Week 2: Brain Myths – What’s Fact and What’s Fiction:

Despite significant advances in neuroscience, myths and misconceptions about the brain remain widespread. Popular beliefs—like the idea that we only use 10% of our brain or that intelligence is fixed at birth—still appear in media, education, and everyday conversation. These myths often oversimplify complex processes related to memory, intelligence, aging, and learning. 

By exploring and challenging these misconceptions with current scientific evidence, we can promote a more accurate and empowering understanding of the brain one that supports healthy aging, lifelong learning, and informed decision-making. In this lesson, you will: 

• Identify common myths about the brain and aging and explore why they persist in society. 

• Evaluate the scientific accuracy of brain-related information, including popular media claims and personal beliefs. 

• Apply accurate neuroscience knowledge to everyday decisions and develop strategies or materials to share with others in your community. 

This approach is designed to honor your life experience, encourage cognitive engagement, and help you apply brain science in meaningful, practical ways. 

Why it’s a myth: 

The idea that 90% of our brain is unused originated from misunderstandings or misinterpretations of early neuroscientific observations. It implies vast “untapped” mental potential hidden in unused brain regions. However, brain imaging studies, such as functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) and Positron Emission Tomography (PET), consistently show that virtually every part of the brain has a function and is active at various times throughout the day. Even during rest, networks like the default mode network are engaged, demonstrating widespread brain activity. 

What is true: 

The brain is a highly efficient organ that uses different regions for different functions. Instead of using all regions simultaneously, it dynamically activates the areas needed for particular tasks. This means while not all neurons fire at once, none remain completely inactive or unused. Damage to even small brain regions often leads to significant impairment, proving the functional importance of most brain areas.

Why It Matters: 

Believing this myth can make people think they have “hidden” brain power that can be unlocked easily. This leads to false hope and can make people waste time and money on unproven products or methods. It also misses how the brain really works as a complex, active organ. 

How to Use This Knowledge: 

Focus on proven ways to keep your brain healthy and active like exercising, learning new things, getting enough sleep, and staying socially connected. These habits help your brain stay flexible and strong.

Why it’s a myth: 

The left-brain/right-brain myth originated from early findings about lateralization of brain functions such as language typically residing in the left hemisphere. However, the idea that people have dominant “left” or “right” brains dictating personality or cognitive style is an oversimplification. Brain imaging studies reveal that complex behaviors, problem-solving, and creativity engage distributed networks across both hemispheres. 

What is true: 

While some cognitive functions show hemispheric dominance (e.g., speech usually on the left), the two hemispheres communicate extensively via the corpus callosum. Tasks like language, spatial reasoning, and creativity are not exclusive to one side but rely on the interaction of both sides working together. 

Why It Matters: 

Thinking you’re only “left-brained” or “right-brained” can stop you from trying new skills or activities. It also gives teachers and employers the wrong idea about how people learn and solve problems. 

How to Use This Knowledge: 

Try activities that use both sides of the brain, like combining logic puzzles with creative arts. Using both sides helps your thinking skills grow and connect better.

Why it’s a myth: 

Many people imagine memory as a perfect recorder of events, storing exact replicas of experiences. However, decades of research show that memory is constructive and malleable. Instead of storing fixed recordings, the brain reconstructs memories each time we recall them, which can lead to changes or errors over time. 

What is true: 

Memory is influenced by emotions, context, and external suggestions. False memories of events that never occurred—can be implanted through suggestion or misinformation. This reconstructive nature means memories can be vivid yet inaccurate. 

Why It Matters: 

People often trust their memories completely, but memories can change or be wrong. This is especially important in courts where eyewitness memories can lead to mistakes. It also affects how we remember our own life stories. 

How to Use This Knowledge: 

Don’t rely on memory alone—double-check facts when possible. To remember better, practice recalling information multiple times and try to learn in different ways. 

Why it’s a myth: 

The traditional view was that brain damage results in irreversible loss of function. However, neuroplasticity research has shown the brain’s remarkable ability to adapt after injury by reorganizing neural pathways and recruiting alternative circuits. 

