Debunking 3 Common Brain Neuromyths: Essential Truths for Educators

 

These ideas exaggerate or distort the brain's overall capacity and function. They stem from
misunderstandings of neuroscience and have been widely debunked by scientific research. Their consequences in education are significant, as they promote ineffective practices, create unrealistic expectations, and discourage students and educators by underestimating the potential of evidence-based learning.

To counter these myths, it's crucial to promote neuroscientific literacy among educators and foster pedagogical approaches based on rigorous research.

 

1. We Only Use 10% of Our Brain

Description and Origin

This neuromyth claims that humans only use 10% of their brain capacity, and if we could tap into the rest, we'd achieve extraordinary cognitive abilities, like prodigious memory or nearly supernatural skills.

Its origin traces back to misunderstandings of late 19th and early 20th-century research, such as William James's ideas suggesting people don't utilize their full "mental potential." It's also been attributed to misinterpretations of neuroimaging studies showing localized activity in certain brain areas during specific tasks, leading to the belief that the rest of the brain remains "inactive."

This myth has been perpetuated by popular culture, including movies, self-help books, and commercial products promising to "unlock" brain potential.

Scientific Explanation

Modern neuroscience emphatically disproves this myth. Neuroimaging studies, like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and positron emission tomography (PET), show that virtually all brain regions are active at different times, depending on the task being performed. Even at rest, the brain maintains significant activity through the default mode network, which is involved in processes like introspection and memory (Raichle et al., 2001).

Furthermore, the brain is a metabolically expensive organ, consuming approximately 20-25% of the body's total energy. This would be highly inefficient if a large part of it were inactive (Lennie, 2003).

Moreover, damage to any brain area, even those once considered "silent," can have significant effects on cognition, emotion, or behavior, demonstrating that no regions are truly "unused."

References

• Raichle, M. E., MacLeod, A. M., Snyder, A. Z., Powers, W. J., Gusnard, D. A., & Shulman, G. L. (2001). A default mode of brain function. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 676–682. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.98.2.676
• Lennie, P. (2003). The cost of cortical computation. Current Biology, 13(6), 493–497. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0960-9822(03)00135-0
• Boyd, R. (2008). Do people only use 10 percent of their brains? Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/

Consequences in Education

• Promotion of Pseudoscience: This myth has led to educational programs and products promising to "activate" unused brain potential, such as brain training apps or accelerated learning techniques without scientific basis. This can lead educators and parents to invest time and resources in ineffective methods.
• Unrealistic Expectations: The belief that students can achieve extraordinary abilities by "unlocking" their brain can create unnecessary pressure on them and distract from evidence-based pedagogical strategies, such as spaced practice or active learning.
• Distrust of Traditional Methods: Teachers might underestimate proven educational approaches, opting for quick fixes that promise miraculous results, thereby reducing the quality of instruction.

 

2. Brain Training Games or Stimulation Programs Increase General Intelligence (IQ)

Description and Origin

This idea suggests that certain brain training games or cognitive stimulation programs can substantially improve general intelligence (IQ) or cognitive abilities across various domains. 

This concept gained popularity in the 2000s, driven by the emergence of apps and games that often claimed to be based on neuroscientific principles, capitalizing on the growing public interest in brain plasticity and and learning

Scientific Explanation

Research has shown that brain training programs often produce improvements in the specific tasks being practiced (near transfer), but there's no solid evidence that these improvements generalize to other cognitive abilities or to general intelligence (far transfer).

A study by Owen et al. (2010) found that after six weeks of intensive brain training, participants improved on the trained tasks, but not on general measures of intelligence or working memory.

General intelligence, as measured by IQ, is a complex construct influenced by genetic, environmental, and educational factors, and cannot be significantly improved by isolated games (Simons et al., 2016). Furthermore, while brain plasticity is real, it depends on sustained and specific practice in meaningful contexts, not generic "brain training" activities.

