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.
