Användare
a widely held but false belief or idea
misconception + fallacy + mistaken belief + false notion + delusion + invention + fabrication + falsehood + untruth + lie
829 participants = PS + GP with a 249-itwm questionnaire over a broad range of psychological myths + misconceptions. the results showed that psychology training helps but not significantly.
the results showed that psychology training helps but not significantly, overall the total scores were relatively similar true [ PS ] = 41.8 [ GP ] = 43.5, false [ PS ] = 40.1, [ GP ] = 36.7 & idk [ PS ] = 18.1, [ GP ] = 19.8
Neuroscientific research received a lot of attention between 1990 - 2000 in the USA
Organisation for Economic Co-operation, and Development, 2002
“a misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading, or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for use of brain research in education and other contexts” (OECD, 2002)
investigated if belief in neuromyths was common among teachers that were interested in the neuroscience of learning + which myths were most / least prevalent + identifying factors that predict belief in neuromyths
teachers could implement (wrong) brain-based ideas in educational practice + possibly promoting the circulation of myths & spreading their ideas to teachers who are less engaged / acknowledged with brain research.
visual: learners respond to images and graphics
auditory: learners prefer verbal presentations
kinesthetic: learners prefer a physical, hands-on approach.
many misconceptions existed among the general public + there was a lot of variation in the frequency of these misunderstandings (Herculano-Houzel, 2002). The statement “we only use 10% of our brain”, defined by the OECD (2002) as a neuromyth, was the most prevalent misconception among the public.
people are generally more likely to believe research findings when they are accompanied by brain images + neuroscience explanations, even when incorrect (Weisberg et al., 2007; McCabe and Castel, 2008). Weisberg et al. (2007) found that the public’s perception of a poor explanation became more positive when neuroscience was included, although neuroscience was irrelevant.
typically info provided by the PM is often over-simplified or over-interpreted, this is done to reach many people. apparent simplicity can lead to a flawed assumption that complex neuroscience is easily applicable in the classroom. Therefore,PM have been held responsible for creating misconceptions (Wallace, 1993; Beck, 2010).
myths related to commercialized educational programs would be the most prevalent of the myths presented
general knowledge and in-service training were expected to have a protective effect on the belief in myths
teachers who read popular science magazines would believe more neuromyths
242 participants included 137 teachers from the Dorset region [UK] and 105 teachers from several regions in the NL surrounding the Amsterdam area.
primary school teachers (44%), secondary school teachers (50%), and other teachers (6%).
The UK sample comprised relatively more female teachers (77%) than the Dutch sample (64%),
teachers agreed with 49% of the statements promoting myths indicating that they believed these myths [ no significant difference between countries ] Dutch teachers had higher scores on general knowledge (M = 73% correct) than teachers from the UK (M = 67%)
TAPS = tenacity
authority
pure reason
scientific method
Peirce says that there are basically four different methods [TAPS] that people use to settle on which beliefs they are going to hold, i.e., which beliefs they are going to "fix on" as their own.
way to resolve doubt, essence of this method is that it is repeatable by others + isnt dependent on what humans currently believe. if the method is properly followed, other inquirers should arrive at the same conclusion.
taking an answer to a question any we may fancy, & constantly reiterating it to ourselves, dwelling on all which may conduce to that belief, & learning to turn with contempt and hatred from anything that might disturb it [we literally cling to our own beliefs steadfastly, resisting anything / anyone that might contradict them]
in essence we believe what we are told to believe by those in power. we tend to accept new ideas because some authority figure states that they are true.
we believe what appeals to reason, not letting facts get in the way. this method is far more intellectual and respectable from the point of view of reason than the others. it is distinguished for its comfortable conclusions. It is the nature of the process to adopt whatever belief we are inclined to (5:386).
"every apple is a fruit" is an a priori statement [it shows simple logical reasoning and isn't a statement of fact about a specific case] "apples are sweet" is a posteriori,[it expresses something the speaker knows from experience]
to satisfy our doubts, therefore, it is necessary that a method should be found by which our beliefs may be determined by nothing human, but by some external permanency — by something upon which our thinking has no effect
'sceince must begin with myths and with the criticisms of myths'
consists of statements, beliefs, or practices that claim to be both scientific and factual but are incompatible with the scientific method
[Pseudoscientific] claims exhibit superficial trappings of science but little of its substance
Fasce [2018] = refers to entities and/or processes outside the domain of science
makes use of a deficient methodology
is not supported by evidence
is presented as scientific knowledge
empirical - gained from observation
objective - free from bias
systematic - gathered in a step-by-step procedure
controlled - potentially confusing cofounding factors are eliminated
external sources (word of mouth)
misunderstanding of science (due to terminology/exaggeration) - [non]intentional
internal factors (cognitive mechanisms)
authorities + persons of trust(ed sources - news)
evidence
pitfalls (propaganda)
our overall positive impression of someone / something is based on a single characteristic. If our first impression is positive, the subsequent judgments we make will also be positive
erroneous assumptions that either two different things are the same because they bear the same name (jingle); or two identical / almost identical things are different because they are labeled differently (jangle).
according to (Lilienfeld et al. 2015)
antidepressant medication, autism epidemic, genetically determined
hyperbole used to make strength + consistency of observations look convinving.
•overstatement of size + importance of statistical effects,
•Overgeneralisation of findings
–misinterpretation of statistical significance + minimising variability of effect
•overgeneralisation of findings
the idea that stereotypes, despite being exaggerated overgeneralisations about a group of diverse individuals, sometimes contain elements that accurately describe the qualities of the stereotyped group
cognitive shortcuts
overgeneralisation
misattributions of casualties
•selective perception and memory + desire for easy answers / quick fixes
•automatic thought patterns used in response to stress and complex time-limited decision-making
exposure to biased samples + reasoning by representatives (representativeness heuristics - assessing similarity of objects and organizing them based around the category prototype )
•inferring causation from correlation
•post hoc, ergo propter hoc reasoning ~ latin = “after this, therefore because of this” assumption that due to one event occurring after another, the 2nd event must have been caused by the 1st
•misinterpretation of the world based on prior beliefs rather than new evidence
•focus on memorable co-occurrences ( 4 potential outcomes but we only remember 1 )
•Poor judgement of the independence of events ( coin tosses / cards )
selective perception + memory
two different variables occur at the same time and an unproven connection is made based on little evidence
when a causal connection is assumed without proof usually based merely on correlation
causation = one thing causes another—action A causes outcome B. whilst, correlation is simply a relationship where action A relates to action B—but they don't necessarily cause the other to happen.
categorial + probabilistic (Tversky + Kahneman,1974)
c-uses logic to reason about whether a specific concept belongs in a particular category or classification
p-based on degrees of belief and conclusions can be more or less likely, requires the retrieval of prior knowledge
the way our brains process info [un]consciously
cause we have too much info to perceive + remember (so we apply strategies shortcuts / heuristics [rules of thumb])
these are misapplied leading to biases