WEBVTT - From the Vault: The Forer Effect 0:00:05.720 --> 0:00:07.640 Hey, you welcome to stuff to blow your mind. My 0:00:07.760 --> 0:00:10.400 name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormick, and we 0:00:10.440 --> 0:00:13.239 are going down down into the vault to revisit an 0:00:13.240 --> 0:00:16.759 episode from Days of Old. That's right, this uh, this week, 0:00:16.760 --> 0:00:20.560 we have an episode that originally published July two thousand 0:00:20.560 --> 0:00:23.480 and fifteen, and it has to do a little bit 0:00:23.520 --> 0:00:26.680 with old P. T. Barnum, who's in the well sort 0:00:26.720 --> 0:00:28.400 of in the news again because there's a movie out 0:00:28.400 --> 0:00:30.240 about his life. Right. Oh, I didn't even know that. 0:00:30.240 --> 0:00:33.360 What's the movie? The Greatest Showman? The Greatest Showman, The 0:00:33.360 --> 0:00:36.080 Greatest Showman that's in the greatest show on Earth but 0:00:36.320 --> 0:00:40.080 making it Showman? Who's in it? Hugh Jackman, Old Wolverine himself, 0:00:40.360 --> 0:00:43.440 Nice Barnum with claws. I have no idea. It's a musical, 0:00:43.479 --> 0:00:46.080 so I probably will never see it. But at any rate, 0:00:46.200 --> 0:00:49.320 his name is back in the ether again, so we 0:00:49.400 --> 0:00:51.920 thought it a good opportunity to bust this episode out again. 0:00:51.960 --> 0:00:54.200 What do you think about all you're singing? Oh, I 0:00:54.240 --> 0:00:57.279 think he's fine. It's not necessarily my thing. Did you 0:00:57.360 --> 0:01:00.960 see him in Lama's Rob No, No, you didn't see it. No, 0:01:01.600 --> 0:01:04.280 I've only heard like clips of him singing. I generally 0:01:04.280 --> 0:01:07.319 prefer him to you know, to be killing people with 0:01:07.360 --> 0:01:11.840 claws or or bawling, uh, you know, emotionally. Yeah, he's okay, 0:01:11.920 --> 0:01:15.560 he's okay singing anyway. Uh So I had no idea 0:01:15.560 --> 0:01:17.720 about that. But there's your tie in. That's why this 0:01:17.760 --> 0:01:20.840 is airing now. So I hope you enjoyed this episode 0:01:21.319 --> 0:01:28.080 on the horror Effect. Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your 0:01:28.080 --> 0:01:36.480 Mind from how Stuff Works dot com. Hey, welcome to 0:01:36.480 --> 0:01:38.200 Stuff to Blow your Mind. My name is Robert Lamb 0:01:38.280 --> 0:01:40.919 and I'm Joe McCormick. In. Today we're gonna be talking 0:01:41.080 --> 0:01:46.640 about the science of personality assessments. Uh and full disclosure. 0:01:46.680 --> 0:01:49.120 We wanted to let you know that the reason we 0:01:49.240 --> 0:01:51.559 thought to do this topic today was that How Stuff 0:01:51.600 --> 0:01:55.960 Works actually hired an audience research firm to study our 0:01:56.120 --> 0:02:01.240 podcast audiences through surveys and statistical filing. Yeah, so you 0:02:01.280 --> 0:02:03.720 took that survey that we put up on Facebook. That's 0:02:03.760 --> 0:02:06.320 what that was all about. Yeah, unless you think that 0:02:06.360 --> 0:02:08.680 this was just out of curiosity, you should always keep 0:02:08.680 --> 0:02:11.680 in mind that marketers and advertisers want to know everything 0:02:11.720 --> 0:02:14.920 about you, not because you're so interesting, but because it 0:02:14.960 --> 0:02:19.440 helps them sell you snack boxes and underwear. Yes, but anyway, 0:02:19.480 --> 0:02:23.800 they offered a personalized psychometric inventory for each of the 0:02:23.840 --> 0:02:28.440 individual podcast audiences, so each podcast got their own and 0:02:28.560 --> 0:02:31.240 it was based on a test originally compiled by the 0:02:31.280 --> 0:02:34.920 Society for Personality and Social Psychology subdivision of the A 0:02:35.040 --> 0:02:37.240 p A. And I thought this was really cool, Like 0:02:37.280 --> 0:02:40.840 they came up with a psychological profile was basically a 0:02:40.880 --> 0:02:45.679 personality sketch that listed key personality traits that were characteristics 0:02:45.840 --> 0:02:49.760 unique to each podcast audience. And so I picked like 0:02:49.840 --> 0:02:52.440 five of the traits they listed as unique to the 0:02:52.560 --> 0:02:55.560 archetypical stuff to blow your mind listener. So I thought 0:02:55.600 --> 0:02:57.799 