I’m glad to see it, really. Next, I’m hoping that “fake it 'till you make it” gets debunked so hard it falls off the face of the earth.
That one irks me because a.) it sounds like horseshit and b.) it enables so much asshole behavior from pop science fans.
Why, did you hear that Frank from accounting committed suicide? Such a shame; he had a wife and kids and always seemed so happy up until recently. You know, they say that if you smile more it helps with depression! If only he’d tried taking walks and smiling!
You know that creepy dudebro that keeps telling you to smile? Turns out he’s just doing you a favor!
Ugh. No. Just fucking no. We Americans already live in a society where people feel entitled to be surrounded by smiling people. Telling them there’s science behind plastering a fake-ass smile on your face just gives ‘em fuckin’ ammunition.
EDIT: I had a link to a Hamilton song that had a line mildly related to smiling. Because I’m tired of having a stupid derailing conversation about it, I took it out. You win, dude! Good job, dude! A real win , dude!
Tangentally related to the whole “suck it up and smile” attitude that’s encouraged by people half paying attention to the research.
Talk less
Smile more
Don’t let them know what you’re against or what you’re for
You wanna get ahead?
Fools who run their mouths off wind up dead
I get that it’s more about Hamilton’s annoying habit of speaking his mind to his own detriment, as well as an undercurrent of race relations in the show, but…hell, it’s a popular song that says, “talk less, smile more,” okay?!
That’s Machiavellian politics and playing the game, not mental health advice. Hamilton says as much later when the song is recapitulated and he says he’ll “do whatever it takes / to get my plan on the Congress floor.”
I get your general point but this feels different than other examples above. More like that Shakespeare line about smiling and smiling and still being a villain or something.
That bit does look bad if you take it on its own. The context, though, was explaining the study behind it was very poor and that better ones find no support for the supposed effect. It’s good for a scientist to reevaluate their belief after something like that, and after a certain point it’s entirely reasonable for them to suggest others can move on too.
If there’s ever a reason to think we missed something, we can always come back to it then, as has happened with stones from the sky but not phlogiston. But science doesn’t mean you have to investigate everything anyone once said was true without such reasons.
The problem with psychology is the brain is extremely complex, not everyone is hardwired the same way, and even if you strive to remove external factors, an external factor might be the cause of the results, not what you are studying.
I have recently in the last 4 or 5 years enjoyed learning some pop psychology. Actually way back in college when I took Psych 101 I learned a lot. I learned some more with therapy. I really enjoyed You are Not So Smart and the podcast. I think it is good to learn about these things, just don’t hang your favorite hat on a peg, as that peg might be gone tomorrow.
The other issue I think is too many layman, i.e. the media, citing studies as Gospel - which they do for just about any science story.
I know what it means, I just don’t understand what it has to do with anything. I guess my tropes are more narrative/conceptual.
Like the topic itself, I suppose it requires having some metrics for what passes as “cool”. That’s also the issue I have with “power poses” as a general concept.
Alas, if every piece of worthless psychological research was retracted and should never have been conducted in the first place, the journals would look rather empty.
And how would churnalists fill the gaps between the advertising?
I never claimed it was alll that pertinent, I just picked it for that line…whatever, dude, not sure why you felt the need to completely derail the conversation to make your point. Maybe it gets the testosterone pumping, or something.
