Yesterday, once again, I've seen the damage popular culture can do.

I work in tech support, and some of you who have read the first five words of this sentence can now clearly visualize the kinds of people I work with, if you've been in a similar job. These are people who consider themselves highly intelligent, and I've found that, often, they are. Many of them love to research their interests and back their claims up with verifiable facts.

Yesterday, however, there was an episode where several of my co-workers were talking about the human potential, and the fact that we only have access to 10% of our brain, the rest being left unused. I'm not sure how it happened, as I had just finished taking a call when I noticed.

There were a handful of agents and two supervisors talking excitedly about this, all absolutely convinced that this was indeed true, and talk seriously moved to potential superpowers if only we found out how to 'unlock' the brain. The exact method of achieving this was left to anyone's best guess, but I assume it would involve either lasers or high levels of radiation.

I fought back, of course. When I did, a few very interesting things happened:

1 - When I told them that I had been studying neurology and cognitive neuroscience for years of my own free will, at least three countered with the same claim and stuck to their argument. This shows me that people would rather lie than admit fault, to an extreme degree. It takes 3 seconds on Google to disprove this 'fact', never mind years of neuroanatomical expertise.

2 - Regardless of how much myth-busting evidence I provided, not a single one of these individuals (as I took them on separately afterwards) could listen to reason. In truth, I think they could not let go of the allure of being able to unlock amazing abilities, or the pull of the idea that there's mysticism science still has not had access to with regards to the brain. Anyone with some knowledge of neuroscience knows, of course, that this is absolutely true of other areas of brain research. There's no need to stick to false information to find a bit of magic in the world.

3 - None of these people have tried to provide a single shred of evidence in their favor. Computers were abound. None of them verified my evidence either. They rapidly steered the conversation into a non-argument instead of seeing their pop-culture-induced idea lose its lacquer. One of the supervisors even said he had been waiting for a movie like 'Lucy' to come out, as he had been spouting this nonsense for twenty years!

4 - As the conversation degenerated, I found that not a single one of my co-workers seemed interested in the idea of actually unlocking the remaining 90% of the brain in the first place. I've found this to be extremely common everywhere I've gone - people love lofty ideals but hate to strive to realize them. Everyone was perfectly content to not even attempt to try to find out a possible way for them to use more than 10% of their brain. It was at once all-important and of absolutely no importance.

5 - I could not convince anyone of even the most obvious point, but some of my co-workers have convinced others with no point at all. This has baffled me since I was a small child, and I still cannot find any consistent reason why I end up in this position. It's not a matter of charisma or energy or belief. I can make a room light up, and make friends of strangers in minutes. It's not a matter of evidence. I've proselytized other amazing mysteries of the brain, but no one bit. I've used logic, emotion, common sense, powerful language and delivery, and tried with every fiber of my being. But someone else can simply repeat "10% of the brain" two or three times and others are converted. As someone who wants to provide effective therapeutic solutions to others in a near future, this is something I absolutely must grasp and master.

The truth is this: we have access to and are using 100% of our brain. If we fall short of our goals, barring external obstacles, it is because we are not directing our resources in the proper manner. The possibilities are amazing and accessible. There's beauty in what we truly know and don't know, scientifically speaking, about the brain. I strongly believe that truth serves to better lives, while believing obvious nonsense only serves to limit and harm. Spreading this kind of belief gives new believers an excuse to stay how they are, instead of reaching for more joy and freedom in their lives.

I've had these sorts of conversations in the past, as I am sure every single one of you has. Yesterday's discussion was too close to a field that I love and have invested innumerable hours into, and so it has affected me comparatively more than other subjects. It's not about being right so much as having the ability to persuade others, and preventing self-harm through education. Having others understand what neurological freedom they have and can exert, I believe, will directly affect their quality of life as well as the progress we will undertake as a species.

