Talk:Ten percent of the brain myth

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from Talk:Ten percent of brain myth)
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Skepticism (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Origin[edit]

The foreword to Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" does not contain such a statement. This origin is another myth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.25.116.50 (talk) 15:15, 14 November 2012 (UTC)


I think the origin was some early report, in The Lancet, on head injuries and the recovery even after loss of a sizeable quantity of brain matter. This was by army surgeons during some war in the XIX century, Crimea or Boers or something so. Thus the real history was something as "english infantry only need to use a xx% of the brain". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.210.136.50 (talk) 13:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Page Title[edit]

I highly recommend moving this page to a title that doesn't involve the percent (%) character. Because of this character, it is impossible (or at least very difficult) to link to this page from facebook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.167.68.69 (talk) 22:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Tag[edit]

I removed the ref tag because this page contains 9 difference references to back up the content which should more then meet the requirements. I also removed the improve tag for the pop cult section, it now contains several listings which are enough for it's own section. Terryrayc (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

I moved the New Age information into the perpetuation section, I don't think that the way the sentence is worded shows that the myth originated in New Age Philosophy (although someone who knows more about this may want to re-word it and move it back). I also moved the information on the spinal cord into the (newly created) Scientific Criticism section. --Brutananadilewski (talk) 19:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The 10% Theory - Possibly the "CPU" component?[edit]

I've noticed that this article was written from a viewpoint that the 10% of brain myth refers to the total use, but does anyone else think that that 10% refers to the neurological equivalent of a computer's CPU? 65.13.84.34 (talk) 01:55, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

"Neurological equivalent of a computer's CPU" doesn't make sense, because the brain doesn't have a CPU, because it doesn't have a Von Neumann architecture. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
I get what he means though. There seems to be a lot of ambiguity as to what "10% of the brain" actually means:
  • 90% of the physical brain serves no purpose or is redundant?
  • Only 10% is active at any given time?
  • It's capable of processing 10 times faster or 10 times more information than it ever actually does? (i.e "CPU usage" only reaches 10%, for the computer analogy, flawed as it may be)
  • It's capable of storing 10 times as much information as one normally obtains in their lifetime? (i.e. "memory usage" only reaches 10%)
  • It can do a lot of different things, but we only ever do 10% of those things? (i.e. 90% of its abilities go unused)
Personally I think the second item makes the most sense. Clearly in the first case, there would be people who've lost up to 90% of their brain mass without issue, and in the other cases, there would be people who've managed to make use of that additional processing/storage capacity or functionality (super-geniuses, psychics, etc).
We know that different portions of the brain do different things - this region processes input from the eyes, this region interprets words, this region forms speech, etc. To say only 10% of those regions are normally active at one time doesn't seem too far-fetched - we aren't usually speaking, listening, reading, calculating, imagining, drawing, writing, walking, driving, exploring, etc all at the same time.
Modern CPUs contain a number of circuits dedicated to performing specific functions as well (this circuit adds, this one multiplies, this one inverts matrices...), and probably only a portion of those circuits are ever in use at one time as well. (Especially if you look at very small timescales, e.g. individual instructions; each instruction would use only a small number of circuits.) That doesn't mean you can safely remove 90% of the material, or it only processes 10% as fast as it could, or it has a ton of circuits that are never used. 66.222.223.182 (talk) 03:04, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
This is exactly my point. There is a misconception to this whole theory of the 10% usage. It's not dealing with the division of actual parts of the brain's usage, but rather the capacity at it's usability SupItsWin (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC).

This article misses the point[edit]

90% of the brain being trimmable blubber is a straw man argument. To anyone using 11% of their brain it should be obvious that the 10% refers to the value of the ideas bubbling around inside the brain, not to its physical components. People watch sitcoms when they could be reading neurology primers. They drink themselves silly when they could be attempting to compose concertos. It's absolutely typical for people to fall short of their theoretical potential. Whimwham (talk) 09:18, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

