Scan barcode
A review by thomas_edmund
50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology: Shattering Widespread Misconceptions about Human Behavior by Steven Jay Lynn, John Ruscio, Scott O. Lilienfeld
5.0
There is an enduring argument between myself and some of my friends: Is something that has no validity whatsoever, still a good thing if it makes people feel better?
Taking a look at this work, reminds me that the real person feeling better is the benefactor from the hundreds of schleps who succumb to forking over their hard earned cash for remedies and self-help products all for a well reinforced placebo effect.
Authors of fad-diet, spiritual-guidance and relationship advice frequently make sales in the millions, and must surely continue to suck up more capital with the lecture circuits.
Rants aside, this book is absolutely must read for anyone anywhere on the spectrum of belief in what is loosely described as ‘pop’ psychology. Those who swear by their natural remedies need to know this information, and those (like me) who have realised that pop psychology is merely a money making industry will enjoy an ivory tower scoff-fest.
The myths busted in this piece are all largely well known, some of the best are the criticisms of criminal profiling, Freudian analysis and gender differences. There was one stand out myth I had never heard of; apparently some people think particles are emitted by our eyes? There were also a couple of risky myths, one trying to refute the stigma of mental health diagnosis, and one about the effects of positive thinking. While ultimately the information presented is solid I suspect for these myths some baby had been thrown out with the bathwater, in an attempt to challenge common misperceptions.
Another small criticism is the rather desperate puns littering this book. For one thing, puns are only enjoyed by those who use them (and sometimes not even) and that level of wit (or half) isn’t really in keeping with the tone of the book.
The authors manage to hit a good balance with this piece, not straying too far into unscientific mud-slinging, but also not becoming so dry and boring that few would ever read their work. A gripe I often repeat with this style of book is that those who should be reading it will probably not even notice its existence, however I live in hope that many will read this piece, and the world will be better for it.
Taking a look at this work, reminds me that the real person feeling better is the benefactor from the hundreds of schleps who succumb to forking over their hard earned cash for remedies and self-help products all for a well reinforced placebo effect.
Authors of fad-diet, spiritual-guidance and relationship advice frequently make sales in the millions, and must surely continue to suck up more capital with the lecture circuits.
Rants aside, this book is absolutely must read for anyone anywhere on the spectrum of belief in what is loosely described as ‘pop’ psychology. Those who swear by their natural remedies need to know this information, and those (like me) who have realised that pop psychology is merely a money making industry will enjoy an ivory tower scoff-fest.
The myths busted in this piece are all largely well known, some of the best are the criticisms of criminal profiling, Freudian analysis and gender differences. There was one stand out myth I had never heard of; apparently some people think particles are emitted by our eyes? There were also a couple of risky myths, one trying to refute the stigma of mental health diagnosis, and one about the effects of positive thinking. While ultimately the information presented is solid I suspect for these myths some baby had been thrown out with the bathwater, in an attempt to challenge common misperceptions.
Another small criticism is the rather desperate puns littering this book. For one thing, puns are only enjoyed by those who use them (and sometimes not even) and that level of wit (or half) isn’t really in keeping with the tone of the book.
The authors manage to hit a good balance with this piece, not straying too far into unscientific mud-slinging, but also not becoming so dry and boring that few would ever read their work. A gripe I often repeat with this style of book is that those who should be reading it will probably not even notice its existence, however I live in hope that many will read this piece, and the world will be better for it.