--- title: 5 Things You Probably Get Wrong About Psychology description: "The human psyche is a complex and fascinating thing that has been the subject of thousands of years of speculation and research. Despite the tireless efforts of humanity's best scientists, most of the inner workings of the human brain have remained a mystery.\n\nBut that's all complicated and unsatisfying, which is where the field of pop psychology comes in. Why be right when you can just be convincing and easy to understand instead? This has led to a number of misconceptions about the field of psychology itself as well as various psychological principles that supposedly govern human behaviour and understanding. Today we'll be looking at five commonly held beliefs about psychology that many people get wrong.\n\n## Psychiatrists Are Medical Doctors\n\nAnybody who has been to a therapist likely understands how this works already, but there is a big misconception that the terms \"psychologist\" and \"psychiatrist\" are interchangeable. Or perhaps they believe that they're similar, but that a psychiatrist is just more qualified. However, while the fields are closely related and work with one another, they are very different jobs.\n\nDespite the popular misconception, most psychiatrists don't actually take part in therapy. This is typically done by psychologists, who then make recommendations to the psychiatrist regarding diagnoses and possible treatments. Although meetings with the psychiatrist will involve some discussion of the patient's mental health, their primary job is to prescribe and manage a patient's medications.\n\nUnlike psychologists, who specialize in treating mental health issues using psychotherapy, psychiatrists specialize in treating them with pharmaceuticals. As such, psychiatrists are actually medical doctors, just like your general practitioner. There are a lot of different medications out there, and it's important that the person prescribing them understands all of the possible interactions that various types of medication can have with one another.\n\nIn addition to focusing on medication, psychiatrists are also able to order lab work, such as blood tests or MRIs, to rule out other medical factors that may be causing a person's psychological symptoms. Even though psychiatrists don't usually take part in therapy, their education generally requires completion of psychotherapy courses. But in terms of their actual role in providing care for mental health, a psychiatrist's training as a medical doctor is far more important than their training in psychotherapy.\n\nOf course, a lot of people argue that this isn't an ideal system. There is a strong argument that the people prescribing medication for psychological conditions should be the same ones sitting through hours of therapy with the patients. While this makes some amount of sense because of the invisible nature of psychological conditions, it's not something we generally expect of other specialists. For example, most people wouldn't complain that the doctor who identified they had a tumor wasn't the one to perform surgery to remove it.\n\n## Personality Tests Aren't Reliable\n\nYou've almost certainly taken a personality test at some point. Millions of people do every year, especially the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI. The test places people into groups based on four dichotomies: Extraversion versus Introversion, Sensing versus Intuition, Thinking versus Feeling, and Judging versus Perceiving. The first letter of each of those results creates one of 16 personality profiles, such as ESFJ. People place so much faith in these tests that they'll put them at the top of their dating profiles. But how accurate are these really?\n\nUnsurprisingly, not at all.\n\nThe test was designed by Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers. Although both were college educated, Briggs studied agriculture while Myers studied political science. Neither had any formal education in psychology, and their test was heavily influenced by the work of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung.\n\nNow just because the test wasn't constructed by professional psychologists doesn't by default make it invalid. There are plenty of examples throughout history of amateurs and enthusiasts making incredible breakthroughs in advanced fields. Unfortunately, this was not one of those cases.\n\nDespite the test's incredible popularity and longevity, it has been decried as meaningless pseudoscience for decades and has been debunked countless times. And yet the test refuses to go away, often even being used by employers and recruiters during the hiring process. People also enjoy taking the test, and it's a quick way to get a bunch of easy answers about themselves.\n\nBut if those same people were to take the test five weeks later, studies have shown that over 50% of them are likely to receive a different classification. This is just one of many flaws with the test, stemming from its lack of objectivity. The test is entirely based on the honesty of the person taking the test, which is by no means guaranteed for a variety of reasons.\n\nThere's also the fact that there's no scientific basis for any of this. The MBTI is a simplified version of Jung's original model, but neither were based on empirical data. Jung's model was strictly theoretical, and the MBTI is just a more easily consumable but watered down version of what was only theoretical in the first place.