Summary of the book "The Quick Fix" - By Jesse Singal

Key Insights in this book:

1. Psychological flaws can do serious harm.
2. Some popular psychology research is not scientifically sound.
3. More effective strategies are overlooked when firms employ inadequate psychological initiatives.
4. Individual behaviour and qualities are frequently overvalued.
5. Implicit racial bias isn't quite as prevalent as you may think.
6. Psychologists should employ replication to check a study's validity.
7. Even if a psychology notion is correct, it's crucial not to overestimate its utility.
8. Society must recognize the complexities of human behaviour and abandon its pursuit of fast fixes.

Who can benefit the most from this book:

• Psychology sceptics.
• Those interested in societal problems and human behaviour.
• Anyone who has ever viewed a TED talk.

What am I getting out of it? Popular psychological notions are reexamined.

Modern psychology appears to provide fascinating insights into human behaviour as well as potential solutions to some of society's most pressing issues, such as violent crime and racial injustice. However, psychology isn't without flaws; many of the concepts that emerge in the area are erroneous, and when they're propagated into popular culture through media like TED presentations, their truth becomes irrelevant.

The author is a sceptic of the discipline as well as its pop-culture incarnations. He suggests that we shouldn't be so willing to believe experts through a critical investigation of important psychological notions. When half-baked ideas get widely accepted, they might cause more harm than benefit.

• You'll learn the real explanation for the increase and decline of violent crime in the United States.
• Why you shouldn't be so concerned about your subconscious biases.
• And why a power pose won't make you feel more powerful in this summary.

1. Psychological flaws can do serious harm.

Newspaper accounts about young kids as young as 11 years old committing horrifying acts of violence frightened Americans in the 1990s. Youth criminality was on the rise, and experts predicted that it would only grow worse.

John DiIulio, a political scientist at Princeton, was one of these specialists. DiIulio was the one who coined the term "superpredators" to describe a criminal class of people who perpetrate mindless acts of violence on the spur of the moment.

These superpredators were the result of "moral impoverishment," as DiIulio put it, having grown up in dysfunctional, abusive circumstances. They'd have to be locked up if they couldn't be saved at a young age.

The concept of a superpredator was well-liked and impactful. But there was a catch: DiIulio was incorrect.

The main point is that faulty psychology can cause serious harm.

The superpredator notion has now been debunked. There were alternative causes for the late 1980s and early 1990s teenage violence, such as easy access to guns, which was linked to crack dealing. The projected crime wave never materialized, and by the early 1990s, violent teenage crime had begun to drop.

The superpredator, like many popular psychological notions, is a half-baked concept. The phrase was never fully defined, but that didn't matter to the media. It was a good narrative, and it came from someone who knew what he was talking about.

Other experts did little to refute DiIulio's theory, and the legend of the superpredator persisted. Hundreds of American states have changed their laws as a result of it. Many states established legislation permitting juveniles to be prosecuted and sentenced as adults in an attempt to combat adolescent criminality - with devastating results.

DiIulio's theory has an unintended consequence as well. Although DiIulio had no aim of reinforcing negative racial stereotypes, it was evident that the bulk of his "superpredators" were Black, as Black people were the ones who suffered the most from so-called moral poverty.

The concept of the superpredator not only produced a gap between popular perceptions of crime and reality but also contributed to the widening of racial divides. Many white Americans become more fearful of black Americans as a result of poor psychology.

This is a very egregious case in point. But it demonstrates what might happen when a poor psychological paradigm is popularized by professionals.

2. Some popular psychology research is not scientifically sound.

The media continues to disseminate half-baked psychology concepts. Some of these will be included in TED speeches these days.

Amy Cuddy, a Harvard psychologist, suggested in a popular 2012 TED presentation that people can change how they feel by modifying their body language. Students who adopted power postures felt more confident and forceful and were more inclined to take chances, according to a study of college students. There were even signs of physiological changes, such as higher testosterone levels and lower levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

Although body language is genuine, can a shift in a position truly have such an impact on how you feel and act?

The main point is that some popular psychological research isn't scientifically sound.

Other scientists who attempted to repeat the study with a far larger data sample came up with radically different results. There was no evidence of a link between power posing and behavioural or hormonal changes in the participants.

Dana Carney, one of Cuddy's coauthors on the original study, provided the final nail in the coffin. Carney declared in 2016 that she no longer believed in the power pose's powers.

