The fire fighters are not trained for good communication skills with the public. I was even told that they might even put out a fire in a building and leave without telling anyone that it is safe to go back inside the building.

NB. This is true where I live. May not be true in other places.

 

[EeneyMinnieMoe]

Good points, rjh01.

Yes, the lesson that I learned was to call the elevator company the next time, even if they are a lot slower in coming.

That's actually why I made the judgment to call the fire department.

The elevator had been stuck many times before- the building is fairly old- and it had almost always taken the company forever and a day to come.

They'd be called, they'd say they would come, an hour would pass, you'd call again, they'd say they were on their way, another half an hour would pass, you'd call and beg them to come now because a person was trapped, another hour would pass. Their secretary would always assure you they were coming- and you'd be waiting and waiting.

Calling the fire department gets the person freed a lot quicker. They had been summoned to our building many times before to pry open the lift doors, actually. And it always went without incident.

It was just that one time that a weird snafu fight blew up. Go figure. On previous occasions, they behaved like, you know, human beings. On this occasion, they behaved worse than animals.

So this poor woman was stuck in there with the pack of dogs and I knew that if I called the lift firm, she'd be in there for two or three hours or more. I felt sorry for her and wanted to free her more quickly.

Next time, unless they are in serious distress, I'll just let the person wait it out.

As to their behavior, they weren't on call for any fires. So it wasn't like we were keeping them from something important. Not at all. And they actually caused unnecessary damage to my building because, as firefighters often do, they brought their toys up and wanted to use them. They weren't satisfied with just prying open the lift doors (all that they had been asked to do). No, that wasn't enough for them.

They actually (completely unasked by me or anyone else) barged into the basement of my building to look for the elevator's motor room (geniuses! Even though I told them it wasn't there!) and pried open the locked door to it with their tools (they asked me for the key to it, I told them I had it and ran upstairs to get it for them and came back less than a minute later to find them forcing the door open with heavy equipment without even having waited a few seconds for the *********** key, WTF!) because they wanted to play repairmen, too.

They did the same thing for the actual motor room on the roof. Barged up to the roof, without my permission, completely unasked by anyone, rammed and pried open the locked door with their tools, without waiting for the key, which I had in my hands and tried to give to them!, went in, saw there was nothing they could do- and all immediately trotted out. The only thing they succeeded in doing was turning the door lock into another shape.

Actually, I think this story might belong in the "OMG moments of stupidity" thread. You rarely see that level of absolute and total cretinism in people who actually aren't mentally challenged.

The way they reacted wasn't poor. It was abysmal.

 

[Jeff Corey]

...However, it can also be very unhealthy to repress and keep things to yourself. Holding back anger could very well lead to it inwardly building and building and becoming poisonous to yourself and much bigger than the original problem. It can lead to it becoming an absolute obsession and can create intense feelings of bitterness and victimization. Sometimes, you need an outlet for anger and frustration. You need to express it both for yourself and to clear the air with the other person. Even the act of expressing it can make it go away. Catharsis and releasing tension and all that. Letting the fire quickly burn itself out...

That is precisely the myth that they debunk. "...research suggests that the catharsis hypothesis is false. For more than 40 years, studies have revealed that encouraging the expression of anger directly toward another person or indirectly (such as toward an object) actually turns up the heat on aggression."(p. 149)
One of the "anger management" objects that they cite is this. http://www.baronbob.com/angermanagementchickenchoker.htm

 

[fossilhound]

Good points, rjh01.

Yes, the lesson that I learned was to call the elevator company the next time, even if they are a lot slower in coming...
...They did the same thing for the actual motor room on the roof. Barged up to the roof, without my permission, completely unasked by anyone, rammed and pried open the locked door with their tools, without waiting for the key, which I had in my hands and tried to give to them!, went in, saw there was nothing they could do- and all immediately trotted out. The only thing they succeeded in doing was turning the door lock into another shape.

Actually, I think this story might belong in the "OMG moments of stupidity" thread. You rarely see that level of absolute and total cretinism in people who actually aren't mentally challenged.

The way they reacted wasn't poor. It was abysmal.

This is just the way I handle that sort of extreme frustration. I write about it. I keep a writer's journal at hand all the time, which I use to store snippets of poetry and ideas for stories. Writing forces me to get the anger out, and even helps me to see the other guy's point of view. I wouldn't call it cathartic (perhaps it's an emesis), but if the journal is in charge of "remembering" trespasses against me, then my heart can let it go.

 

[TjW]

If you analyzed my avatar, then you nailed me. LOL

Actually, I'm an anthropologist. Told that to a young lady once, and she asked me if I wanted to date her. I said sure! We have a mass spectrometer up in the HSS lab!

I went home alone. (sigh)

Women don't want you to know their age.