\n\nThe test also treats the direction of preference in the dichotomies as more important than the degree of preference. If your test scored 51% extrovert, then you would be classified as an extrovert. However, when looking at large numbers of tests, scores tended to fall close to the center of the line. Not only does this help explain why people frequently get different results when taking the test multiple times, but it calls into question whether these traits can even be assessed as a bimodal dichotomy. Were that an accurate way of assessing these traits, one would expect scores to be much more extreme rather than being heavily concentrated at the center.\n\nIt's easy to talk about all of the things wrong with the MBTI, but it's not the only test that isn't completely reliable. Even assessments like the Big Five personality traits, also known as the five-factor model of personality, have faced significant criticism despite being widely accepted.\n\nThe Big Five traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. However, many argue that these categories are too broad and not fully inclusive. One critic referred to it as \"the psychology of a stranger\", because they are traits that are easy to quickly deduce about a person, but not an accurate representation of the person as a whole.\n\nAnother issue is that there isn't actually an underlying theory behind the Big Five. Although this personality test was built on empirical data, that was mainly just to identify what the five factors would be. Because of the lack of any overarching theory, the Big Five traits have proven to be largely unhelpful in predicting or explaining a person's behaviour.\n\nIt's almost as if people are complicated creatures whose personalities and behaviour can't be easily boiled down to just four or five binary traits. But if we can't accurately categorize people using four or five binary traits, maybe we can do it with just one.\n\n## People Are Not Left Brained or Right Brained\n\nIt began in the 1960s with research from Nobel Prize winning neurologist Roger Sperry, who specialized in studying split brain patients. These were patients for whom the corpus callosum was severed, effectively creating a separate right and left brain. After conducting research with split brain cats, Sperry concluded that the left and right brain seemed to operate separately from one another.\n\nHe also discovered that severing the corpus callosum was an effective form of treatment for patients suffering from severe epilepsy. This meant there were going to be a whole lot of split brain humans that could be experimented upon without the ethics violation of needlessly performing brain surgery on subjects.\n\nNot only did this cure a patient's epilepsy, but they had no changes in personality or functioning to report. This was unexpected, and if the brains were still functioning normally then why did the corpus callosum even need to exist in the first place? Sperry invited many of these patients back to take part in some experiments to try to determine exactly what was going on.\n\nBecause the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, experiments were run in which patients would have one side of their vision blocked while performing a task with either their left or right hand. Sperry's award winning research showed that different tasks were handled by different parts of the brain.\n\nSpeech, writing, language, and calculation were predominantly handled in the left hemisphere, while spatial perception, non-verbal concept formation, attention, and some amount of word recognition were handled on the right. However, his research was solely about how the brain worked and said absolutely nothing about personality or about people having one side of the brain that was more dominant than the other.\n\nHe even noted that for some people, particularly lefties, the roles of the two hemispheres were reversed. But most importantly, he said it was imperative not to oversimplify this highly detailed and analytic research.\n\nOn September 9, 1973, the *New York Times Magazine* decided to oversimplify this highly detailed and analytic research with an article titled \"We are left-brained or right-brained\". The idea that the left brain focused on language and the right brain focused on spatial reasoning was simplified to the left brain being logical and the right brain being creative. The article in question even described the left brain as \"verbal, analytical, [and] dominant\" and the right brain as \"artistic but mute\".\n\nShortly after that article was published another appeared in *Time Magazine*, and then it was off to the races. The myth of left brain versus right brain spread throughout society, where it is still believed by many people today.\n\nPart of the myth's longevity is due to society's desire to portray creativity and analysis as being polar opposites of one another, despite the fact that it is patently untrue. If you're good at math but can't draw worth a damn, there's some amount of comfort in being able to say that it's not your fault; it's just the way that your brain was wired. However, creativity and analysis are often intrinsically linked rather than being at odds with one another.\n\nAlthough there was never any science to support the theory in the first place, in 2013 researchers out of the University of Utah wanted to end the debate once and for all. They conducted a study involving over 1,000 participants with ages ranging from 7 to 29. Each participant was placed into an fMRI machine which measures changes in blood flow to monitor brain activity.\n\nOne by one, all 1,000 people were placed into the fMRI while in a \"resting state\", meaning that they hadn't been given any specific instructions. Since they weren't engaging in any specific task that would necessitate activity in a specific part of the brain which could skew the results, one might predict that people showed more activity in either the left brain or the right brain.