At this point, I want to thank those who have read the entire post. I have high regards for my fellow Go players, and would love to hear your thoughts on this process. How do you deal with these situations successfully, and what could be changed in order to get people moving forward instead of being stuck with harmful, false beliefs? The floor is yours!

I think people only use 10% of their brain; just look at the ones you've had to deal with.

Heh but wouldn’t that rather be evidence for only 10% of people using their brain?

Other idea: “I use 100% of my brain. But 90% of that is busy with sex/eating/Facebook/OCD/etc.”

(OK, I know that in reality lots and lots are used for things like breathing, staying upright, etc.)

Greetings, Tom

_________________
“The only difference between me and a madman is that I’m not mad.” — Salvador Dali ★ Play a slooooow correspondence game with me on OGS?

Perhaps you will find this review of Lucy cathartic.

There's a saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. In this case, my first question is: What exactly is it you want them to drink? The truth? That if people apply themselves that they can achieve things they hadn't imagined possible? Sounds a bit like my grandmother.

My second question is: why do you expect them to drink it? It's one thing to tell people that some blurb on the internet is not true, but something else entirely to tell them that their false beliefs are limiting their ability to achieve joy and freedom. People in general are not just raring to change their lives. Most of us have long and elaborate stories that explain how and why we are where we are, and have heard plenty of marvelous solutions to lead better lives and watched them fail repeatedly. Then here you come, joining a conversation at the watercooler and want people not only to abandon their fun fact, but also to admit that they are not living their lives to the fullest.

However much you think what you are saying is true, if you weren't asked for advice, people rarely want to hear it.

_________________
Patience, grasshopper.

Whatever knowledge domain you study, you will always encounter popular myths which are difficult to eradicate with reason. We are living in times where great scientific progress is achieved in the domain of how the brain works. Also, perhaps not coincidentally, self development is an important life goal for many (Western?) individuals. It is therefore not surprising that the myth we're using only 10% of our brain is so popular these days.

The most interesting part of your anecdote for me is where your counterparts showed an actual disinterest in developing the alleged 90%. It's enough to live in the illusion it is there, ready to unlock. This reminds me of the many go players who say they are "x kyu on KGS but probably rather x-2 kyu in reality" or those who could claim most of their losses as wins if it weren't for that blunder which is not representative of their strength.

People love to hold an inflated image of themselves up in the mirror or for their friends. The 10% myth certainly gives them great opportunity.

When people are emotionally involved in something, it is very hard to reason them out of their position. Some other examples.
- Scientific research has shown repetitively that genetic factors or unshared environment contribute most to character, not shared environment which is also known as "education". This is a hard message for parents who try their best in parenting their kids.
- As a mathematician, I have to read the insulting and despairing quote "with statistics you can prove anything" more than I can endure. This is because people cannot handle conflicting research results, are not equipped with statistical intuition or methodological criticism, so they resolve to the easiest way to stick to their beliefs and ridicule the scientific method.
- My wife, who is a language teacher, these days is confronted with self proclaimed language lovers, who complain that kids can't spell properly and pronounce words different than they should do. There is no point in talking them about evolution of language in ancient and modern times and that their strict value arguments miss the point completely. They want to be consoled and confirmed by a higher authority in their true love of language and will dismiss you as a false prophet if you don't.

We use 10% of our brain. Mozart in the cradle breeds geniuses. With statistics you can prove anything. Kids can't speak or write anymore these days. I have no answer to your question how specialists can combate popular myth. In the current state of our interconnectedness, it seems that bad knowledge is driving out good. Ignorance has become bliss. It will be a long struggle.

You need to define what you mean by the term use. Certainly the conscious does not use 100% of the brain. If it did then there would be nothing left for the unconscious. I have heard it said that we are controlled 99% by our unconscious and only 1% by out conscious brain. I don't know if that is true or not but the number are certainly pretty high in favor of the unconscious.

