6 Bullshit Facts About Psychology That Everyone Believes

This myth seems to re-emerge every decade or so in a different form. In the 80s it was "backward masking," supposed hidden (and Satanic!) messages in rock music, only audible when played backward, yet able to secretly influence the teenage brain when played normally.
But before that it was subliminal messaging, a technique whereby advertisers could allegedly flash a message on a screen so fast it wasn't consciously noticed, yet still able to trick your subconscious into doing or buying whatever the advertiser said.

Can you spot the subliminal ad in this episode of House?
These days you'll hear similar claims about "neuro-linguistic programming," which performers like magician Derren Brown claim allows them to control any subject by slipping certain command words into a sentence, unnoticed.
All of it amounts to the same thing: forms of communication that can magically bypass your conscious mind and manipulate your subconscious until you're nothing more than a helpless puppet.
Why it is Bullshit:
Not only do none of these particular methods work, as far as we know, no methods for subliminal messaging work. No, your brain can't pick up backward messages when played forward, and even when you intentionally play a track backwards, most of what you think you hear is a product of your own imagination.
The one study that claimed subliminal "flash frame" advertising worked (saying that rapidly flashing "Drink Coca-Cola" and "Hungry? Eat Popcorn" on a movie theater screen lead to massive increases in the sales of both products) is now believed to have been based on falsified data, if it ever actually happened at all.

Turns out people just like eating popcorn at the movies.
As for neuro-linguistic programming, well, there's a reason why the main guy known for using it is a magician.
But this is common sense. If there really was a reliable method for distributing invisible and unheard messages that could turn the masses into robots, whoever mastered it first would utterly rule the world.
They wouldn't need a military to invade another country, they'd just have to get their broadcast heard by the population there, and they would be helpless to resist. The fact that every single government in the history of the planet has failed to invent a method for this, no matter how badly they wanted it, makes us pretty comfortable in calling it bullshit.

What do murder suspects, government job applicants and game show contestants all have in common? They can all wind up hooked up to a polygraph to see if they're telling the truth.
Polygraph (commonly called "lie detector") tests go back to the early 20th century, and have been used in law enforcement since the 1920s. Over the next 80 years the machines became sufficiently advanced that society allowed their use in game shows.
Remember The Moment of Truth? Where they hooked contestants up to a polygraph so that they could get caught in outrageous lies and humiliate themselves in front of millions of people for money (which really just describes every game show, ever)?

Even Maury Povich uses polygraph tests to "help" a bafflingly large number of couples determine whether one of them is cheating. And while it seems odd for guilty people who believe in the tests to agree to be tested, Maury isn't exactly known for having Nobel Laureates or members of Star Fleet as guests.
Why it is Bullshit:
The problem was always the "lie detector" nickname given to the devices. It implied that the machines somehow know the truth, and can sense falsehood in the air. Obviously they don't (as that would be, you know, magic). They instead simply measure a number of physical responses that may mean you're lying.
Now, studies do show that polygraph tests are slightly better than, say, marshmallows at determining a person's truthfulness, but they are far from completely accurate. In 2003 a huge study by the National Academy of Sciences found polygraphs do help detect lies at a rate a little better than flipping a coin does. But that's actually a bad thing; if your hit rate is just higher than chance, the sheer number of false positives render the effort worthless. For instance, when using the machines to screen employees (as federal agencies do in the U.S.) they found you'd be better off just rejecting the guys who have "shifty eyes."

The problem is there are a huge number of variables that can throw off the results, everything from the personality and physical condition of the person taking the test, to the technique of the guy asking the questions, to the way the results are scored, to countless tricks people have figured out that can throw the test off (Soviet spy Aldrich Ames beat the polygraph... twice).
That's why it's in some ways worse than flipping a coin. With the coin, you know it's random. With the polygraph, you get a false sense of security (after all, the guilty guy who beats a test is now less of a suspect than if he hadn't been tested at all).
Damn, you'd expect more from a machine when one of its inventors also created Wonder Woman. Or maybe not.

If you watch any movie or television show that focuses on gay characters, particularly those made by Alan Ball, you're going to eventually see the "Hates Gays Because He's Secretly Gay" character (see American Beauty). It's such a pop culture archetype that in real life when you see some guy at the gym expressing disgust at the whole gay thing, you automatically assume he's got some pictures of well-oiled dudes under his bed. Or actual dudes.
And we do see it in real life; staunch conservative politicians wind up soliciting sex in public bathrooms and sending pornographic emails to underage male pages.