\n\nAt least, one might predict that if they believed the myth. In reality, whether the person was an electrician, a painter, or an elementary school student, their brains all showed similar levels of activity on both sides. No test subject showed dominance from either side of their brain, and they certainly weren't split into two groups each favouring one side over the other.\n\nRealistically, this was a silly idea from the start. Our brains being designed so that one half was overloaded with work and the other was basically doing nothing would be a very poor design.\n\n## Opposites Don't Attract\n\nThere's an old adage that opposites attract. That's certainly true for magnets, but is it for people? On the surface, the theory makes some amount of sense. An introverted bookworm and a party animal with failing grades could offer each other a lot in a relationship. The introvert could help their partner improve their grades and the extrovert could help their partner become more social and enjoy life a bit more.\n\nThe theory is that opposites balance each other out, creating a beautiful equilibrium in which they each play off each other's strengths to create the perfect pair. It's a lovely sounding theory, but alas this isn't how people actually work in the real world. At least not in the long term.\n\nIn the short term this may happen for a variety of reasons. Someone might find extra excitement in dating a person whose personality is opposite to theirs. Their presence could offer an entire world of new experiences that creates an incentive to start a relationship. Or perhaps the other person is seen as forbidden fruit, like the classic story of the good girl dating the boy from the wrong side of the tracks.\n\nThere's certainly something to be said about the appeal of these exciting differences, but it's typically short lived. The longer a relationship lasts, the more cold, hard reality will bear down on the couple and force them to discover how mismatched they are. Though the early days of the relationship may have been devoid of conflict because of the novelty of the situation, eventually differences in core values and beliefs will become insurmountable obstacles to the couple's continued happiness.\n\nMany papers have examined this idea, and in 2023 a massive paper was published out of the University of Colorado, Boulder confirming that opposites attracting is indeed a myth. The paper conducted a meta-analysis of 200 other research papers published over the last 100 years, as well as including their own original research. This analysis looked at millions of couples over the span of a century, comparing them on 130 different traits.\n\nThese traits included everything imaginable, such as height, political beliefs, substance use, hobbies, age at which they first had sex, and more. Nearly every individual trait showed the couples were more likely to be similar rather than different, with each couple being similar in 82-89% of these traits. There were only a few traits where opposites seemed to attract, and that was only the case with one specific sample out of the UK, indicating it may have been an aberration.\n\nOf course, not all traits were equally important. For example, there was a very strong correlation with things like political beliefs and substance use, while height showed a weaker but still positive correlation. But this study was a massive aggregate of something that was already pretty well understood: people get along better with those that are similar to them.\n\nRelationships where people had similar beliefs, attitudes, and personalities lasted longer and left the couples feeling much more satisfied with their partner. While these studies all focused on opposite sex couples, there's no reason to suspect that the same findings wouldn't exist for same sex couples. After all, that's just one more thing that they have in common.\n\n## Learning Styles Don't Really Exist\n\nAre you a visual, auditory, reading, or kinetic learner? It's a question that has been posed for decades, and is even fully embraced by many teachers. The modern framework of learning styles began with research dating back to the 1910s, and it really started to take hold in the public consciousness in the 1970s. However, despite the popularity of learning style theory and the fact that the vast majority of educators believe it to exist, there is absolutely no evidence to support this.\n\nOne of the biggest red flags should be that nobody can actually agree on what the different learning styles are. Neil Fleming's VARK model, composed of the four types of learning styles we mentioned earlier, is among the most popular. However, a 2016 review of learning style theory identified at least 71 different models being used. If this was actually a thing that worked, there would probably be more agreement on what the different learning types are.\n\nEven if we accepted that the theory was accurate, teachers seem to be unable to accurately assess a student's learning style. In one study, 400 students were given evaluations to determine their learning style. Of those students, 70% did not use a method of studying that matched their assigned style, although those who did performed no better on tests than those who didn't.\n\nWhile psychology and neuroscience are complex fields, learning style theory is something that seems like it should be easy to test. Split students into groups based on their learning style, randomly assign each student to an instruction in one of the different learning styles, then administer the same test to all students. If the theory is correct, then those students whose instruction matched their learning style should perform better on the test than those who were mismatched.