ISN'T IT TIME WE GAVE UP THE 10% BRAIN MYTH?

Hollywood has a poor reputation when it comes to scientific accuracy.  Perhaps the classic example is the Rachel Welch's One Million Years B.C., which was premised on the claim that humans and dinosaurs co-existed and battled each other for survival.  In fact, the last dinosaurs became extinct around 65 million years ago, and the species of whom which Ms Welch is a particular fine example did not appear until round 200,000 years ago.

This film is not unusual: most films that touch on science seem to get it wrong in some major respects.  James Cameron is a notorious stickler for details, yet he felt compelled to change the starlight backdrop to Titanic for that film’s re-release when Neil Degrasse Tyson pointed out that the stars were in the wrong place in the original!  And almost every space film ever made, from Star Wars to the new Star Wars has failed to deal with the annoying fact that - what with space being a vacuum - there would be no noise.

The recent movie Lucy, starring Scarlett Johansson, joins this list of offenders by rekindling the myth that we use only 10 percent of our brains.  Johansson’s eponymous character undergoes a transformation when a bag of drugs she was forced to transport inside of her stomach leaks, and rather than causing an agonising, inevitable death, this event somehow gives her access to all of her brain’s potential.  With this gift Lucy is ability to learn languages in an instant, beat up gangsters, and throw around cars with the power of her mind.

The premise of the film is summarised by Morgan Freeman, who plays the world’s leading neuroscientist: “It is estimated most human beings use only 10 percent of the brain’s capacity.  Imagine if we could access 100 percent.”

The idea that we use only a fraction of our cognitive capacity has become something of a Hollywood cliche.  From Flight of the Navigator (1986), via John Travolta’s Scientology advertisement Phenomenon (1996), Inception (2010), and Limitless (2011), movies have asked ‘what if we really are using just a fraction of our true potential?’  Even The Simpsons succumbed, when Bart is prescribed a fictional hyperactivity drug that allows him to use the “full” potential of his brain:

“Most people use 10 percent of their brains. I am now one of them!”

Wouldn’t it be nice?
Many speculative ideas about the brain and learning seem to be motivated by a powerful drive, that I call the ‘wouldn’t it be nice drive?’, inspired by the Beach Boys paean to wishful thinking:

Wishful thinking has become one of the dominant themes in modern educational practice, and lies behind the waves of bullshit and pseudoscience that currently bombard schools. 

Wouldn’t it be nice if my son was not academically weak?  Oh look, it turns out that he isn’t!  He is a kinaesthetic learner, and the school system simply ignores his gifts!

Wouldn’t it be nice if there was some magical way to accelerate my daughter’s performance in mathematics?  Quick, get the chequebook: neuro-psycho-physio-gym can join up disconnected parts of her brain without her breaking a sweat!

Wouldn’t it be nice if I could become happier, healthier and wealthier, without investing any time or energy into making it happen?  Woo-wee!  There are lots of ways of doing this, and the only reason they aren’t better known is because scientists and governments are keeping them from us!

I suspect that ideas like those promoted in films like Lucy give fuel to this sort of wishful thinking by combining an allusion to 'sciency' brain talk with the intuitive power of a simple idea that is frequently repeated.  And people do believe it.  A 2012 survey of British and Dutch teachers found that 48% and 46%, respectively, accept the claim.  According to a 2013 study of Americans by the Michael J Fox Foundation for Parkinson’s Research, 65% of Americans believe it too.

The claim has now spread around the world, including into schools and workplaces.  I have heard doctors, teachers and academics cite it as if it were proven fact.  You probably have too.

The bad news
Unfortunately, it is not true.  We do not use 10% of our brains: most of us have access to 100%, and without the boost from a life-threatening injection of drugs.

The human brain has evolved over hundreds and thousands of years, at great cost.  The average brain weighs just 3% of the body's weight but uses 20% of the body's energy.  The idea that this process of development would result in an expensive organ that left 90% of its capacity unused is absurd.  And unused cells in the brain that are unused would turn to atrophy, anyway.  Not surprisingly, brain scans show the entire brain is active all of the time, even whilst resting or sleeping.  In fact, even the most basic functions of the brain - like those controlling breathing and balance - take up more than 10%, and these are needed just to keep us alive.

But don’t take my word for it …

So what?
The 10% Myth is unusual among contemporary brain myths as it does not seem to have originated from a misunderstanding of real science.  It seems that it was simply made up.  No one really knows where it began, although a popular culprit is American psychologist and philosopher William James, who once mentioned in passing that we “are making use of only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources".  This comment was repeated in the preface to Dale Carnegie’s 15-million-selling How to Win Friends and Influence People.

Does it matter that it is not true?

