Recently I read two business/self improvement/success books written by Dan Ariely and Adam Grant. Both have PhD’s in psychology, are highly rated professors, best selling authors, talented speakers and business management consultants. I’ve heard them speak on podcasts and present TedTalks. They seem to be quite charming – exuding knowledge, expertise and likability. They fall into the Malcolm Gladwell, Daniel Pink genre of authors.
But as I read their books critically, I am questioning the validity of their work. Or are accurately, of the scientific validity of Psychology. They frequently use behavioral psychology studies to make inferences about general behavior the can be used to guide business decisions. The studies often place groups of college students in hypothetical, artificial situations and then record their actions. Then the authors Dra a parallel to the working world implying that the study “demonstrates” how people react given specific incentives, disincentives, motivations etc.
My first point of contention with this “scientific method” is that we are not all college students. Drawing conclusions from the behavior of some frat boys and sorority girls barely out of their teens who are participating in a study for beer money or extra credit points might occasionally predict how adults in the working world would behave. But, I suspect more often, it doesn’t. Normal people spend most of their life working 40+ hours a week, trying to cover rent/mortgage, juggling kids, dealing with irritable spouses, managing household finances, fending off working harassment, struggling with midlife crises, and so much more.
My second point of contention is how often these authors use well known, famous people as examples to support their arguments. If I read another business/organizational psychology book where the author points to Martin Luther King, Steve Jobs, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B Anthony or Ben Franklin, as examples of “doing something different” to be successful, I’m going to throw the book through the window. These are not “normal people”. They are the outliers, who, through some combination of timing, opportunity, skill and effort achieved extraordinary results. I doubt these results can be replicated by following the organizational psychology principles espoused in these books.
My third point of contention is how so many of the authors use the identical studies to support wildly divergent arguments. They do this by drawing wide inferences and implying causation (vs. correlation or even random chance) from the studies. Please, spare me from another dissection of the Marshmallow Test or the Man In The Gorilla Suit studies.
This genre of psychology that is used to sell books and enrich the professors reminds me of the hucksterism used by Snake Oil Salesmen. It feels, looks and sounds much the same. It’s dressed up with psychological studies, charming spokespeople, and the veneer of education, but is it really any different?
In fairness, I suspect the authors are not all deviant shysters whose sole motivation is making money. They probably believe in their “science”. They might think they are helping to enlighten and educate the world.
I don’t know them and am in no position to judge their motivations.
But, I will offer my opinion on the psychology behind it. It smells to me like a lot of bullshit.