Close
Funny Bone

Human Brain Regions Tierlist (NOT CLICKBAIT)

December 5, 2023

Okay, guys. It’s the end of the semester and my brain is kind of fried. That being said, it would be fun and informational to rank the human brain regions. I used Tiermaker, and this is how I define the different categories. Feel free to make a tierlist yourself before you read the rest of the article to see how our rankings match up.

S tier: coolest brain regions. iconic amazing perfect

A tier: pretty interesting but just missing that star quality, y’know?

B tier: it’s fine. a little boring maybe

C tier: boooooooring

F tier: I have personal beef against this mound of fatty squishy brain tissue

Let’s go!

Amygdala

A tier. Really interesting in that it’s involved in so many circuits (fear, memory, even smell!). If you didn’t have it, you wouldn’t be able to avoid harmful situations–famous patient S.M. had her amygdalae removed and she wasn’t able to get scared at movies or notice when people were robbing her! She’s kinda been pop cultured to death, though…everyone kinda already knows her deal. She needs to bring something new to the table.

Basal Ganglia

A tier! Okay, I’m gonna say it, I’m biased! This is the area of the brain I research in lab. The basal ganglia isn’t well known outside of neuro circles, but ganglia just means a collection of nodes. This little string of pearls is near the center of our brain and controls voluntary movements while stopping unwanted movements. When things go awry, you can get tics, difficulty moving, or tremors. Think Parkinson’s disease or Huntington’s disease. The basal ganglia is a beautifully complex brain region, but she’s a little hard for beginners to understand. God knows I’ve had many headaches trying to wrap my head around what goes on in here.

Brainstem and Cerebellum

Grouping these 2 together in C tier feels right. Sure, these two play crucial roles doing (brainstem) and coordinating (cerebellum) movements, but these are pretty basic hardware found in pretty much any animal with a centralized brain. These were the first brain areas of the brain to evolve, after all, and they’re the first parts of the brain to form in a human embryo. I’m just saying that you praise basketball players for dunking, not for knowing how to dribble. Too simple.

Cingulate (cortex)

B tier because while I’m really intrigued by it, I always forget all the bajillion things it’s involved in. This gyrus stretches from where the frontal cortex is to the somatosensory cortex (senses), motor cortex (movements), and corpus callosum (connects the two halves of your rain). So, it’s involved in a ton of circuits relating to the way you behave and feel. It’s a part of this cool club called the limbic system, which makes you feel emotions and effects your motivation, learning, and memory. This system also includes the amygdala and its origins are also pretty far up the evolutionary tree, so it’s got retro vibes. Groovy.

Frontal Lobe S tier! What is there to say about the frontal lobe? She’s pretty much the it girl in pop psychology at the moment, and it’s hard not to see why. Young Gen Z on the internet love to use the fact that their frontal lobes aren’t mature yet as an excuse for everything–and can you blame them? This area of your brain controls decision-making, goal-setting, and is also involved in self awareness, cognition, and memory too. She can do it all! Your frontal lobe helps determine your personality and controls pretty much any voluntary movements you do (that’s pretty much everything that isn’t hearts beating or intestines squelching). And she is definitely not making me rank her at the top. Absolutely not. I have control. But if my sense of self is determined by my frontal lobe then can I truly be separ–

Hippocampus

A classic girlie! One of the first to be really understood, so an A tier feels right. Don’t underestimate the svelte size of this structure in this picture–this area may have been named after the Greek word for “seahorse”, but he has a mighty function. Our memories are formed in the hippocampus, which also acts as a hub for us to remember stuff later. He specialized in one thing, and he does it well! Would be S tier, but I seem to misplace mine around finals.

Insula

This one’s an underrated classic! The insula is a region inside the brain under the cortices that’s involved in smell and taste. It is also the area of our brain that helps us feel our organs and know what’s going on under our skin, a “sixth sense” called interoception. This area is still poorly understood, which means it has an air of mystery about it. But what we do know is really cool and spooky. S-tier.

Occipital Lobe

B tier. Not much to say about this one. It helps you see!

Parietal Lobe

Out of the “big four” lobes of the brain (frontal, occipital, temporal being the others), the parietal lobe is the most forgotten one. Every time I think of what it does, I think sensory, maybe? And that is what the parietal lobe does. A lot of sensory information is processed here–in particular, touch, temperature, and pain. All three together are called somatosensation. But honestly, “processing” sensory information is not the most interesting to me. C tier.

