Modern myths of learning: You only use 10% of your brain
Donald H Taylor continues his series on modern myths of learning, and suggests that the learning and development profession would be better off without them..
It's a familiar line when casual conversation turns to the human mind: "Did you know that you only use 10% of your brain?"
The statistic is variously attributed to Albert Einstein or – if the speaker's feeling really showy – to early psychologist William James. Neither, of course, said anything of the sort, and for very good reason: it's not true.
The exact number varies. I've heard it drop through 5% to 0.1% and rise as high as 11%, a nice non-round number designed to lend the 'fact' gravitas. In reality, though, this non-attributable number which varies according to the aims of the speaker is something too common in the world of training: another learning myth.
"Not only is there no scientific basis for this claim, it is actually scientifically incorrect. We know this through a variety of functional brain scanning methodologies. People should take the time to understand the science so they can use it to guide and drive their work, rather than make up (or repeat) fictitious and fairy tale 'facts' about the brain."
Like other learning myths, this one takes a common experience and tries to give it a gloss of scientific validity by slapping a statistic on it. Some people feel the myth 'You only remember 10% of what you read', adds weight to the general experience of learning better from practical engagement than from reading. The 'You only use 10% of your brain' myth references a common feeling that we fall short of our intellectual potential.
Is there any truth in this myth? Not a jot.
Let's be clear. A fact like this would require a lot of scientific research to substantiate, and such research is not something you can just make up. It is painstaking and usually very specific. And there is no research, no papers, and no investigation that comes close to confirming that 'you only use 10% of the brain'.
Dr Eric Chundler of the University of Washington has done some work (also see here) exposing this myth. According to him, one possible origin is an experiment done by Karl Spencer Lashley in 1935. According to Dr Chundler: "Lashley found that removal of up to 58% of the cerebral cortex did not affect certain types of learning. It is possible that over interpretation and exaggeration of these data led to the belief that only a small portion of the brain is used."
Dr Chundler is not the only academic who rails at the myth. US psychologist Dr Barry Beyerstein wrote extensively on the matter. And in the UK we have Dr Itiel Dror, senior lecturer in cognitive neuroscience at Southampton University. "Not only is there no scientific basis for this claim," says Dr Dror, "it is actually scientifically incorrect. We know this through a variety of functional brain scanning methodologies. People should take the time to understand the science so they can use it to guide and drive their work, rather than make up (or repeat) fictitious and fairy tale 'facts' about the brain."
A little thought reveals the absurdity of the myth. If it were true that 90% of the brain were unused, then most head injuries would not be fatal. Clearly that isn't so. According to Raichle and Gusnard, The brain takes up 2% of the body's weight and yet demands 20% of its energy - why waste 90% of that energy?
Could it be that only 10% of the brain is in use at any one time? The evidence suggests otherwise. Raichle and Gusnard's appraisal of the demands of the brain's energy looks at data from a variety of scans and imaging devices. They note that the brain is almost constantly at work: "This high metabolic activity is present when we are completely passive and resting as well as when we are observably doing something." And this is not because the brain needs plenty of energy just to keep it ticking over. They quote research saying that "maintenance of the resting potential... accounts for less that 15% of the total energy consumption".
And just to reinforce the point, here is an image from another paper by the same authors:
Clearly, the brain is pretty busy, even in a conscious resting state.
Could it be then, that we only use 10% of our conscious mind? Maybe, but the burden of proof for this claim rests with the person proposing it. They would be doing great work if they could just identify where the consciousness sits in the brain. If they could then isolate its activity from all other brain activity, measure it and show it to be 90% underutilized they should get out of the pub (where they're probably making this claim) and over to Stockholm to collect their Nobel prize.
"There is no research, no papers, and no investigation that comes close to confirming that 'you only use 10% of the brain'."?em>
The truth is that our complex, power-hungry, magnificent brains are busy most of the time. The myth simply reflects a natural human desire to fulfil our intellectual potential. That is admirable. Making numbers up as if they will somehow give that desire more substance is not. So who is perpetuating this myth? Although it is common enough to find it in the world of L&D, its use is particularly rampant in advertising, and, according to C. Wanjek, first appeared in writing in a 1940s advert for Cold Comfort Farm by Stella Gibbons.
But when the advertising is for self help products the myth really proliferates. For example, Mind Secrets Exposed claims: "The human brain is a very powerful tool. However, it has been estimated (by Einstein) that you only use about 5% of your minds consciously." Their product: a $67 book – CD – software self-help package. There are many more, similar uses of this myth out there.
These products may really work, and not everyone making this claim may realise it is false. But shouldn't they know it's false, when a moment's thought can show that it is? And this leads us to a question: how do we want the L&D profession to be seen?