"It's obvious" isn't an acceptable argument for Wikipedia: you need to provide sources. The article is about the "10% of the brain" myth, not "10% of human potential" or about how people can use their time most effectively. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:26, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
No, that's not the case at all. The myth very often—and in my experience, always—takes the form you're denying. 72.200.151.13 (talk) 09:04, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
Then there should at least be a note to the readers that this is about the one possible viewpoint of this brain theory, but does not cover the actual possibility of the other viewpoint whereas people use 10% of their brain's capacity. If an article is written about the possible misunderstanding that there are mysterious areas of the brain that do not normally function and whatnot, with evidence provided of such to prove so, there should at least be an article about the "real" intentions of this idea/theory. Of course, I tried to add these points but I an unfortunately unfit at the moment to edit under the outlines of how you should edit. SupItsWin (talk) 23:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

More Popular Culture References![edit]

I'm a sucker for these lists. I just added one for Defending Your Life and I recall that it was mentioned in My Stepmother Is an Alien - If I recall correctly Kim Basinger's character is from a species that uses 100% of their brains - but I haven't seen the film in a long while to confirm this. Anyone care to confirm and add it to the list? Anymore references? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.112.74 (talk) 07:55, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Finally TiVoed My Stepmother Is an Alien off a premium channel, skimmed it, got the exact quote, and it's now part of the article.

In the Scott Pilgrim comics, vegans have super powers because they use 100% of their brains, as opposed to 10%. Scott is asked, 'you know how you only use 10% of your brain,' and replies, 'yeah.' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Edoohan619 (talkcontribs) 18:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)

The new movie "Lucy" produced by Luc Besson is based on this premise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.195.193 (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

In the movie Lucy we first see the drug used by a brain dead stoner, who begins laughing maniacally/showing signs of life before he is shot. Then we see the packet of pills rupture inside Lucy suggesting a truly massive overdose. I question whether it is the cellular portion of the brain or the electrochelmical soup of its nerve hormones such as nor epinephrine and serotonin from which the film takes a 10% normal usage of the brain by hooker Lucy to compare to an excited state in research Lucy wherein the brain appears to intensify its sensory input. 142.0.102.139 (talk) 16:23, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

The narrator in the 1996 film Matilda says: "It is said that we humans use only a tiny portion of our brains." I'm not sure if this statement also appears in the novel or just the film adaptation. 98.193.124.175 (talk) 04:57, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Questionable References[edit]

The 3rd reference on this page "A Piece of Our Mind - About Ten Percent" http://www.twopercentco.com/rants/archives/2005/03/a_piece_of_our.html also claims (in the very same article):

"This myth is also perpetuated by the more "mundane" self-help gurus and the such-complete-bullshit-they-should-be-brought-up-on-charges Scientologists."

The website also has this to say about its resources:

"In this wonderful age of interactive mass communication, there are thousands of websites that can give you the information you need to tell truth from bullshit. Here are just some of those that we thought deserved special mention."

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Les Jenkins (stupidevilbastard.com), and 4 other personal blogs are a few of the 16 total "Resources" this site has claimed to get the info it needs for the thousands of so called "Rants"...

I don't know much about Wikipedia's policy regarding a source's credibility, but it seems to be worth mentioning that this source is quite "iffy" and bordering on subjective. —Preceding unsigned comment added by T3hZ10n (talkcontribs) 20:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

The source was dubious and superfluous, so has been removed. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:55, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Those blue points[edit]

Interests of wiki style, the article looks like a list. Doesn't appear to need the points because it can read as prose without them. Anyone disagree? 110.33.234.245 (talk) 06:17, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, this is meant to be an articles, not a lists. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I just added another pop culture ref. (See above). It's understandable that lists, especially of pop culture references are frowned upon in Wikipedia (and all too often as they should be), but I would point out that this is an article about a commonly believed misconception/myth. And how does such a misunderstanding spread? Probably more through pop culture than the list of misattributions from the likes of Einstein. The Wedding Crashers, Witch Mountain, and The Simpsons are more likely to be heard and remembered, at least collectively, and without pop culture references, the article would be missing a major source of the myth's perpetuation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.81.20 (talk) 01:10, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
The American Scientist article, the one used as a reference in this Wikipedia article to back up a claim of misattribution to Einstein, never actually says that the myth was misattributed to Einstein. It merely says that many people think he supposedly used the myth. "It's also been associated with to Albert Einstein, who supposedly used it to explain his cosmic towering intellect". They are not really claiming he was misattributed, they are not going quite as far as that. This article is definitely misattributing The American Scientist article, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.52.20.191 (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

In popular culture[edit]