What Is True: 

While some brain damage can be permanent, many functions can recover partially—or even fully—with effective rehabilitation and sustained abstinence. The brain is capable of forming new neural connections (synaptogenesis) and strengthening existing ones in response to experience and therapy. This recovery potential also applies to individuals with a history of substance use. For example, individuals recovering from heroin addiction have shown significant improvements in brain function related to self-control and decision-making after 15 weeks of inpatient treatment, with increased activation in the prefrontal cortex. Similarly, neuroimaging studies of individuals abstinent from cocaine for 12 months revealed increased gray matter volume in frontal brain regions compared to active users, indicating structural recovery. In contrast, methamphetamine use is associated with more persistent damage—particularly in the brain’s dopamine pathways—though some recovery, such as improvements in memory and executive function, may occur after a year of abstinence. 

Why It Matters: 

Believing that brain damage or drug-related harm is always irreversible may lead individuals to lose hope or disengage from treatment. However, research shows that the brain is adaptable and capable of healing, especially with appropriate therapeutic support. Sharing this evidence can offer motivation, reduce stigma, and promote a more hopeful perspective on recovery. At the same time, it is important to understand that recovery varies depending on the substance used and the individual's health, environment, and support systems. 

How to Use This Knowledge: 

If you or someone you know has a brain injury, stay hopeful and support ongoing therapy. Repetition and practice help the brain form new connections. 

Why it’s a myth: 

Many believe intelligence is a static trait determined solely by genetics. This deterministic view ignores the significant influence of environment, education, and experiences on cognitive development. 

What is true: 

Intelligence is influenced by both genetic factors and environmental inputs. The concept of neuroplasticity and research on growth mindset show that intellectual abilities can improve with effort, learning, and persistence. 

Why It Matters: 

Thinking that intelligence can’t change can make people feel stuck and stop trying to learn new things. This also influences how schools teach and support students. 

How to Use This Knowledge: 

Believe that intelligence can grow with effort. Encourage yourself and others to keep learning, even when it’s hard, because your brain can improve over time. 

Why it’s a myth: 

IQ tests primarily assess specific cognitive abilities such as verbal reasoning, mathematical skills, and logical thinking. They do not capture other forms of intelligence like creativity, emotional intelligence, or practical problem-solving. Thus, IQ tests provide an incomplete picture of a person’s overall intellectual capacity. 

What is true: 

Howard Gardner’s theory of multiple intelligences identifies diverse types of intelligence, including linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and bodily-kinesthetic intelligences, among others. Emotional intelligence, the ability to recognize and manage emotions, is also critical for success in many life areas. 

Why it matters: 

Overemphasizing IQ scores can marginalize individuals who excel in areas not measured by traditional tests, such as social skills or creativity. This narrow focus may lead to educational practices that prioritize test performance over other valuable talents and skills, limiting personal and academic growth. 

How to use this knowledge: 

Adopt broader evaluation methods that recognize multiple intelligences and diverse abilities. Encourage development across various domains including creativity, emotional intelligence, and practical skills to support well-rounded personal and professional growth.

Why it’s a myth: 

It might seem intuitive that a larger brain correlates with higher intelligence, but studies show this is an oversimplification. Brain size varies between individuals due to many factors, including sex, body size, and genetics, but does not strongly predict intelligence. 

What is true: 

Cognitive ability depends more on brain structure, neural connectivity, and efficiency rather than sheer size. How different brain regions communicate and the density of synaptic connections play a more important role than volume alone. 

Why it matters:  

Believing brain size determines intelligence can perpetuate harmful stereotypes and distract from understanding the real neural mechanisms behind intelligence. It may also lead to misguided efforts aiming to increase brain size rather than improve brain function. 

How to use this knowledge: 

Focus on promoting healthy brain development and cognitive function through good education, proper nutrition, and mental stimulation. Encouraging neuroscience literacy helps people understand intelligence better and reduces the spread of myths. 

