Bad Psychology

It’s been a few years since I moved away from the field of psychology. I am now in software development, but I have to admit I still have a passion for psychology. Earlier this week I was writing a blog post on a community website for developers. And it was about human psychology!

Feeling Nostalgic About This Blog

Somebody on a developer subreddit said that not everybody can learn to code (which I disagree with). Coincidentally, I was reading Dr. Duckworth’s book called Grit: The Power of Passion and Perseverance at the time. 

In short, the book argues that grit (having passion and perseverance for long-term goals) can sometimes be a better predictor of success than IQ. Even better, the book argues that anybody can grow and develop their grit. 

My plan was to go to Dr. Duckworth’s primary sources (including her own published work) and make a case that everybody can learn to code given passion and perseverance. For a few hours it felt like I was writing for this blog again, which made me feel nostalgic. But then I stumbled upon an article that reminded me why writing for this blog was so difficult back in the day: Psychology is a hard science.

Psychology Is a Hard Science

Some “hard” science majors get annoyed when people say that psychology is a science. Psychology utilizes the scientific method, therefore it is a science and they should get over it.

But that’s not what I mean when I say psychology is a hard science. I mean that it’s difficult because studying humans is difficult.

The article I found is called Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Unfortunately, the article is behind a pay-wall (one of my original frustrations when I was writing posts for this blog). However, I did find others who wrote or talked about it on NPR, Psychology Today, and LinkedIn.

In short, the article is a meta-analysis that found that grit is part of conscientiousness (from the Big 5) and that its effectiveness to predict success is low to moderate. In other words, Dr. Duckworth is overselling the effectiveness of grit on success.

Another systematic review found that, “correlations between grit and most educational outcomes were weak to moderate in the majority of studies” (Christopoulou, 2018).

So that’s where I am right now. You think the blog post is going one way, but all of a sudden research takes you to a whole different place. It’s messy, it’s difficult, it’s frustrating, but above else, it’s fucking fascinating.

References:

Credé, M., Tynan, M. C., & Harms, P. D. (2017). Much ado about grit: A meta-analytic synthesis of the grit literature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), 492-511.

I’ve been getting messages about this, so here is the answer:

This blog is in an indefinite hiatus. While I am still very passionate about psychology and human behavior, I’ve been transitioning to the field of computer science. I may write about how people interact with technology once in a while, like I recently did when I wrote about the personality traits of early Pokemon Go players, but it won’t be very frequent. 

The Pokémon Go craze has been over for a while, but a recent study published in the journal of Computers in Human Behavior found some interesting personality correlates of early players of the game that I thought were worth writing about.

The Study

The researchers created a Pokémon Go questionnaire to collect the gaming habits of 561 participants. The questionnaire asked players to describe a number of their gaming habits, including how much time they spend playing the game in one day, how many Pokémon they catch in one day, and how many different species of Pokémon they had. The players also completed a Big Five personality questionnaire.

A bit about the participants: Of the 561 participants who completed the questionnaires, 63% were male and 34% were female. Their average age was 26.94.

Results

The study found correlations between early Pokémon Go players and three personality traits: introversion, agreeability, and conscientiousness. In other words, early Pokémon Go players tend to be more introverted, agreeable, and conscientious. 

Reference

Tabacchi, M.E., Caci, B., Cardaci, M., & Perticone, V. (2017). Early usage of Pokemon Go and its personality correlates. Computers in Human Behavior, 72, 163-169.

I wrote a blog post about this last June. I talked about a 2007 study that used an objective measure to count the number of words used by men and women. The study found no significant difference. In fact, the researchers wrote, “We therefore conclude, on the basis of empirical evidence, that the wide-spread and highly publicized stereotype about female talkativeness is unfounded” (p. 82).

So why am I writing about this again? Because a few days, somebody on the Psych2Go website promoted the myth once again. The author of the blog post cited a study with a not-so-great sample size. I briefly discussed that study on my original post, too.

Okay, so here’s the thing: Science is always changing. Our knowledge is frequently updated as new information emerges. With this in mind, I decided to do a bit of research on the topic to see if any new studies had been published since my original blog post. It turns out one study got published one month after my blog post!

New Study

The study, published in 2014, found that it depends on the context. Psychologists examined the difference of gender talkativeness in two distinct settings.

