Myth-Busting Neuroscience
Do we only use 10% of our brain? Can a machine tell if we are lying? Are the BuzzFeed left vs. right brain quizzes onto something? These were questions I thought I had a fairly good grasp of before listening to Instant Genius: ‘Busting the biggest myths in neuroscience’ with Dr Dean Burnett. I was fairly confident the 10% myth was false; surely, given how much the brain autonomously controls, the percentage must be higher. I also believed there was at least a sliver of truth behind polygraphs and that left vs. right brain dominance was an oversimplification. What I did not expect was to learn quite so much about why these myths became so popular in the first place, an explanation which made me notice an interesting trend: marketable myths.
Burnett's explanations of where he believed each myth originated made me realise that most popular neuroscience myths we recognise today are the most marketable ones. They’re myths that people enjoy identifying with, and that paint an agreeable and understandable picture of the brain’s inner workings, despite having little scientific basis. The truth of the 10% myth was genuinely surprising; he explained that the brain is highly active in both autonomic and conscious processes; therefore, even at baseline it uses more than 10%. However, different regions receive increased blood flow in response to our actions, and this blood-enriched group likely cannot exceed 3%. He explained this well with an analogy: the brain has a limited number of waiters serving different tables; there are only so many waiters to go around!
The left vs. right discussion was probably the myth I was most familiar with. I have seen countless quizzes and pieces of artwork that claim to decide whether someone is a ‘left-brained’ or ‘right-brained’ person, and I have even been told that I am ‘definitely left-brained’. I already considered left- and right-brain dominance largely a myth - I knew that some functions are lateralised, but assumed the brain's interconnectedness meant that this was very unlikely to be true.
It was satisfying to hear the science behind why this is an oversimplification, an explanation which landed well with me as a neuroscience-specific listener. Burnett explained lateralisation without suggesting they operate independently, instead emphasising that the brain is so interconnected that function depends on the situation; one task cannot properly flourish without the other ‘side’. This myth ties back to my theory of marketable myth - people love to identify with these categories. It's a fun and whimsical way to engage with your own brain; it’s appealing to believe you are a ‘right-brain creative’ or a ‘left-brain logical’ person, even if the neuroscience doesn’t exactly support such a simple label. Polygraphs do indeed measure genuine responses, but these cannot uniquely identify lying. Barnett emphasises that there are so many other situations which bring on a stress-like response, such as anxiety (which a person being questioned under a police polygraph is likely experiencing).
I found the episode satisfying rather than overly simplistic or intensely detailed. Burnett generally avoided oversimplifying complex concepts and provided enough scientific context to make it interesting to listen to and clear why the myths were false; this approach lends itself well to a general listener. I also appreciated the combination of neuroscience and psychology in the episode, especially since these fields formed the basis of my own degree.
My main, and only, criticism was the format. I am a frequent flyer of the Spotify podcast list and have fairly high expectations. At times, the host felt like an interviewer asking a short question before allowing Burnett to give a long answer for many minutes. Whilst this was interesting and speaks to the guests' expertise, I would have enjoyed a more back-and-forth discussion, or even a third person who was less familiar with neuroscience. This could have introduced some humour while representing the perspective of a non-specialist listener; such a format is carried out exceptionally well in The Infinite Monkey Cage for reference. This was especially apparent in the second half of the episode, in which the conversation continued, but a break in the flow would have been appreciated.
Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed the episode and would recommend it to a non-scientist. More importantly, other topics covered, such as the Myers-Briggs personality test, made me question how many ‘scientific tests’ I have accepted, simply because I have repeatedly seen them online. I have even taken the Myers-Briggs myself (I’m an ENFJ) without questioning the scientific robustness. Perhaps the biggest lesson is, therefore, not just to recognise these myths, but to be more sceptical of what we are presented with as science. A quick search can never go amiss!
With this in mind, why not get involved in some myth-busting yourself? For example, find out if the Mozart Effect is real: the idea that listening to classical music can increase a child’s IQ. Even seemingly unrelated claims can become accepted as common knowledge. Does cold weather directly make you sick? Does your frontal lobe suddenly finish developing at 25? (Keep your eyes peeled for a blog on this soon!). Happy researching!
This article was written by Lucy Browning and edited by Rebecca Pope, with graphics produced by Ameesha Gehlot. If you enjoyed this article, be the first to be notified about new posts by signing up to become a WiNUK member (top right of this page)! Interested in writing for WiNUK yourself? Contact us through the blog page and the editors will be in touch.
Comments