you guys might be interested in this. Yeah, yeah, let's 0:02:57.840 --> 0:02:59.680 roll these out and then as we do, you can 0:02:59.680 --> 0:03:02.359 just think, well, to think to yourself, does that jive 0:03:02.520 --> 0:03:06.680 with my outlook on life and how I view myself? Yeah, 0:03:06.760 --> 0:03:09.840 so here we go. Number One, you tend to be 0:03:09.880 --> 0:03:13.640 independent thinkers, hesitant to accept the statements of others without 0:03:13.680 --> 0:03:16.560 adequate proof. Number two, you prefer a certain amount of 0:03:16.639 --> 0:03:20.120 change and variety and become dissatisfied when himmed in by 0:03:20.160 --> 0:03:25.360 restrictions and limitations. Three. At times, you experience varying degrees 0:03:25.400 --> 0:03:28.080 of social anxiety. Number four, you were motivated by a 0:03:28.120 --> 0:03:33.400 strong desire for fairness and reciprocity in social situations. Five. 0:03:33.600 --> 0:03:36.080 At times, you have serious doubts as to whether you've 0:03:36.120 --> 0:03:39.520 made the right decision or done the right thing. So, 0:03:39.600 --> 0:03:41.920 before we get into the meat of today's episode, I 0:03:41.960 --> 0:03:44.360 just wanted to mention that if you're a regular listener 0:03:44.360 --> 0:03:46.520 and you want to let us know how accurately this 0:03:46.600 --> 0:03:49.600 profile describes you, you can email us at blow the 0:03:49.640 --> 0:03:51.760 Mind at how stuff works dot com and give us 0:03:51.800 --> 0:03:56.160 feedback on on the sketch. And unfortunately, everything I just 0:03:56.200 --> 0:03:59.560 said was made up. Yes, yes, this is a little 0:03:59.640 --> 0:04:02.680 slice of fiction, a slice of necessary fiction to get 0:04:02.720 --> 0:04:06.600 into our topic today. Yeah. So there was no audience survey, 0:04:06.840 --> 0:04:11.119 no survey data. We just threw together that sketch from 0:04:11.160 --> 0:04:15.240 a few pre existing generic descriptions. Hopefully nobody's upset about it, 0:04:15.280 --> 0:04:17.440 but if you are, you can contact how Stuff Works 0:04:17.520 --> 0:04:21.560 chief legal consultant, Richard W. Glazer. That's right. Uh, but 0:04:21.720 --> 0:04:25.560 be honest, now, were you thinking for a second, Yeah, 0:04:25.640 --> 0:04:28.480 that sounds like me, I have to admit, when I've 0:04:28.560 --> 0:04:31.000 read through them, even knowing that that we had just 0:04:31.080 --> 0:04:32.800 made this up, I was thinking, Yeah, that's how I 0:04:32.880 --> 0:04:34.800 view it. As a co host of the show. Yeah, 0:04:34.839 --> 0:04:37.640 I am completely susceptible to this effect we're going to 0:04:37.720 --> 0:04:40.200 talk about today. I think if I had been in 0:04:40.240 --> 0:04:42.640 the audience's position here, I would have been like, Yep, 0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:45.720 that describes me. I think, at least in the kind 0:04:45.760 --> 0:04:50.920 of egotistical, self absorbed, self congratulatory way we sometimes all 0:04:50.920 --> 0:04:52.960 tend to be. I'm sure that I tend to be 0:04:53.040 --> 0:04:57.039 on the inside. Uh. If you weren't convinced, congratulations for 0:04:57.080 --> 0:04:59.719 being a skeptical no at all. But if you work 0:04:59.760 --> 0:05:04.360 and vinced, don't feel ashamed because you just displayed susceptibility 0:05:04.400 --> 0:05:07.160 to an effect that shows up in most humans, no 0:05:07.200 --> 0:05:10.200 matter how smart we are. And this is known as 0:05:10.279 --> 0:05:15.040 the former effect fo r e er or the Barnum effect. 0:05:15.120 --> 0:05:17.680 Both names refer to the exact same thing, and we'll 0:05:17.680 --> 0:05:20.680 probably use the terms interchangeably today, but mainly we're gonna 0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:23.640 use Barnum effect in the podcast because that's easier to 0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:27.200 say out loud. So the Barnum version of the name 0:05:27.320 --> 0:05:31.120 comes from the circus kingpin P. T. Barnum, and I'm 0:05:31.120 --> 0:05:35.160 thinking it could be ascribed to two different quotes attributed 0:05:35.240 --> 0:05:38.560 to Barnum either that there's a sucker born every minute, 0:05:38.800 --> 0:05:44.120 which apparently he did not actually