"Yes, we have a meeting with the Congressman."
Why it is Bullshit:
OK, we admit this is sometimes true. There was even a popular study done in 1996 with 64 male college students, 35 of whom were homophobes (according to a survey they filled out gauging their attitudes on the subject). The researchers hooked a meter to their dongs (seriously) and had them watch lots of porn (yes, this happened--here's the damned link).
It was found that the majority of the homophobes would get at least a semi-boner while watching gay porn (where only about a quarter of the non-homophobes got aroused).
You can see right away what's odd about the numbers. All-told, nearly half of their total test subjects got at least semi-hard watching the gay porn. So... half the male population is secretly gay? That seems fairly unlikely.

Statistically speaking, 110 percent of the men featured in this picture are gay.
So, what is it? That guys who volunteered for this test were simply more likely to lean that way? You do have to wonder how dedicated they were to the anti-gay cause if they agreed to have some wires plugged into their tackle box while they sat and watched a movie called Rear Admiral.
Or maybe this was just some very well-made gay porn. Or, maybe this whole thing is just ridiculously unscientific.
Ding! We think we have a winner!
Hell, the above study even notes that gay lust and anti-gay rage can both give you a boner. We've got a confusion boner right now!
The main problem is that nothing in science says that "homophobia" is even a thing. It's not listed among the actual phobias. It's more of a slang term that gets used in popular culture to describe a huge range of attitudes, from people who have strong moral objection to homosexuality due to religious beliefs or upbringing, to people who physically find homosexual sex disgusting, to people who brim with an inexplicable rage toward gays.
Combine them all and you find that about half of the population thinks homosexuality is morally wrong (with intolerance skewing higher among older respondents, obviously). There is just no scientific criteria for which of those people are suffering from "homophobia."
It sounds like we're splitting hairs, but it's a great example of the kind of problem people run into when they decide to play amateur psychologist and "diagnose" the people around them. Remember, the guy who's spouting a particularly venomous anti-gay diatribe may be covering up for his own confused homosexuality, and may deserve only your pity. But there's a very good chance that he's simply a dick.
Want to be Internet famous? Cracked can help! Just go here and sign up. No experience necessary.
And keep boning up on things you can call your friends out on with The 6 Most Frequently Quoted Bullshit Statistics and 7 Movies Based on a True Story (That Are Complete Bullshit).
And stop by our Top Picks to receive some psychiatric care from Dr. Internet.
Don't forget to follow us on Twitter to get previews of upcoming articles and trick your friends into thinking you're psychic.