There's a excessive number of pop culture references which are unsourced, do not illuminate the article's subject and are smell of advertisement/fandom because they refer to recently released products. The mere mention of a myth in a film or book is not notable in itself: the film or book needs to be mentioned by a third-party source in conjunction with the article's subject. Editors who feel strongly that we need such a list of popular references are welcome to discuss it on this talk page. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

While I admit to contributing to the 'problem' as noted above, I have to admit, it was getting a bit long and silly to attempt to list all entertainment media occurrences in a wikipedia article like this. But still, that is where the (vast?) majority of people have heard about it. So... TV Tropes to the Rescue! There is now a TV Tropes reference and eventually anything missing from the tropes article that appeared in this one (or does it have 'em all already?) needs to be moved over. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.101 (talk) 01:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

The tropes article was only missing a couple mentioned here and it has 'em now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.254.84.101 (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks- this is a good solution. MartinPoulter (talk) 17:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a thought[edit]

Within the article it is argued that, since even when a part of the brain is damaged, then abilities are lost - to quote "there is almost no area of the brain that can be damaged without loss of abilities". I believe this concept is erronious. Consider the example of bilateral limbic system destruction that occurred in a patient in 1980 (http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~db=all?content=10.1080/13803390903066873). Despite "extensive" damage to neural tissue; not only is the man seemingly healthy (compared to someone without any existing damage); but he has average IQ, memory, "above-average" attention span, and further no issues with speech or language skills.

I'm not refuting the claims in the article, but I cannot see that the main thrust of arguments that we use x% of our brain seem valid given the way the brain remaps and redirects neural activity when damage is detected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudopethos (talkcontribs) 01:51, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

The linked abstract says that the patient exhibited "dense global amnesia and a severe anosmia and ageusia", so you're right that it doesn't refute the quoted claim. Yes, brain wiring is plastic and responds to damage: it doesn't follow that there are unused areas of the brain or unused brain potential. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:27, 9 January 2011 (UTC)
In the cited report, a sizable area of the patient's brain was irreversibly destroyed, yet it was able to rewire the remaining portion to perform the same set of functions as his original brain, which had more mass. This means that his brain was able to perform the same functions as before, but with a smaller number of neurons, since dead neurons cannot be replaced. Therefore his original brain must have contained a certain quantity of "free" resources.
The nature of these "resources" isn't clear. It could be neurons that previously formed redundant pathways either as a hedge against neuron death, or to slightly speed up or better ensure transmission of impulses. It could be some neurons were running at less than their maximum "speed". Or it could be spare neurons that normally perform completely pointless tasks to prevent atrophy, and are mixed in with the in-use neurons, as backups in case those neurons die off. 24.147.136.207 (talk) 06:09, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Change title of subject?[edit]

With the new additions of argument points suggesting the misconceptions of the refutations that prove this "theory" to be a "myth", we should perhaps now consider the change of the title of the subject to "10% of Brain Theory" or possibly better "10% of Brain-Usage Theory" or "10% of Brain-Capacity Theory", because of overwhelming evidence that this theory does in fact hold evidence of truth and actuality SupItsWin (talk) 07:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC).