Many people find the idea inspiring in some way.  Perhaps we should continue to use the idea, but as a metaphor rather than a factual claim.  We do know that performance in almost every domain can be significantly improved through lots and lots of high quality practice, so maybe the 10% Myth can become a memorable ‘meme’ for emphasising the difference between our potential and our current performance.  Perhaps.

But the simple fact is that most people who repeat the 10% Myth are not using it in this way.  They are making a claim about the brain that is not true, and is not even plausible.  And since gullibility and scientific illiteracy tend to like company, this myth is often accompanied by a host of other nonsense.  So, Lucy does not just become brighter and stronger.  She develops telekinesis!  Advocates in the wonderful world of social media use the 10% Myth as the jumping-off point for an endless stream of equally unsubstantiated claims, from NLP and learning styles to spoon-bending and spiritual healing!

We do not use 10% of our brains.  Not even people who believe the claim do.  Perhaps it is about time we put this particular myth to rest?  Believing bullshit is a dangerous habit to acquire.

The blog of lists: 101 summaries of important/interesting research into sport (Part 1)

Research is a complex and time-consuming activity.  It can involve years of data-gathering, and its findings are often subtle and difficult to reduce to a few simple recipes.


BUT, if it wasn't ...


This entry tries to summarise some important research studies in sports coaching and related areas like physical education, youth sport and sport development.  I have also included some lists that just seem interesting to sporty folk.  In all cases, the summaries are in the form of lists.


My ambition in doing this is twofold: I hope this lists are useful and interesting in their own right.  But I also hope the reader will go from here to the original research papers, many of which readable.


The lists are not in any particular order.  Why?  Because it seems to me that we come across some of the most insightful ideas when we are looking for something else.


[Oh, I should acknowledge straight away that there are nowhere near 101 lists!]

What are the minimum requirements of sports programmes aiming to foster positive sporting experiences for young people?

1.       a clear mission;
2.       developmentally appropriate content;
3.       a safe and healthy environment;
4.       suitably trained staff;
5.       integrated family and community partners; and
6.       on-going assessments.

Sources: E.g., Bodily, S., and Beckett, M. K. (2005)  Making out-of-school-time matter: Evidence for an action agenda. Santa Monica, CA: Rand Education and Rand Labor and Population.  Coatsworth, J. D., and Conray, D. E. (2007)  Youth sport as a component of afterschool programs.  New Directions for Youth Development, 115, pp. 57-74.  Eccles, J. S., and Gootman, J. A. (eds) (2002) Community programs to promote youth development. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Why were Olympians first attracted to their sport?

1. a love of the sport
2. an intrinsic love of activity
3. early success in the sport

Once introduced to their sport, why did these Olympians continue to participate?

1. the challenge and love of competition
2. fun
3. a desire to be successful

As the level of competition increased, why did these Olympians continue to participate?

1. the challenge and love of competition
2. a desire to be successful
3. the need for a competitive outlet
4. fun

What are the most important qualities of a coach?

1. the ability to teach
2. the ability to motivate or encourage
3. training knowledge
4. skill competence
5. strategic knowledge of sport

What are the least important qualities of a coach?

1. assistance with goal setting
2. management and organisational skills
3. assistance with balancing the lives of athletes

Source: Gibbons, T., Hill, R., McConnell, A., Forster, T., Moore, J. (2002)  The path to excellence: a comprehensive view of development of U.S. Olympians who competed from 1984-1998. Colorado Springs, CO: United States Olympic Committee.

How do Female Athletes Want their Parents to Behave?

The study found three categories of parental behaviour across different phases of competition (before, during, after):

• preparation for competition
• parental support and, encouragement during competition
• the provision of feedback after competition

Source: Knight, C. J., Neely, K. C., & Holt, N. L. (2011) Parental Behaviors in Team Sports: How do Female Athletes Want Parents to Behave? Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 23(1), pp. 76-92.

Why Do Children Want to Take Part in Gymnastics Classes?

1. Being with and Making Friends
2. Developing Physical Fitness
3. Learning and Improving Skills

Source: Wald, J. (2003) Parental Motivations for Enrolling their Children in a Private Gymnastic Program.  The Sport Journal.  6(3).

World's Most Popular Sports (for fans)

1. Soccer / Football
2. Cricket
3. Field Hockey
4. Tennis
5. Volleyball

Source: http://www.mostpopularsports.net/




Highest Paid Sportspeople (2011-2012)

1. Tiger Woods, golf - $75 million
2. Kobe Bryant, basketball - $53 million
3. LeBron James, basketball, $48 million
4. Roger Federer, tennis, $47 million
5. Phil Mickelson, golf, $46.5 million
6. David Beckham, football, $40 million
7. Cristiano Ronaldo, football, $38 million
8. Alex Rodriguez, baseball, $35 million
9. Michael Schumacher, motor racing, $34 million
10. Lionel Messi, football, $32.3 million

Source: http://www.forbes.com

Your opinions are worthless!

