The 6 Most Frequently Quoted Brain Facts (That Are Total BS)
After millennia of research, experts still don't know very much about the human brain. As such, most of what you have picked up on the subject from pop culture is just laughably wrong.
In fact, we'll bet you even heard some or all of these brain myths in school at some point ...
#6. "Alcohol Kills Brain Cells!"
What you heard:
It's the reason Homer Simpson gets stupider every season, and it's what your mom warned you about when you got caught sneaking a beer from dad's stash when you were 13: Every beer you drink kills something like a million brain cells and makes you permanently stupider.
Getty
"Goodbye, Algebra 2!"
The truth:
Let's get this out of the way now -- too much alcohol does a whole host of horrible shit to just about every organ in your body. It's just that your brain isn't really one of them. Your alcoholic uncle doesn't actually get any stupider when he drinks. Meaner, but not stupider.
Getty
"Asleep" isn't the same as "brain damaged."
The whole idea of alcohol destroying your brain actually dates back to the temperance movement in America, circa 1830. Using the now familiar tactic of "It's OK to lie as long as it's for a good cause," the writers of the time claimed that alcohol would do everything from destroying your brain to making you catch fire if you drank too much. Though the latter, if true, would make losing a few brain cells seem fairly minor.
Plenty of people believed it -- it just seems like common sense that beer destroys the brain. Have you ever seen a drunk person before? And listened to his jokes?
Getty
"So this guy, he turned and said ... and said ... shit. It was something about priests, or bears. Hey -- QUIT LAUGHING AT ME!"
Yet, according to scientific studies, the dopiness associated with being drunk has nothing to do with dying brain cells and everything to do with the alcohol blocking them from doing their work, inhibiting cognition and motor function. Your brain cells are fine, as long you don't walk into too many walls while you're trashed. Another point of confusion stems from the fact that there is a brain disorder that's linked to alcoholism called Wernicke-Korsakoff syndrome, which makes you dumb and destroys your memory. But this isn't actually caused by the alcohol; it's malnutrition stemming from the fact that alcoholics often have really crappy diets because the booze kills their appetite and eats up their disposable income.
Of course, the "alcohol kills brain cells" myth was always paired with ...
#5. "You Can't Regrow Brain Cells -- Once They're Gone, They're Gone!"
What you heard:
The story that alcohol -- or anything -- kills your brain cells was scarier because you always heard that brain cells never grow back. When you're horsing around with your brother and hit your head on the coffee table, you just busted yourself down a whole IQ point you're never going to recover. Show off on the field too many times by headbutting the soccer ball, and wave goodbye to college. Except this, too, is thankfully bullshit.
Getty
These are the few children lucky enough to avoid head injuries, marijuana and falling acorns in their youth.
The truth:
First, studies from back in the '90s show that adult human brains actually contain stem cells. These are cells that can turn into any other kind of cell on demand, including brain cells. Basically, they're like the blank tiles in Scrabble. When you damage the brain, these cells scramble to rebuild what's broken.
More than that, your brain is incredibly adept at patching itself up in a fix, and can even repair itself after a major event like a stroke, quickly creating new blood vessels to restore oxygen flow, and rewiring brain cells (called neurons) to work around the blockade of dead tissue. Neurons are constantly born through a process called neurogenesis, and can migrate anywhere in the brain that they're needed.
Maryam Faiz , Laia Acarin , Bernardo Castellano and Berta Gonzalez
Above: Neurogenesis. Or that trippy scene from 2001. We're not doctors.
Rather than some monolithic lump of cells that gets battered and broken after years of ill-advised partying, the brain is actually changing all the time. The neural pathways in your brain never stop developing, even well into adulthood, constantly forming and reforming new connections. This happens whenever you learn anything or develop a new memory. It also happens over the course of just a few hours, several times a day.
To reiterate: too much alcohol is bad for you. And too much brain trauma is really fucking bad for you -- ask anyone who played pro football. But give the human brain a little credit.
And while we're on the subject, we probably have to address this one ...
#4. "Drugs Like Ecstasy Can Put Holes In Your Brain!"
What you heard:
Back in 2000, MTV ran a special on Ecstasy and how it's basically forged by Satan in a bathtub of acid and children's screams. They compared the brains of two girls, one of whom had used the drug, and showed a scrotum-shrivellingly terrifying image of the user's brain looking like a lump of Swiss cheese.
Like somebody went at it with a drill.
Not to be outdone by MTV, Oprah Winfrey decided to jump on the bandwagon, and she ran a special all about Ecstasy in which she hysterically pointed out that it will burn a bunch of holes in your brain, showing the same brain scan images. Because everyone listens to Oprah for some dangerous reason, the myth became entrenched in cultural consciousness.
Getty
This woman could lead a fascist coup and we'd still take her advice on weight loss and reading choices.
