People Using 10% of Their Brain - and other complaints

[DrStraw]

You cannot prove a single thing with statistics. All you can do is to show probabilities that something is true. Anything short of complete information cannot prove anything, and if you have complete information then you don't have statistics. For some reason people seem to think that if, by statistics, you can show that something has a 99% probability of being between 89 and 91 then you have proven that it is 90.

[hibbs]

You cannot prove a single thing with statistics. All you can do is to show probabilities that something is true. Anything short of complete information cannot prove anything, and if you have complete information then you don't have statistics. For some reason people seem to think that if, by statistics, you can show that something has a 99% probability of being between 89 and 91 then you have proven that it is 90.

Much depends on what you mean by "proof". In the sense of a mathematical proof: You only get that in mathematics.
But statistics can "proof" in the sense of "there is no reasonable doubt that something is true". In terms of action

For some reason people seem to think that if, by statistics, you can show that something has a 99% probability of being between 89 and 91 then you have proven that it is 90.

For some reason people seem to think that if they get a p-value of 0.05 that means there is a 95% probability that their hypothesis is true. Which might be far worse.

[Bill Spight]

For some reason people seem to think that if, by statistics, you can show that something has a 99% probability of being between 89 and 91 then you have proven that it is 90.

For some reason people seem to think that if they get a p-value of 0.05 that means there is a 95% probability that their hypothesis is true. Which might be far worse.

Indeed. But that is changing in fields like psychology.

[Knotwilg]

Anything short of complete information cannot prove anything.

As pointed out before me, only in abstract modelling of mathematics you have proof in the sense you want it. In the physical world we assess a theory to be true if experiments repetitively confirm the model. But what if the theory is not true in the strict sense, only true under a set of highly probable conditions. You only find out about that once you can observe events in different conditions. History of science is full of that.

Statements about correlation are not very different. You just assert that something is not 100% true but 95% or some other value. Some probability statements are even more reliable than certainty statements, if the experiment with variable outcome is under control and can be repeated at will. This is much harder for Kepler's laws, for instance.

For some reason people seem to think that if, by statistics, you can show that something has a 99% probability of being between 89 and 91 then you have proven that it is 90.

Not understanding probability is very different from misjudging it in being capable of "everything" or "nothing".

[uPWarrior]

For some reason people seem to think that if they get a p-value of 0.05 that means there is a 95% probability that their hypothesis is true. Which might be far worse.

Specially when they get those results after trying a multitude of other hypothesis that failed. It's inevitable that a pattern will emerge if you analyze your data for long enough, but that doesn't mean that the universe shares that same pattern.

"If you torture the data long enough, it will confess."

[Bill Spight]

I don't think that anyone has made the evolutionary argument. In short, if we only used 10% of our brains, our brains would have shrunk by natural selection to eliminate the 90% that we do not use. Brains are expensive organs.

I first ran across the idea that we use only 10% of our brains in a book about improving your memory by a psychologist. I was a kid and I accepted the word of authority without thinking about it.

But there is a kind of truth that is hidden in the saying, which is that we do not make full use of our brainy potential. You could say the same about our muscles. People only use 10% of their muscles. But I doubt if people would accept that statement as readily. Several years ago Sports Illustrated ran an article about human potential in sports, and showed graphs of world records in a number of different sports over time which showed no signs of approaching a limit. In addition, the numbers for women's sports were improving more rapidly than for men's sports. I doubt if we have maxed out at anything yet.

I think what it comes down to is learning. We are learning organisms, and our brains are learning organs. The Flynn effect indicates that we as a group are learning, over time, the skills that we call intelligence, that are adapted for life in modern societies. Again, without any indication of reaching a limit. Will future humans be more intelligent than we are? I think that the answer is yes, except that their memories will be worse. Why remember something when you can look it up in a database?

[Phoenix]

I don't think that anyone has made the evolutionary argument. In short, if we only used 10% of our brains, our brains would have shrunk by natural selection to eliminate the 90% that we do not use. Brains are expensive organs.

I believe we've touched on that point very briefly. The idea that the brain has stored up magical powers over tens of thousands of generations in wait for just the right combination of factors to make us supermen is ludicrous at best. The brain truly is an expensive organ, and using every scrap of ability one has is what evolution does best.