Goddamn why do the comments on every single one of the articles on this site have to be people whining or being f*****g rude??
ReplyIts not like the article is false information about you personally.
If you see false information, provide links that prove your argument and move on with your lives.
this was written by someone who has no intellect about psychology. this article is more biased and saturated with TYPE I error that it actually mimics the worst sides of the the psychology school of thought. way to go in representing all the thingsthat are wrong with any science/pseudo science due to 1. no research 2. stereotyping/heuristics of what certain things individuallly and 3. the use of folk wisdom (i.e. everything that the article writer heard in tv and movies about psychology) no real basis for scientific evidence
ReplyTo say the author "no intellect about psychology" its relatively pointless, uneducated, and rude.
Homeboy isn't claiming to be a psychologist. So dont criticize him like he did. its stupid.
he is writing an article composed of other peoples research not his own.
Go bag on his sources not him.
it is hilarious that in #3 when you talk about backmasking you provide a link that is backward masking that takes you to a wikipedia page about backmasking that says "not to be confused with backward masking.
Replyit's easy to see through all of this bullshit!!!
Replyi can never buy into the self esteem crap anyway, it makes people egotistical as f**k
Replythose self esteem freaks are total psychos! i trust my basic survival instincts over that bullshit "believe in yourself" fantasy.
Reply"either weak, retarded or some kind of weaktarded combination of the two"
ReplyI love the word weaktarded
I get unaroused boners in like every two or three hours, you can't judge somebody's sexuality based on boners, Iam a total heterosexual guy and I get boners while completing my Chemistry Homework or while doing Sciency stuff in my Chemistry lab and it has nothing to do with the fact that my Chemistry Teacher is a super hot bimbo!
Replyyou missed something in your whole sublimal message comment. there's another form of it that is used on tv shows and movies. product placement. Carrie Bradshaw is hip and awesome and she uses an iBook. the message they are trying to convey is that if you want to be hip and awesome like Carrie, you must get an ibook.
Replywhat's interesting is that Apple is in like 100 lawsuits with Samsung over a bunch of patents Samsung says Apple ripped off. the suits are about to actually go to court and Apple has supposedly demanded that the televisions in the court room be removed or replaced with a non Samsung tv because they don't want the jury given the subliminal message that the court favors Samsung
I took a lie detector test that somehow went horribly wrong and I ended up having to prove to a ton of people that I am in fact, not a replicant. It was a nightmare.
Reply"The main problem is that nothing in science says that "homophobia" is even a thing."
Reply*sigh* So much wrong with this sentence. Where to start? When people use the term homophobia, it's not used as a scientific term. For that matter no chemist is of the belief that a hydrophobic substance is actually afraid of water.
Then there's that whole "nothing in science" bit. Like there's this huge goddamned book called SCIENCE on looks into. Science is about observing the real world. In the real world there is hostility towards homosexual behaviour and those who practice it or are inclined to. People call this homophobia. These are observed facts. This is "a thing". Further evidence of this is when actual researchers refer to it as such. As for it being a clinical disorder, I've never heard anybody suggest such a thing.
For fucks sake man, you're a psych student. You shouldn't need to be told this shit.
The authors point is that "homophobia" is nothing more than a colloquialism, which also appears to be your point, yet you argue?
Though this article does address common false beliefs about Psychology, these are the beliefs of the uninformed mainstream. If you take even an intro-level Psychology course... all of these beliefs will be discounted. As for the homosexuality study mentioned... isn't it also possible that sexual orientation is not a dichotomous state? Bisexuals are the perfect example of this. I believe that sexuality exists on a continuum... So everyone is a little bit "gay," some more than others. Someone who would normally be considered heterosexual, for example, is capable of feeling sexual arousal towards the same sex, whether they are conscious of it or not.
ReplyIt not only lies on a continuum, it is rather more plastic than most people will admit.
i have the weirdest boner right now...
Reply...Im gonna go watch some gay porn now.
ReplyMy boner is in the negatives when I watch gay porn, I get an anti-boner when I watch gay porn, my boner can take the shape of a pretzel when I watch gay porn, my boner leaves the room when I watch gay porn, naw I'm just kidding all that was a lie, I've never even seen gay porn
ReplyI'm sorry, i stopped reading after you said you get boners to gay porn.
lmao @ you
Congratulations I guess?
To former cult leader Jeff Lundgren:
ReplyBURN IN HELL!!!
While I was in college I wrote papers like this, only I at least let everyone know I was trying to be funny. Stuff like "if women have been oppressed sexually, and if serial killers tend to act out of frustration, why are women not frustrated sexually to a degree that most women would be serial killers?
ReplyI really do NOT want to sound like I'm spouting "truth" to enlighten. I just want to make people qualify their opinions. Most of these opinions are rumors and sophomore level theories which need to be developed more before they are published.
I like to apply #1 to all politicians who scream out their views such as "family man" and such, and then laugh when it turns out they have a mistress.
ReplyNot all politicians are like this of course, but I've seen it more often that I've wanted.
"All-told, nearly half of their total test subjects got at least semi-hard watching the gay porn. So... half the male population is secretly gay? That seems fairly unlikely." To help you qualify your argument a bit better, you may want to look up something called 'bisexuality'. While you're at it, I suggest also looking up 'bi-curious'. The test results can be criticized in several ways, but for your own sake, at least aknowledge the existence of bisexuality while you try seeming smarter than the researchers.
ReplyIt seems to me that many people forget sexuality is a gradient- sure some people are "completely" straight or "completely" gay but most people fall somewhere in the middle. Sure it might be very close to one end of the spectrum over the other for the majority of the population, but sexuality is in no way binary.
Here's the real number one myth about psychology that everyone believes: I took some psychology classes/I am a psychologist therefore I know your thoughts motives better than you do.
Reply