say, or that Barnum 0:05:44.200 --> 0:05:47.360 had something for everybody. And I think that latter one 0:05:47.480 --> 0:05:50.080 might be what's key here. And if he didn't have 0:05:50.120 --> 0:05:53.560 something for everybody, he wanted to sell a product, right, 0:05:54.760 --> 0:05:57.440 the circus product is intended for a wide audience, and 0:05:57.480 --> 0:05:59.440 he wants to draw in as many people's poss Yeah, 0:05:59.440 --> 0:06:01.599 he's got a he's got to push those jugglers, you know. 0:06:02.120 --> 0:06:07.360 But the former title comes from the American psychologist Bertram R. Forwer, 0:06:08.040 --> 0:06:10.839 and he noticed this effect in a classic paper he 0:06:10.920 --> 0:06:14.440 published in the Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology in 0:06:14.560 --> 0:06:18.039 nineteen forty nine, and this paper was called the Fallacy 0:06:18.120 --> 0:06:23.440 of Personal Validation, A classroom demonstration of gullibility. Now to 0:06:23.480 --> 0:06:26.800 give you a little background on four Bertram R. Four 0:06:27.200 --> 0:06:29.760 He was born in nineteen fourteen died in two thousand. 0:06:30.240 --> 0:06:34.640 American psychologist, again famous for this ninety personality test and 0:06:34.720 --> 0:06:38.240 his students. But he served as a psychologist and administrator 0:06:38.279 --> 0:06:41.120 in a military hospital in France during the Second World War, 0:06:41.640 --> 0:06:44.960 and then he worked in l a at a veteran's 0:06:45.000 --> 0:06:49.200 mental clinic. And also he had a private practice in Malibu. Yeah, 0:06:49.320 --> 0:06:54.200 so what did forwer test with his students. Fourer had 0:06:54.240 --> 0:06:58.080 previously discussed with his students a sort of proto personality 0:06:58.200 --> 0:07:02.040 quiz called the diagnot a stick interest blank, or d 0:07:02.160 --> 0:07:07.120 I B, and this was a qualitatively evaluated test that 0:07:07.200 --> 0:07:10.520 he explained in the following language. He said quote. The 0:07:10.640 --> 0:07:14.040 d IB consists of a list of hobbies, reading materials, 0:07:14.120 --> 0:07:18.800 personal characteristics, job duties, and secret hopes and ambitions of 0:07:18.840 --> 0:07:23.680 one's ideal person. The test is interpreted qualitatively and personality 0:07:23.800 --> 0:07:28.200 dynamics are inferred along line similar to projective tests. So 0:07:28.280 --> 0:07:32.200 this is a it's supposed to be qualitatively evaluated by 0:07:32.320 --> 0:07:35.920 a perceptive and trained professional, somebody who knows what they're doing. 0:07:36.760 --> 0:07:39.000 And some of his students, when they heard about the test, 0:07:39.160 --> 0:07:41.160 asked to take it. They wanted to take the d 0:07:41.240 --> 0:07:46.720 IB and received these tailored personality evaluations because you know, 0:07:47.120 --> 0:07:49.600 who doesn't want to take a personality quiz and learn 0:07:49.640 --> 0:07:51.840 a little bit about themselves? Right? I mean, that's it 0:07:51.960 --> 0:07:54.760 just speaks to our egos as well as you know, 0:07:54.760 --> 0:07:57.600 most people's desires for self improvement. You know, we want 0:07:57.600 --> 0:07:59.760 to we want we want to fill out that Dungeons 0:07:59.760 --> 0:08:02.600 and Dagens character sheet with our own attributes and figure 0:08:02.640 --> 0:08:04.720 out what we need. A tweak with a magical ring 0:08:04.800 --> 0:08:08.120 or two? Right, I am chaotic neutral for real. So 0:08:08.880 --> 0:08:11.680 four acquiesced to their desire, and a group of thirty 0:08:11.760 --> 0:08:15.080 nine students all took the test and handed in their papers. 0:08:15.880 --> 0:08:19.080 And then one week later Fourer met with the students 0:08:19.120 --> 0:08:22.640 again for class and he handed back the individually tailored 0:08:22.680 --> 0:08:26.560 personality vignettes, and each one was a list of thirteen 0:08:26.720 --> 0:08:31.440 perceived personality attributes under the student's name, and the students 0:08:31.440 --> 0:08:34.440 were instructed to keep the results private. That part was 0:08:34.480 --> 0:08:38.720 important because, in fact, thirteen personality features listed on each 0:08:38.760 --> 0:08:41.800 student's paper had nothing to do with what the students 0:08:41.800 --> 0:08:45.320 wrote on their test. Uh In fact, they were all 0:08:45.360 --> 0:08:48.760 exactly the same for each one of the thirty nine students. 