The truth:
It shouldn't come within a thousand yards of surprising you that both Oprah and the producers at MTV badly misinterpreted a neurological brain scan image. This is why you wouldn't call either of them to assist in your stroke rehabilitation.
These images are actually maps of blood flow in the brain, and the so-called "holes" are just areas of lower blood circulation that the computer rendered to look like hollow cavities. There were never any holes in the girl's brain, and even the low circulation doesn't necessarily have anything to do with drugs.
Getty
"As you can see from these scans, mescaline turns your brain blue."
The British decided to investigate the effects of Ecstasy on the brain by doing some, you know, real science. They not only proved that Ecstasy doesn't actually put holes in your brain, but they also explained that it basically has no permanent side effects, provided you don't abuse it. They were so confident in their assessment that they even offered the drug to volunteers so that they could actively monitor them under the influence and then evaluate them several hours after the effects wore off. The results showed that after six hours, the subjects were back to normal, completely unharmed, recovering from the most fun scientific study they had ever participated in.
As for people dying because of Ecstasy, the scientists explained that it wasn't from the drug, but actually from dehydration. Because when you're in a rave on a drug that gives you a shitload of energy and an uncontrollable desire to flip out and go crazy, you sometimes forget to drink a glass of water. So, again, it appears that Ecstasy is fully capable of turning you into a dumbass. It just doesn't eat holes in your brain.
Side effects include dehydration, disorientation and unwarranted appreciation for dubstep.
Not that every brain myth has to do with substance abuse. For instance ...
is it weird that I am jealous that I will never be able to pee various shapes into the snow?
ReplyThe one and only time Childish Gambino will ever lie to us.
ReplyInformational, and funny! Hahaha "stand around like an idiot picking things up with your nose". That killed it!
Replyits not brain size relative to body size, its what percentage of your brain is devoted to learning. otherwise we would probably devote our thinking part to our senses
ReplyI'm surprised you didn't include the myth "You only use 10% of your brain capacity, and if you used the whole thing, you could have superpowers!" Both parts to that myth are false, by the way.
Replythat was already covered in another article.
Aaaaand the same stuff never makes it into multiple Cracked articles, right? ;\
Hey, "Granny Dumbass" isn't dumb... it's just that her older brain absorbs more information and thus is actually impacted more by noisy distractions
ReplyNo,Granny Dumbass is her name.What,didn't you know that?
Actually having a very large brain causes it's own set of issues. Chiari Malformation is a condition in which the Cerebellum herniates and stretches, causes it to descend into the spinal cord. It's a life-threatening condition with to many symptoms to list here.
ReplyAre the images for this article invisible to anyone else?
ReplyStop using IE, for heaven's sake!
Cognitive functioning DOES decline in older adults, but again, not to the point that you just become noticeably forgetful. Reaction times decrease and reaction time does seem to be linked to working memory. I think you guys are cherry picking your research information.
ReplyAnd I can't believe you didn't address the stupidest myth of all that we only use 10% of our brains (it's a complete crock in case you were wondering).
They've covered that before....
Ecstacy does in fact disrupt normal functioning of neurons (they might as well be considered destroyed) but not to the extent that you would see visible "holes". The brain downregulates the neurotransmitter seretonin so much that you can have a deficit of it. Seretonin is important in regulating both mood and sleep. In other words if you do ecstacy you are seriously f*****g up your own shit.
ReplyI can't believe the comments are censored.
Just click on the pretty little button that says "show profanity".
Serotonin deficiency isn't the same as destroyed braincells.
Oh i couldnt HELP IT by going all apeshit HA over nr6..
Replythe fact that it doesnt kill them , but prevents full function is a fact ive been running around telling since i read it in a science magazine, now i got more DETAILED proof so i went all HA HA HA on it...
capital intended. man that felt goood.
So what you're saying is that alcohol doesn't kill brain cells, but rather over-using capital letters does.
Interesting theory. Go on...
Where's YOUR ipad ?! made me crack ! ( see what i did there ? )
ReplySo if I have a physician with me, I can do ecstasy safely. YES! I want to hear colors and smell sound!
ReplyYou'll want acid for that, not X
You'll want some acid for that not Ecstasy
What about the 10 percent myth?
ReplyThat's addressed in another article.
I'm sure that someone has already pointed this out, but the folds in your brain have nothing to do with shock absorption. Neural signal speed is a little closer to the fact. The folds are to increase surface area, ergo increasing the number of neurons, increasing your processing ability. It's a pretty basic concept.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesAnd also, it's not as easy as you say for the nervous system to repair itself. Nervous cells are very slow growing, and the nervous system is the only one in the body that actually has limited ability to fix itself. I.e. Spinal cord injuries don't fix themselves.
A brain with folds in it has more hydrostatic friction than a smooth one so, yes, shock absorption is ONE of the functions of the folds. It certainly doesn't hurt, which in evolutionary speak, means it stays.