\n\nVery few studies actually took this obvious approach, and those that did almost universally showed that it did not work. In every study but one, it was shown that the same form of instruction was more effective for all students regardless of what their alleged learning style was. There is virtually no empirical evidence to support learning style theory, and a mountain of evidence showing that it is inaccurate.\n\nUnfortunately, as we stated earlier, this theory is still embraced by teachers. A 2017 paper out of the UK showed that even though 90% of teachers felt that there were fundamental flaws with the theory, over half of them still believed that learning styles exist and that students learn better when presented with information in their preferred style.\n\nBut the concept of learning styles is worse than just being incorrect, it's potentially detrimental to students. When a student is told \"this is the way that you learn best\", what they often hear is \"you are bad at these other things\". This can result in students developing ideas about themselves that limit their potential, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which they perform badly at certain things because they assume they are incapable of learning them.\n\nAn alternate theory on learning is called dual coding. Dual coding theory states that the brain processes information through either verbal or nonverbal channels, and that each channel works differently. By combining words with pictures, charts, and graphs, it is believed that retention of information can be dramatically improved.\n\nAnd the results are certainly promising. While dual coding is not universally accepted, there is significant scientific evidence that the theory is accurate, or at the very least on the right track. Unfortunately, combining lectures with visual aids just sounds like regular, boring schoolwork, so this theory has failed to capture the public's imagination in the same way that more exciting pseudoscientific nonsense often does.\n\n## Key Takeaways\n\n- Psychiatrists are medical doctors who focus on medication and lab work, not therapy.\n- Personality tests like the MBTI are unreliable and lack scientific basis.\n- The concept of left-brained or right-brained individuals is a myth.\n- Opposites do not attract in long-term relationships; similarity is key.\n- Learning styles do not exist; instruction should be uniform for all students.\n\n## Frequently Asked Questions\n\n### What is the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist?\n\nPsychologists specialize in treating mental health issues using psychotherapy, while psychiatrists specialize in treating them with pharmaceuticals. Psychiatrists are medical doctors who can prescribe medications and order lab work, whereas psychologists typically do not.\n\n### Are personality tests like the MBTI reliable?\n\nNo, personality tests like the MBTI are not reliable. They often produce different results when taken multiple times and lack scientific validity. The MBTI, in particular, has been criticized for its lack of objectivity and empirical basis.\n\n### What is the Big Five personality test, and is it reliable?\n\nThe Big Five personality test assesses traits like openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. While it is widely accepted, it has faced criticism for being too broad and not fully inclusive. It also lacks an overarching theory, making it less helpful in predicting behavior.\n\n### Is the concept of being 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' accurate?\n\nNo, the concept of being 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' is a myth. Research has shown that both hemispheres of the brain are active in all individuals, regardless of their profession or personality traits.\n\n### Do opposites really attract in relationships?\n\nNo, opposites do not attract in the long term. Studies have shown that couples who are similar in beliefs, attitudes, and personalities tend to have longer-lasting and more satisfying relationships.\n\n### Do learning styles like visual, auditory, and kinetic learning exist?\n\nNo, there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of learning styles. The theory has been widely debunked, and teaching methods that match a student's alleged learning style do not improve performance.\n\n### What is dual coding theory in learning?\n\nDual coding theory suggests that the brain processes information through verbal and nonverbal channels. Combining words with visual aids can improve information retention, although this theory is not universally accepted.\n\n### Why do some people believe in the left-brain/right-brain myth?\n\nThe left-brain/right-brain myth gained popularity due to oversimplified interpretations of research by Roger Sperry. The idea that creativity and analysis are polar opposites has contributed to its longevity, despite lacking scientific support.\n\n### What role do psychiatrists play in therapy?\n\nPsychiatrists primarily focus on prescribing and managing medications for mental health conditions. They may discuss mental health with patients but typically do not conduct therapy sessions, which are usually handled by psychologists.\n\n### Why is the MBTI test still popular despite being debunked?\n\nThe MBTI test remains popular because people enjoy taking it and find it provides easy answers about themselves. Its simplicity and the desire for quick self-understanding contribute to its enduring appeal, despite its lack of scientific validity.