Skip to content

When you choose to publish with PLOS, your research makes an impact. Make your work accessible to all, without restrictions, and accelerate scientific discovery with options like preprints and published peer review that make your work more Open.

PLOS BLOGS The Official PLOS Blog

From the Community: How To Avoid Neurohype by Neuroskeptic

I’ve got a new article over at the Daily Dot: Why we’re living in an era of neuroscience hype. Check it out!

 

Here’s a few additional thoughts on the rhetorical use of neuroscience.

The root cause of neurohype, as I say in the new post (and as I’ve argued before) is a philosophcial one:

We seem prone to a mind-brain dualism, thinking that the mind is something soft, malleable, and mysterious, whereas the brain is a hard, biological thing open to scientific probing. Therefore, we feel that if we can reframe a “mind” problem as a “brain” problem, then by doing so we’re already halfway to finding a solution.

This dualism leads us to be vulnernable to ‘neuro’-rhetoric: ways of talking that make use of neuroscience terminology even when this isn’t necessary. These quasi-neuroscientific statements are often nothing more than common-sense claims or truisms, but their banality is concealed by the brain language.

In such cases, there’s a heuristic for cutting through the neurohype: just remove the brain. For instance, take this sentence about stress and the benefits of meditation.

“Stress activates your amygdala, creates a red alert, activates your flight-or-fight symptoms, and heats up your system. Your thinking brain gets totally frozen and completely hijacked by your emotional brain.”

Impressive – but what happens if we take out the word “brain”, and the other neuroscientific terms like “amygdala”? Then we’re left with

“Stress creates a red alert, activates your flight-or-fight symptoms, and heats up your system. Your thoughts get totally frozen and completely hijacked by your emotions.”

I submit that this second sentence has just the same meaning as the first one, but unlike the first one, it’s obviously banal. By “de-braining” the original sentence, we can see how empty it was.

 

Back to top