# The Quick Fix by Jesse Singal - Blinkist

What’s in it for me? A reassessment of popular psychology concepts.

Modern psychology seems to offer fascinating insights into human behavior, as well as possible solutions for some of society’s most serious problems, from violent crime to racial inequality. But psychology isn’t perfect – a lot of ideas that arise in the field are flawed, and when these get disseminated into popular culture through media such as TED talks, their accuracy tends to be beside the point.

The author is highly skeptical of the discipline and its pop-culture avatars. Through critical analysis of influential psychological concepts, he argues that we shouldn’t be so quick to believe the experts. When half-baked ideas enter the mainstream, they can actually do more harm than good.

In these blinks you’ll discover:



the real reason behind the rise and fall of violent crime in the US;

why you shouldn’t be so worried about your subconscious biases; and

that a power pose won’t actually make you feel more powerful.

Flawed psychology can do real damage.

In the 1990s, Americans were horrified by newspaper reports about young people – some as young as 11 years old – committing acts of shocking violence. Youth crime was on the rise, and, according to experts, it was only going to get worse.

One of these experts was John DiIulio, a political scientist at Princeton. It was DiIulio who came up with the idea of “superpredators” – a criminal class of people who impulsively committed senseless acts of violence.

These superpredators were the product of what DiIulio called “moral poverty,” as they had grown up in dysfunctional, abusive environments. And if they couldn’t be saved at an early age, they would have to be locked up.

The superpredator concept was popular and influential. But there was a problem: DiIulio was wrong.

Here’s the key message: Flawed psychology can do real damage.

The theory of the superpredator has since been disproven. There were actually other explanations for the youth violence of the late 80s and early 90s, such as easy access to guns, which was in turn connected to crack dealing. The predicted crime explosion never happened, and in fact, by the early 90s violent youth crime was already in decline.

Like many popular psychological concepts, the superpredator is a half-baked idea. The term was never even clearly defined, but for the media, that didn’t matter. It made a good story, and it came from an expert.

Other experts did little to debunk DiIulio’s idea, and so the myth of the superpredator continued to spread. It even resulted in dozens of American states changing their laws. In order to crack down on youth crime, many states passed laws allowing juveniles to be tried and sentenced as adults – with tragic consequences.

DiIulio’s theory also had another, inadvertent consequence. Although it wasn’t DiIulio’s intention to reinforce negative racial stereotypes, it was clear that the majority of his “superpredators” were Black, as Black people were most affected by so-called moral poverty.

The superpredator idea not only created a disconnect between public perceptions of crime and reality, but it also helped to deepen racial divides. As a result of flawed psychology, many white Americans became more afraid of black Americans.

This is a particularly extreme example. But it shows what can happen when a flawed psychological concept, promoted by experts, becomes influential.

Some popular psychology studies do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

Half-baked psychology ideas continue to spread through the media. These days, you’ll encounter some of them through TED talks.

In her popular 2012 TED talk, Harvard psychologist Amy Cuddy argued that by changing their body language, people can change how they feel. A study of college students found that those who adopted power poses felt more confident and assertive, and were more likely to take risks. There was even evidence of hormonal changes – elevated levels of testosterone and decreased levels of the stress hormone cortisol.

Body language is real – but can a change of position really have such a powerful influence on how you feel and act?

The key message is this: Some popular psychology studies do not stand up to scientific scrutiny.

When other scientists tried to replicate the study, with a much larger data sample, they got completely different results. There was no evidence of a correlation between power posing and behavior, or hormone changes.

The final nail in the coffin came from one of Cuddy’s coauthors on the original study, Dana Carney. In 2016, Carney stated that she no longer believed in the effects of the power pose. 

She explained that the psychologists behind the power pose study were probably guilty of a statistical technique known as p-hacking. This technique involves manipulating data in a way that increases the risk of finding false positives. According to Carney, the power pose study was based on flimsy data and negligible effects.

This study raises some interesting points. First, it exposes the issue of data manipulation in psychological science, and the need for serious reforms in research practices.

It also raises the question of why the idea of the power pose was so popular. Part of the appeal was that Cuddy was a trusted expert, and the concept tied in nicely with the self-help trend.

