How Accurate Is Pop Psychology?
December 04, 2024
Pop Psychology, short for popular psychology, refers to the popularisation of psychological theories and concepts. The best examples of this are usually on various social media platforms, self-help books, and TV shows. While pop psychology can be interesting and sometimes helpful in describing various phenomena, taking the information with a grain of salt is essential. The information presented in this way is often inaccurate or lacks important caveats. This can be problematic and lead to misinformation. This article will discuss several myths perpetuated by pop psychology and why they are believed. It will also discuss some interesting findings in psychological science that are accurate.
Myth 1: People are either left-brained or right-brained
A common misconception about the brain is that people are either “left-brained” - analytical thinkers and strategic decision makers, or “right-brained” - more creative and imaginative. This essentially sets the notion that the brain's two hemispheres (sides) differ in their functionality and, subsequently, structure. However, this is complete hogwash. In reality, the brain's two hemispheres are nearly identical in structure and function, with the right hemisphere controlling the left side of the body and the left hemisphere controlling the right side. The reason they are nearly identical is that there are slight differences in the two hemispheres, as the main language centres of the brain reside in the left hemisphere.
In contrast, the right hemisphere is better at general spatial awareness. Both hemispheres play a part in these processes, but one hemisphere might be faster at the task than the other. While these differences exist, they’re relative and not substantial compared to the vast amount of similarities. They also have nothing to do with whether you’re more intellectual or creative.
Since this popular belief turned out to be false, let me tell you what’s truly interesting about the brain and its two hemispheres. As mentioned, the two hemispheres function contralaterally (on opposite sides of the body). However, we perform several processes and activities that require coordination between both sides of the body. To perform these activities, the hemispheres communicate via the corpus callosum, a thick bundle of nerves connecting the two sides of the brain. Interestingly, we do have some knowledge from studies on split-brain patients who have undergone surgery to sever the corpus callosum, preventing the two halves from communicating with each other (as a last resort treatment for epilepsy). The findings of some of these studies are quite interesting. For example, Patient MP (who had a damaged corpus callosum) would open a drawer with one hand, and the other hand would close it. This is because both hemispheres are operating independently.
Myth 2: We only use 10% of our brains
Another widespread myth about our brains is that we only use 10% of them. It’s a myth one would like to believe because it implies that there’s some untouched potential of our brain power that we just haven’t reached yet, and that perhaps, through some secret method, we can achieve it. This play on eagerness has driven this myth to be so prevalent. The pop psychology industry has a big role to play in this. For example, in books such as “How to be Twice as Smart”, the author mentions that most people only use 10% of their brainpower. This myth is so popular that a study on college students found that approximately 33% of psychology majors believed it.
With our brains being the most energy-hungry organ in our body and consuming over 20% of the oxygen we breathe, it would be insane for 90% of it to be useless, and thanks to science, we know that it isn’t. In most cases of brain damage due to physical trauma or illnesses, there has always been a negative outcome, which wouldn’t happen if only 10% of our brain were helpful. Additionally, during open brain surgeries using electrical stimulation, surgeons have not identified any unresponsive areas of the brain. In every case, stimulating specific areas caused patients to experience sensations, perceptions, or movements. Furthermore, thanks to brain imaging techniques, such as positron emission tomography (PET), electroencephalograms (EEG), and magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), scientists have successfully linked different brain areas to specific psychological processes.
However, what is interesting about the brain is that it doesn’t have any pain receptors, so while pain in the rest of the body is processed in the brain, the brain itself can’t feel any pain. This is precisely why neurosurgeons can perform open brain surgeries with the patient being conscious. It is often important for the patient to be awake so the surgeon can use electrical stimulation to determine what exactly a specific part of the brain does and ensure that they’re operating in the right areas.
Myth 3: Learning Styles
Moving on to teaching and learning styles. The concept of learning styles originates from Neil Fleming. He proposed four distinct learning styles - Visual, Auditory, Reading/Writing, and Kinesthetic. He called this the ‘VARK’ model, and he believed that these differences boiled down to preferences in modes of learning.
Following this, it became a popular belief that students would learn better if the material was delivered by their learning style. This is called the meshing hypothesis. It is generally easy to believe because it insinuates that people aren’t “better” or “worse” at learning and can learn equally well with correct instruction. Furthermore, it makes intuitive sense. We know people are different, so it’s only logical to think personalisation would improve outcomes. It’s a common belief even among teachers. According to a study done in 2012, 9 in 10 teachers in the UK believed in learning styles.
