Close
today i learned (til)

Neuromyths: What We Know, and What We Think We Know

October 30, 2020

TAKE THE QUIZ HERE: https://www.tryinteract.com/share/quiz/5f7fc0088a3cf300140577ed

Neuroscience is an ancient subject, but a very young science. 

What I mean by that is, while people have been fascinated with the concepts relating to the mind and consciousness for as long as we have recorded records, the scientific, empirically supported study of the nervous system is a relatively new field. Our innate curiosity to understand ourselves and how we interact with the world, paired with the relative lack of scientific literature, might be one of the reasons there are so many false beliefs about the brain and nervous system in mainstream culture.

In fact, public misconceptions about neuroscience are such a common phenomenon that we have a specific word for them: neuromyths. This term was coined by neurosurgeon Alan Crockard in the 1980s as a way to describe widespread but unscientific beliefs about the brain in the medical community and was formally re-defined as a “misconception generated by a misunderstanding, a misreading or a misquoting of facts scientifically established (by brain research) to make a case for use of brain research in education and other contexts” by the Brain and Learning project section of the UK’s Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD)  in 2002.

People have been noticing this trend, however, and have tried to explain where neuromyths come from, and why they are so convincing to so many. They have noted that these false notions persist in a strange manner, similar to the way that illusions can continue to seem real even after facts have been presented (Pasquinelli, 2012), or the way that urban legends are resilient and appealing regardless of the presence or lack of evidence (Brunvald, 1981). Neuromyths are often vaguely rooted in some true research, albeit research that is largely misinterpreted, overblown, or entirely overturned by the academic community. This, along with inaccurate or sensationalist reporting of neuroscience discoveries in popular media, may be what gives them such an air of credibility, and why they are as potent as they are. 

Some of these ideas seem intuitive. Others, like the popular commercialized Brain Gym regimen which purports that rubbing areas of tissue around the sternum (called “brain buttons”) can help improve interhemispheric communication among other things, sound less feasible from the start (Hyatt, 2007). As quirky, benign, or even downright ridiculous as neuromyths can seem though, they are not harmless.  For every well-intentioned dollar and minute spent implementing policies based on pseudoscience, there are fewer resources left to give to evidence-based scientific principles. Like any opportunity-cost model, neuromyths “cost” a lot in terms of what we “could” be teaching and applying about the brain.” They also “cost” us in terms of public receptiveness and curiosity for new research. By simplifying complex topics and claiming knowledge we don’t actually have, neuromyths can give the impression that certain ideas are already “solved problems”,  when they are still questions we should be actively pursuing. In addition, when neuromyths are disproven, they may make people less trusting of true results from studies, since the previous “science” they heard wasn’t right. It lends substance to the notion that scientists are constantly “flip-flopping” on topics, hastily publishing results and then issuing retractions left and right, although the original claims were never made by scientists  in the first place. Allowing neuromyths to pass unchecked as truth undermines the credibility of neuroscience, and ultimately science as a whole, by propagating ill-informed ideas with the authority that the disguise of a “lab coat” gives the public.

Given this context, it’s time to start challenging the beliefs we hold and start to critically differentiate between the “urban legends” of neuroscience and data-supported hypotheses. Try your hand at this quiz to see how well you know what is and is not true about the human brain and nervous system!

TAKE THE QUIZ HERE: https://www.tryinteract.com/share/quiz/5f7fc0088a3cf300140577ed

References:

Bangarter, A., & Heath, C. (2004). The Mozart effect: Tracking the evolution of a scientific legend. British Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 605– 623.

Boyd, R. (2008, February 07). Do People Only Use 10 Percent of Their Brains? Retrieved October 24, 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-people-only-use-10-percent-of-their-brains/

Craik, F. I., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research3. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11(6), 671-684. doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(72)80001-x

Craik, F. I. M. & Tulving, E. (1975). Depth of processing and the retention of words in episodic memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 104(3), 268-294.