She explained that the power pose study's psychologists were most likely guilty of p-hacking, a statistical practice. This method entails modifying data in such a way that the likelihood of detecting false positives is increased. The power position study, according to Carney, was based on poor data and had minor effects.

This research highlights a number of intriguing topics. First, it brings to light the problem of data manipulation in psychology science, as well as the necessity for major research changes.

It also begs the question of why the power posture has become so popular. Cuddy was a well-respected specialist, and the concept fit in well with the current self-help craze.

There is, however, a feminist component. The power position, according to Cuddy, could be good for women in academic or professional settings. Women frequently face barriers to success in these contexts, which are linked to perceptions of their ability and confidence.

The stance, in principle, provides the individual with some power — you may not be able to change the system, but you can modify your body language, according to the idea. Instead of a long-term, difficult structural change, it's a rapid and easy individual alteration.

In other words, the power stance is a quick fix - a common psychological theme.

3. More effective strategies are overlooked when firms employ inadequate psychological initiatives.

The United States Army discovered it was in the midst of a mental health crisis in 2007. Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD, affected a large number of soldiers. It's a terrible illness that can be devastating to victims and their loved ones.

The Army was in desperate need of a PTSD remedy. They developed the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness Program, or CSF, with the support of renowned psychologist Martin Seligman, which is based on positive psychology. The goal was to instil optimism and resilience in soldiers in order to protect their mental health.

The CSF program was widely implemented and quickly became mandatory. Today, it is still in use. It costs more than $40 million every year, but surely it's money well spent if it works?

The main point is that when companies employ inadequate psychological programs, more beneficial ones are overlooked.

Unfortunately, there is no evidence that positive psychology can help people suffering from PTSD. It's worth mentioning that Seligman's first psychological program, which laid the groundwork for CSF, was designed to help youngsters avoid depression. Obviously, improving the mental health of kids and healing traumatized troops are not the same thing. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all approach to psychology.

Several studies, including a 2014 Institute of Medicine assessment, have concluded that the CSF is ineffective in treating PTSD. Other treatments, such as prolonged exposure, in which patients are encouraged to process their trauma and triggers rather than utilizing avoidance strategies, have higher success rates than resilience training.

The Army, on the other hand, appears to have embraced Seligman's more straightforward principles of optimism and resilience. The absence of evidence supporting CSF's effectiveness didn't disturb senior personnel too much. Good psychology echoed the Army's own language and ideology, urging people to improve themselves and achieve success through hard work and a positive mindset.

Positive psychology does not need to be disregarded entirely, but it must be used with caution. This is especially true for organizations that deal with a large number of vulnerable persons. When people with PTSD are given ineffective mental health resources, they are missing out on helpful therapies.

Positive psychology as a treatment for PTSD is an example of a simple answer to a difficult problem. You can see why organizations like the Army would seek quick remedies and motivational messaging, but life isn't that simple.

4. Individual behaviour and qualities are frequently overvalued.

Another puzzle that psychologists have been attempting to solve is the key to success. Is there a common trait among successful people, such as intelligence or social skills?

What actually matters, according to award-winning psychologist Angela Duckworth, is grit – tenacity and drive. Duckworth claims that grit is the key to success in her 2013 TED presentation and blockbuster book, Grit: The Passion of Power and Perseverance. Grit may be quantified on a scale and utilized as a predictor of academic performance, according to her research. It's also a skill that people can perhaps learn or improve.

The grit theory has gained a lot of traction. It is, however, terribly erroneous, just like the psychology concepts in the prior concept. Duckworth's theory has been found to have flaws as a result of subsequent scientific investigation.

Here's the main point: Individual behaviour and qualities are frequently overvalued.

It's simple to see why grit is so appealing. The idea that success is based on the person appeals to the majority of people. Anything is achievable if you persevere and work hard. In the United States, there is also a fascination with the concept of character education: schools should "develop character," instilling in students personal characteristics that would ensure a good future.

However, the terrible reality is that by the time children enter kindergarten, other factors such as nutrition and family stability have already had a significant impact on their personalities and future prospects. Expecting schools to change a child's character is impractical. A teacher cannot just instil tenacity in students and expect them to succeed in the future.