But there’s also a feminist element. Cuddy suggested that the power pose could be beneficial for women in an academic or professional context. These are environments where women often encounter obstacles to success that are connected to perceptions of their capabilities and confidence.

In theory, the pose gives the individual some control – you might not be able to change the system, the idea suggests, but you can change your body language. It’s a quick and simple individual change instead of a long-term, complex structural change.

In other words, the power pose is a quick fix – a recurring theme in psychology.

When organizations adopt ineffective psychological programs, more effective techniques get ignored.

In 2007, the US Army realized that it was in the midst of a mental health crisis. Many soldiers were suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. It’s a serious condition that can have a devastating impact on sufferers and their families.

The Army urgently needed a solution to the PTSD problem. With the help of expert psychologist Martin Seligman, they created the Comprehensive Soldier Fitness program, or CSF, which was rooted in positive psychology. The aim was to give soldiers a sense of optimism and resilience that would protect their mental health.

The CSF program was introduced on a massive scale, and soon made mandatory. It is still in use today. It costs more than $40 million a year – but if it works, surely it’s money well-spent?

This is the key message: When organizations adopt ineffective psychological programs, more effective techniques get ignored.

Unfortunately, there’s little evidence to show that positive psychology has any real benefits for PTSD sufferers. It’s worth noting that Seligman’s original psychology program, which provided the foundation for CSF, was aimed at preventing depression in teenagers. Obviously, there’s an enormous difference between boosting the mental health of teenagers and treating traumatized soldiers. Psychology is not one-size-fits-all.

Numerous studies, such as a 2014 report by the Institute of Medicine, have found that the CSF has limited effectiveness for treating PTSD. There are other techniques with higher rates of success than resilience training, such as prolonged exposure, in which patients are encouraged to process their trauma and triggers instead of using avoidance strategies.

But the Army seems to have preferred Seligman’s simpler ideas of optimism and resilience. Senior staff weren’t too bothered by the lack of evidence for the effectiveness of CSF. Positive psychology was in alignment with the Army’s own language and philosophy, encouraging individuals to work on themselves and achieve success through hard work and a positive attitude.

Positive psychology doesn’t need to be dismissed altogether, but it’s important to use it carefully. This is especially true for organizations responsible for treating vulnerable people on a vast scale. When PTSD sufferers are offered ineffective mental health resources, that means they’re missing out on treatments that actually work.

The use of positive psychology to treat PTSD is an example of a simplistic solution for an extremely complex problem. You can understand why organizations like the Army want quick fixes and inspiring messages, but unfortunately, life just isn’t that simple.

We often overrate the importance of individual behavior and characteristics.

Here’s another mystery that psychologists have been trying to crack: the secret to success. Is there a key characteristic shared by successful people, such as IQ or social skills?

According to the award-winning psychologist Angela Duckworth, what really matters is grit – perseverance and determination. In her 2013 TED talk and bestselling book, Grit: The Passion of Power and Perseverance, Duckworth suggests that grit is the secret to success. According to her research, grit can be measured on a scale, and it can be used as a predictor for academic performance. It’s also a quality that people can potentially learn or develop.

The grit theory has been incredibly popular. But like the psychology concepts in the previous blinks, it’s also extremely flawed. Subsequent scientific research has revealed the limitations of Duckworth’s theory.

Here’s the key message: We often overrate the importance of individual behavior and characteristics.

It’s easy to understand the appeal of grit. Most people like the idea that success comes down to the individual. Persevere, work hard, and anything is possible. In the US there’s also an obsession with the idea of character in education; schools should build character, the idea goes, instilling in children personal qualities that guarantee a bright future.

But the unfortunate reality is that by the time children start kindergarten, their characters and prospects have already been strongly influenced by other factors, such as nutrition and family stability. It’s unrealistic to expect schools to transform a child’s character. A teacher can’t simply give children grit and set them up for future success.

Besides, even if a child has grit to begin with, there’s no evidence that this is the main predictor for success. In her book, Duckworth tells the story of Cody, a disadvantaged teen with a tough family background, who went on to study at MIT. Cody was lucky to have an exceptionally kind math teacher. She paid for his driving lessons, raised money for his college supplies, and provided him with emotional support.