0:08:49.080 --> 0:08:52.080 So there were thirteen statements listed on each of these 0:08:52.120 --> 0:08:56.040 thirty nine identical personality sketches, and we're gonna read through 0:08:56.040 --> 0:08:58.560 them real quick. Number one, you have a great need 0:08:58.640 --> 0:09:01.080 for other people to like and admire you. You have 0:09:01.120 --> 0:09:03.240 a tendency to be critical of yourself. You have a 0:09:03.280 --> 0:09:06.120 great deal of unused capacity which you have not turned 0:09:06.200 --> 0:09:09.600 your advantage. While you have some personality weaknesses, you were 0:09:09.640 --> 0:09:13.320 generally able to compensate for them. Your sexual adjustment has 0:09:13.360 --> 0:09:17.640 presented problems for you. Disciplined and self controlled outside, you 0:09:17.679 --> 0:09:20.960 tend to be worrisome and insecure inside. At times you 0:09:20.960 --> 0:09:23.280 have serious doubts as to whether you've made the right 0:09:23.360 --> 0:09:26.040 decision or done the right thing. You prefer a certain 0:09:26.080 --> 0:09:29.440 amount of change and variety, and become dissatisfied when himmed 0:09:29.440 --> 0:09:32.520 in by restrictions and limitations. You pride yourself as an 0:09:32.520 --> 0:09:37.040 independent thinker and do not accept other statements without satisfactory proof. 0:09:37.080 --> 0:09:39.280 You have found it unwise to be too frank in 0:09:39.320 --> 0:09:43.720 revealing yourself to others. At times you are extroverted, affable, sociable, 0:09:43.840 --> 0:09:47.480 while at other times you were introverted, wary, reserved. Some 0:09:47.640 --> 0:09:51.520 of your aspirations tend to be pretty unrealistic. Security is 0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:55.240 one of your major goals in life. So the brilliance 0:09:55.280 --> 0:09:58.920 of these is that like just going through them there 0:09:59.360 --> 0:10:01.840 knowing a and these are false, that these are just 0:10:01.960 --> 0:10:04.520 you know, could be thrown out to anybody. I found 0:10:04.520 --> 0:10:07.200 myself nodding my head and saying, yeah, I can, definitely 0:10:07.640 --> 0:10:10.600 I can. If I don't buy that statement, outright, I 0:10:10.640 --> 0:10:14.559 can at least pick some data from my own personal 0:10:14.640 --> 0:10:17.760 history that could support that theory. Yeah, and that is 0:10:17.800 --> 0:10:21.319 exactly what the test ends up relying on. So for 0:10:21.600 --> 0:10:24.400 reveals in a footnote of his paper that quote these 0:10:24.440 --> 0:10:28.400 statements came largely from a new stand astrology book, So 0:10:29.200 --> 0:10:32.959 he just found a horoscope and and picked out random 0:10:33.040 --> 0:10:36.959 statements that could apply to a Capricorn, a sagittarius, whoever 0:10:37.000 --> 0:10:40.640 it is. And students were then asked to rate, on 0:10:40.679 --> 0:10:43.560 a scale of zero to five, with zero being poor 0:10:43.840 --> 0:10:47.560 and five being perfect, the accuracy of the d I 0:10:47.640 --> 0:10:50.680 B as a test, and then the accuracy of their 0:10:50.720 --> 0:10:54.840 own individual sketch as a portrayal of their personality. And 0:10:54.840 --> 0:10:57.000 then he also asked the students to go down the 0:10:57.040 --> 0:11:00.760 list and mark each of the thirteen statements as true, false, 0:11:00.920 --> 0:11:04.680 or a question mark. Here were the results, as rated 0:11:04.679 --> 0:11:08.439 by the students. The d I B got only one three, 0:11:08.760 --> 0:11:12.719 it got twenty five fours, and it got thirteen fives. 