\n\n## Sources\n\n- [Original Side Projects video: 5 Things You Probably Get Wrong About Psychology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Qew5U0Uf0)\n\n## Related Coverage" url: https://sideprojects.pub/article/5-things-you-probably-get-wrong-about-psychology.md canonical: https://sideprojects.pub/article/5-things-you-probably-get-wrong-about-psychology datePublished: 2024-06-09 dateModified: 2026-07-28 author: - name: Simon Whistler url: https://sideprojects.pub/author/simon-whistler publisher: Side Projects image: "https://media.sideprojects.pub/cdn-cgi/image/width=1600,height=900,fit=cover,quality=80,format=auto/articles/F5Qew5U0Uf0/hero.jpg" type: NewsArticle contentHash: 29f6b44a11be368a897c76ede9008e5f16baaca4b96a52483c170aa4daec5768 tokens: 5681 summaryUrl: https://sideprojects.pub/article/5-things-you-probably-get-wrong-about-psychology.md.summary.md --- The human psyche is a complex and fascinating thing that has been the subject of thousands of years of speculation and research. Despite the tireless efforts of humanity's best scientists, most of the inner workings of the human brain have remained a mystery. But that's all complicated and unsatisfying, which is where the field of pop psychology comes in. Why be right when you can just be convincing and easy to understand instead? This has led to a number of misconceptions about the field of psychology itself as well as various psychological principles that supposedly govern human behaviour and understanding. Today we'll be looking at five commonly held beliefs about psychology that many people get wrong. ## Psychiatrists Are Medical Doctors Anybody who has been to a therapist likely understands how this works already, but there is a big misconception that the terms "psychologist" and "psychiatrist" are interchangeable. Or perhaps they believe that they're similar, but that a psychiatrist is just more qualified. However, while the fields are closely related and work with one another, they are very different jobs. Despite the popular misconception, most psychiatrists don't actually take part in therapy. This is typically done by psychologists, who then make recommendations to the psychiatrist regarding diagnoses and possible treatments. Although meetings with the psychiatrist will involve some discussion of the patient's mental health, their primary job is to prescribe and manage a patient's medications. Unlike psychologists, who specialize in treating mental health issues using psychotherapy, psychiatrists specialize in treating them with pharmaceuticals. As such, psychiatrists are actually medical doctors, just like your general practitioner. There are a lot of different medications out there, and it's important that the person prescribing them understands all of the possible interactions that various types of medication can have with one another. In addition to focusing on medication, psychiatrists are also able to order lab work, such as blood tests or MRIs, to rule out other medical factors that may be causing a person's psychological symptoms. Even though psychiatrists don't usually take part in therapy, their education generally requires completion of psychotherapy courses. But in terms of their actual role in providing care for mental health, a psychiatrist's training as a medical doctor is far more important than their training in psychotherapy. Of course, a lot of people argue that this isn't an ideal system. There is a strong argument that the people prescribing medication for psychological conditions should be the same ones sitting through hours of therapy with the patients. While this makes some amount of sense because of the invisible nature of psychological conditions, it's not something we generally expect of other specialists. For example, most people wouldn't complain that the doctor who identified they had a tumor wasn't the one to perform surgery to remove it. ## Personality Tests Aren't Reliable You've almost certainly taken a personality test at some point. Millions of people do every year, especially the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator or MBTI. The test places people into groups based on four dichotomies: Extraversion versus Introversion, Sensing versus Intuition, Thinking versus Feeling, and Judging versus Perceiving. The first letter of each of those results creates one of 16 personality profiles, such as ESFJ. People place so much faith in these tests that they'll put them at the top of their dating profiles. But how accurate are these really? Unsurprisingly, not at all. The test was designed by Katharine Briggs and her daughter Isabel Myers. Although both were college educated, Briggs studied agriculture while Myers studied political science. Neither had any formal education in psychology, and their test was heavily influenced by the work of Swiss psychologist Carl Jung. Now just because the test wasn't constructed by professional psychologists doesn't by default make it invalid. There are plenty of examples throughout history of amateurs and enthusiasts making incredible breakthroughs in advanced fields. Unfortunately, this was not one of those cases. Despite the test's incredible popularity and longevity, it has been decried as meaningless pseudoscience for decades and has been debunked countless times. And yet the test refuses to go away, often even being used by employers and recruiters during the hiring process. People also enjoy taking the test, and it's a quick way to get a bunch of easy answers about themselves. But if those same people were to take the test five weeks later, studies have shown that over 50% of them are likely to receive a different classification. This is just one of many flaws with the test, stemming from its lack of objectivity. The test is entirely based on the honesty of the person taking the test, which is by no means guaranteed for a variety of reasons. There's also the fact that there's no scientific basis for any of this. The MBTI is a simplified version of Jung's original model, but neither were based on empirical data. Jung's model was strictly theoretical, and the MBTI is