Skip to main contentSkip to navigationSkip to navigation
Mandatory Credit: Photo by Blend Images/REX (3212972a)  Brain Surrounded By Colorful Lines, Na, Na, Usa   VARIOUS   VARIOUS BRAIN SURROUNDED BY COLORFUL LINES NA USA ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE BIOLOGY BLURRED MOTION ACTIVITY CIRCUIT CONCEPT CREATIVITY DIGITAL COMPOSITE FUTURE FUTURISTIC IDEA IDEAS IMAGINATION NEUROCIRCUIT NEUROSCIENCE NOBODY RESEARCH STUDIO THINKING BLURRY CONSIDERING CONTEMPLATION CREATIVE DIGITALCOMPOSITE GRAY MATTER INFORMATION MIND MOVEMENT NOTION PONDERING THINKER WISDOM Stock Not-Personality 20025298
Look at how mysterious it is... no, it’s even more mysterious than that. Come on, keep up! Photograph: Blend Images/REX Photograph: Blend Images/REX
Look at how mysterious it is... no, it’s even more mysterious than that. Come on, keep up! Photograph: Blend Images/REX Photograph: Blend Images/REX

Brand new brain myths to keep neurobloggers in work

This article is more than 9 years old

The recent release of Susan Greenfield’s new book and the film Lucy, both of which are dependent on tired misconceptions or dubious theories about the brain, suggest one worrying conclusion: we are running out of myths about the brain. So here are some new ones, to keep things ‘mysterious’

One of the best things about being a neuroscientist used to be the aura of mystery around it. It was once so mysterious that some people didn’t even know it was a thing. When I first went to university and people asked what I studied, they thought I was saying I was a “Euroscientist”, which is presumably someone who studies the science of Europe. I’d get weird questions such as “what do you think of Belgium?” and I’d have to admit that, in all honesty, I never think of Belgium. That’s how mysterious neuroscience was, once.

Of course, you could say this confusion was due to my dense Welsh accent, or the fact that I only had the confidence to talk to strangers after consuming a fair amount of alcohol, but I prefer to go with the mystery.

It’s not like that any more. Neuroscience is “mainstream” now, to the point where the press coverage of it can be studied extensively. When there’s such a thing as Neuromarketing (well, there isn’t actually such a thing, but there’s a whole industry that would claim otherwise), it’s impossible to maintain that neuroscience is “cool” or “edgy”. It’s a bad time for us neurohipsters (which are the same as regular hipsters, except the designer beards are on the frontal lobes rather than the jaw-line).

One way that we professional neuroscientists could maintain our superiority was by correcting misconceptions about the brain, but lately even that avenue looks to be closing to us. The recent film Lucy is based on the most classic brain misconception: that we only use 10% of our brain. But it’s had a considerable amount of flack for this already, suggesting that many people are wise to this myth. We also saw the recent release of Susan Greenfield’s new book Mind Change, all about how technology is changing (damaging?) our brains. This is a worryingly evidence-free but very common claim by Greenfield. Depressingly common, as this blog has pointed out many times. But now even the non-neuroscientist reviewers aren’t buying her claims.

On top of this, I recently read the new book by Christian Jarrett, Great Myths of the Brain, which expertly explains and debunks all the most familiar brain myths. That’s great, but if it becomes popular, that could seriously damage the public belief in myths about the brain. And then where would I, a snarky neuroblogger, be without things to mock? I’d have to actually try and explain the actual workings of the brain to people, and who has time for that?

No, there’s only one thing for it; we need some NEW myths about the brain; bold, new, totally ridiculous but oddly believable myths for 2014. So here are some possibilities.

Remember, these were all written by an actual neuroscientist and they’re in the Guardian, so they must be true, right?

The Nimoy Nucleus

It is widely accepted that different areas of the brain are responsible for different functions. There are the regions like Broca’s area that are responsible for language, the amygdala for processing emotional memories, the olfactory bulb for processing smells, and the Shatner’s Bassoon which handles time perception.

But scientists have recently identified an area termed the Nimoy Nucleus, which controls the elevation of individual eyebrows. Individuals with a small Nimoy Nucelus struggle to raise individual eyebrows, whereas those with larger, more developed areas are adept at the singe-eyebrow raise. fMRI scans have also revealed that the Nimoy Nucleus shows increased activity in response to hearing the word “fascinating”.

Flawed colour perception

The way we perceive colour is very complex. There are only three types of colour receptor in the eye, but the brain can still use this seemingly limited data to perceive a whole spectrum of colours. Or so you may think. But in actual fact, there are several colours in the spectrum that humans can’t perceive, purely because the typical human brain just doesn’t like them so subconsciously refuses to process them.

Research has identified some of these colours as “Blurple”, “Rellow” and “Scorange”. Individuals have reported seeing these colours after consuming particularly powerful hallucinogens, and describe them as “incredibly garish, like if Barbie had a fever dream”.

Brain Identity

Every brain is unique, given the vastly complicated and variable factors that are constantly shaping it. Many would say that these differences are only visible under a microscope, or via a powerful scanner, but in actual fact the brain is more explicit than that. The sulci and gyri (the folds that make up the surface of the cerebrum) are actually arranged to spell out the name of the individual in Braille. However, given that if you’re able to run your fingers across their brain the person is clearly either dead or in some serious distress, people rarely get to observe this for themselves.

Understanding while you sleep

It is believed by many that you can learn by listening to things in your sleep. Sadly, this is not true. The reason it’s not true is because the sleeping brain doesn’t communicate the way the conscious brain does. We’re not exactly sure what the sleeping brain is doing, but it seems to be processing information, consolidating memories and the like. It also transmits and receives information from brains in a similar state, to confirm or back-up information. This is what human snoring is; the sleeping brain transmitting data, like that noise you used to get from dial-up modems. That’s why someone’s snoring will keep you awake when you share a bed with them; your brains aren’t synched yet. After a while, you can sleep through it.

Music for babies

You’ve probably heard that playing Mozart for babies in the womb makes them smarter? Sadly this isn’t the case. If you want babies to be born smarter, you have to play them The Vengaboys. The brain starts developing faster and more effectively in a desperate bid to escape.

The use of our brain

Many people still believe we only use 10% of our brain, but this is a ridiculous idea. It’s 12%, once VAT is included.

The Greenfield effect

Constant exposure to the works and theories of Susan Greenfield can cause lasting and damaging changes to the brain, including tendencies to scaremonger, vastly inflated confidence in your own opinion, inability to recognise evidence and a persistent yet cynical-seeming concern for the wellbeing of children.

I’m not saying Greenfield does any of that, of course. But I certainly think it a lot.

Dean Burnett’s interest in brain myths was sparked by his featuring on Cosmic Genome. He can also be found on Twitter as @garwboy.

Comments (…)

Sign in or create your Guardian account to join the discussion

Most viewed

Most viewed