Comments on: Episode 113: Interview with Scott Lilienfeld on the 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology

By: Michael

Michael — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:34:16 +0000

Thanks Justin. I’m glad to hear that the podcast is of interest not just to psych majors. With all these episodes the site is getting pretty busy. I’m also a little worried about how long it takes the pages to load. I’m pretty good with WordPress, but I’m no computer science major. I might take you up on your offer.

By: Justin

Justin — Tue, 06 Apr 2010 08:24:02 +0000

Great podcast Michael very informative. I am a Computer Science Major, and I took a few psych classes my professor recommended this site to me as well. It has been a valuable research to study. If you ever need any advice on technical problems of this site feel free to email me. Its the least I can do for such an informative website.

By: Michael

Michael — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:39:32 +0000

Glad to hear it Jackie. Consider subscribing to the podcast in iTunes. It’s all free and oriented toward psych majors.

By: Jackie Cantrell

Jackie Cantrell — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 15:11:24 +0000

This was a great podcast. I am a Psychology major. Our professor asked us to get on here and check out the cast. It was informative yet some of the interviewing answers were a little over my head, but I did enjoy it.

By: Brittany Godfrey

Brittany Godfrey — Mon, 08 Feb 2010 03:34:33 +0000

Hey, Im a psych major, I can’t believe how many myths people come up with. It’s almost unbelievable because how people think and how we do things are what psychologist try and figure out. I simply believe their are myths about everything but when it come to some things such double thinking something that psychologist study for most of their schooling and in fact, years, there can only be a few things that will actually be myths.

By: Michael

Michael — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 14:32:29 +0000

RQuinn: glad you found the podcast and I appreciate the kind words. I think you’ll find Lilienfeld’s book to be an excellent resource for what you have in mind for your class.

Computer-mediated communication does look pretty interesting. I might be interested in doing an episode on the topic. I did a little Google search and found an article by Walther from 1996. Do you have any suggestions for anything more recent?

By: RQuinn

RQuinn — Fri, 05 Feb 2010 13:17:05 +0000

There’s a slew of relatively new research (less than thirty years old) on the topic of computer-mediated communication (CMC), how we form impressions of each other, and how we then form relationships with people we may never meet face-to-face. Notably, CMC is heavily receiver-based, with the reader filling in the gaps where CMC lacks nonverbal cues we normally rely on to make our assessments of each other, such as facial expressions, demeanor, and voice inflection, among others. A little priming, and two CMC receivers can read the same message in two different ways, depending on what each person brings to the medium. It’s what makes sarcasm (or the lack of it) excessively hard to communicate online; sarcasm requires a certain edge or flatness in the voice—something lacking in the printed word. Thankfully, if two CMC participants are willing to communicate and be open to one another, the lack of certain cues does not doom them to the loss of all cues, and though they come at a slower rate than face-to-face interactions, enough cues can help participants form very solid and justifiable impressions of each other, allowing us to form friendships online, similarly to how we do in person. (See the research by J. Walther and Lea & Spears, among others.)

Please, forgive me. CMC has been a major interest of mine since my first undergraduate research project in the field, and as with all psychology, I hope that a little understanding in the area will help us take each other with a grain of salt and reduce the attribution biases to which we are all prone. I have participated in the digression of this page’s original topic. My apologies to Michael as well. Maybe you could do a show on CMC sometime.

I’ve just downloaded this podcast (I didn’t have it, as I’ve only recently subscribed), and I’m very much looking forward to listening to it on my way to work tomorrow. I’ll be working on forming lesson plans in the following year, and one of my ideas has been to start the first day of class with a debunking session to get the kids interested in psychology as a means of challenging authority (through research) and thinking critically in ways that can be fun and enlightening. It seems from the description that Dr. Lilienfeld’s book is exactly what I’m looking for. Thank you for doing this episode!

By: Weekly Wisdom Roundup #60 (Weekly Readings For Smarter Types) | Economic models | Alphaverse.com

Tue, 12 Jan 2010 01:01:37 +0000

[...] The 50 Great Myths of Popular Psychology – Via Psych Files – I interview Dr. Scott Lilienfeld, author of 50 Myths of Popular Psychology and we talk about, a) does the polygraph actually work?, b) do women talk more than men?, c) does handwriting analysis reveal your personality? and d) when you’re taking a multiple choice test should you change your first answer or leave it alone? Along the way we also talk about whether the full moon really does make people act strangely (and cause more dog bites). Finally, Dr. Lilienfeld provides his opinion on whether psychotherapists need to be more up-to-date on the scientific research behind the various types of psychotherapy. [...]

By: Simoleon Sense » Blog Archive » Weekly Wisdom Roundup #60 (Weekly Readings For Smarter Types)

Sun, 10 Jan 2010 21:19:38 +0000

By: Sheldon W. Helms

Sheldon W. Helms — Thu, 07 Jan 2010 02:26:25 +0000

Well AJ, you certain work fast. You were insulted and issued a curt reply in record time. I have no interest in a flame war with you, so I’ll just leave it to you to work in your self-esteem and to learn more about the economics of textbooks since you clearly don’t want to read the rest of my post.