0:11:12.720 --> 0:11:18.560 So thirteen students thought it was perfect, thought it was 0:11:18.640 --> 0:11:23.040 really good, and one thought it was okay. So all 0:11:23.120 --> 0:11:25.160 of the students but one gave the test a four 0:11:25.280 --> 0:11:27.640 or five for accuracy, and then When it came to 0:11:27.679 --> 0:11:31.520 the individual sketches, all but five students rated their sketch 0:11:31.559 --> 0:11:36.240 of four or a five, So the students overwhelmingly thought 0:11:36.280 --> 0:11:40.320 the test was pretty good, too perfect, And an interesting 0:11:40.360 --> 0:11:43.080 thing for Or points out when comparing the student ratings 0:11:43.080 --> 0:11:45.679 of the test and the sketch against their item by 0:11:45.800 --> 0:11:50.160 item breakdown, is this quote. For some individuals, the presence 0:11:50.200 --> 0:11:54.839 of eight true statements among the thirteen was considered sufficient 0:11:54.920 --> 0:12:00.160 evidence for acceptance of the sketch as perfect. M Let 0:12:00.240 --> 0:12:03.040 that sink in for a second, eight out of thirteen 0:12:03.320 --> 0:12:07.559 is sixty two per cent. So for some students, even 0:12:07.600 --> 0:12:11.720 with these extremely vague statements, just getting sixty two percent 0:12:12.000 --> 0:12:15.199 right about them was enough for the test to count 0:12:15.240 --> 0:12:21.079 as a perfect hit. Yeah, how does that does that work? 0:12:21.280 --> 0:12:23.640 What's your definition of perfect in this? I don't know. Well, 0:12:23.679 --> 0:12:26.080 I think it comes down to something four explains in 0:12:26.160 --> 0:12:30.160 his paper later about the discrepancy between our sort of 0:12:30.240 --> 0:12:34.200 like qualitative or quantitative analysis of the results and then 0:12:34.480 --> 0:12:37.400 the amount of confidence we're willing to attribute to a 0:12:37.440 --> 0:12:41.199 diagnostic tool as a whole. But what happened here? I mean, 0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:47.120 subsequent studies have repeatedly demonstrated the Barnum effect under various circumstances, 0:12:47.360 --> 0:12:50.160 so it's pretty safe to assume that for students weren't 0:12:50.200 --> 0:12:55.520 just particularly gullible. In Art Carroll's entry in the Skeptics Dictionary, 0:12:55.600 --> 0:12:58.760 he claims, quote, the test has been repeated hundreds of 0:12:58.800 --> 0:13:02.079 times with psychology students, and the average is still around 0:13:02.160 --> 0:13:06.480 four point two out of five or eight accurate. So 0:13:06.920 --> 0:13:11.200 why are we so eager to gobble up worthless effectively 0:13:11.400 --> 0:13:16.640 random assessments of ourselves? Well as as we'll discuss the 0:13:17.120 --> 0:13:19.679 you know, a lot of the answer lies in the presentation. 0:13:19.880 --> 0:13:23.120 You know, where this test was was taken and who 0:13:23.200 --> 0:13:25.439 was given it to them, and then the the language 0:13:25.440 --> 0:13:29.439 in which it was administered. Right, it's a psychology professor, 0:13:29.520 --> 0:13:33.080 it's a you know, an authority figure administering this test 0:13:33.120 --> 0:13:36.559 to the students in a classroom in a center of learning. Uh. 0:13:36.559 --> 0:13:41.240 And it's wrapped in the expected psychological lingo. Yes, but 0:13:41.320 --> 0:13:44.520 there's an even deeper issue going on with the nature 0:13:44.520 --> 0:13:47.240 of these evaluations that makes them work. And it's based 0:13:47.240 --> 0:13:51.240 on the interplay between two principles that four points out 0:13:51.280 --> 0:13:55.080 in his paper. And uh he four is referring to 0:13:55.440 --> 0:13:58.720 certain types of people like crystal gazers as one term 0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:00.959 he uses. I think that means like somebody looking into 0:14:01.000 --> 0:14:03.800 a crystal ball, he's arning about the psychics of his day, 0:14:03.880 --> 0:14:06.120 and and things like that. He says, they might even 0:14:06.200 --> 0:14:09.040 unwittingly make use of these principles, but they are making 0:14:09.120 --> 0:14:13.240 use of them. And the principles are universal validity and 0:14:13.559 --> 0:14:17.160 personal validation. That his term is personal validation. But today 0:14:17.160 --> 0:14:21.200 we might know this as subjective validation. And the idea 0:14:21.240 --> 0:14:26.160 of universal validity is that pretty much every single psychological 0:14:26.200 --> 0:14:33.120 trait can be observed in some degree in everybody. I mean, 0:14:33.160 --> 0:14:36.440 think about it like if I say, at times you 0:14:36.520 --> 0:14:43.920 experience varying degrees of social anxiety. Yeah, that's that's everybody. Yeah, yeah, 0:14:44.800 --> 0:14:48.160 with it with a few just complete space aliens, you know, 0:14:48.480 --> 0:14:52.320 eliminated from the mix. Everybody deals with some level of anxiety. Right. 