Crockard, A. Confessions of a brain surgeon. New Scientist 2061, 68 (1996).

Giuffre BA, Jeanmonod R. Anatomy, Sciatic Nerve. [Updated 2020 Jul 31]. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2020 Jan-. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK482431/

Draganski, B., & May, A. (2008). Training-induced structural changes in the adult human brain. Behavioural Brain Research, 192(1), 137-142. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2008.02.015

Driemeyer J, Boyke J, Gaser C, Büchel C, May A (2008) Changes in Gray Matter Induced by Learning—Revisited. PLOS ONE 3(7): e2669. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002669

Howard-Jones, P. Neuro, science and education: myths and messages. Nat Rev Neurosci 15, 817–824 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3817

Hyatt, K. J. Brain Gym: building stronger brains or wishful thinking? Remedial Spec. Educ. 28, 117–124 (2007).

Koch, C. (2016, January 01). Does Brain Size Matter? Retrieved October 16, 2020, from https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/does-brain-size-matter1/

Lodish H, Berk A, Zipursky SL, et al. Molecular Cell Biology. 4th edition. New York: W. H. Freeman; 2000. Section 21.1, Overview of Neuron Structure and Function. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK21535/

Macdonald, K., Germine, L., Anderson, A., Christodoulou, J., & McGrath, L. M. (2017). Dispelling the Myth: Training in Education or Neuroscience Decreases but Does Not Eliminate Beliefs in Neuromyths. Frontiers in Psychology, 8(1314). doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01314

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Understanding the Brain: Towards a New Learning Science. (OECD Publications, 2002).

Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., and Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles concepts and evidence. Psychol. Sci. Public Interest 9, 105–119. doi: 10.1111/j.1539-6053.2009.01038.x

Pasquinelli, E. (2012), Neuromyths: Why Do They Exist and Persist?. Mind, Brain, and Education, 6: 89-96. doi:10.1111/j.1751-228X.2012.01141.x

Nielsen, J. A., Zielinski, B. A., Ferguson, M. A., Lainhart, J. E., & Anderson, J. S. (2013). An evaluation of the left-brain vs. right-brain hypothesis with resting state functional connectivity magnetic resonance imaging. PloS one, 8(8), e71275.

Rauscher, F., Shaw, G. & Ky, C. Music and spatial task performance. Nature 365, 611 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1038/365611a0

Riener, C., and Willingham, D. (2010). The myth of learning styles. Change 42, 32–35. doi: 10.1080/00091383.2010.503139

Ruigrok, A. N., Salimi-Khorshidi, G., Lai, M. C., Baron-Cohen, S., Lombardo, M. V., Tait, R. J., & Suckling, J. (2014). A meta-analysis of sex differences in human brain structure. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 39(100), 34–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.12.004

Treiman, R., Gordon, J., Boada, R., Peterson, R. L., and Pennington, B. F. (2014). Statistical learning, letter reversals, and reading. Sci. Stud. Reading 18, 383–394. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2013.873937

Vellutino, F. R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and Research. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Wickelgren, W. (1981). Human learning and memory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 32, 21–52. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000321

Willingham, D. T., Hughes, E. M., and Dobolyi, D. G. (2015). The scientific status of learning styles theories. Teach. Psychol. 42, 266–271. doi: 10.1177/0098628315589505/;=   

Wittbrodt MT, Millard-Stafford M. Dehydration Impairs Cognitive Performance: A Meta-analysis. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2018 Nov;50(11):2360-2368. doi: 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001682. PMID: 29933347.

0Likes
Alex Gurgis
About Author

Alex is an undergraduate student at Georgia Tech passionate about learning how and why things work. She loves reading, writing, and traveling, and spends her spare time listening to podcasts, playing and composing music, and telling bad puns.

You May Also Like

today i learned (til)
Cognitive Offloading
today i learned (til)
Going Crazy in Quarantine? You’re Not Alone!
today i learned (til)
If I only had a…spine?
today i learned (til)
The Artificial Turf Epidemic

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.