Despite all the support, several studies conducted on learning styles have failed to prove this. For instance, a study in 2014 attempted to test the meshing hypothesis using a group of college-educated adults with either a visual or an auditory learning preference. They were then given material from a non-fiction book. The delivery of the material either matched their learning style or did not match their learning style. The participants then completed a written comprehension test. The results of this study found that there was no considerable difference in performance when the delivery was matched with a participant’s learning style vs when it wasn’t. This is only one of multiple studies; review papers have consistently concluded that there is no evidence that learning styles exist. This widespread belief and acceptance of learning styles, which has no evidence backing it up, can be harmful to education and lead to the adoption of ineffective teaching strategies.
There is a theory that is scientifically backed, called the multimedia learning theory by Richard Mayer. In opposition to the learning styles theory, this theory suggests that students learn better when multiple sources of media are used simultaneously. Research found that narrated PowerPoints that synchronised the visual and auditory information about lightning were significantly more effective for both immediate and future learning outcomes than those that only provided visual or auditory information. Crucially, when the visual and aural signals were not in sync, the worst results were obtained.
Moreover, several evidence-based factors affect learning, such as the use of learning strategies like concept maps for certain topics in science or spaced repetition for better memory of concepts. Some other factors that can affect learning are prior domain knowledge and interest in a subject.
Myth 4: The MBTI personality test is accurate
The next myth we’d like to cover is the infamous MBTI (Myers-Briggs type indicator) personality test. This test is meant to reveal which personality type you belong to out of 16 different personality types. The results describe personality through 4 factors with one of two facets each - introversion (I)/extroversion (E); intuition (N)/sensing (S); feeling (F)/thinking (T); and judging (J)/perceiving (J). These add up to several personality types, such as INTP, ESFP, etc.
This test has gained a lot of traction in the last few years, with people discussing their MBTI personality types as a social conversation and an estimated 2 million people taking the test every year. While there is nothing wrong with taking the test and discussing it as a fun pastime, some people tend to be misled about the true accuracy of the MBTI.
The issue with the MBTI is that it bases its conclusions on a type theory. Type theories are a group of personality theories that define personality based on distinct groups or types, with the notion that every single person fits into one of these set categories.
However, modern psychology and personality assessments give preference to trait theories of personality, which look at certain common personality traits (such as introversion/extroversion). But instead of looking at them from a black-and-white perspective (like type theories), trait theories look at them on a spectrum. A popular example of such a theory is the Costa-McRae model. Due to its nature, the trait approach provides a more elaborate and nuanced structure for assessing personality than the type approach.
Another big problem with the MBTI is its reliability. Several people retaking the tests at different periods of times report different results. This is generally bad for a personality test because personality is considered to be relatively stable in Psychology.
Myth 5: Human memory is accurate and unchanging
We often tend to overestimate the accuracy of our memories, specifically our episodic memories, i.e. our memories of past experiences and events. According to a survey of the American population, 63% of people believed that memories functioned like tape recorders, and 48% of people believed that memories were immutable. Most people tend to believe that our memory of past events is stored like a video recording, and when we wish to recall it, we simply ‘play’ the video in our heads. This is often due to the vivid nature of these memories.
However, modern psychologists now believe that instead of being an exact reproduction of past events, our memory is a reconstruction of the event using fragments that we do remember, and the rest is filling in the gaps. This can often lead to a mixture of accurate and inaccurate details. This is even true about flashbulb memories, which refer to emotionally provoking and detailed images of past events, but research has found that even these can change over time. For instance, in a research paper, students reported their memories of first hearing about the 7/11 attacks and everyday events. They were asked about these memories a day after the attack and then again after either 1, 6, or 32 weeks. They found that their memories of the attack declined with the same intensity as their memories of everyday events. However, their belief about the accuracy of the memory was higher for the memory of the attack than for the everyday events.
Furthermore, our memories are so malleable through suggestion and misinformation that our memories can not only be changed, but we can make up entirely new memories of events if correctly prompted. For example, in the famous ‘Lost in the Mall’ study, the researchers provided the participants with four stories about instances from their childhood, one of them being a lie, saying that they got lost in a mall and were eventually returned to their parents. They were then interviewed in the next few weeks, and 25% of the participants reported vivid memories of this event that never took place. There have also been several studies about this in the context of eyewitness memories, and it has become a big consideration in the judicial system.
If you’re interested in learning more, you can find reliable resources on the Mindum website. We have several resources like articles, videos, podcasts, etc., that are filled with credible information about various mental health needs, catered for young people and their families. Additionally, consider visiting trustworthy websites like the NHS website. If you want to dive deep into psychological knowledge, academic textbooks and peer-reviewed journals are great places to start.