0:14:52.600 --> 0:14:55.080 So another way of thinking about this is casting a 0:14:55.120 --> 0:14:57.960 wide net. And you can see a very similar parallel 0:14:58.000 --> 0:15:00.680 practice if you watch a psychic front of a group 0:15:00.760 --> 0:15:03.560 of people doing a cold reading on a crowd. So 0:15:03.600 --> 0:15:05.600 the psychic might stand up in front of a crowd 0:15:05.600 --> 0:15:09.240 and say, okay, I'm getting something from a spirit, a 0:15:09.240 --> 0:15:12.280 spirit of someone known to someone in the room, it's 0:15:12.320 --> 0:15:15.640 an older person, an older person named John or Jack. 0:15:16.000 --> 0:15:19.760 Does that mean anything to anyone? Something something starting with 0:15:19.960 --> 0:15:22.520 John or Jack, something starting with the letter J. And 0:15:22.520 --> 0:15:25.760 then one hand goes an uncle named Jefferson exactly, yeah, 0:15:25.840 --> 0:15:29.960 oh man, my uncle Jehosaphat. And then uh. And then 0:15:30.000 --> 0:15:33.520 the psychic says, yes, that's right, Jehosaphat or Jefferson is 0:15:33.560 --> 0:15:35.720 here with us, and and now we can talk to 0:15:35.960 --> 0:15:39.520 Jeffer Josaphat. And then the client later says, wow, the 0:15:39.560 --> 0:15:45.240 psychic somehow knew something about Jehosaphen, when in fact the 0:15:45.320 --> 0:15:50.480 client has supplied the relevant specifics themselves. The psychic was 0:15:50.560 --> 0:15:52.800 just trawling with a very large net. It would be 0:15:52.840 --> 0:15:56.200 extremely weird if nobody in the room knew of a 0:15:56.240 --> 0:16:00.120 deceased family member whose name started with J. Yeah, to 0:16:00.400 --> 0:16:02.000 the odds are with you that you're going to catch 0:16:02.040 --> 0:16:06.960 somebody with that very vague, very general bit of bait. Yeah. 0:16:07.200 --> 0:16:10.520 But then the other principle is this principle of personal 0:16:10.720 --> 0:16:15.240 or subjective validation. So how do you test the validity 0:16:15.320 --> 0:16:18.400 of a diagnostic instrument, whether it's a horoscope or a 0:16:18.440 --> 0:16:23.440 psychic or a supposedly professional and valid psychological personality. Test. 0:16:24.120 --> 0:16:26.720 You probably don't want to test it by using it 0:16:26.800 --> 0:16:30.840 on somebody and then saying how accurately did this describe you? 0:16:31.720 --> 0:16:34.000 Because this is subject to what for would call the 0:16:34.040 --> 0:16:38.600 fallacy of personal validation. Because you are you, and because 0:16:38.720 --> 0:16:41.520 you know the story of your own life so well, 0:16:41.920 --> 0:16:46.320 you can always find autobiographical hooks to hang almost any 0:16:46.360 --> 0:16:51.560 statement on, especially vague and general statements. So we mentioned 0:16:51.560 --> 0:16:54.480 the example a minute ago of social anxiety. Can you 0:16:54.560 --> 0:16:57.880 ever think of an instance where social anxiety had a 0:16:57.960 --> 0:17:04.160 meaningful role in your life? Yeah? Of course, yeah, every day. 0:17:04.200 --> 0:17:07.760 Even somebody who's not particularly anxious, who doesn't have many 0:17:07.760 --> 0:17:11.240 problems with social anxiety, can think of an instance that 0:17:11.320 --> 0:17:13.560 was meaningful to them. Yeah. At the very least, they 0:17:13.560 --> 0:17:15.280 were once children, and there had to have been some 0:17:15.359 --> 0:17:18.000 point in their life where they felt a little awkward. Yeah. 0:17:18.200 --> 0:17:21.840 And so, simply put, subjective validation is when you find 0:17:22.000 --> 0:17:25.760 personal and unique accuracy in statements that could apply to 0:17:25.880 --> 0:17:28.679 many or all people. Yeah. And part of this just 0:17:28.720 --> 0:17:33.520 gets into our our enormous capacity, uh to place ourselves 0:17:33.520 --> 0:17:36.199 in any story too, just the fact that we are 0:17:36.280 --> 0:17:41.040 empathic organisms. Yeah yeah, Um, we're always seeking meaning that 0:17:41.119 --> 0:17:43.280 relates to us. This sort of ties into something we 0:17:43.280 --> 0:17:46.400 talked about a while back in the Science of Coincidence episode, 0:17:46.720 --> 0:17:50.560 where you know, we're pattern