Perhaps, then, the popular claim that we only use 10% of our brain refers to the conscious use, they remaining 90% being relegated to the subconscious.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

From the reddit IaMa with Luc Besson



http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2 ... ma/ck2w0ys

I can sort-of understand this particular clinging to a wrong idea.
It Iis alluring, and it offers some not-to-well-defined hopes for some not-to-well-defined future for humanity. And it is fun to speculate and dream, in a sci-fi kind of way. So what's the harm, really? Why burst bubbles? Why get irritated? People need dreams, even if they are futile or based on fantasy. For many of us, this is what keeps us going.

On the other hand...
Have you ever discussed Creationism with a Jehova's Witness? Or Global Warming with a MagicWand? Or Social Programs with a Republican?
Now, these (and similar) are topics that might actually influence our lives and futures, so I find it more worthy of getting your panties up in a bunch about and putting your efforts into.

But hey, we all like to talk about how dumb or close-minded others are...
So whatever rocks your boat.

_________________
- Bantari
______________________________________________
WARNING: This post might contain Opinions!!

And I always thought that some people sometimes use 100% of their neurons: It is called a seizure.

I'm suprised no one mentioned "Limitless" with Bradley Cooper. The whole movie is about a drug, that enables the usage of the full capacity of the brain.

The funny thing is, once the main character (Bradley Cooper) took it, he basically only changed some simple things. Instead of being a lazy person with neither self-respect nor confidence he finally did the chores at hand, got a (new) haircut, worked out and bought some nice clothes.

On a related note: The so called H+-movement (transhumanism) likes to invent and implement technologies that enhances round about everything. And then most of the people don't even know about simple mnemonics.

For the most part the basic idea is the wish to work less or don't work at all to achieve anything. It's not that humans are too limited (or limited at all) but all the work, the struggle, the mistakes and detours on the way... - just load up a programm like in Matrix, will ya?

_________________
My "guide" to become stronger in Go

Sorry I was away. I'm happy to come back to such a variety of responses!

Okay, then. In no particular order...



As human beings in the 21st century, standing on the shoulder of giants, I would like for those who consider themselves intelligent, rational, analytical and possessing oodles of common sense to consider facts, if only briefly. Truth is not my goal. I am simply terrified that a simple statistic makes absolutely false information so viral I've seen people get infected and show symptoms in moments. Imagine what garbage we accumulate this way.

I want them to drink independent, critical thought. They do have an abundance of it (I'm not calling them idiots), but it's selective. Some things seem to bypass our critical thought processes, like altered states, authority and, you guessed it, statistics.



Partly because I think critical thought is the final remnant of natural selection, partly because of all the posturing. Remember that the people I'm dealing with consider themselves to possess above-average intelligence. So far I can't point out an exception. So why are they so damned gullible? Again, it's something they can easily work out themselves with the knowledge they already possess, but the simple quote "We only use 10% of our brain capacity" somehow has the power to absolutely block them from using their years of accumulated knowledge to critically evaluate this fact.

This is the power we're dealing with. It's not about a handful of people misunderstanding a quote. It's much scarier than that.



This is a different discussion altogether, but also one that needs to be reigned in. Most of us have seen the iceberg image that is a metaphor for the mind. 10% on top, 90% underneath. Again the numbers are a trick. There's really no such thing as a chunk of your mind that is defined as 'conscious' and one defined as 'unconscious'. Your brain fires down electrical and chemical signals along the neural pathways as necessary, but you are only 'aware' of some of it at any given time. It's the whole 'breathing/blinking manually' thing.

So far not one field involved in the study of the brain has developed a solid definition of consciousness. I like to think of it as the part of our experience we are paying attention to at the moment, and that number varies wildly throughout the day, dropping as far as 0% during the night. And we can absolutely take over most of the functions that are considered to be the domain of the unconscious. There's usually not much of an advantage to doing so, however.

The 10% myth is a different creature. It's about dormant and as-of-yet inaccessible potential. The unconscious part of you is constantly churning information and keeping you alive, and can be yanked on in a variety of ways.