just a more easily consumable but watered down version of what was only theoretical in the first place. The test also treats the direction of preference in the dichotomies as more important than the degree of preference. If your test scored 51% extrovert, then you would be classified as an extrovert. However, when looking at large numbers of tests, scores tended to fall close to the center of the line. Not only does this help explain why people frequently get different results when taking the test multiple times, but it calls into question whether these traits can even be assessed as a bimodal dichotomy. Were that an accurate way of assessing these traits, one would expect scores to be much more extreme rather than being heavily concentrated at the center. It's easy to talk about all of the things wrong with the MBTI, but it's not the only test that isn't completely reliable. Even assessments like the Big Five personality traits, also known as the five-factor model of personality, have faced significant criticism despite being widely accepted. The Big Five traits are openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. However, many argue that these categories are too broad and not fully inclusive. One critic referred to it as "the psychology of a stranger", because they are traits that are easy to quickly deduce about a person, but not an accurate representation of the person as a whole. Another issue is that there isn't actually an underlying theory behind the Big Five. Although this personality test was built on empirical data, that was mainly just to identify what the five factors would be. Because of the lack of any overarching theory, the Big Five traits have proven to be largely unhelpful in predicting or explaining a person's behaviour. It's almost as if people are complicated creatures whose personalities and behaviour can't be easily boiled down to just four or five binary traits. But if we can't accurately categorize people using four or five binary traits, maybe we can do it with just one. ## People Are Not Left Brained or Right Brained It began in the 1960s with research from Nobel Prize winning neurologist Roger Sperry, who specialized in studying split brain patients. These were patients for whom the corpus callosum was severed, effectively creating a separate right and left brain. After conducting research with split brain cats, Sperry concluded that the left and right brain seemed to operate separately from one another. He also discovered that severing the corpus callosum was an effective form of treatment for patients suffering from severe epilepsy. This meant there were going to be a whole lot of split brain humans that could be experimented upon without the ethics violation of needlessly performing brain surgery on subjects. Not only did this cure a patient's epilepsy, but they had no changes in personality or functioning to report. This was unexpected, and if the brains were still functioning normally then why did the corpus callosum even need to exist in the first place? Sperry invited many of these patients back to take part in some experiments to try to determine exactly what was going on. Because the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, experiments were run in which patients would have one side of their vision blocked while performing a task with either their left or right hand. Sperry's award winning research showed that different tasks were handled by different parts of the brain. Speech, writing, language, and calculation were predominantly handled in the left hemisphere, while spatial perception, non-verbal concept formation, attention, and some amount of word recognition were handled on the right. However, his research was solely about how the brain worked and said absolutely nothing about personality or about people having one side of the brain that was more dominant than the other. He even noted that for some people, particularly lefties, the roles of the two hemispheres were reversed. But most importantly, he said it was imperative not to oversimplify this highly detailed and analytic research. On September 9, 1973, the *New York Times Magazine* decided to oversimplify this highly detailed and analytic research with an article titled "We are left-brained or right-brained". The idea that the left brain focused on language and the right brain focused on spatial reasoning was simplified to the left brain being logical and the right brain being creative. The article in question even described the left brain as "verbal, analytical, [and] dominant" and the right brain as "artistic but mute". Shortly after that article was published another appeared in *Time Magazine*, and then it was off to the races. The myth of left brain versus right brain spread throughout society, where it is still believed by many people today. Part of the myth's longevity is due to society's desire to portray creativity and analysis as being polar opposites of one another, despite the fact that it is patently untrue. If you're good at math but can't draw worth a damn, there's some amount of comfort in being able to say that it's not your fault; it's just the way that your brain was wired. However, creativity and analysis are often intrinsically linked rather than being at odds with one another. Although there was never any science to support the theory in the first place, in 2013 researchers out of the University of Utah wanted to end the debate once and for all. They conducted a study involving over 1,000 participants with ages ranging from 7 to 29. Each participant was placed into an fMRI machine which measures changes in blood flow to monitor brain activity. One by one, all 1,000 people were placed into the fMRI while in a "resting state", meaning that they hadn't been