Although this article might have nothing to do with neuroscience or brain scans, by inserting a photo of one, it will immediately seem more scientific to readers. We are easily swayed by generic phrases like “brain scans have shown” or “because of the [brain region] brain circuitry involved in [cognitive task].” Why are we so quick to believe a statement when it contains some extra scientific words or a brain scan image?
Some scientists have hypothesized we often find neuroscience information alluring because we see neuroscience as a definitive science.1 Thus, by adding relevant or even semi-relevant scientific jargon to a sentence, a writer creates a stronger marker of a good explanation regardless of its actual accuracy. This means that people may simply accept any explanation containing neuroscientific information, even in cases when that information is irrelevant to the explanation itself.
A groundbreaking study conducted in 2008 further analyzed this observation. There were a total of 81 participants in the study (42 women, 37 men, and 3 unreported) with an average age of 20.1 years. Randomly, 40 subjects were assigned explanations without added neuroscience information and 41 participants were assigned explanations with additional information. All of the explanations handed out related to “the curse of knowledge.”
The results of the study were startlingly consistent. When an explanation was good, the rating given was consistently rated high,as expected. Participants who read the bad explanations without added neuroscience jargon could easily spot the flawed arguments. However, when the same explanations contained the irrelevant jargon participants rated the explanations as significantly more satisfying than the plain versions. Essentially, the added information prevented people from seeing the problems in the presented explanations.,
Why are we so susceptible? One theory is the “Hierarchy of the Sciences.” In our cultural psyche we tend to view some sciences as more objective than others; the plausible order from least to most objective being social science, psychology, neuroscience, biology, chemistry, and physics.
By framing a topic or idea in terms of neuroscience, a writer is essentially trying to move their argument up that hierarchy. If someone can seemingly point out a physical wire of our brain's hardware, we assume that they must have found the ultimate cause, even if they are describing the same point with more complicated language.
Ultimately, this phenomenon is not just a purely academic finding: it has had real-world consequences. For instance, within the sector of marketing exists “neuro-marketing”, in which firms charge prices to show companies which parts of a consumer's brain lights up in response to advertisements.2 Using these findings, firms believe that certain marketing actions can increase the perceived pleasantness of a product, despite a vast lack of neuromarketing experts in this sector. Because of this, it is not a far reaching conclusion to view the sector of neuromarketing not only as a practice that takes advantage of consumer biology, but also a sector that may not be reaching genuine conclusions.
Similarly, another study from Harvard investigated the effects of neuroscience belief in the courtroom.3 The study found that individuals often evaluated the scientific validity of neuroscientific findings based primarily on their preexisting beliefs. However, further studies are needed in this area of research as highly polarizing beliefs such as the death penalty or abortion have not been examined with enough validity.
So how do we protect ourselves from being hypnotized by neuroscience jargon? The key is to apply some simple logic to any of these claims.4 First, look for an article that explains a concept from a variety of sciences and scientific perspectives. Second, check for redundancy in an explanation. For instance, if an explanation describes how a musician's brain is different from our own, neuroimaging is not necessary to prove that expectation. Third, look for articles that do not have circularity. Basically, check that the article is not just restating a finding using more complicated terms.
For more complex research papers or studies, a similar process can be applied. Determining if the study is peer-reviewed helps ensure claims are supported by the correct authority. Verifying that the findings have been replicated also helps determine the authenticity of an article.
Ultimately, we must remember that we are drawn to certain sciences because we bias them as a more valid science than another. However, by simply questioning if the article makes sense, we can determine if it is actually trying to teach us an idea or just sell us a product. By doing so, we do not just protect ourselves from believing lies, we become better critical thinkers.
.png){kind=small}
