• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Orphia Nay

Penguilicious Spodmaster
Tagger
Joined
May 2, 2005
Messages
52,454
Location
Australia
Great article in the latest eSkeptic:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-09-01/

In this week’s eSkeptic, we present an excerpt from 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions About Human Nature, by Scott O. Lilienfeld, Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, and Barry L. Beyerstein (Wiley-Blackwell, 2009). This excerpt appears in the sold out issue of Skeptic magazine volume 15, number 3 and has been published by permission of the publisher and authors.

The article gives explanations as to why the following are myths:

Myth #1: We Only Use 10% of our Brains

Myth #2: It’s Better to Express Anger Than to Hold it in

Myth #3: Low Self-Esteem is a Major Cause of Psychological Problems

Myth #4: Human Memory Works like a Video Camera

Myth #5: Hypnosis is a Unique “Trance” State Differing
in Kind from Wakefulness

Myth #6: The Polygraph Test is an Accurate Means
of Detecting Lies

Myth #7: Opposites Attract

Myth #8: People with Schizophrenia Have Multiple Personalities

Myth #9: Full Moons Cause Crimes and Craziness

Myth #10: A Large Proportion of Criminals Successfully
Use the Insanity Defense

It sounds like a good book. Has anyone read it?
 
There are several issues that I don't agree with, in the myth 3. While there are many factors that contribute to the self-esteem of the people and there are several "types" of self-esteem (implicit and explicit) we cannot say that self-esteem is always effect of some other external cause. It is true that it is a myth that high self-esteem always result with good behavior, but it is not true that low self-esteem has positive side. I know that one PhD said that low self-esteemed people are better in a relationship than high self-esteemed people, because they are more loyal, but I don't remember that she had evidence for her claim. This study should also confirm that self-esteem doesn't make people act better. Because of their behavior and other circumstances they raise their self-esteem, or just have some kind of unrealistic self-esteem. The authors of the same study don't distinguish high self-esteem with narcissistic personality disorder. So after all, high-self esteem can be cause of better relationship, better charm, better communication skills and greater sense of strong character. People can express better their intelligence when they are relaxed and have realistic view of their capabilities so we cannot say that there is not difference between good high self-esteem, and low self esteem. High self-esteem is always better.
The antisocial/social behavior depends more of the morals, worldview and the temperament (character) of the person, not the high/low self-esteem. There are passive-aggressive low self-esteemed people, and aggressive high self-esteemed people. This study (only myth 3) has some misleading and fancy statements that are not enough evidence-based according to my opinion. It sounds interesting because it is "contra" of the popular high self-esteem movement. It is dumb to believe that self-esteem is the cause of everything, but our self-esteem has great influence in our lives. :)

I will give you an example:
Walk in a bar, insecure about yourself. Try a conversation with a woman/man.
You are going to sound very bad and non-charming. But if you feel secure and good about
yourself the odds for you to make better conversation with that person are better.

There are many factors that can cause low self-esteem and there are many psychological dysfunctions caused by low self-esteem.
So low self-esteem might lead to many great psychological problems. Low self-esteem can be caused by many other negative factors in our lives, so we are confronting with very complex issue that needs more research and understanding. The psyche is very difficult for analyzing and objective measuring, because there are many factors that we are not aware of when we make study about the "Self-esteem". People cannot know how others feel about self, and their self-worth, nor they can "measure" the self-esteem on some kind of self-esteem scale. For now there are little evidence based psychological studies (cognitive-behavior therapy, neuroscience and similar) because we still don't know what self-esteem really is, what is intelligence (EQ, IQ, and nurture/nature causes of intelligence) nor do we know what "illnesses" can be caused by low self-esteem. :)
 
Last edited:
Thanks for your comments, Thethirdeye.

I think you basically agree with the excerpt, just in different words. :con2:

High self-esteem is always better.

I've come across quite a number of conspiracy theorists who think they are on the cutting edge of thought, and have an over-inflated view of themselves. Meanwhile, they're unemployed, paranoid and anti-social.
 
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.
 
Another widely believed myth in Education Departments is #18, "Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles."
 
Great article in the latest eSkeptic:

http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/10-09-01/



The article gives explanations as to why the following are myths:

They left out a big one: "Insight into a psychological problem cures the problem."

For instance: If you understand the root cause for your bed-wetting or addiction to cigarettes, the problem will magically go away.

It doesn't.
 
Another widely believed myth in Education Departments is #18, "Students learn best when teaching styles are matched to their learning styles."
I think this is not so much a myth as wishful thinking: syllogism "if A then B, and B is a very good thing" may be true, but irrelevant when A is false.

I am sure I would be healthier if every medical treatment I received were perfectly tailored to my unique metabolic and genetic idiosyncrasies. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen any time soon. Likewise, every student WOULD learn better if taught in a manner perfectly matched to his (somehow magically measured and analyzed) learning style. Good luck with measuring, analyzing and matching.
 
I think this is not so much a myth as wishful thinking: syllogism "if A then B, and B is a very good thing" may be true, but irrelevant when A is false.

I am sure I would be healthier if every medical treatment I received were perfectly tailored to my unique metabolic and genetic idiosyncrasies. Unfortunately, that's not going to happen any time soon. Likewise, every student WOULD learn better if taught in a manner perfectly matched to his (somehow magically measured and analyzed) learning style. Good luck with measuring, analyzing and matching.

The authors provide evidence that there is no clear concept of learning style, there is no reliable and valid way of measuring it and there is no clear evidence that matching it with instructors' style is effective.
 
The authors provide evidence that there is no clear concept of learning style, there is no reliable and valid way of measuring it and there is no clear evidence that matching it with instructors' style is effective.
Well, if there is no reliable and valid way of measuring, or even defining "learning style" (the point of my previous post), then you can't match it to anything.
 
My local library doesn't have the book, is there anyplace I can find the other 40 myths?
 
Well, if there is no reliable and valid way of measuring, or even defining "learning style" (the point of my previous post), then you can't match it to anything.
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?...
 
The authors provide evidence that there is no clear concept of learning style, there is no reliable and valid way of measuring it and there is no clear evidence that matching it with instructors' style is effective.

Is this the paper you linked to earlier? The 1 I'm gonna purchase?
 
Thanks for your comments, Thethirdeye.

I think you basically agree with the excerpt, just in different words. :con2:



I've come across quite a number of conspiracy theorists who think they are on the cutting edge of thought, and have an over-inflated view of themselves. Meanwhile, they're unemployed, paranoid and anti-social.


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. :) :)
 
Is this the paper you linked to earlier? The 1 I'm gonna purchase?
You don't have to buy it. Cut and paste this into google:
Kratzig, G.P., and K.D. Arbuthnott. 2006. Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology
And then print it out.
 
You don't have to buy it. Cut and paste this into google:
Kratzig, G.P., and K.D. Arbuthnott. 2006. Perceptual learning style and learning proficiency: A test of the hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology
And then print it out.

Too cool. Thanks again.
 

Back
Top Bottom