Why neuro-lingo is almost never useful (and sometimes harmful)

Everyone is talking about the brain. And so they should – after all, the brain is what is keeping us alive. The brain is what makes us tick, what makes us feel things, think things, all our helpful and not-so-helpful patterns start in the brain. However (you knew this was coming, didn’t you?), when I see information for non-academic audiences, I almost always wonder what is gained by using neuro-lingo – and by neuro-lingo I mean overly simplistic and specific use of brain anatomy and neuroendocrinology. Today, I will talk about

1. Why it’s almost always inaccurate

2. Why I think it’s not helpful

3. Why I think it’s opening the door to misinformation

There are a few ways in which we can study the brain. When we want to make inferences about which brain areas are involved in a certain behaviour or response, we typically use neuroimaging techniques such as MRI, fMRI, MEG or PET scans. This is super exciting work and a lot of fun to do but it comes with challenges. One of those challenges is that almost the whole brain is active almost all of the time. Yes. So if we put people in a scanner and ask them to perform a task to find out which brain areas they use to do it, we would find… they use their whole brain.
So what we do instead is – we give them one thing to do in the scanner that we’re interested in (for example we could show them pictures of cute things such as puppies and kittens), and then give them another, very similar thing to do (such as show them neutral pictures like houses). We then collect a lot of images of their brain looking at puppies and kittens, and houses, and subtract “house activation” from “puppy and kitten activation”. The activation that remains is that of brain areas that are *more* active when participants saw pictures of puppies and kittens, compared to when they saw houses. On social media this type of result is often presented as “these brain areas are responsible for encoding cuteness”. But can you already guess why that is inaccurate?
You’re right! It’s because these brain areas may well have *also* been active while participants were looking at houses! Just not *as* active. And – can you see another issue here? While most people will probably find puppies and kittens cuter than houses, there might be other differences between those types of stimuli! Just one example: Puppies and kittens are alive while houses are not. While (most) puppies and kittens have four legs, (most) house don’t. And you could probably find more examples. So while this differential activation will be important for researchers to think about how to develop this line of research and further investigate how the brain determines cuteness (or alive-ness, or four-legged-ness), we probably shouldn’t go on Instagram and tell everyone that we already have the answer to how cuteness is processed in the brain. That means, when people on social media talk about specific neuroscientific information, they will never be able to capture the necessary nuance in a post (that’s why peer-reviewed journal articles are so long). And I am also convinced that

2. Specific neuroanatomical or neuroendocrine information is not useful to most people.

Ok, so you might be interested in brain anatomy, and specific ways in which information is processed. But does it really help you understand behaviour? We used to think that the amygdala is the “fear centre” of the brain. And I think a lot of people have heard this claim (it’s inaccurate). And even if we assumed this was true (it’s not), how does it help you when you get scared? Do you think to yourself “oh it’s just my amygdala” and then you relax? I can’t imagine that. When you see someone else get scared, do you stand there in awe at the huge reaction their amygdala can produce in their brain and throughout their body? Maybe, but is that helpful? When you reach for your phone to distract yourself from work do you think – “Oh, my brain is releasing dopamine now in anticipation of a reward”? I honestly don’t think that knowing *tidbits* of brain anatomy or neuroendocrinology is ever helpful in everyday life. But do tell me I’m wrong if you have a different experience! My point is – you know how you react to things by observing your own behaviour and maybe knowing, generally, how your brain processes information can help you understand your reaction, but I honestly don’t see much use in (supposedly) knowing the brain anatomy behind it (not least because, as described above, it’s almost always inaccurate).

Finally, because neuroanatomy and neuroendocrinology on social media is almost always inaccurate and almost never helpful,

3. Neuro-lingo might facilitate misinformation and can be harmful.

Here’s the thing – neuroscience is super fascinating and the fact that we can even study the brain is amazing. So when someone uses the language with confidence, it’s so far removed from what most people know, it’s very impressive. So impressive, in fact, that we might assume they are an expert (appeal to authority fallacy), just because of the language they use. And it’s so easy to follow people on social media, and it’s also easy to assume what they are telling us is true, especially if it matches our general impression of the subject (confirmation bias), or promises “solutions” to common problems. When we are told by someone perceived to be an expert that particular brain areas/neurotransmitters/nerves are the source of our problems, it feels as though the “unique” solution that is sold by the same person (who seems to have figured this out *themselves*) would be a very valuable investment. And once we have hit the “follow” button because we might have been intrigued (by their neuro-lingo), and we start to see their content (aka sales pitch) more and more, with each exposure we are more likely to spend our money (mere-exposure effect – we feel positively about things we have been exposed to more frequently). What we mostly forget to do, even if we were sceptical to start with, is to do a thorough background check on that person: Can we find evidence that they actually are an expert in what they talk about, over and above what they say about themselves or even how they’re represented in mainstream media? I’ll give you few things to check at the end of this post, as a bonus. Most of the time, neuro-lingo, like everything else, is used as a sales pitch online, to get you to buy supplements, books, courses or retreats, and you don’t know what you’re getting into. In the worst case, someone’s “solution” might be harmful to people.

In summary: The brain is a fascinating organ and I understand anyone who wants to learn more about how it works. But accurate and useful information is rarely found on social media. Instead, neuroscience language is used to sell products which may or may not work, and may even be harmful.

BONUS:
How to do a background check on a social media neuroscientist (also applicable to any other scientific field)

Questions to ask yourself:

1. What is the purpose of their social media activity? If they’re selling something that is (supposedly) unique to them, a revolutionary solution, that they “discovered”, that’s a red flag. Real experts might offer you nuanced information but never blanket solutions.

2. What is their background? Do they have a degree in what they’re talking about? At which level? A BSc or MSc in neuroscience is impressive but they don’t make you an expert or a scientist. Can you verify that they have these degrees? Have they completed further study or training? Have they worked in these subjects in academia or industry? Any real expert will be open about their experience.

3. Even if they (claim to) have a PhD – can you verify this? Is their PhD in neuroscience or did they use neuroscience methods (for example: my PhD is in psychology but I used fMRI to study cognitive and affective processes)? If someone has a PhD in a different field, that might be impressive but it doesn’t make them an expert in neuroscience.

4. Have they published peer-reviewed journal articles on the topics they talk about? You can search for them on Google Scholar, and even if they don’t have a verified Google Scholar profile, their papers should come up.

5. And if you can’t find the answers to some of these questions but you don’t want to abandon the idea of this person being an expert just yet, ask someone else (someone you CAN find these answers for).