Duckworth mentions Cody as an example of a person who succeeded because of grit, but it could be argued that the presence of a supportive adult was a more relevant factor.

Whether someone succeeds or not is less dependent on grit than on countless other factors. It’s unfair to tell kids from poor backgrounds to try harder when the cards are stacked against them. Instead of blaming or praising individuals, the focus should be on changing society.

Implicit racial bias is not as significant as you’ve been led to believe.

Increasingly, racism is viewed as an individual problem. In the US people are told to examine their implicit, subconscious biases. In fact, you can check your biases right now if you like, using a quick online test.

The Implicit Association Test, or IAT, is promoted by Harvard University. For the racial bias test, an algorithm calculates the user’s score based on reaction times to different words and images relating to the categories of black and white, and good and bad.

The IAT is popular with organizations like Google and Starbucks, who want employees to reflect on their biases as part of their diversity training. It’s viewed by many as a reliable scientific tool, with the added bonus of emotional power, as you discover aspects of your subconscious self.

It’s an attractive idea – if people recognize their biases, they can reduce racial inequality. But as you’ve probably guessed, evidence for the effectiveness of this test is lacking.

The key message is this: Implicit racial bias is not as significant as you’ve been led to believe.

Even proponents of the IAT have admitted that it has limited reliability. Most importantly, it can’t be used to predict real-world behavior.

So then why the focus on implicit bias? When society is dealing with racial inequality, it’s important to look at the bigger problems. Surely explicit bias and intentional discrimination are more deserving of attention than subconscious attitudes. 

For instance, an investigation of the Chicago police force revealed that some officers had referred to black people as “animals” or “savages,” and even used the N-word to their faces. You don’t need an algorithm to uncover bias here.

According to Stanford sociologist Robb Willer, implicit bias is real. But in terms of racial inequality in the US, bias is less consequential than structural factors like the racial wealth gap and access to early childhood education.

So reflecting on your subconscious biases probably won’t do any harm – but it won’t do much good either. The notion of implicit bias is another example of psychology proposing a quick, superficial fix for complex societal problems.

Society keeps making the same mistake – people are too easily convinced by half-baked ideas, and too eager to apply them to real situations, often neglecting other relevant factors.

In the next blink, we’ll look at some more problems in modern psychology, as well as some possible solutions.

Psychologists should use replication to test the validity of a study.

If you want to have a successful career in psychology, you need to get published. And in order to get published, you have to be able to report findings that are of statistical significance. It’s even better if your findings can be turned into an exciting media story, like DiIulio’s superpredator or Cuddy’s power pose.

So what can psychologists do to help ensure that their studies result in significant findings?

One widespread practice is something called “hidden flexibility.” Researchers analyze complex data at random through endless tests, eventually landing on something that seems significant, and making this the subject of their research.

Another practice is known as HARKing – that stands for Hypothesizing After the Results are Known. When psychologists HARK, they cover up their original theory, and the fact that it probably failed.

If, on the other hand, you’re a psychologist who wants to prove the validity of your research, or test someone else’s findings, you need replication.

The key message here is: Psychologists should use replication to test the validity of a study.

Replication means repeating an experiment with different participants, to check the significance of the original findings. One of the criticisms of Cuddy’s power pose study, for instance, was that replication led to different results.

Something similar happened with social priming – the theory that exposure to a concept or stimulus can influence behavior. Priming used to be a very popular concept in psychology, but in recent years, attempts at replication through various studies have failed.

For instance, an influential 1996 priming study by the Yale psychologist John Bargh involved some participants being subtly exposed to words associated with old age, such as “Florida” and “wrinkle.” These participants then walked more slowly compared to people who hadn’t been exposed to the words. 

Bargh and his fellow researchers concluded that the slow-walking participants had been influenced by the stereotype of elderly people suggested by the words. It’s an intriguing idea – but like many other priming studies, it failed to replicate.

Many psychologists are increasingly concerned about flawed practices, and emphasize the need for more replication. There are other possible solutions too, such as pre-registration. This involves researchers publicly sharing their plans and hypotheses before they start work, which prevents them from suddenly switching theories or manipulating data. 