Furthermore, even if a child possesses grit from the start, there is no evidence that it is the most important predictor of success. Duckworth's book presents the tale of Cody, an underprivileged youngster from a difficult family who went on to study at MIT. Cody was fortunate to have a wonderful math teacher. She paid for his driving lessons, helped him earn money for college supplies, and was there for him emotionally.

Cody is mentioned by Duckworth as an example of someone who achieved success via grit, however, it might be argued that the presence of a supportive adult was a more important aspect.

Grit is less important than a slew of other criteria in determining whether or not someone succeeds. It's wrong to tell children from low-income families that they must work harder when the odds are stacked against them. The focus should be on improving society rather than condemning or applauding individuals.

5. Implicit racial bias isn't quite as prevalent as you may think.

Racism is increasingly being seen as a personal issue. People in the United States are encouraged to explore their implicit, unconscious biases. In fact, you can use a fast online test to assess your prejudices right now if you like.

Harvard University promotes the Implicit Association Test or IAT. An algorithm generates the user's score for the racial prejudice test based on reaction times to various words and visuals linked to the categories of black and white, as well as good and evil.

Companies like Google and Starbucks use the IAT to have staff reflect on their biases as part of their diversity training. Many people regard it as a trustworthy scientific tool that also has emotional power as you learn pieces of your subconscious self.

It's an appealing concept: people may minimize racial disparity by recognizing their biases. However, as you might expect, there is little evidence that this test is effective.

The main point is that implicit racial bias isn't as significant as you may think.

Even proponents of the IAT have acknowledged that it is unreliable. It cannot, above all, be used to anticipate real-world behaviour.

So, why the emphasis on the implicit bias? When dealing with racial inequity, it's critical to consider the wider picture. Explicit bias and discrimination, without a doubt, deserve greater attention than subliminal sentiments.

For example, a Chicago police inquiry revealed that some officers referred to black people as "animals" or "savages," and even used the N-word in front of them. You don't need an algorithm to find bias in this case.

Implicit bias, according to Stanford sociologist Robb Willer, is real. However, when it comes to racial disparity in the United States, structural variables such as the racial income gap and access to early childhood education are more important.

So, while focusing on your subconscious biases won't hurt you, it won't help you either. Another example of psychology suggesting a quick, superficial fix for complicated societal problems is the concept of unconscious bias.

People are too readily persuaded by half-baked ideas, and they are too eager to apply them to real-life circumstances, often overlooking other essential aspects.

We'll look at some more difficulties in modern psychology, as well as some potential remedies, in the following concept.

6. Psychologists should employ replication to check a study's validity.

You must publish if you want to have a good career in psychology. And, in order to be published, you must be able to disclose statistically significant findings. It's even better if you can transform your discoveries into a compelling media story, such as DiIulio's superpredator or Cuddy's power posture.

So, what can psychologists do to ensure that their research yields important results?

The term "hidden flexibility" refers to common practice. Researchers examine complex data at random through endless tests, finally stumbling across anything that appears to be significant and making it the focus of their investigation.

HARKing, which stands for Hypothesizing After the Results Are Known, is another method. When psychologists HARK, they are concealing their original idea as well as the fact that it most likely failed.

If you're a psychologist, on the other hand, you'll require replication to verify the validity of your research or to put someone else's findings to the test.

The main takeaway is that psychologists should employ replication to check a study's validity.

The term "replication" refers to the process of repeating an experiment with other participants in order to determine the relevance of the original findings. Cuddy's power pose study, for example, was criticized because replication yielded different results.

Social priming — the premise that exposure to a topic or stimuli can alter behaviour - experienced something similar. Priming was formerly a prominent notion in psychology, but attempts to replicate it through numerous research have failed in recent years.

For example, some participants in a seminal 1996 priming study by Yale psychologist John Bargh were gently introduced to phrases associated with old age, such as "Florida" and "wrinkle." When compared to others who had not been exposed to the terms, these participants walked more slowly.

The slow-walking participants were influenced by the stereotype of elderly people implied by the words, according to Bargh and his colleagues. It's an intriguing concept, but it didn't hold up under scrutiny, as did many previous priming research.

Many psychologists are becoming increasingly worried about faulty methods and stress the importance of increased replication. Other options, such as pre-registration, are also available. This entails researchers openly discussing their goals and hypotheses before they begin work, preventing them from changing theories or manipulating data unexpectedly.