Why it’s a myth: 

While some cognitive slowing and memory changes occur with age, many mental abilities remain stable or can even improve. Not all older adults experience significant decline, and age-related changes vary widely. 

What is true: 

Cognitive aging is a complex process influenced by genetics, lifestyle, health, and mental activity. Active engagement in mentally stimulating activities, physical exercise, and social interaction can preserve or enhance cognitive function. 

Why it matters: 

Assuming that cognitive decline is inevitable can discourage older adults from engaging in learning, social activities, and other brain-healthy behaviors. This belief lowers quality of life and influences society to allocate fewer resources to support aging populations. 

How to use this knowledge: 

Promote active aging by encouraging lifelong learning, regular physical exercise, and social involvement to help maintain cognitive health. Support community programs and policies designed to enhance brain vitality and overall well-being in older adults.

Why it’s a myth: 

Aging is wrongly thought to halt the brain’s ability to form new connections and learn. However, neuroplasticity persists throughout life, enabling learning and adaptation at any age. 

What is true: 

Older adults can acquire new skills and knowledge, although learning pace and style might change. Brain training, education, and new experiences continue to reshape neural pathways, supporting cognitive health. 

Why it matters: 

Believing older adults can’t learn new things fuels ageism and creates barriers to lifelong learning, retraining, or continued participation in the workforce. This limits not only personal fulfillment but also the valuable contributions older adults can make to families, communities, and the economy. 

How to use this knowledge: 

Design educational and training programs that meet the needs of older learners using strategies like active engagement, meaningful content, and supportive pacing. Promoting a culture of lifelong learning helps older adults stay mentally active and socially included.

Why it’s a myth:
The belief that moderate alcohol consumption kills brain cells is inaccurate. While excessive alcohol can damage brain tissue, moderate drinking does not directly kill neurons. 

What is true:
Chronic heavy alcohol use leads to brain shrinkage and cognitive impairments due to toxicity and nutritional deficiencies, but moderate consumption generally does not kill brain cells outright. The brain may recover some function after stopping drinking. 

Why it matters:
This myth may either underestimate the dangers of heavy drinking or exaggerate risks of moderate consumption, affecting public health messages and individual behavior. 

How to Use This Knowledge:
Educate the public about safe alcohol consumption limits and the risks of excessive drinking. Support treatment and rehabilitation programs for alcohol abuse that emphasize the brain’s potential for recovery. 

Be Mindful of Legal Substances:
Legal substances such as sugar, caffeine, and nicotine are widely consumed and can significantly impact brain health. Excessive sugar intake has been linked to impaired memory and cognitive decline, while high caffeine consumption may disrupt sleep and increase anxiety, negatively affecting cognitive performance. Nicotine, although legal, is highly addictive and can alter brain development and function, especially in adolescents and young adults. Practicing moderation and choosing healthier alternatives—such as water instead of sugary drinks or mindfulness techniques instead of nicotine use—can help maintain brain plasticity and support overall cognitive health.

Brain myths are often rooted in oversimplified or misunderstood ideas about how different parts of the brain function. Below is a breakdown of how the common myths relate to specific brain areas and their true functions, supported by neuroscience: 

Understanding how myths tie to brain structures helps in: 

• Debunking pseudoscience (e.g., products claiming to “activate unused parts”) 

• Designing better education and rehabilitation programs 

• Promoting lifelong learning and brain health 

• Encouraging critical evaluation of brain-related claims 

Each of the 10 myths reflects a misunderstanding about how specific brain regions and networks work. From believing that only 10% of the brain is used, to assuming older adults cannot learn, these ideas are scientifically inaccurate because they ignore the brain’s complexity, plasticity, and interconnectedness. 

For example: 

• Memory does not live in one “memory center”—it involves the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex.  

• Intelligence isn’t just measured by brain size; it's shaped by efficient communication across brain networks, especially involving the prefrontal and parietal regions.  