Also, "nervous cells"? Are these cells that are quivering in the corner of the brain in the fetal position, fearful that the next drink you take is going to be their last?
I do believe that a babie's brain is noticeably smoother than an adult's because it takes time for the neurons to reconfigurate themselves and is always a little different based on how you were raised.
feek it says in the article that you don't lose brain cells when you drink alcohol.
@coinman
Replyhad something to prove all the way from your home behind your keyboard did ya?
Unwarranted my ass, that s**t is amazing. If you don't believe me, go to a show and take some e from someone you trust.
ReplyShirtcocking. Nice.
Reply#1 is true but only because it missed the whole myth. Intelligence is based on brain size realative to body size. Of course a whale can have a bigger. Humans in fact do have the largest brain size, relative to our body size.
Reply Hide All See All 4 RepliesBody size is kind of an imperfect phrasing. If you mean body mass, no - the Tiny Shrew has the largest brain-to-body-mass ratio. Other studies say Hummingbirds are the winner of this ratio. Do you mean surface area? I don't think thats even measured... and then anorexic chicks would probably be the most intelligent.
So by body size - if you do mean mass - humans aren't the winners. Humans neither have the most massive brain, nor the heaviest brain relative to our overall body mass.
This is inaccurate. Mice by comparison have larger brains than humans yet I doubt anyone would argue that they are more intelligent.
That's because the only people who do ARE less intelligent than a mouse.
that has to be the biggest bullshit i have ever heard
Considering the number of comments I'm just going to accept the likelihood of repeating someone elses post - but - both one and three are rubbish.
Reply Hide All See All 3 RepliesFor three, I note @fuckingpedant pointed out the process of optimisation which seems to have been confused with 'pruning' by some people (the process by which the developing infant brain rapidly loses cells of little use). There is certainly a tendency for the ageing brain to optimise its synaptic paths (basically: learning) - and this is the reason older people have better vocabularies, higher linguistic intelligence etc. However this is still grossly inaccurate considering that even in healthy brain development there is a hugely significant deficit in active working memory. In fact almost 100% of the cognitive deficit caused by ageing is due to steadily decreasing processing speed. This decreasing processing speed causes the decrease in the active short term memory and in turn is responsible for the fairly drastic drop in 'g' that is universally noted in any longitudinal or cross-section studies. Lowered processing speed means almost all cognitive tasks become more draining, as, say for a question of mental arithmetic - it becomes harder to go through all the steps to reach the answer before the initial information is forgotten. This is, admittedly - offset, in the healthy ageing individual by factors of optimisation. But realistically, these almost equate to the individual learning tricks to cope with the decreased reserve. Two quick points here: it may well be argued against this that IQ is highly stable across your lifetime (r=.8), and whilst this is true, IQ is a deviation score and as such is normed against your age relevant peers. Your position relative to your peers is stable - it does not follow however, that a 70 year old with an IQ of 120 is the same as an 18 year old with the same IQ. However even within this normed deviation score - 'g' decreases, whilst language improves - and takes some of the load, so to speak. A second point one might raise would be that 'g' is a debatable construct. I'd accept that, and yet whilst an interesting debate in itself - whether or not g reflects what some claim, is quite irrelevant in this context. So whilst I understand the importance of speaking out against the prevailing notion that ageing = dementia, that's hardly an excuse for such an inaccurate article.
As for number one, it's much more complicated - and it becomes difficult to speak in such blanket terms. In general "within populations" brain size is fairly strongly correlated with intelligence (r=.4) - however as was noted in the source, this has been tied to the 'gender intelligence' debate, and the dubiousness of that was used by the sourced article to discredit the brain size correlation. That is ridiculous. Intelligence differences in gender are a complicated and subtle area - but part of that is the fact that whilst brain size is usually correlated to intelligence, this doesn't hold true across gender. There have been many reasons put forward for this, but probably the most convincing has to do with basic neuronal differences around wernicke and broca's areas of the brain. Essentially, men have more 'grey' matter and women have more 'white' matter - and these structures are more strongly related to 'intelligence' in each gender respectively. Again, as I have said - complicated area and little can be said in such general terms - except for the fact that the article again misrepresents the facts by such a superficial and largely uninformed argument.
"Considering the number of comments I'm just going to accept the likelihood of repeating someone elses post"
Such as yourself?
Buckybone - Unfortunately the comments aren't registering on my account so I can't delete the double post. Apologies.
You're asking an awful lot of idiotic web commentators if you expect them to have a rudimentary understanding of correlation and effect size or that they even passed a basic psychology introductory course. The Flynn effect is interesting. But .4 is not a strong correlation, it is a moderate correlation meaning that brain size accounts for only about 16% of the variation in intelligence. Not much of a leg to stand on for brain size.