The material added by the anonymous user contained no references. The article as it is reflects the terminology and position of published sources, including the position of academic experts. If we are to totally change the article, then we need sources which show that "theory" rather than "myth" is the majority position. If you or I don't find the sources personally convincing, we still have to summarise what's in those published sources. See WP:V. MartinPoulter (talk) 13:17, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
The main argument isn't that these references of published sources as well as statements from academic majors isn't correct, or that the contradictory side has evidence and references that prove it to be so, it's that there is a possible misconception to the whole "myth". They have not made a distinction between the "percent" term meaning either a split division of 10% (90% left isn't or doesn't get used) or a percentage of capacity (10% of the limited capacity at a normal state). Of course, the sections added did not have references and citations to published proof, but it clearly shows a possibility that the refutations are void due to the erroneousness perception of the whole topic. We should be looking for references that support those new sections proving otherwise.
No matter how much evidential facts and studies done to prove this theory as a myth, you cannot account for the fact that there is a possible misconception and that all the arguments and list of facts stray off point in the very beginning to refute anything.
Either way, I apologize for jumping the gun in adding these new sections without properly attaining evidential facts and references that proof my arguments. SupItsWin (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for your understanding. I think there is scope for telling people that only a certain percentage of the brain is active at any one time, and distinguishing this from claims that there's a massive area of human potential that unleashed because people don't use the majority of their brains. Search-and-replace isn't a good idea though, especially if it means changing the name of the source, or using different terminology from the article's sources. MartinPoulter (talk) 19:18, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Yes, of course. People that want to know more about this "idea" that we don't fully make use of our brains want to know if it's actuality. The main reason readers inquire about this though, is due to media and propaganda that has taken this idea and transformed it into a hype about the possibilities of "magical" powers through the mysterious-unused parts of the brain (example like the movie: Men Who Stare at Goats). But I also want readers to understand the misconception that the refutation makes in defining this "theory" to be false because we do in fact use all parts of our brain. In the 7 examples given in the article, it gives experimental conclusions that concludes that you actively use 100% of your brain, but it doesn't touch on the idea of being able to have higher capacities of brain-usage. Which I think is the true concept behind the 10% of brain theory.
And yes, I used the search and replace function to replace all terminology giving the idea that this is for sure a myth for the reasons above, but I did make sure not to alter and replace any reference citings or changing the terminology of an article's actual wording.
In the end though, my goal is to raise awareness unlike what is being reflected here that there is truth in the 10% of brain theory, whether that 10% actually holds to be exact, the idea and possibility still remains. And with that I ask, along with the resources you have given me to making a proper edit in Wikipedia, how I can go about adding this new section that can additional give awareness to my cause. Of course, actual references and published evidence from scholars with reputation, but how can I go about finding the best ways to obtaining this kind of information? SupItsWin (talk) 22:40, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Request to SupItsWin[edit]

Please don't move comments around on this Talk page, or play around with the formatting, as you have with your recent edits. Please read WP:TALKNEW. Thanks, MartinPoulter (talk)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 03:52, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

MythBuster[edit]

I think it should be added that MythBusters has tested this myth (and also busted it). --Maitch (talk) 17:02, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

The article already mentions that. Looie496 (talk) 17:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
Mythbusters isn't credible. They are a comglomerate. They get paid for their show in what they show. They are not brought before an Academic council or kept in check. Plus most of the people in it only have Bachelor's degrees and even though we like to favor Bill Nye who only has a Bachelor's in Engineering, that is no way as credible as someone with a PhD from a credible university publishing an entry in a scientific journal that is highly redeem and memorable amongst the entire academic community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.88.22 (talk) 23:42, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Refutation[edit]

The third entry starts "Brain imaging: Technologies such as Positron Emission Tomography (PET)..."

The sixth entry thus seems repetitive... "Metabolic studies: Another scientific technique involves studying the take-up of radioactively labelled 2-deoxyglucose molecules by the brain..."

"Radioactively labelled 2-deoxyglucose molecules" ARE the fluorodeoxyglucose mulecules used for PET scanning, are they not? All that is done for the PET tracer is that one of the hydrogens of 2-deoxyglucose is replaced with radioactive fluorine-18. Are there other 2-deoxyglucose-based molecules used in medical imaging other than the F18-tagged molecules used during PET?

216.138.230.98 (talk) 03:37, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Clearly you're right. I've removed the sixth entry, as the other contained more useful information. Looie496 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

The "Evolution" part of this section is not a valid refutation. If that were the case, we would not have colorful birds or peacocks as such features would be disadvantageous from an evolutionary perspective as these animals are easier targets to predators than camouflaged birds. That's why the red queen hypothesis (and peacock theory) have been suggested. In this framework a "better-than-practical" intelligence could be evolutionary motivated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.231.129.26 (talk) 18:46, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

For our own sake[edit]

The brain doesn't only use 10% of its capacity. [Redacted] Several parts of the brain will show some activity at any given time. This is why doctors never say, "It's okay, he was shot in the part of the brain that no one uses!". --Vitilsky (talk) 09:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Evidence that 90% + of neurons in the brain are "silent"[edit]

Ironically, there seems to be good evidence that 90% + of neurons in the brain are completely or mostly silent, and that the overall firing rate of neurons in the brain is very, very low, with the exception of few high firing rate, information rich neurons (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00359-006-0117-6#)

Why this is seems to be unknown.