There’s still a long way to go, but things are getting better. According to psychologist Brian Nosek, an expert on research practices, the last decade has seen a credibility revolution.

Even when a psychology concept is valid, it’s important not to exaggerate its usefulness.

Here’s some more good news: Not all psychology needs to be debunked, as there are some concepts with more solid scientific foundations.

For example, you may have heard of the concept of nudging. It’s attracted a lot of media hype – Barack Obama is one high-profile fan. And unlike the other theories we’ve looked at, nudging almost lives up to the hype.

Nudging is a way of influencing people’s behavior through the way choices are presented. For instance, if fruit is displayed more visibly in a shop, perhaps at eye level, it’s easier to access. In this way, a customer can be “nudged” into making healthier food-purchasing choices. Similarly, people’s behavior can be subtly influenced through things like text-message reminders or clearly designed official forms.

The possibilities and potential of nudging seem limitless.

Here’s the key message: Even when a psychology concept is valid, it’s important not to exaggerate its usefulness.

The idea of using simple, gentle interventions to influence the public’s behavior is an appealing one. It’s choice architecture – designing the different ways choices are presented – instead of mandates. And it’s cheap and easy. Could it be a quick fix that actually works? 

Not so fast. Nudging is a concept with empirical weight. It's rooted in important behavioral science, and many studies have shown that certain nudges work very well. But that doesn't mean nudging is perfect. Humans are complicated, after all. It’s hard to determine in advance which nudges will work. 

There have been some noteworthy failures, such as the attempt to increase organ donations by making the system automatic, instead of opt-in. Even though it became harder for people to decline to donate, researchers apparently underestimated just how strongly some people feel about the issue of organ donation, and these efforts actually led to a decrease in donor numbers – the opposite of what researchers were expecting.

Another issue with nudging is that authorities might end up neglecting the bigger issues. Let’s say a government is focused on nudging people away from drinking unhealthy soda. That’s only one aspect of a complex problem. Governments should be asking more questions, such as “Why is there such a huge market for soda in the first place?” Or “Are people buying soda because there aren’t enough affordable alternatives?”

The concept of nudging is useful, but limited. It should be seen as a tool, not an ideology. It’s certainly not an alternative to changing systems and policies.

Society can benefit from psychology as long as people remain aware of its limitations. And who better than a psychologist to highlight these limitations?

Society needs to acknowledge the complexity of human behavior and stop searching for quick fixes.

In April 2020, in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, a group of respected psychologists did something remarkable. 

A team of researchers led by Hans IJzerman published a paper online, arguing that in the turbulent times of the pandemic, behavioral scientists should avoid offering their insights. Essentially, psychologists were admitting the flaws and limitations of their own field, and recommending that in a moment of international crisis, psychologists shouldn’t try to influence policy.

Other psychologists should consider following their example. It’s important for scientists to be realistic and humble, considering their influence on society. Psychology can change people’s understanding of how the world works, and if people think there’s a quick fix for racism or inequality, for example, they might start blaming vulnerable people for their own plight. 

The key message is this: Society needs to acknowledge the complexity of human behavior and stop searching for quick fixes.

Nothing is as simple as we’d like to think. But our brains love simple stories and elegant explanations, and we desperately want to think we can make sense of the world. 

It would be wonderful if society could potentially end racism by uncovering people’s unconscious biases. It’s a great idea – a great story.

It’s also hard to blame psychologists for continuing to search for simple, compelling stories, and for sticking by them. A good story pays better, and gets more media attention. Then, once they are in the spotlight, getting funding and giving TED talks, it’s very hard for them to step away from their story and admit their mistakes.

It’s time to encourage reform in psychology, and stop falling for the alluring trap of the simple story. After all, human behavior and all its associated problems are incredibly complex. And complex problems require equally complex explanations and solutions. There truly is no such thing as a quick fix!

Final summary

The key message in these blinks is that:

When flawed psychology studies become too influential, they can have a disproportionate impact on people’s perceptions and beliefs, and even on laws. It's important to be skeptical of modern psychology and simplistic stories. And if people really want to fix societal problems, they should focus on changing systems and structures instead of placing the burden of expectation on the individual.