I think what it comes down to is learning. We are learning organisms, and our brains are learning organs. The Flynn effect indicates that we as a group are learning, over time, the skills that we call intelligence, that are adapted for life in modern societies. Again, without any indication of reaching a limit. Will future humans be more intelligent than we are? I think that the answer is yes, except that their memories will be worse. Why remember something when you can look it up in a database?

Indeed. Neuroplasticity is the key to our survival, as the brain adapts to new circumstances and knowledge. I believe this is because it's all we have as far as evolutionary advantages go. But as far as learning has taken us, it can also become problematic if not handled properly. 'Smarter' is an odd, undefined yardstick of little value. We claim to be much smarter than our ancestors were, but we're still warring and mass murdering and destroying our own ecosystems. This is because knowing 'more' is not knowing 'better'.

I personally have friends who are quite intelligent, but miserable and unmotivated. Knowledge and learned patterns of thought and behavior can only go so far until you learn to take charge and aim the resources at your disposal in the right direction. I believe it's important for us as a species to learn to live fuller, happier, more sensible lives and leave this legacy for the coming generations.

How exactly is this achieved, you ask? Step one is not to limit ourselves from the get-go with unnecessarily damaging beliefs. Step two, when we decide to go in that direction, will be answered by science. Only when the communities with the resources to make these studies decide that it's a worthwhile direction to go in.

[hibbs]

I don't think that anyone has made the evolutionary argument. In short, if we only used 10% of our brains, our brains would have shrunk by natural selection to eliminate the 90% that we do not use. Brains are expensive organs.

I totally agree with that argument. But then: Why did biologists claim for decades that most of our DNA is just junk without function?

[Xiaoding]

I used to think the brain was the most wonderful and interesting organ in the body; but then I realized, hey, look what's telling me that.

If we used 100% of our neurons all the time, our heads would fry to death in about five minutes. It's not about use, it's about quantity and efficiency.

I think, most people look at science, and scientists, the same way they used to look at magicians and magic. They don't really understand it, but they can argue about it.

Most biologists said that most DNA was "junk", because most biologists, as in most of any group, are idiots.

"I don't think that anyone has made the evolutionary argument. In short, if we only used 10% of our brains, our brains would have shrunk by natural selection to eliminate the 90% that we do not use. Brains are expensive organs."

Indeed. I saw an article about declining IQ scores the other day. With computers doing so much of our thinking for us, IQ scores may be falling due to that. Who really needs math anymore? Very few people. But, I put it down to the test's needing a re-design. Besides, in twenty years, you can augment your brain to death anyways. What will happen to Go then, when the champion is the guy who could afford the latest brain mods?

[deja]

How we use (or refuse to use) our rational faculties is more interesting to me than mapping out the boundaries of those capacities. Dawkins points out that as a species our sensibilities have evolved for a middle-sized world. The scientific world of atoms, quarks, time, space, and probabilities are lost on such middle-world perspectives. This may help explain why some people unflinchingly hang on to certain beliefs despite the science, but it doesn't quite get at the reasons for that tenacious refusal to accept what seems by most accounts so obvious...at least to us.

One of my favorite case studies on this question was Leon Festinger's, "When Prophecy Fails." He found that in the face of undeniable, disconfirming evidence -- like the end of the world not taking place on the date and time predicted -- the resolve of true believers was actually strengthened rather than weakened. The key factor in managing their cognitive dissonance was the ability of the faithful to rally one another around the prophetic beliefs despite their being demonstrably false. Two basic things had to happened according to Festinger (he cites five in total):

1. Employing social supports which reassert and reinforce to one another that such disconfirming events actually reaffirm the beliefs that lead to the failed predictions in the first place.

2. Recruiting new members under the (fallacious) assumption that increasing the number of believers thereby bolsters the validity of the beliefs.

When confronted with disparities between facts and beliefs, the rational thing to do is abandon the discredited belief, but we tend not to do that. The social and personal costs are too high given our initial investments. It's like trying to save a weak group you've committed a bunch of stones to when it's strategically better to give it up.

Anyway, I think we too often overestimate the power of logic and evidence to persuade. Besides, few of us are skeptical enough (in the true sense of skeptical) to avoid the propensity to allow beliefs to take root first before having sufficient evidence to warrant our assent. It's what William James called, "the will to believe."

[Bill Spight]

I don't think that anyone has made the evolutionary argument. In short, if we only used 10% of our brains, our brains would have shrunk by natural selection to eliminate the 90% that we do not use. Brains are expensive organs.

