Myths about the brain are all over the place, engrained in folk law and become part of our everyday knowledge. This blog post hopes to separate the fact from the fiction, by looking at the evidence or lack of evidence in the world of psychology and neuroscience. For some reason when it comes to the brain there seems to be more myths than facts circulating our knowledge base. Maybe, this is because these appeal to us more, so we interpret them as truth. Ever heard this … If you breathe through your left nostril it makes you more creative as the oxygen goes straight to the right hemisphere…. Really? Does the fact that when you breathe in the oxygen goes straight into the lungs count for anything? Titbits like this are part of a multi-million dollar business which provides us with non-effective ways of trying to improve cognitive functions. For some reason we all (me included) believe these myths and transform them into scientific truth.
You only use 10% of your brain
Movies like limitless promote the inability to access vast areas of the brain, however, by taking a drug we can enter parts of the brain that we don’t use. fMRI scans show that even for the most simplest of tasks like moving your hand use a lots of different areas of the area brain (Gordon, 2008). Control of motor output requires an enormous amount of brain activation because it deals with planning, and implementing how the muscles move (Beyerstein, 1999). The brain doesn’t allow itself to simply wait around to be used. If nerve cells aren’t used they are used for a different function in other areas of the brain or they degenerate and die; use it or lose it. Chudler states that the brain takes up 20% of the body’s resources, so why would our brains have evolved to be so big if it weren’t being used? This myth derives from the self-help literature in regards to the ability of reaching all that untapped potential in a book written by Dale Carnegie called How to Win Friends and Influence People. We would all like to believe that we can better ourselves in regards to how we use our brain. However, this is already achieved. We are constantly learning new things and develop new memories. Not because we are using an undiscovered area of the brain, but because we form new connections and loose old connections between nerve cells.
The Mozart Effect – Listening to his music makes you clever
Listening to classical music and in particular Mozart has allegedly has a significant long term benefits for thinking ability/ mental function, when it’s played to young children. Speculation suggests that there is something in the rhythm of the music that causes this. Supposedly through tapping into the resources used for higher reasoning by priming certain brain circuits with music to enhance cognitive ability thus increasing intelligence.
However, there is no scientific evidence to suggest the listening to Mozart has any long term effect on babies’ cognitive abilities. Grant informs that this myth derives from Roucher and Colleagues study which was wrongly interpreted by the media which snowballed into the Amadeus enhanced IQ myth. No evidence that listening to any type of music enhances intelligence. But it didn’t stop a Governor of a US state to provide new and expectant mothers with classical music CDs to try and make his future constituents more intelligent. Instead research shows that music increases alertness, which had a short term effect on performance, but does not enhance cognitive functions. We like the fact that the ability to enhance or improve our brain capacity can be simply achieved which makes it more desirable.
We all believe in bizarre things but these also seem to be having an effect on the way we interpret scientific research, so the next time you hear something, remember to check out the facts first!!!!! (or we’ll be saying move over ear plugs there is a new friend in town….right nostril plugs)
Interesting Reads
*Images obtained from Google
My Blog 
You make some really good points, and it is definitely true that there are myths in both psychology and science as a field. However, what we now call myths may well be thought of as true when they were first hypothesised. Take, for example, the notion that the Earth is both flat and at the centre of the universe. At the time of these suggestions, it was thought that if you sailed off into the horizon, you’d fall off the world, and the Earth was the most important, and therefore the central planet. However, more modern research has shown otherwise, and therefore the theories can be passed off as myths. Looking into more modern research, what we call myths may well have been the results of one study, and we are all guilty of believing the results of one study and not looking into other research in the field. This is especially potent when we are looking for supporting information, and in a way we deliberately take the one-sided approach to make our point. However, we are all too well aware that there are always at least two sides to the story, and we really should be looking at all of these, as the good scientists we are.
I really enjoyed reading your blog, you make some really good points and explain them very clearly 🙂
I agree with your point about taking everything with a pinch of salt, especially if someone is charging you for some super brain improver or something. However I do not think that all myhts about the brain should be completely disregarded, often there is some small grain of truth at the bottom of old wives tales. For example the foxglove flower (digitalis) is used to treat a condition called congestive heart failure which is when the heart swells which results in the blood not being pumped as effectively around the body. Digitalis was discovered as an effective cure for this condition because it was used around the thirteenth century as a cure for the swelling. It only became properly researched around the 1700s.
I am often being told bits and pieces of information about both the brain and the field of psychology in general ever since I started this degree. Most of this information comes from my family who heard it from the news or an internet article and so believe that I should know since it would help with my studies. I am glad to have been taught how to pick out which information comes from a trustworthy source and which just serves as useless data. I think that the more we spread that knowledge, the better the world will be able to discard information that ultimately will not help them.
Pingback: Comments « statisticalperrin