• Aging doesn't destroy brain function—it shifts strategies and activates compensatory networks.
   

Understanding the role of specific areas like the prefrontal cortex in executive function, or the hippocampus in learning enables us to interpret new research, spot pseudoscience, and adapt our thinking. 

How Lifelong Learners Can Use This Knowledge to Boost Brain Health 

Knowing the truth about how the brain works isn’t just theoretical, it has powerful practical implications for anyone committed to personal development, mental wellness, or lifelong learning. 

Brain myths may seem harmless, but they shape how we think, learn, age, and view our cognitive abilities. Outdated or oversimplified beliefs can limit personal growth, influence how others are treated, and fuel misinformation in education, health, and public policy. 

By replacing myths with evidence-based understanding, we empower ourselves to think critically, make informed choices, and support brain health throughout life. Neuroscience shows that the brain is adaptable, resilient, and capable of growth at every age. 

• Andrews-Hanna, J. R., Smallwood, J., & Spreng, R. N. (2019). The default network and self-generated thought: Component processes, dynamic control, and clinical relevance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1316(1), 29–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.12460 

• Benton, D., & Young, H. A. (2016). The effect of dietary sugar intake on brain function: A systematic review. Nutrition Reviews, 74(4), 197–214. https://doi.org/10.1093/nutrit/nuv042 

• Bowers, D., & Paradiso, M. (2016). Cognitive neuroscience: The biology of the mind (5th ed.). W.W. Norton & Company. 

• Catani, M., Dell’Acqua, F., & Thiebaut de Schotten, M. (2017). A revised human white matter pathway atlas. Cortex, 97, 137–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cortex.2016.05.011 

• Claro, S., Paunesku, D., & Dweck, C. S. (2016). Growth mindset tempers the effects of poverty on academic achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(31), 8664–8668. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1608207113 

• Cramer, S. C., Sur, M., Dobkin, B. H., O'Brien, C., Sanger, T. D., Trojanowski, J. Q., ... & Vinogradov, S. (2019). Harnessing neuroplasticity for clinical applications. Brain, 142(6), 1591–1609. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/awz144 

• Deary, I. J., Penke, L., & Johnson, W. (2010). The neuroscience of human intelligence differences. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 11(3), 201–211. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2793 

• Diamond, A. (2016). Why improving and assessing executive functions early in life is critical. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 167. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00162 

• Diamond, A. (2019). Executive functions and their development. Annual Review of Psychology, 70, 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102011 

• Draganski, B., Gaser, C., Busch, V., Schuierer, G., Bogdahn, U., & May, A. (2006). Changes in grey matter induced by training. Nature, 427(6972), 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature02135 

• Dweck, C. S. (2016). What having a “growth mindset” actually means. Harvard Business Review. https://hbr.org/2016/01/what-having-a-growth-mindset-actually-means 

• Finn, E. S., Shen, X., Scheinost, D., et al. (2015). Functional connectome fingerprinting: Identifying individuals using patterns of brain connectivity. Nature Neuroscience, 18(11), 1664–1671. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.4135 

• Gardner, H. (2011). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences (10th anniversary ed.). Basic Books. 

• Gazzaniga, M. S. (2018). The consciousness instinct: Unraveling the mystery of how the brain makes the mind. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. 

• Harper, C. (2017). The neuropathology of alcohol-related brain damage. Alcohol and Alcoholism, 52(2), 127–132. https://doi.org/10.1093/alcalc/agw107 

• Hirnstein, M., & Hugdahl, K. (2015). Excess of non-right-handedness in schizophrenia. Psychological Medicine, 45(11), 2559–2563. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291714002830 

• Juliano, L. M., & Griffiths, R. R. (2020). A critical review of caffeine withdrawal: Empirical validation of symptoms and signs, incidence, severity, and associated features. Psychopharmacology, 237(4), 1057–1070. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-019-05438-5 

• Kassin, S. M., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (2021). The psychology of confessions: A review. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 22(2), 81–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211016439 

