Not just 'bullshit' but also damaging

And might I add that not only are some of those 'Bullshit facts' about psychology are... well... Bullshit (in the sense that such results could well be 'skewed' but they owe to the fact that many people confuse correlation with causation, even if the correlations are just 'partially spurious'); but can be actually *damaging* to the people they are talking about.  Here are some examples of how damaging these findings can be, and how unscientific the methods are (if one doesn't know how to interpret the results).

For instance, we are tarring (or whitewashing) people with the same brush when we say that, for instance, cult members are 'stupid gullible sheep' - the same could be said about 'bikie gangs', skinheads, head bangers, peer groups, colour gangs, or anyone else that feels the need to belong to a group.  A person who feels lonely and decides to join a group (even if that group is a cult), often does so because they hear things they don't want to hear. And if someone sees themselves being tarred in the same way as the wrongdoers in their group (even though they've done nothing wrong themselves), of course they are going to want to defend that group.

Another example is the self esteem thing: what people don't know is that someone with too much self esteem is going to be disappointed (and even get angry or aggressive) when confronted with a situation that may well compromise their self esteem (one only has to know some douchebag, chav, wigger or 'guido' to know what I'm talking about); while, conversely, the 'Nigel No Friends' who doesn't believe in themselves already knows what it is like to be disppointed, because he (or she) has been through it already.

The 'subliminal message' thing, which is not only associated with advertising, but also allegedly rock (and especially Heavy Metal) music, has turned out to be a 'crock of s**t' :firstly, one study used to test subliminal messages in advertising was found to be based on 'falsified data'; and secondly, in general, no methods used to pick up these messages have been found to have worked.  There is no way the brain can actually pick up 'backward messages' in a song, and even when songs have been played backwards, often what people hear in those songs is a figment of imagination (and the effect is made worse by the use of mind altering substances).  This is why the court threw out the cases of Ozzy and Judas Priest when some of their listeners did committ suicide.  If that was true, then more people would be brainwashed into doing things, countries wouldn't have to make war on each other and alot more metalheads would be committing suicide and doing bad things to themselves and others.  Though the fact that the subliminal message idea has been known to be BS has done nothing to improve the reputations of many metal heads around the world.

2 - Lie detector tests: Polygraphs are often used in law enforcement, job recruitments, in couples therapy (when one partner is alledgedly cheating) and even with game show contestants.   But what happens when the results have been found to be positive, or negative, and the person using the machine fails to take into account other factors:  including the personality of the subject being tested (maybe they're naturally nervous), how they are feeling on the day, what techniques the experimenter is using, the way the tests are scored, or even the way a subject can throw off the test(s)?  Either way, we end up with either a 'false positive' when someone who might be nervous, is seen to be lying; or someone who manages to pass the test, may be the one lying themselves (and thus giving the users a false sense of security).  And what is worse is that when one does fail the test, he or she suffers the consequences (ie is given a guilty verdict and is thrown in jail, or they miss out on the job they might want so much etc etc).  How is that at least fair, if not damaging?

1 - if someone speaks out against homosexuality, they are not only labelled 'homophobic' but are also considered to be 'secretly gay'.  While in some cases it might be true, what they don't consider is what made some people (particularly males) come to dislike homosexuality so much eg enviromental factors such as age, upbringing, experiences with people of the same sex etc.  This is where the boundaries between science and politics are blurred, and where gay groups may use this to further their causes.  But to the person(s) who don't like gays, or who might not dislike them (but are simply not gay) it can be quite damaging and upsetting to be told they must be 'secretly' gay. 

This is much like someone who hates someone else being accused of secretly having the hots for them or being jealous of them (okay, maybe the target of their hatred might be physcially attractive, but that doesn't mean that they are necessarily nice people, or they have anything else to be 'jealous' of).  Whoever is the target of that hatred might feel better in knowing that the 'hater' either has a secret crush on them, or is jealous, but then again maybe not.  Whatever the 'hater' be they homophobe, or jealous lover, is feeling inside, it doesn't make it better for either the target of their hate or for them.  The target is still going to be stalked, harassed etc because this person actually has a crush on them; and they are going to be subject to even more 'sexual innuendo' and gossip when something like this comes out into the open.   And the 'hater' is probably going to be more angry when they are told to 'get over it' (something which is easier said than done).

Anyway, these are just some of the examples of facts where data can get misinterpreted, misconstrued and misunderstood:  it is not just things that get hurt, but real people - be they individuals, groups and even whole communities.  And for the scientific community, the 'hurt' they unintentionally inflict upon their subjects could well bite them on their bums later on, as it has for psychologists and other behavioural scientists years later after the theories are hypothesised, the results obtained, interpreted and published, and they have reached the general public and become 'popularized'.  Like I say, people get tarred with the same brush, and being tarred with the same brush is not good.