"Science tells you that your opinion is worthless when confronted with the evidence. That's a difficult thing to learn." (Prof. Brian Cox)

I came across this excellent quotation in a recent New Statesman interview with physicists Brian Cox and Jeff Forshaw.  It captures what is, for me, one of the essential features of the scientific mindset: humility.

And it stands in stark comparison with the default mindset of advocates of the otherwise varied collection of pseudo-scientific beliefs, like alternative medicine.

The world is complex and difficult to understand.  The idiosyncrasies of my personal beliefs are unlikely to grasp the truth of some matter.  But, by working within a community of committed colleagues, many of whom I have never and will never meet, and by using methods of testing that have been honed over many years, we might have a chance.

This attitude of humility is rare in our culture of relativism.  The view that everything is subjective, and that everyone's opinions are equally valid infuses many debates.  And while this stance might be valid in questions of value (Eastenders or Coronation Street? Clooney or Pitt?), it is absurd to think they apply to questions of knowledge.

Some things are true (or probably true) and others are not (or probably not).  Science is the most effective way we know of distinguishing between them. And it is not the opinions of individual scientists that determines what counts, but their theories' abilities to survive ruthless and repeated tests.  Scientific theories are those that have survived attempts to kill them.  They might die in the future, of course, but for now they are the best that we know.

An irony is that science is often portrayed as arrogant by its critics.  I have no shadow of a doubt that there are arrogant scientists; they are, on the whole, human.  But science is the epitome of self-effacing modesty.  It really does not matter what I think, or feel, or believe, or 'know' - science says - if this idea does not pass the test, it is out (or, at least, subject to serious reconsideration).

Compare this to the attitude of pseudoscience.  Alternative medicine, conspiracy theories, creationism, spiritualism, and countless other forms of intellectual diarrhoea with which are bombarded are different manifestations of a shared stance: my opinion is the ultimate arbiter.

The fundamental difference between scientifically minded and non-scientifically minded people is that the former think that personal opinions are irrelevant in the pursuit of truth; the latter think they are everything.

If a scientist defended his or her theory with the words 'I don't care what the evidence says, I disagree' he or she would be viewed as an idiot with an unhealthy value of their own importance.  But we hear sentiments like this from advocates of pseudoscience all of the time.  The world is full of people who think that tea, or sugar tablets, or laughter, or aura-tweaking, will cure life-threatening illnesses.  And the lack of evidence in support of their claims is irrelevant, because they know.

In alt-med world, anyone's precious opinions about, say, cancer treatment are as respectable as those of a Professor of Oncology.  Their arrogance is breath-taking as much as it is life-threatening.

So, I offer for your consideration and reflection the splendid quotation by Drs Cox and Forshaw.  Like science itself, it is a candle in the darkness.

Sporting Mythology - a request for help

One of the more interesting projects with which I was involved in recent years was a BBC radio programme called Black Men Can't Swim.  The general premise was an investigation by the actor and comedian Matt Blaize into why so few black people swim in the UK.  More specifically, the programme tracked Matt's attempts to learn to swim himself.


Matt, like many black people, had grown up with a strong conviction that learning to swim was more difficult for him than for his white peers.  And this conviction was given support by an obvious lack of black swimming role models, and by the fact that he had failed to learn himself.


My role, along with sport scientist Matt Bridge from the University of Birmingham, was to talk about the evidence.  We both concluded that whatever physical differences might exist between blacks and whites, they were far less than commonly supposed.  And, most importantly, none of these differences warranted the conclusion that black men can't swim.


There are, of course, a cluster of 'X can't Y' myths about sports performance.  'White men can't jump' is such a cliche in basketball that they even made a film based on the subject.  Women can't throw?  Asians can't play football?


Each of these ideas serve two purposes: they justify the exclusion of some groups from some sports; and they act as a barrier to potential players (and who knows, champions?) from entering and enjoying the sport.  And they are all basically questionable.


I'll return to these ideas in a later post.  For now, I'll just point out that they are just one type of myth that is associated with sport.  Others include:


historical myths - such as the idea that the game of Rugby started at Rugby School when a pupil picked up the ball and ran.


training myths - 'no pain, no gain'.


political and economic myths - the claim that hosting the Olympic Games makes financial sense.


And then there are myths about talent development, fitness, the mental side of sport, champions, coaches, and the benefits of sport.


Sport seems to attract myths with remarkable ease.  Some of these myths are outright nonsense.  Some are merely dubious.  And some, if I am honest, are really just matters of opinion.


This is where the 'request for help' of the title comes in.  I am planning a writing project based on the myths of sport, and I am very keen to receive ideas.  As I mention above, the myths can be to do with the history of sport, its performance or its outcomes.  If you know a commonly held but suspicious belief about sport (or a specific sport), I'd love to hear from you.


Please write your ideas in the comment box of this blog, or write to me at info@richardbailey.com