Although there is still a long way to go, things are improving. The previous decade has seen a credibility revolution, according to psychologist Brian Nosek, an expert on research techniques.

7. Even if a psychology notion is correct, it's crucial not to overestimate its utility.

Here's another piece of wonderful news: Some psychological beliefs have more solid scientific grounds than others, therefore not all psychology needs to be refuted.

You may have heard of the concept of nudging, for example. It's gotten a lot of media attention, and Barack Obama is a big supporter. And, unlike the other hypotheses we've examined, nudging comes close to living up to its hype.

Nudging is a technique for influencing people's behaviour by presenting options in a specific way. Fruit, for example, is easier to get if it is presented more prominently in a store, possibly at eye level. A customer can be "nudged" into making healthier food purchasing decisions in this way. Similarly, items like text-message reminders or clearly designed official paperwork might indirectly impact people's behaviour.

The potential and possibilities of nudging appear to be endless.

Here's the main point: Even if a psychology notion is correct, it's crucial not to overestimate its utility.

The idea of influencing public behaviour with small, mild actions is enticing. Instead of requirements, option architecture is used to create the various ways choices are presented. It's also inexpensive and simple. Is it possible that there is a quick remedy that genuinely works?

Not so fast, my friend. The concept of nudge has empirical support. It's based on sound behavioural research, and numerous studies have demonstrated that some nudges are effective. However, this does not imply that nudging is without flaws. After all, humans are complex creatures. It's difficult to predict which nudges will succeed ahead of time.

Some notable failures have occurred, such as an attempt to promote organ donations by making the system automatic rather than opt-in. Even though it became more difficult to refuse to donate, researchers appear to have underestimated how strongly some people feel about the issue of organ donation, and these efforts actually resulted in a decrease in donor numbers, which was the exact opposite of what researchers expected.

Another difficulty with nudging is that authorities may overlook more serious issues. Let's pretend that the government is trying to get people to stop consuming unhealthy sodas. That's just one facet of a much larger issue. More questions should be asked by governments, such as, "Why is there such a large demand for soda in the first place?" "Are people buying soda because there aren't enough affordable alternatives?" or "Are people buying soda because there aren't enough affordable alternatives?"

Nudging is a good notion, but it has limitations. It should be regarded as a tool rather than an ideology. It's not a replacement for changing systems and policies.

Psychology can be beneficial to society as long as people are aware of its limitations. And who better to point out these flaws than a psychologist?

8. Society must recognize the complexities of human behaviour and abandon its pursuit of fast fixes.

A group of recognized psychologists performed something amazing in April 2020, during the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic.

A group of researchers led by Hans IJzerman issued an online document stating that behavioural scientists should refrain from providing their opinions during the pandemic's tumultuous times. In essence, psychologists were conceding the weaknesses and limitations of their own speciality and advising that in times of international crises, psychologists should refrain from attempting to influence policy.

Others in the field of psychology might consider following their lead. When it comes to their influence on society, scientists must be realistic and humble. People's perceptions of the world can be influenced by psychology, and if they believe there is a simple fix for racism or inequality, for example, they may begin to blame vulnerable people for their own condition.

The main message is that society must recognize the complexities of human behaviour and cease looking for fast remedies.

Nothing is as straightforward as we would like to believe. Our minds, on the other hand, crave simple narratives and elegant explanations, and we urgently want to believe we can understand the world.

It would be fantastic if society could discover people's unconscious biases and therefore abolish racism. It's a fantastic concept - and a fantastic story.

It's also difficult to criticize psychologists for persisting in their hunt for simple, captivating stories. A good tale is more profitable and attracts more media attention. It's also difficult for them to walk away from their story and recognize their mistakes once they've achieved fame, received money, and given TED presentations.

It's past time to promote psychological transformation rather than succumbing to the allure of the simple story. After all, human behaviour and all of its ramifications are extremely complicated. Furthermore, complex issues necessitate equally complicated explanations and solutions. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution!

The important lesson in this summary is that when erroneous psychology studies get too much traction, they can have a disproportionate impact on people's perceptions and beliefs, as well as laws. Modern psychology and unsophisticated storytelling must be viewed with caution. And, rather than putting the burden of expectation on the individual, if people truly want to solve social problems, they should concentrate on reforming systems and institutions