given any specific instructions. Since they weren't engaging in any specific task that would necessitate activity in a specific part of the brain which could skew the results, one might predict that people showed more activity in either the left brain or the right brain. At least, one might predict that if they believed the myth. In reality, whether the person was an electrician, a painter, or an elementary school student, their brains all showed similar levels of activity on both sides. No test subject showed dominance from either side of their brain, and they certainly weren't split into two groups each favouring one side over the other. Realistically, this was a silly idea from the start. Our brains being designed so that one half was overloaded with work and the other was basically doing nothing would be a very poor design. ## Opposites Don't Attract There's an old adage that opposites attract. That's certainly true for magnets, but is it for people? On the surface, the theory makes some amount of sense. An introverted bookworm and a party animal with failing grades could offer each other a lot in a relationship. The introvert could help their partner improve their grades and the extrovert could help their partner become more social and enjoy life a bit more. The theory is that opposites balance each other out, creating a beautiful equilibrium in which they each play off each other's strengths to create the perfect pair. It's a lovely sounding theory, but alas this isn't how people actually work in the real world. At least not in the long term. In the short term this may happen for a variety of reasons. Someone might find extra excitement in dating a person whose personality is opposite to theirs. Their presence could offer an entire world of new experiences that creates an incentive to start a relationship. Or perhaps the other person is seen as forbidden fruit, like the classic story of the good girl dating the boy from the wrong side of the tracks. There's certainly something to be said about the appeal of these exciting differences, but it's typically short lived. The longer a relationship lasts, the more cold, hard reality will bear down on the couple and force them to discover how mismatched they are. Though the early days of the relationship may have been devoid of conflict because of the novelty of the situation, eventually differences in core values and beliefs will become insurmountable obstacles to the couple's continued happiness. Many papers have examined this idea, and in 2023 a massive paper was published out of the University of Colorado, Boulder confirming that opposites attracting is indeed a myth. The paper conducted a meta-analysis of 200 other research papers published over the last 100 years, as well as including their own original research. This analysis looked at millions of couples over the span of a century, comparing them on 130 different traits. These traits included everything imaginable, such as height, political beliefs, substance use, hobbies, age at which they first had sex, and more. Nearly every individual trait showed the couples were more likely to be similar rather than different, with each couple being similar in 82-89% of these traits. There were only a few traits where opposites seemed to attract, and that was only the case with one specific sample out of the UK, indicating it may have been an aberration. Of course, not all traits were equally important. For example, there was a very strong correlation with things like political beliefs and substance use, while height showed a weaker but still positive correlation. But this study was a massive aggregate of something that was already pretty well understood: people get along better with those that are similar to them. Relationships where people had similar beliefs, attitudes, and personalities lasted longer and left the couples feeling much more satisfied with their partner. While these studies all focused on opposite sex couples, there's no reason to suspect that the same findings wouldn't exist for same sex couples. After all, that's just one more thing that they have in common. ## Learning Styles Don't Really Exist Are you a visual, auditory, reading, or kinetic learner? It's a question that has been posed for decades, and is even fully embraced by many teachers. The modern framework of learning styles began with research dating back to the 1910s, and it really started to take hold in the public consciousness in the 1970s. However, despite the popularity of learning style theory and the fact that the vast majority of educators believe it to exist, there is absolutely no evidence to support this. One of the biggest red flags should be that nobody can actually agree on what the different learning styles are. Neil Fleming's VARK model, composed of the four types of learning styles we mentioned earlier, is among the most popular. However, a 2016 review of learning style theory identified at least 71 different models being used. If this was actually a thing that worked, there would probably be more agreement on what the different learning types are. Even if we accepted that the theory was accurate, teachers seem to be unable to accurately assess a student's learning style. In one study, 400 students were given evaluations to determine their learning style. Of those students, 70% did not use a method of studying that matched their assigned style, although those who did performed no better on tests than those who didn't. While psychology and neuroscience are complex fields, learning style theory is something that seems like it should be easy to test. Split students into groups based on their learning style, randomly assign each student to an instruction in one of the different learning styles, then