I totally agree with that argument. But then: Why did biologists claim for decades that most of our DNA is just junk without function?

A number of reasons, I believe. My study of that was second hand. However, one reason I recall is that if crossover of chromosomes during mating is random, if you do not have redundancy in one form or other, then crossover would destroy functionality. Junk DNA would provide cheap protection against that.

[leichtloeslich]

Some topical anecdotes:

Some company built a Wifi radio tower South Africa and people started complaining about health issues:

Shortly after the tower was turned on, residents began to complain that they were suddenly afflicted with severe health issues [...]
They complained that their symptoms resided within a day of leaving the town, and they demanded the tower be permanently removed.

Then iBurst did something clever. It secretly turned off the tower near the end of September. The residents didn't know this, though, when they came to a meeting with iBurst CEO Jannie van Zyl in mid-November. They claimed that their symptoms took hours to subside, but would return shortly after they came back to the town. They said that certain skin conditions took a while longer -- as long as 6 weeks -- to fully recover. They also said that their afflictions still were ongoing.

Then Mr. Zyl revealed to them that they had been tricked. He explains, "At the meeting in mid-November residents claimed that full recovery of skin conditions could take as long as 6 weeks. Yet, the tower was switched off for more than 6 weeks by this time. At this point it became apparent that the tower can, in no way, be the cause of the symptoms, as it was already switched off for many weeks, yet the residents still saw symptoms that come and go according to their proximity to the area."

wifi_eats_babies.png (540.02 KiB) Viewed 7767 times

Actually, I find fear of radiation to be vastly more rational than believing in homeopathy, astrology or any of that bullshit, given that fear of radiation is at least grounded in the modern physical world model. Certain types of radiation certainly are harmful to humans. The physical principles on which homeopathy is grounded on however are just batshit crazy. If you could prove that it works you would surely get the Nobel prize in physics (or chemistry).

Here's a little experiment regarding dowsing:

What's interesting is not that dowsing doesn't work, it's the explanations the dowsers come up with after being objectively proved wrong.

[Knotwilg]

More anecdotal evidence:

Belgians are proud of their beer. We have many varieties, including "pils" and many brands for "pils", like Stella. Our archenemy is Heineken, a Dutch pils sold all over the world. Belgians have all kinds of pet names for Heineken, from cat urine to dish water. We are indignant that our brands are beaten around the world by this commercial drivel.

In a recent study a Swedish test group couldn't tell which instances of either beer tasted alike or different. The conclusion of the experiment had to be that the two beers tasted alike, or that, where there were differences in perceived taste, they were not significantly higher than when all beers were the same brand. The reaction in the Belgian press was most interesting: "The test group was Swedish. Surely a Belgian would have tasted the difference"
...

No news paper or beer club cared to do the test for themselves, under controlled circumstances.

When people are emotionally attached to something, no rational or scientific argument will convince them.

[DrStraw]

Actually, I find fear of radiation to be vastly more rational than believing in homeopathy, astrology or any of that bullshit, given that fear of radiation is at least grounded in the modern physical world model. Certain types of radiation certainly are harmful to humans. The physical principles on which homeopathy is grounded on however are just batshit crazy. If you could prove that it works you would surely get the Nobel prize in physics (or chemistry).

I absolutely agree with this except for one small problem. I have seen it work first-hand on several pets over the years. My wife believes it and I think it sounds crazy, but how can you explain that homeopathic concoctions have provided almost instant relieve on multiple occasions and save the live of at least one cat in our family? With humans you can claim it is the placebo effect, but these pets didn't even know they were getting it.

[RBerenguel]

Actually, I find fear of radiation to be vastly more rational than believing in homeopathy, astrology or any of that bullshit, given that fear of radiation is at least grounded in the modern physical world model. Certain types of radiation certainly are harmful to humans. The physical principles on which homeopathy is grounded on however are just batshit crazy. If you could prove that it works you would surely get the Nobel prize in physics (or chemistry).

I absolutely agree with this except for one small problem. I have seen it work first-hand on several pets over the years. My wife believes it and I think it sounds crazy, but how can you explain that homeopathic concoctions have provided almost instant relieve on multiple occasions and save the live of at least one cat in our family? With humans you can claim it is the placebo effect, but these pets didn't even know they were getting it.

That's what the cat wants you to believe... Douglas Adams was wrong, it wasn't mice, it was cats.