• Kleim, J. A., & Jones, T. A. (2018). Principles of experience-dependent neural plasticity: Implications for rehabilitation after brain damage. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(1), S225–S239. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2008/018) 

• Kueider, A. M., Parisi, J. M., Gross, A. L., & Rebok, G. W. (2012). Computerized cognitive training with older adults: A systematic review. PLoS ONE, 7(7), e40588. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0040588 

• Levy, B. R. (2017). Age-stereotype paradox: Opportunity for social change. The Gerontologist, 57(Suppl_2), S118–S126. https://doi.org/10.1093/geront/gnx059 

• Lövdén, M., Bäckman, L., Lindenberger, U., Schaefer, S., & Schmiedek, F. (2020). A theoretical framework for the study of adult cognitive plasticity. Psychological Bulletin, 146(7), 686–732. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000255 

• Lupien, S. J., McEwen, B. S., Gunnar, M. R., & Heim, C. (2018). Effects of stress throughout the lifespan on the brain, behaviour and cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 10(6), 434–445. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2639 

• Mather, M. (2016). The AARP aging readiness and competitiveness report. AARP International. https://www.aarpinternational.org/ 

• McDaniel, M. A. (2016). Big-brained people are smarter: A meta-analysis of the relationship between in vivo brain volume and intelligence. Intelligence, 33(4), 337–346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.09.005 

• Miller, K. L., Conklin, S. M., Mermier, C. M., & Spencer, R. L. (2018). Sugar consumption and cognitive function: Implications for dietary interventions. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 84, 26–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.018 

• Miyake, A., Friedman, N. P., Emerson, M. J., et al. (2015). Unity and diversity of executive functions and their contributions to complex “frontal lobe” tasks: A latent variable analysis. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 49–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogpsych.2015.02.001 

• Nisbett, R. E., Aronson, J., Blair, C., et al. (2019). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 72(1), 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000340 

• Nyberg, L., Lövdén, M., Riklund, K., Lindenberger, U., & Bäckman, L. (2016). Memory aging and brain maintenance. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(5), 292–305. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2012.04.005 

• Norman, D. A. (2020). The design of everyday things (Rev. & expanded ed.). Basic Books. 

• Park, D. C., & Reuter-Lorenz, P. A. (2017). The adaptive brain: Aging and neurocognitive scaffolding. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, 173–196. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093656 

• Pfefferbaum, A., & Sullivan, E. V. (2017). Alcohol’s effects on the brain. Alcohol Research: Current Reviews, 38(2), 183–192. 

• Renzulli, J. S., & Gubbins, E. J. (2020). Multiple intelligences and talent development: Implications for educational practice. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19862309 

• Roediger, H. L., & Butler, A. C. (2017). The critical role of retrieval practice in long-term retention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 15(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.09.003 

• Rubinstein, J. S., et al. (2018). Executive control in task switching. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 27(4), 763–797. 

• Salthouse, T. A. (2019). Trajectories of normal cognitive aging. Psychology and Aging, 34(1), 17–24. https://doi.org/10.1037/pag0000288 

• Schacter, D. L. (2017). Memory distortions and the neuroscience of remembering. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 16(5), 208–212. 

• Smith, A. (2020). Effects of caffeine on human behavior. Food and Chemical Toxicology, 140, 111292. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fct.2020.111292 

• Stern, Y. (2017). An approach to studying the neural correlates of cognitive reserve. Brain Imaging and Behavior, 11(2), 410–417. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11682-016-9566-z 

• Sternberg, R. J. (2019). The theory of successful intelligence. Cambridge University Press. 

• Yuan, M., Cross, S. J., Loughlin, S. E., & Leslie, F. M. (2019). Nicotine and the adolescent brain. The Journal of Physiology, 597(7), 2537–2550. https://doi.org/10.1113/JP276415 

• Yeager, D. S., & Dweck, C. S. (2020). Mindsets that promote resilience: When students believe that personal characteristics can be developed. Educational Psychologist, 55(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2019.1623032