Are we just arguing over semantics?

I spend a lot of my time debunking the barrage of misinformation spread about psychology and neuroscience on social media. And often when I create content that carefully puts across the nuance and complexity that the research provides I find myself wondering – are we arguing over semantics?

Here’s the thing. Most of the “big player” misinformation, you know, the type that sells well, contains a grain of truth. A nugget of information that, if you squint a lot, could be considered accurate. And a lot of the time that grain of truth feels intuitive and helpful, the type of thing that makes you breathe a sigh of relief and realise that how you feel is not your fault.

And I often get accused of arguing over semantics – that all I’m doing is being nit-picky and overcomplicating things. That the big players are just simplifying the same information to help more people understand the topic. But this is exactly where I disagree. There is a thin line between simplifying accurate information, and oversimplifying to the point of spreading misinformation.

Here’s an example. Often when people attempt to explain why emotions feel so powerful, they blame it on the “old” and “new” parts of the brain, on how “the prefrontal cortex goes offline” or how the “emotional part of the brain overpowers the thinking part”. And of course this feels intuitive. And all of you will know how much a strong emotion can stop us from being rational so the experience is true and there is value in that. Of course it can help people feel less shame if they realise it’s not “them”, it’s their brain that’s making it happen (we talked about that in the essay below).

But there is a downside to “blaming the brain”. That downside materialises when the explanation takes away people’s agency. And that’s what a lot

of the oversimplified explanations do: they deterministically explain behaviour with brain regions and neurotransmitters, dismissing psychological constructs such as consciousness, attitudes, decision making, even morality or interpersonal processes. And while I don’t want to put words into anyone’s mouth or assume intentions, it does often feel a little like the old trope of “I can’t help how I feel”, or “that’s just the way I am”. When in reality we have a lot of agency over how we feel and act – even if it often takes a lot of practice and support.

The bottom line? Oversimplified neuroscience explanations might reduce shame but when they dismiss nuance and complexity they can reduce people’s awareness of their agency and capacity to act. They don’t go far enough because they divorce the psychology from the neuroscience, and the human from the brain.