Temporal Lobe

This lobe is best known for housing the language centers of the brain (Broca’s area and Wernicke’s area), but it’s involved in so much more! The amygdala and hippocampus are inside this lobe, so fittingly, this one also goes into A tier. This lobe is not just language, but also memory, social functions, emotions, and even some vision! This is because this lobe is just so large and connects with so many regions. The back end of the temporal lobe is right next to the occipital! If you’ve ever heard of synesthesia, people who have it often have more connections between their temporal and occipital lobes. Accordingly, the most common subtype of synesthesia, where sounds are associated with colors, is colored hearing. This lobe is just really cool–and as much as we know about it, we’re still finding new things out all the time!

Thalamus

F-tier. F-tier! Look–I love the brain. That’s why I decided to spend 4 years studying it. That’s why I want to research it when I graduate. But this tiny tiny area is the whole reason I wanted to add an F tier. This area of the brain is like a relay hub where pretty much every area of the brain connects to. That sounds great, until you realize there are hundreds of nuclei (neuron groups) that scientists have identified that do all sorts of different things with about six or seven different separate pathways. There are so many that we’ve had to group them into the anterior nuclear group, the medial nuclear group, midline nuclear group, intralaminar nuclear group, the lateral nuclear group (not to be confused with the ventral lateral group), and so on. Confused yet? This is the most annoying thing about neuroscience to me, and the thing that I feel like puts people off studying the subject. Because who wants to memorize all that? Anyway, if you disagree, you drill all that into your brain for a Neuroanatomy class and get back to me. Take it up with my 97 card “Thalamic Nuclei Groups” Anki set.

Well, here’s my final ranking! How did it match up to yours? Did you learn something new? At least, I hope it made you think of the jelly stuff in your skull a little differently.

0Likes
About Author

I'm a 3rd year neuroscience major interested in the intersection of science and art! I also like to share my experiences as someone studying an uncommon major.

You May Also Like

Funny Bone
Science Memes: Dichloromethane Edition
Articles, Funny Bone
Rating Neurotransmitters by (Personal Preference?)
Articles, Funny Bone
College Student? Or Air in a Spark-Ignition Engine? A Haiku
Funny Bone
The Lab 3: Misnomer

Your journey starts here! Let’s talk!

ThemeRex © 2026. All rights reserved.
  Timothy Durham was convicted of rape when a test showed his DNA genotype matched the DNA recovered from the crime scene. Eye witnesses testified that Durham was in a different state at the time of the incident, but he wasn’t exonerated from his 3000 year sentence until follow up DNA analysis showed that the preliminary forensic analysis used in the trial was misinterpreted (Thomas et al.). DNA testing serves an invaluable part in our criminal justice system, but it comes with complications and bias that can lead to wrongful convictions and misinformed juries.  

Background:

Forensic genetics aims to identify the origin of a biological sample. It can be traced back to Karl Landsteiner who discovered human ABO blood groups. With blood groups, suspects could be eliminated based on their blood type. For example, if a suspect had type A blood and there was type B blood left at the scene by the perpetrator, the investigators could rule out the suspect. Unfortunately, the reverse didn’t work. If the suspect and perpetrator both had the same blood type, it can’t be concluded that the suspect was guilty. Blood identifiers evolved into 8 distinct categories which improved the ability to eliminate suspects, but could only conclude that (if the system matched) it might be the perpetrator or this person might be related to the perpetrator (Jobling and Gill). The field evolved in the 1980s with the discovery of Minisatellites, lines of repetitive DNA that don’t encode proteins. Minisatellite patterns in DNA create what we know today as the DNA fingerprint, and it has a much higher accuracy rate than previous methods (Augustyn et al.). Around the same time, a breakthrough for victims of sexual assault was discovered. In the case of assault, bodily fluids of both the victim and the assaulter can get mixed. A process called differential lysis was created which could selectively increase the concentration of sperm in a fluid sample thereby allowing for accurate DNA testing (Jobling and Gill). Forensics evolved to use single-locus probe testing after several years because of its ease of interpretation. It looked at specific minisatellites that had high variability between subjects. This was the first DNA-based method to be used in a criminal investigation. Two murder homicides from several years apart were connected using DNA evidence. The evidence was then used to exonerate an innocent man, and the guilty party was found when he tried to evade mandatory DNA testing for all men in the small town. His guilt was then reinforced when the DNA profiles matched, and he gave a confession (Jobling and Gill). Finding DNA at a crime scene doesn’t guarantee that you’ll find a murderer. There are issues with non-pure samples and limited samples that make DNA work difficult, and accreditation of facilities and new techniques and take time (Jobling and Gill).  