administer the same test to all students. If the theory is correct, then those students whose instruction matched their learning style should perform better on the test than those who were mismatched. Very few studies actually took this obvious approach, and those that did almost universally showed that it did not work. In every study but one, it was shown that the same form of instruction was more effective for all students regardless of what their alleged learning style was. There is virtually no empirical evidence to support learning style theory, and a mountain of evidence showing that it is inaccurate. Unfortunately, as we stated earlier, this theory is still embraced by teachers. A 2017 paper out of the UK showed that even though 90% of teachers felt that there were fundamental flaws with the theory, over half of them still believed that learning styles exist and that students learn better when presented with information in their preferred style. But the concept of learning styles is worse than just being incorrect, it's potentially detrimental to students. When a student is told "this is the way that you learn best", what they often hear is "you are bad at these other things". This can result in students developing ideas about themselves that limit their potential, creating a self-fulfilling prophecy in which they perform badly at certain things because they assume they are incapable of learning them. An alternate theory on learning is called dual coding. Dual coding theory states that the brain processes information through either verbal or nonverbal channels, and that each channel works differently. By combining words with pictures, charts, and graphs, it is believed that retention of information can be dramatically improved. And the results are certainly promising. While dual coding is not universally accepted, there is significant scientific evidence that the theory is accurate, or at the very least on the right track. Unfortunately, combining lectures with visual aids just sounds like regular, boring schoolwork, so this theory has failed to capture the public's imagination in the same way that more exciting pseudoscientific nonsense often does. ## Key Takeaways - Psychiatrists are medical doctors who focus on medication and lab work, not therapy. - Personality tests like the MBTI are unreliable and lack scientific basis. - The concept of left-brained or right-brained individuals is a myth. - Opposites do not attract in long-term relationships; similarity is key. - Learning styles do not exist; instruction should be uniform for all students. ## Frequently Asked Questions ### What is the difference between a psychologist and a psychiatrist? Psychologists specialize in treating mental health issues using psychotherapy, while psychiatrists specialize in treating them with pharmaceuticals. Psychiatrists are medical doctors who can prescribe medications and order lab work, whereas psychologists typically do not. ### Are personality tests like the MBTI reliable? No, personality tests like the MBTI are not reliable. They often produce different results when taken multiple times and lack scientific validity. The MBTI, in particular, has been criticized for its lack of objectivity and empirical basis. ### What is the Big Five personality test, and is it reliable? The Big Five personality test assesses traits like openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism. While it is widely accepted, it has faced criticism for being too broad and not fully inclusive. It also lacks an overarching theory, making it less helpful in predicting behavior. ### Is the concept of being 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' accurate? No, the concept of being 'left-brained' or 'right-brained' is a myth. Research has shown that both hemispheres of the brain are active in all individuals, regardless of their profession or personality traits. ### Do opposites really attract in relationships? No, opposites do not attract in the long term. Studies have shown that couples who are similar in beliefs, attitudes, and personalities tend to have longer-lasting and more satisfying relationships. ### Do learning styles like visual, auditory, and kinetic learning exist? No, there is no empirical evidence to support the existence of learning styles. The theory has been widely debunked, and teaching methods that match a student's alleged learning style do not improve performance. ### What is dual coding theory in learning? Dual coding theory suggests that the brain processes information through verbal and nonverbal channels. Combining words with visual aids can improve information retention, although this theory is not universally accepted. ### Why do some people believe in the left-brain/right-brain myth? The left-brain/right-brain myth gained popularity due to oversimplified interpretations of research by Roger Sperry. The idea that creativity and analysis are polar opposites has contributed to its longevity, despite lacking scientific support. ### What role do psychiatrists play in therapy? Psychiatrists primarily focus on prescribing and managing medications for mental health conditions. They may discuss mental health with patients but typically do not conduct therapy sessions, which are usually handled by psychologists. ### Why is the MBTI test still popular despite being debunked? The MBTI test remains popular because people enjoy taking it and find it provides easy answers about themselves. Its simplicity and the desire for quick self-understanding contribute to its enduring appeal, despite its lack of scientific validity. ## Sources - [Original Side Projects video: 5 Things You Probably Get Wrong About Psychology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F5Qew5U0Uf0) ## Related Coverage