To make matters worse, they're presenting one idea as another. Wonderful.

If you've lived anywhere near a television set for any part of your life, chances are you've seen your share of 'brain scans'. MRIs, fMRIs, etc. When someone does something, they use their brain, and they use so much of it depending on what resources that activity requires. Say you're playing catch while you're receiving a fMRI scan. You'll see red, orange and yellow spots on the brain, likely in the regions associated with spatial tracking, balance and control of movement, reflexive actions, etc.

If you were juggling balls that someone was handing you more of every minute while balancing on a unicycle, having to navigate orange cones, you would see increased activity.

It's not a theory so much as an observation. Some spots light up, and some guy measures the surface and/or mass 'used'. What most don't realize is that the scans show increased activity. A threshold has to be attained before color shows up on the scans. Most of the rest of your brain is still firing away at a more relaxed pace. Furthermore, different activities show increased stress in different parts of the brain.

If you were to use the entire brain at once at a level noticeable on a scan, you would have to be engaging in every major form of activity simultaneously or have your brain stimulated from the outside. You might end up with permanent damage, but not superpowers.



The power of beliefs and their impact on individuals and groups is extremely powerful, and plays a vital role in all the examples you've noted.

Take for example bloodletting. There have been many theories about health and the human body that have simply not been investigated before medical professionals decided to empty patients of their blood. It may have seemed like a good idea at the time, either because they lacked the tools to study the causes of illness properly or because they held their belief firmly.

For approximately two thousand years we did this, almost always causing more harm than good. Despite the obvious fact that the treatment was a sham, medical professionals kept doing it out of a belief that spanned two millenia! The sheer number of man-hours spent trying to make bloodletting a valid practice probably retarded the field of medical care for lifetimes.

Yes, I've had the discussions you mentioned (not with MagicWand, mind you). Most of the time an impasse was reached, in which an erroneous belief was trampled, murdered, butchered and burned to a crisp with proof and logic but refused to die. I expect to run into this sort of dead end when the person I'm debating with has built an entire world out of their belief system. I've grown accustomed to it, despite the fact that it can easily cause massive harm down the road. Think of how irrecoverable our planet's climate is, according to recent studies. We are told that we did not act in time. An irrational belief may have destroyed the world.

When it comes to the "10% of our brain" myth, it may seem innocuous in comparison. But we are constantly revising what we can achieve with the means we have at our disposal. If the idea anchors itself in the general populace, no matter how you view it, it will impose a limit. What can you really achieve with only 10% of your brain's capacity at your disposal? If it's impossible at the moment to reach into the other 90%, why strain yourself? Let's be content with potential instead of taking action. Even the laziest of us intercede a minimal amount when a situation strikes a personal chord. It's a belief that promotes inaction and limitation.

Beliefs are often handed down through generations. We're constantly trying to get the upper hand in the meta-positional world of interpersonal relations, convincing others of what we believe. If a limiting belief spreads like wildfire, it will negatively affect everyone touched, and may last for thousands of years.

In the meantime, it's possible that this could prevent millions of individuals from rising above the rest despite their natural talent and drive. Who knows if we've already missed out on the cure for cancer, the ultimate form of renewable energy, or the solution to climate change? I'm playing this out on a grand theoretical scale, but at this point I'm pointing out the issue with all limiting beliefs and stepping outside of the original claim.

There's also the issue of happiness. Life's too short to accept imaginary limitations. If you can only use 10% of your brain, how good can you really feel? How much motivation can you muster? Why not wait for a miracle drug to unlock the part that will make you happy instead? Why try?

Because you're in charge of your own brain and beliefs, in charge of your own life, and the world needs you to know that you can do great things. Just in case you decide to do so. Just in case it ends up making all the difference.