Subjectivity of DNA Interpretation:

In a 2009 publication, the National Academy of Science discusses the possibility for subjective influence in lab based forensics. The interpretation bias happens in complex cases where, for example, there could be a mixture of DNA. A study published in 2011 looked specifically at this issue. A gang rape happened in Georgia, and the mixture in DNA from the case was used to prosecute one suspect after another suspect took a plea bargain to testify against him. With DNA mixtures, there are three possible conclusions: suspect excluded, suspect cannot be excluded, and inconclusive. If the suspect is excluded, it means that there’s little to no possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. If the suspect cannot be excluded, it means that there’s a possibility that his DNA is part of the sample. In the trial, the DNA examiners who knew the context of the case concluded that the suspect being prosecuted could not be excluded. The 2011 study gave the DNA evidence from this case and the DNA profiles of the suspects to 17 forensic examiners. These examiners had no context of the case, and they all worked independently. Of the 17, only 1 came to the same conclusion (suspect cannot be excluded) as the examiners who knew the context of the case. Twelve of the 17 concluded that the suspect who was prosecuted and convicted had no relation to the DNA found in the sample. Not only does this show that subjectivity occurs due to the context of the case, but the 17 examiners came up with different findings based on their past experiences meaning that not all DNA analysis is objective. Some organizations like the Scientific Working Group on DNA Analysis Methods say that quantitative statistical evidence should be presented with every categorical conclusion, but the US doesn’t require this (Dror and Hampikian).

False Positives:

There are two categories that cause wrongful identification in a DNA report: coincidental matches and false positives. Coincidental matches are DNA matches between two unrelated people. The probability of these matches is about 1 to 500,000 for white individuals and about 1 to 350,000 for black individuals. This small probability of coincidental matches makes people feel confident in DNA evidence. False positives, on the other hand, are matches between DNA and test DNA that result from issues in the forensics lab. There have been multiple cases of forensics labs accidentally switching victim and suspected rapist DNA which lead to convictions that were later overturned when the lab realized the error. There are also cases of misreading or misunderstanding a sample. In a case from 1993, a man was convicted of rape because someone interpreted a mixed sample of victim and perpetrator DNA as an individual sample. The conviction was again overturned. To prevent false convictions, retesting DNA is allowed, but it’s not an efficient solution. Many people are pushing for statistical information on the probability of false positives, so that the jurors can make accurate judgements based on DNA evidence (Thomas et al.).  

Conclusion:

DNA analysis is a useful tool for the criminal justice system, but subjectivity can be an issue in forensic testing. To combat wrongful convictions, there are organizations like The Innocence Project who use DNA testing to free the innocent, but reformed forensic testing standards should be put in place to prevent subjectivity and to ensure juries are correctly informed during trials. https://www.innocenceproject.org/    

Citation:

Augustyn , Adam, et al. “DNA Finerprinting.” Encyclopedia Britannica , 26 Apr. 2018, www.britannica.com/science/DNA-fingerprinting#ref153186. Dror, Itiel E., and Greg Hampikian. “Subjectivity and Bias in Forensic DNA Mixture Interpretation.” Science & Justice, vol. 51, no. 4, 2011, pp. 204–208., doi:10.1016/j.scijus.2011.08.004. Jobling, Mark A., and Peter Gill. “Encoded Evidence: DNA in Forensic Analysis.” Nature Reviews: Genetics, vol. 5, no. 10, Oct. 2004, pp. 739–751., doi:10.1038/nrg1455. Thompson, William C, et al. “How the Probability of a False Positive Affects the Value of DNA Evidence.” Journal of Forensic Sciences, vol. 48, no. 1, Jan. 2003, pp. 1–8., doi:10.1520/jfs2001171.