References

• Owen, A. M., Hampshire, A., Grahn, J. A., Stenton, R., Dajani, S., Burns, A. S., Howard, R. J., & Ballard, C. G. (2010). Putting brain training to the test. Nature, 465(7299), 775–778. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09042
• Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., & Stine-Morrow, E. A. L. (2016). Do “brain-training” programs work? Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100616661983
• Melby-Lervåg, M., & Hulme, C. (2013). Is working memory training effective? A meta-analytic review. Developmental Psychology, 49(2), 270–291. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028228

Consequences in Education

• Waste of Resources: Schools and parents may spend money on commercial brain training programs that offer no significant benefits, diverting these resources from more effective educational interventions, such as personalized instruction or the development of metacognitive skills.
• False Confidence in Students: Students using these programs might develop a mistaken perception of improved cognitive abilities, which could reduce their effort in other areas of learning.
• Neglect of Evidence-Based Strategies: Educators might prioritize these games over proven methods, such as deliberate practice or project-based learning, which have a more significant impact on cognitive and academic development.

 

3. Intelligence Is Fixed and Genetically Determined

Description and Origin

This idea holds that intelligence is an unchangeable trait, determined exclusively by genetic factors, and cannot be significantly developed through education, practice, or environment.

This myth has its roots in misinterpretations of twin studies showing significant IQ heritability, as well as the popularization of theories like "fixed mindset" versus "growth mindset" (Dweck, 2006). It has also been reinforced by deterministic views in education that assume students have an innate "limit" to their learning capacity.

Scientific Explanation

While genetic factors influence intelligence (with heritability estimates between 50-80% in adults), the environment plays a crucial role in its development, especially during childhood and adolescence.

The theory of brain plasticity demonstrates that learning and experience can modify neural connections and improve cognitive abilities throughout life (Lövdén et al., 2010).

Educational interventions, such as environmental enrichment, structured teaching, and deliberate practice, have shown significant improvements in academic performance and measures of fluid intelligence (Nisbett et al., 2012).

Furthermore, the growth mindset, championed by Dweck (2006), emphasizes that believing in the malleability of intelligence can motivate students to strive harder and achieve better results.

Scientific References

• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. Random House.
• Lövdén, M., Bäckman, L., Lindenberger, U., Schaefer, S., & Schmiedek, F. (2010). A theoretical framework for the study of adult cognitive plasticity. Psychological Bulletin, 136(4), 659–676. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020080
• Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., Dickens, W., Flynn, J., Halpern, D. F., & Turkheimer, E. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67(2), 130–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699

Consequences in Education

• Negative Effects on Motivation: If students or educators believe intelligence is fixed, students may become demotivated by failure, assuming they lack the capacity to improve. This reinforces a fixed mindset that limits effort and perseverance.
• Labeling and Inequality: This myth can lead to categorizing students as "intelligent" or "unintelligent," potentially resulting in low expectations for some students and perpetuating educational inequalities, especially in marginalized groups.
• Underestimation of Educational Interventions: Teachers might neglect educational enrichment strategies, like tutoring programs or extracurricular activities, assuming students' abilities can't change, which will limit their academic and personal development.

 

Debunking Neuromyths

All these erroneous ideas about the brain, though popular, lack scientific basis and distort our understanding of how we learn. As we've seen, beliefs like only using 10% of our brain, that brain games increase general intelligence, or that intelligence is fixed and genetically determined are clear examples of these fallacies. These notions are not only incorrect but also have detrimental consequences in education.

Believing in these myths can lead to adopting ineffective pedagogical practices, diverting resources to pseudoscientific solutions, and generating unrealistic expectations for students and educators. Additionally, they can demotivate students, promote labeling, and underestimate the true impact of evidence-based educational interventions.

Science, on the contrary, shows us that the brain is a plastic and dynamic organ that fully activates for various tasks and whose development is continuously influenced by experience and learning. Intelligence isn't a static trait; it can be improved through sustained effort, appropriate teaching strategies, and an enriching environment.

Therefore, it's vital to promote neuroscientific literacy among educators. By understanding how the brain truly works and debunking these false ideas, pedagogical approaches based on rigorous research can be fostered. This will not only optimize student learning but also equip teachers with effective and realistic tools, thereby unleashing the true potential of the educational process. It's time to move past false promises and build an education based on science.

 

In our next post, we'll discuss neuromyths about learning styles and types.