It doesn't mean that only 10% of brain areas are used, rather that within any area, most of the neurons do not appear to be being used. However, they may be lying in reserve to be recruited at a later date?

It is shocking isn't it. In the neuroscience circles I've run in, it seems to be fairly well accepted that the "10 percent of the brain" concept refers exactly to these types of ideas. It's like saying a person with myocytes approximately 10% the size of the myocytes of a hypertophic muscle is only using 10% of their muscles. It's a relative measure. In the case of brains, plasticity and synaptic scaling, postsynaptic density, etc., lead to the same types of ideas. Funny that conventional wisdom now claims the 10% percent idea to be a myth, when the concept it elicits is probably fairly accurate. I guess it will take another 10 years for snopes to debunk it's own myth debunking. Good luck! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.224.84 (talk) 05:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

You do know the reason why the 10% bit was considered a myth is because narcissists (potential psychopaths) who have considerably wealth or influence didn't like the idea of being stupid like the rest of us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.160.88.22 (talk) 23:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

Do we use ten percent of our brain?! by William[edit]

I'm in 7th grade so bare with me- I think that we use 10 percent of our brain. So say i lied about something I would only use 10 percent of my brain that makes dissensions like lying. If we could use 100 percent of our brain in each part of the brain we could amazing memory, better hearing and eye sight. that is my theory comment back i'm open to ideas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.21.101.50 (talk) 02:57, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

Could the ten percent myth be Nazis propaganda started twenty's thirty's in Nazis Germany to put a value on peoples mental capabilities also like saying the Aryan race had 100% and anyone the Nazis thought were inferior had ten percent and started the belief of the ten percent myth — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paul124siv (talkcontribs) 03:01, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

The "Damage" Argument Needs Repair[edit]

The fallacy is obvious to anyone whose 90% empty hard drive has ever crashed after losing a registry file. You can still have brain damage with significant results, even if only a small fraction of it were being used, if the damage affects a critical area (e.g. the postcentral gyrus).

By the same token, a low level of usage of a system's capacity does not imply that any part of the system is remaining long unused. Therefore, the degeneration argument needs to be rejected, as well.

The other countervailing points raised in argument against should likewise not be cited without further review or comment.

100% agree. This article is really oriented, with pseudo counter-arguments of the "myth", that are not counter-arguments at all.
If the brain uses all its cells, that does not mean at all that it uses them at their full efficiency.
Everybody above implying that computers are designed and function exactly the same way human brains do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.156.25.41 (talk) 22:37, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The article should be renamed "Partial brain usage hypothesis" to be more neutral. Plyd 22:48, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
The arguments complained about here are from a book chapter written about the topic by a mainstream neuroscientist. That's why they belong in the article. We need other sources if we are going to criticise them. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:05, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Stephen Gambone vandalism[edit]

Someone by the username of Stephen Gambone is adding unfounded and opinionated information, arguing against the refutations under the claim that they are a mathematician. How do we prevent this from recurring? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.140.76 (talk) 14:25, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