The first setting was a structured, collaborative setting. It required master’s students to complete a graded assignment in a limited amount of time (12 hrs during the span of several days). The second setting was an unstructured setting. It took place at the participants’ workplace during 12 lunch breaks.

What were the findings?

Women were more likely to interact with other women during the collaborative setting. So in that particular setting, yes, women did talk more than men. However, there were no differences between men and women during the second, unstructured setting. So yeah, it depends on the setting.

References:

Mehl, M. R., Vazire, S., Ramirez-Esparza, N., Slatcher, R. B., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2007). Are women really more talkative than me? Science, 317, 82.

I apologize if I am answering this months after you asked the question. Tumblr didn’t notify me I had a question.

So, I’m guessing you mean the whole, “When the first tears you cry come from your left eye, it’s because of something painful, but if they come from your right eye, it’s from something happy.”

If so, I am pretty confident it is a myth.

Somebody asked this question on another website, and one of the answers references a podcast where the host interviews a psychologist who studies crying. You can read the relevant part of the podcast’s transcript on the website, but in short the psychologist ran an experiment (although I’m not sure I would call it that myself) where he had a very small sample of participants watch a movie.

Except that it doesn't. 

I came across this article while scrolling through my Facebook feed today. The title says it all, “Science Links Anxiety To High IQ’s & Sentinel Intelligence, Social Anxiety To Very Rare Psychic Gift.” It was the last statement that caught my eye, the one claiming a link between social anxiety and psychic gift. Being the skeptic that I am, I read the article to see what science they were referring to.

According to the article, “scientists found that a large portion of people with social anxiety disorder are gifted empaths — people whose right-brains are operating significantly above normal levels and are able to perceive the physical sensitivities, spiritual urges, motivations, and intentions of other people around them “ They then link to various pages that list common traits of empaths. And then they go on to quote a shaman.

The Study

The next logical step was to look at the study they were referencing to. Luckily it wasn’t hidden behind a pay-wall (full text here). The article, entitled “Social Cognition in Social Anxiety: First Evidence for Increased Empathic Abilities,” says nothing about psychic abilities or “spiritual urges.” Rather, the researchers wanted to see if there was a link between social anxiety and empathy, and if there was a difference in mentalizing between people with high and low social anxiety. They reason that people with social anxiety are hyper-vigilant about what others think about them, which may serve as a way to practice mentalizing and empathy. But what do they mean by empathy and mentalizing?

The researchers define empathy by distinguishing its two main components: the ability to take another person’s point of view (which they refer to as cognitive empathy) and the ability to respond to another person’s emotions (affective empathy). They define mentalizing as the ability to ascribe mental states--such as beliefs and desires--to others (otherwise known as Theory of Mind). 

Why would they want to study empathy and mentalizing? Well, according to the researchers, the “ability to infer others’ mental states (mentalizing) is closely linked to the ability of empathizing, since failure to represent other persons’ beliefs and intentions may result in failure to see things from another person’s perspective and, thus, interfere with the empathic response” (p. 99). 

So there it is. I don’t even have to explain the rest of the study. Clearly it has nothing to do with psychic phenomena. I wouldn’t be surprised if the person who wrote the “psychic gift” article even bothered read the actual study. The only parts of the study quoted are the subsections of the abstract. Is that as far as the person got?

I guess it’s a good thing the website has a disclaimer in its About page: “DISCLAIMER: FEELguide.com contains published articles, speculation, assumptions, opinions as well as factual information. Information on this site may or may not be true and is not meant to be taken as fact.  FEELguide.com makes no warranty as to the validity of any claims.” Because we all know people read the fine print. 

Reference:

Why Pseudoscience Belongs in the Psychology Classroom

Junk Science, Neuroscience, and Psychological Science

Featuring Scott Lillienfeld, Sally Satel, Carol Tavris, Robert Kurzban. Moderated by Sheldon Helms.

Here's some info on the panel members:

Scott Lillienfeld is a clinical psychologist. He is interested in psychopathy and psychopathic behaviors, evidence-based clinical practice, and often writes about scientific thinking and the philosophy of science and psychology. His recent books include 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior (co-authored with 3 other psychologists) and Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience (co-authored with Sally Satel).

Sally Satel is a psychiatrist based in D.C. She is the author of several books on psychiatry, medicine, and health. Her latest book (co-authored with Scott Lilienfeld) is Brainwashed: The Seductive Appeal of Mindless Neuroscience. 