I have to disagree. This strikes very much of a scientific point of view, saying that if it is not measurable then it doesn't exist. I think the mind and brain are intertwined but only the brain activity can be measured. The mind cannot be measured and the unconscious brain/mind falls into this area.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

I may not have explained myself properly. Most of the passive activity in the brain doesn't show up on a brain scan for much the same reason that a scale does not show a weight value despite atmospheric pressure. The baseline is not at true zero. We can certainly measure, with the proper tools, a lot more activity than we can see in the colored zones of a fMRI scan. The brain is always quietly humming away at processes we can only throw educated guesses at. It's also important to note that these scans show noticeable activity, and sometimes such activity is absolutely unconscious.

You're absolutely correct, however, to state that one's 'mind' cannot be measured. It's the bane of neuroscientists everywhere, and defining 'consciousness' is the crux of most current research efforts in that direction. Still, generally speaking, 'unconscious' refers to the neurological processes operating outside one's awareness, and much of it is shrouded in mystery.

As a colleague of mine always puts it: "The whole brain is active all the time". There is a lot of processing and modeling going into the visualization of fMRI scans. Without this one would only see noise.



Xes, you can prove anything with statistics, even that dead fish resspond to pictures of humans, which also tells us something about fMRI studies in the first place: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/sci ... mon-study/

But honestly: I know that statistics can be a razor-sharp sword when applied correctly, for instance to test one reasonably likely hypothesis that was formulated before the analysis. On the other hand, you can "prove" anything with statistics when you have multivariate data and you just go for "p-value" fishing, and if there is anough noise and variables, you will inevitably find something that "proves" your point. Can you blame the average person for not understanding the difference if they are bombarded with different "proven" but contradictiry statements? I think that is too much to ask, especially if you consider how much doubtful statistics is actually published in scientific journals.

Probably more to the point of the first post. This is a discussion I have had multiple times with different people:
Me: "There is no way to win at the roulette table in the long run"
Other person:"Yes, there is. All you have to do is bet on red, and if you lose you double your stakes. That way once you finally get red you make up for all your losses and win. Then you start all over again".
Me: "So why are you not heading for next roulette table and get rich?"
But at the end, they are just as convinced that you could make money long-term on roulette...

You cannot prove a single thing with statistics. All you can do is to show probabilities that something is true. Anything short of complete information cannot prove anything, and if you have complete information then you don't have statistics. For some reason people seem to think that if, by statistics, you can show that something has a 99% probability of being between 89 and 91 then you have proven that it is 90.

_________________
Still officially AGA 5d but I play so irregularly these days that I am probably only 3d or 4d over the board (but hopefully still 5d in terms of knowledge, theory and the ability to contribute).

Much depends on what you mean by "proof". In the sense of a mathematical proof: You only get that in mathematics.
But statistics can "proof" in the sense of "there is no reasonable doubt that something is true". In terms of action


For some reason people seem to think that if they get a p-value of 0.05 that means there is a 95% probability that their hypothesis is true. Which might be far worse.

Indeed. But that is changing in fields like psychology.

_________________
The Adkins Principle:
At some point, doesn't thinking have to go on?
— Winona Adkins

Visualize whirled peas.

Everything with love. Stay safe.

As pointed out before me, only in abstract modelling of mathematics you have proof in the sense you want it. In the physical world we assess a theory to be true if experiments repetitively confirm the model. But what if the theory is not true in the strict sense, only true under a set of highly probable conditions. You only find out about that once you can observe events in different conditions. History of science is full of that.

Statements about correlation are not very different. You just assert that something is not 100% true but 95% or some other value. Some probability statements are even more reliable than certainty statements, if the experiment with variable outcome is under control and can be repeated at will. This is much harder for Kepler's laws, for instance.



Not understanding probability is very different from misjudging it in being capable of "everything" or "nothing".

Specially when they get those results after trying a multitude of other hypothesis that failed. It's inevitable that a pattern will emerge if you analyze your data for long enough, but that doesn't mean that the universe shares that same pattern.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."