seeking creatures and we're constantly 0:17:50.560 --> 0:17:54.680 trying to find the pattern that means something to me. Yeah, 0:17:54.720 --> 0:17:58.240 you know, you're talking about our ability to even essentially 0:17:58.280 --> 0:18:01.720 put ourselves in the shoes of extreme cases. Um. You 0:18:01.720 --> 0:18:04.200 know this this immediately makes me think of the popularity 0:18:04.359 --> 0:18:07.320 of uh, you know, any kind of fiction that deals 0:18:07.520 --> 0:18:12.280 with individuals with mental illness or in extreme cases, um, 0:18:12.320 --> 0:18:15.440 serial murderers. You know, because if you have a well 0:18:15.520 --> 0:18:20.520 executed serial killer story, um, you can still you still 0:18:20.600 --> 0:18:24.359 end up investing yourself in that person on some level. 0:18:24.400 --> 0:18:27.760 You end up empathizing with at least some aspect of 0:18:27.840 --> 0:18:30.800 their you know, ultimately broken psyche. Right. Yeah, so if 0:18:30.840 --> 0:18:34.680 you if you can connect with the serial killers relationship 0:18:34.840 --> 0:18:38.000 with his mother or something like that, you're like, oh, no, 0:18:38.280 --> 0:18:42.359 is this really the story of me? Yeah? Or like, uh, 0:18:42.440 --> 0:18:47.040 I'm obviously thinking of Hannibal. Yeah, Hannibal actually came up 0:18:47.080 --> 0:18:49.040 a couple of times in my mind looking through the 0:18:49.040 --> 0:18:52.159 research here. Um, I think it was Joyce Carol Oates 0:18:52.200 --> 0:18:56.800 has a book called Zombie that's essentially a retelling of 0:18:56.800 --> 0:19:01.400 of the Jeffrey dalmer Um case, but with a fictionalized account, 0:19:01.880 --> 0:19:03.639 and so even in this year, you're reading in it 0:19:03.800 --> 0:19:09.040 and you can't actually empathize with the murderous aspects of 0:19:09.080 --> 0:19:12.320 the main character. But ultimately it's about a guy who 0:19:12.560 --> 0:19:15.560 feels lost in life and doesn't exactly know where he fits. 0:19:16.000 --> 0:19:18.720 And you know who can't empathize on some level at 0:19:18.720 --> 0:19:22.320 some point in their their timeline with an example like that, Right, Yeah, 0:19:22.320 --> 0:19:25.320 in a way, we're all that cannibal. Yeah. It makes 0:19:25.359 --> 0:19:28.240 me wonder if you if you administered a test like 0:19:28.520 --> 0:19:32.760 Forest Test and you had all of the personality statements 0:19:33.480 --> 0:19:37.520 leaning more towards the darker and the insane, like, what 0:19:37.680 --> 0:19:41.000 the acceptance level would be. Well, there actually is some 0:19:41.040 --> 0:19:43.640 commentary on that in the literature, and we can get 0:19:43.680 --> 0:19:46.280 to that in a bit. What are some other studies 0:19:46.280 --> 0:19:50.320 that What have other studies revealed about this, uh, this property? Well, 0:19:50.359 --> 0:19:53.120 there have been number one, It's just been reproduced many 0:19:53.200 --> 0:19:55.920 many times. And the strength of the effect varies when 0:19:55.920 --> 0:19:58.000 you change some of the test conditions, and we can 0:19:58.000 --> 0:20:02.360 talk about that later, but there's pretty consistent result that 0:20:02.440 --> 0:20:06.360 the subjects of personality assessments tend to rate assessments as 0:20:06.520 --> 0:20:10.040 highly accurate in a way that's unique to them, even 0:20:10.080 --> 0:20:13.280 though the statements within the assessment are vague in general, 0:20:13.640 --> 0:20:17.080 and sometimes even when many of the individual statements in 0:20:17.119 --> 0:20:20.679 the list are subjectively perceived as wrong by the client. 0:20:20.760 --> 0:20:23.080 Remember when we talked about the people who got eight 0:20:23.119 --> 0:20:27.719 out of thirteen right, said that the test described them perfectly. 