We don't really need to prevent it, we just need to revert it if it happens, as you did -- and thanks for that, by the way. I've also left a message on the editor's talk page explaining that the edit in question was not encyclopedic and therefore couldn't be accepted. (Also by the way, the word "vandalism" should not be used here. An edit should only be called vandalism if it is deliberately intended to damage an article. If the editor believes that an edit is an improvement, it is not vandalism, however misguided that belief might be.) Looie496 (talk) 14:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
Of course, I see what you mean. The absurdity in the guy's content reached offensive levels, it felt like vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.65.140.76 (talk) 15:28, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Steve Gambone here. Correcting misinformation should be a goal of any encyclopedia. It should be the goal here. The refutation arguments in the article are flawed and should be corrected. The refutation section is put forth as being valid arguments and they are not. It's no big deal to me having my edits reverted if they didn't fit the decor of this place. There's nothing neutral about the refutation section, it is biased opinion based on a distribution assumption, other distributions are possible. Adding more info and counterarguments neutralizes the situation giving readers the knowledge they need to reach a more thorough understanding of the subject. Stephen Gambone (talk) 22:40, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Just FYI on the revert thing. For some mysterious reason it didn't completely revert. I'm the one who put the numbering in the refutation section. It wasn't done as a separate edit. So it shouldn't be there.Stephen Gambone (talk) 00:53, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Stephen, thanks for responding. One of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia is "No Original Research", meaning that everything in an article needs to be derived from reputable published sources. The refutation arguments in the article fit that description, but the replies that you gave to them do not -- they are your own original work, as far as I can tell. If those replies can be referenced to reputable published literature, then they might belong here. If they represent original thought, they don't, regardless of how correct they are. Looie496 (talk) 13:34, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Looie, Thanks for the info. I think Wiki has a problem with this article because it violates the "neutral" rule. Its history section is biased in the way it leaves out important details. Plus that section violates the no original research rule, lots of things on wiki do in a technical sense; there's always a judgement call to it; no big deal. Of course all historical accounts are biased. The historian speculates on what should be in or not based on his take on things and his target audience. No way to avoid bias in a historical account of anything. Here the bias starts in the title itself with the word "myth". Yet Wiki is stuck with it; none of the change of title suggestions people here made would work. In the end whatever it got called there would have to be an Also Known As "Ten% brain myth" so there's no point in changing the title. The refutation arguments in the article are flawed, that's easily established. As for my replies... they aren't even close to original, they're simply well known math ideas put into an understandable, word problem form. It's just high school level percents and statistics in disguise. No big deal about it not fitting the Wiki style of things. Stephen Gambone (talk) 01:58, 19 August 2014 (UTC)


@Stephen Gambone: Hi Stephen, you are encouraged to improve this articles quality upto Wikipedia's standards but please add reliable sources to prove your point.Wikipedia encourages editors like you to improve it but information without sources cannot be accepted at all.Rather than telling the cons of the article if you take the step of improving it by providing verifiable sources then wikipedia and editors would appreciate that.Thank you.--Param Mudgal (talk) 05:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Hi Param, Wiki by its nature is a work in progress as are the articles. This article has changed which is part of the Wiki process. The rules of Wiki require that I must not plagiarize therefore my wording must be original. That is one of the many rules of the wiki editing game. Original wording that is not original research. In the current version of Refutation 3 there is an unverified speculation about what evolution would have done. That speculation starts with "If 90%..." Refutation 1 also starts it's 'if then' statement with "if 90%..." Percents are a mathematical construct, no mathematical verification of the proper usage of that construct is included in the speculations. Unverified things are there throughout Wiki, it is a common occurrence and a part of the Wiki process. In this case the mathematically unverified usage of percents contributes to the article's biased presentation of facts. This article violates Wiki's neutral rule. However Wiki cannot delete the article on those grounds, that would cause too many problems for Wiki. The only way that I can see for Wiki to bring the article to a more neutral position is to deal with the "percent problem".Stephen Gambone (talk) 12:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

@Stephen Gambone: The refutation arguments are sourced to a chapter in a scientific book, written by a mainstream neuroscientist. "Neutral" here on Wikipedia means "fairly representing the balance of reliable sources". You need additional sources, not your own opinion, to establish neutrality. This has been explained to you by User:Looie496 and User:Param Mudgal above, but it does not seem like you have taken this on board. It may help for a start if you look up what "wiki" is and distinguish that from Wikipedia. Also to distinguish Notability from Neutrality. You question the mathematical reason for referring to 90%, and the simple reason the book does is that 90% is the complement of 10%. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:13, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems like what you want is an outlet for your own original ideas, and for writing about yourself. Wikipedia is definitely not that because the style and content here is tightly constrained. Either you could seek an mainstream book or journal publisher or use a free online service such as Wordpress, Weebly, or Google Sites. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:21, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

Popular Culture[edit]

Cultural/media references, such as the ones seen in The Dark Fields, Limitless, and Lucy; should be left on the page. They show the extent of the myth and how widespread the belief is. Many other pages have sections for examples of popular culture references. This page should also have a section since the myth is used so often.

There should be more than a few sentences concerning the use of this myth in the media. Having several paragraphs of examples allows the reader to compare the various examples and the length of time that this myth has been used. A short description does not describe the history of the myth or allow the reader to fully understand its popularity.