Carol Tavris is a social psychologist. She has authored books on feminism and critical thinking. Her latest book (co-authored with Elliot Aronson) is Mistakes Were Made (But Not by Me): Why We Justify Foolish Beliefs, Bad Decisions, and Hurtful Acts--I wrote about the book here.

At one point or another, most of us have heard the stereotype of the mad genius or the creative genius who suffers from mental illness(es). Think about of historically famous or influential painters and writers who had unstable lives--some went as far as committing suicide.

The problem? This is only anecdotal evidence. It doesn't really give us data that is reliable and objective. But what do the studies say?

Contrary to what this image claims, the link between creativity and mental disorders like anxiety, depression, and bipolar disorder is not as clear cut. The primarily reason is because not many studies have looked at mental illness and creativity. Furthermore, 'mental illness' is an umbrella term that covers many different illnesses or disorders. So naturally there are even less studies looking at particular mental disorders and creativity. 

Creativity and Depression

Silvia and Kimbrel (2010) summarize the small research that has looked for a potential depression-creativity link. They note that while some studies have found moderate positive correlations between depression and creativity, others have found negative correlations. They conclude that "the evidence for a depression-creativity link is clearly inconsistent."

Creativity and Anxiety

They further point out that even less studies have been done to evaluate an anxiety-creativity link. One study looked at anxiety, depression, and personality disorders as a whole without distinguishing the individual disorder-creativity links. Two other studies they summarize looked at shyness, an aspect of social anxiety spectrum; one study found that shy preschoolers were rated less creative by teachers, while the other found that shy female college students were less creative in a poem-writing task.

"Taken together," write Silvia and Kimbrel, "these studies suggest that shyness (and by extension social anxiety) may be associated with less creativity" [emphasis of "may" on my part]. However, if this link does exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that anxiety in general is negatively correlated with creativity, or vise versa--more research is needed to establish if a link exists at all..

Creativity and Bipolar Disorder

What about a bipolar disorder-creativity link? A book chapter by Lloyd-Evans, Batey, and Furnham (2006) reviewed biographical and psychiatric research studies to examine if a relationship exists.

Biographical studies work by collecting biographical data of historical individuals considered highly creative--say, Edgar Allan Poe--and searching for explicitly documented mental illnesses or clues that imply the existence of a disorder to developing a retrospective diagnosis. Evans and co-writers note that while biographical studies seem to suggest a positive correlation between bipolar disorder and creativity, they have serious limitations and can't establish a definitive link. For example, they point out that Vincent van Gogh has been retrospectively diagnosed with different mental illnesses by different clinicians. Furthermore, they note that "it is always possible to find biographical material that appears to support a specific hypothesis and the same information might well be used to link alcoholism and creativity" (120). 

Psychiatric research studies look at persons who have been diagnosed with certain mental disorders, in this case bipolar disorder, and give them different creativity measurements to see how they differ from "normal" participants. These studies, too, point to a potential positive bipolar disorder-creativity link but were not without limitations. Some of these studies had potentially biased samples and/or no control groups. And another study didn't show a significant correlation.

Conclusion

Clearly, things are not as simple as the images implies. A definitive link between these mental disorders and creativity has not been established yet primarily because the research is lacking, and the few available studies have methodological limitations. Here is a quick summary:

The limited literature on depression-creativity is inconsistent. Some studies show a positive correlation, others show a negative correlation.

Studies haven't really studied anxiety-creativity. The available literature looks at shyness--which lies in the social anxiety spectrum--and has provided some evidence that there is a negative relationship between shyness, or social anxiety, and creativity. 

Slightly more research has examined bipolar disorder and creativity. These studies fall into two categories: biographical and psychiatric studies. Both of these methods show a tentative link (positive) between bipolar disorder and creativity, but because of certain limitations, more research is warranted to definitively establish the correlation.

To make things more complicated, we have to consider how creativity is defined and measured, and the severity of the particular mental disorder. Lastly, if we can't be 100% sure there exists a correlation between these mental disorders and creativity, how can we possibly say that one causes the other like the image suggests? We simply can't. 

Reference:

Lloyd-Evans, R., Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Bipolar disorder and creativity: Investigating a possible link. In A. Columbus (Ed.), Advances in Psychology Research, Volume 40. (pp. 111-142). NY: Nova Science Publishers.