0:20:28.640 --> 0:20:31.720 So what's the impact of this in practice. Well, one 0:20:31.800 --> 0:20:35.800 of the things that Forror was personally worried about was 0:20:35.880 --> 0:20:40.560 that this could be used to validate or prop up 0:20:40.640 --> 0:20:45.480 the accuracy of very bad tools. So let's say you're 0:20:45.520 --> 0:20:50.800 an unscrupulous psychic or an unscrupulous psychotherapist. You can potentially 0:20:50.920 --> 0:20:55.639 use a combination of subjective validation and universal validity to 0:20:55.880 --> 0:20:59.920 get a very unhealthy amount of leverage over another person's 0:21:00.040 --> 0:21:02.560 common sense. And the exchange might go something like this. 0:21:03.800 --> 0:21:07.840 The psychic or unscrupulous psychologist makes a diagnosis of a 0:21:07.880 --> 0:21:11.720 person's personality, taking advantage of these, you know, very vague 0:21:11.720 --> 0:21:15.360 general traits, and then leaning on the client's tendency towards 0:21:15.400 --> 0:21:19.280 subjective validation of the test. The client reads these things 0:21:19.640 --> 0:21:22.560 like in the test we talked about and says, yep, 0:21:22.680 --> 0:21:25.560 that's me, and then assumes that the psychic or the 0:21:25.640 --> 0:21:30.760 unscrupulous psychologist has access to powerful and accurate skills or 0:21:30.800 --> 0:21:36.120 diagnostic tools. Then the psychic or unscrupulous psychologist makes bolder, 0:21:36.240 --> 0:21:40.880 more specific, less credible diagnoses or or predictions that might 0:21:40.920 --> 0:21:43.359 not have been accepted on the first go around. But 0:21:43.440 --> 0:21:45.600 at this point the client thinks, well, he knew what 0:21:45.600 --> 0:21:48.320 he was talking about the last time, so he must 0:21:48.359 --> 0:21:50.720 know this time. I'm going to listen to him. Yeah, 0:21:50.760 --> 0:21:52.720 I mean it's kind of a confidence trick, right, I mean, 0:21:52.720 --> 0:21:55.720 it's a it's it's a matter of producing this sort 0:21:55.760 --> 0:22:01.200 of magical trick, this illusion that proves to the patient 0:22:01.400 --> 0:22:03.800 or the the mark or however you want to want 0:22:03.800 --> 0:22:06.320 to look at them, the customer, proves to them that 0:22:06.359 --> 0:22:09.080 you have insight into who they are and what they're 0:22:09.119 --> 0:22:12.879 all about. And then when they start making comments that 0:22:12.880 --> 0:22:15.199 that don't jive as well, we just attribute it to 0:22:15.280 --> 0:22:18.040 their they know more about us than we know about us. Yeah, 0:22:18.080 --> 0:22:19.960 I remember when I was right last time. It's also 0:22:20.320 --> 0:22:23.800 very similar to the con maneuver. If you're trying to 0:22:23.800 --> 0:22:27.200 con somebody out of a large amount of money, say like, hey, 0:22:27.440 --> 0:22:30.360 invest in my pyramid scheme, it'll you know, I can 0:22:30.440 --> 0:22:33.080 give give you a million dollars. First you ask for 0:22:33.119 --> 0:22:36.199 a very small investment, and then you pay out what 0:22:36.320 --> 0:22:40.400 you promised on that small investment, and then they say, wow, okay, 0:22:40.440 --> 0:22:42.879 well it seems to work. And so then when you 0:22:42.920 --> 0:22:45.399 ask for a bigger investment, you can fly off to 0:22:45.680 --> 0:22:47.920 Hawaii with the money. You probably wouldn't fly to Hawaii. 0:22:47.960 --> 0:22:50.439 Where would you fly to? Cayman Islands? Yeah? Or the 0:22:50.440 --> 0:22:53.200 Far East I'm thinking? Or the halls of Deacon Yeah, 0:22:53.240 --> 0:22:55.639 always a good place that it's tough to get the 0:22:55.640 --> 0:22:59.320 currency exchanged properly there, but but still still a good place. 0:22:59.400 --> 0:23:01.639 A lot of kind and hanging out in the tests, right, 0:23:01.680 --> 0:23:04.320 And this can be applied to more different types of 0:23:04.359 --> 0:23:07.240 diagnostic tools and instruments than you might think. I mean, 0:23:07.359 --> 0:23:09.919 so the obvious ones we've talked about are like the 0:23:10.000 --> 0:23:13.160 personal powers of a person who claims to be a psychic, 0:23:13.600 --> 0:23:17.040 or a certain type of psychological test, any one of 0:23:17.080 --> 0:23:20.280 these personality tests you can take. But other things might 0:23:20.320 --> 0:23:25.320 be methods of discerning personalities like graphology. Have you ever 0:23:25.320 --> 0:23:29.440 heard about graphology? Not until preparing this episode, now yes, 0:23:29.600 --> 0:23:32.879 So so four claimed that he was prompted to perform 0:23:32.960 --> 0:23:36.160 this experiment after he was accosted in a nightclub by 0:23:36.200 --> 0:23:39.639 a graphologist. And a graphologist as a person who believes 0:23:39.640 --> 0:23:42.000