The "Mythbusters" link needs to be on the page since it shows how easy it is to prove that the myth is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Brain_Drain

174.22.11.66 (talk) 20:05, 8 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.22.15.246 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

I replied on the matter here at my talk page. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. When I re-added the popular culture section I removed the "E.T." and Travolata film references because they were not major uses. What I would like is that the popular culture section be restored. The Lucy, Limitless, Dark Fields, Mythbusters' examples should be included because they are major uses that focus on the myth as part of the central storyline. This would be inline with the other popular culture sections seen on other wiki pages. Such as pages where a vehicle's section has 3-4 major examples in film or a historical event is mentioned as influencing a film or book series.174.22.13.235 (talk) 07:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
All that is required for pop culture items is reliable third-party sources making the connection. This assures that the the connection is a notable one and supports the details. Referencing to primary sources amounts to original research: the Wikipedia editor adding it is making the decision that it's notable, and that's only an editor opinion. Yworo (talk) 16:54, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
The media examples listed are relevant to the culture section. They are films/books where the myth is central to the storyline and external links to pages that discuss the myth.174.22.8.114 (talk) 12:42, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes, but you have to provide a source that says they are relevant. The decision that they are relevant cannot be made by a Wikipedia editor, because that violates our no original research policy. Skyerise (talk) 16:41, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
I believe that examples on the page should be left because many other wiki pages use culture sections that lack sources. Such as the below Atlantis page. The Mythbusters link is relevant because it shows how easy it is to disprove the myth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantis_in_popular_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2010_season)#Brain_Drain

174.22.9.181 (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

Great, then just find third-party citations rather than using the primary sources per WP:IPC. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Skyerise (talk) 16:39, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Why are the non-cited Atlantis examples more valid than the non-cited 10% myths?174.22.15.121 (talk) 07:05, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
I don't edit that article or I'd take them out. Again, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid argument. Try clicking the link and reading it. Keep this up and you may find yourself blocked. Just find a citation: a review of the show would work perfectly well. Are you asserting that there are no reviews? Then it's not significant. Skyerise (talk) 14:17, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

Eviscerated quality - this article is about 20% accurate - how about that?[edit]

This article, counting comprehensiveness, is 20% accurate. By gutting the entire middle argument, and propounding one extreme against the other, this article is essentially anti-understanding.

The point of "the 10% myth" is excluded, which is that it is just a misstatement about COGNITION.

I will give you an example that proves this article seriously sucks:

Suppose I take a 16th century Aztec and drop him in the middle of the freeway, some place and time that he has about a 1% chance of survival - lifespan is now 5 Minutes. His brain is going to be firing 100% - betcha. What are we interested in? The extremes? Or how the hell does this guy learn faster?

That is an extreme example of the middle that is missing. Because I'm talking about the specialization of the brain that propounds COGNITIVE BIAS - and this article should be subtyped to that. These are types that are OBVIOUSLY PHYSIOLOGICALLY FIRM-WIRED. Or you wouldn't see the divisions in the cerebral folding - just for example.

And yes I am too busy documenting this s8 to do your academic research - but I am at least competently complaining.

I'm sorry but I'm seriously disappointed in the quality of some of these articles and in these author-contributors. In this case, everything I'm reading about this subject is referenced circularly and the references only touches the ends: NO THE BRAIN IS 100% USED, NO THE BRAIN IS 10% USED. WOW - that is so polarized, YOU SHOULD JUST KNOW BETTER than to stick this in an encyclopedia. You guys would so fail any class I teach.

The Scientific America articles are both essentially the same level - they are non-articles. Here and there are identically patterned using very marginal quotations and references that are both essentially dogmatic and not good data.

Regards from my big TOE (I am Ion-Christopher) Xgenei (talk) 03:08, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

One possible GUS[edit]

"Origin


One possible GUS"

Is this vandalism? What does this mean?Rusty Lugnuts (talk) 02:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that was vandalism -- it happened yesterday. I have reverted it. Thanks for pointing it out. Looie496 (talk) 12:37, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Citation to support a negation.[edit]

"There is no scientifically verified body of evidence supporting the existence of such powers.[13]"

This sentence would imply that the Rhine Research Center has done no research and produces no papers. Or that such (and all of it since 1930) is not 'scientifically verified'. This has the tone of point of view, if not simply to be considered a false statement. The tone is that of an absolute never/none.

I suggest removing this line even if the source did make this biased, if not false, assertion. 66.81.28.248 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2015 (UTC)