You are known by the company you keep, and if we mindlessly repeat something that a moment’s reflection can show to be rubbish, then we are no better than any charlatan who deliberately repeats these myths only to make money by offering the lure of a mythical extra 90% brain power.
The real work in helping people get more from their intellectual potential is already being done.
It is done by the hard-working mentors, coaches, managers, colleagues and learning and development professionals who daily help people develop themselves. We know it isn't always quick or easy, although it can – when done well – be fun, fulfilling and effective. And it doesn't need some marketing hokum to promote it.
Real learning and development professionals don't need to repeat this nonsense. Hard facts and good practice are enough for them.
Donald H Taylor is chairman of the Learning and Skills Group and the Learning Technologies conference. He blogs at http://www.donaldhtaylor.co.uk">www.donaldhtaylor.co.uk
Peter Cook , 08 August 2008 @ 10:12 AM 100% thinking does not lead to 100% success
Good article. Slightly ironic point:
If we use more than 10% of our brain, human society still has some way to go with the quality of that thinking, given the number of crap decisions we make as individuals, organisations and countries! ;-))(
All the best
Peter Cook
Author 'Sex, Leadership and Rock'n'Roll' Peter Cook
Andrew Bradbury , 07 August 2008 @ 18:25 PM On the other hand ...
Before we write this off completely here's a little (genuine) detail that might be relevant:
Referring ONLY to the figure of 10%, few people realise that we have in our heads not one type of brain cell (neurons) but two.
The second kind are "glial" cells, and the average healthy brain contains around 9 glial cells for every one neuron. Thus neurons constitute around 10% of the total count.
Until quite recently it was believed that the only purpose of glial cells was to bring nutrients to the neurons, and dispose of waste matter. Thus as far as "thinking" was concerned, glial cells were seen as being of no consequence, and we were only using 10% of our brains.
More recently it has been shown that glial cells actually form their own networks and may be doing important work to assist the neurons, such as controlling neurto-transmitter molecules when they are generated at a synapse, which might otherwise float off and get involved, inappropriately, at other synapses.
By the way, I have absolutely no idea of my explanation of the 10% myth is correct. It just struck me, when I first heard about glial cells, that it was a neat fit for the numbers involved.
Figures, research and surveys are churned out by those with vested interests and wrong inferences are drawn and publicised.
John Pope , 04 August 2008 @ 15:36 PM Great, let's expose some more myths
Good article, exposing yet another bit of sloppy thinking, and points well and incisively put. Let's have some more like. However, I am still sure that we do not think well enough or hard enough about many of the things we do, especially in management and even more so in politics.i John Pope
Nigel Reece , 04 August 2008 @ 13:35 PM Use v Capacity
If we are intent on being more accurate, as we should, then we need to step back and look again. We most definitly use the whole of our brain, though not all at the same time. This is an organ of incredible design, complexity, ability and CAPACITY. I would suggest that a good starting point is found in the works of Tony Buzan. Here is a man that has researched this area for 40 years and built up an extensive understanding. We would be more accurate to say we use a small percentage of the brain's capacity or potential ability. Each neuron of the brain makes and breaks links with others, forming (and breaking) patterns for every thought we have, every things that we say and every action we take. Some of these links are very temporary; some are incredibly re-enforced. In theory every neuron could link to every other neuron. In practice it does not - but how many does it link to, and why not more? If there are 100 Billion neurons, and they were all linked so that every possible pattern combination were present, we possibly would have reached the capacity of the individual brain. As I personally have no idea what that would mean in reality, please allow me to share something I undestand just a little better: The humble bee has about 2000 of these neurons - consider what it can do with just 2000 - then imagine what might be done with 100 Billion. Or in one of my favourite Carpenter's songs: We've Only Just Begun. Personally I make a point in training of clarifying how much of our brain we use and how much of our potential ability we use. Ladies and gentlemen from everything that I have heard and observed we are well below 1% of our true potential - one of the reasons that I love this business.
Dave Bull , 04 August 2008 @ 12:26 PM Planty More Where That Came From!
There are plenty of these myths, and because so many trainers are interested in personal development, lost of pseudo-scientific stuff that is perpetuated by pop psychology authors and speakers gets picked up by otherwise reputable trainers.
I have found that subscribing to some of the better psychology blogs (like MindHacks) and BadScience has helped me to keep a lot of Flat-Earth-ish nonsense out of my material. Dave Bull
Donald H Taylor continues his series on modern myths of learning, and suggests that the learning and development profession would be better off without them..
"Not only is there no scientific basis for this claim, it is actually scientifically incorrect. We know this through a variety of functional brain scanning methodologies. People should take the time to understand the science so they can use it to guide and drive their work, rather than make up (or repeat) fictitious and fairy tale 'facts' about the brain."
