10% of brain = 100% stupid

Alright. Time to come to the rescue of the "myth".

Shocking thing is, the myth of the so-called 10% brain use?

Isn't a myth at all. The urban legend and misconception cited on the venerable and always accurate Wikipedia? Inaccurate and - more to the point - incomplete.

While perhaps overstated and misunderstood, the general contention that 90% of our brain is unused to its full potential is entirely justified - and well supported by inconvenient medical evidence.

The evidence in support of the "10% myth" arises out of identified extreme cases of hydrocephalus. A childhood developmentnal illness, hydrocephalus exerts pressure and displacement in the cranial cavity upon the brain, filling large portions of the cranium with cerebrospinal fluid for the entire life of the individual, displacing the brain within the skull and greatly retarding the physical growth and development of the brain-as-physical-organ.

Most indentified sufferers of extreme hydrocephalus show significant mental retardation.

But most is far - very, very far - from all. Significant portions of those persons who are identified as having suffered from extreme hydrocephalus exhibit few symptoms or cognitive impairment.

In some extreme cases, those who suffer from profound retardation of brain growth, who possess a brain that has a mass of a TENTH OR LESS of the normal human brain mass of 1.5kg, exhibit above average intelligence and suffer from absolutely no cognitive, physical or social impairment at all. One holds an Honours degree in mathematics.

In many cases, these individuals are identified as suffering from the condition only as a consequence of diagnostic happenstance. That is not a small point and many potential devils are hidden in that detail.

The most inconvenient truth concerning Dr. Lorber's research is that it is well documented, peer reviewed and extremely difficult to explain - without concluding that the 10% myth, isn't a myth at all.

The more unsettling realization is that the number of people who suffer from significant to extreme retardation of brain mass growth - yet who suffer from no observable cognitive symptoms - will never be indentifed unless there is some reason to perform an MRI or other extensive diagnostic brain scan upon them.

In short - while the condtion is doubtless quite rare, there may be far more such individuals just walking around with the "problem" than we suspect. We simply do not know - and probably never will. And yes, you might be one of them.

So...while this research in the pages of Science may well be inconvenient and extreme in the result, it certainly DOES support the "myth" that we only use 10% of our brains (or less) to their full potential.

And the implication is also a fair one that we might be able to accomplish much more if, as a species, we were all able to optomize the use of our brain mass, on a day-to-day basis, so that we squeezed as much performance per neuron out of our brains as in the extreme cases of hydrocephalus documented in Dr. Lorber's research.

In the result - not 100% stupid at all.

I gently suggest that you need to rethink your premise and revise your views accordingly.

Reciprocal neurological developments of twins disc...[Dev Med Child Neurol. 1992] - PubMed Result

Where Is Consciousness? I've Lost It!

As I recall, there was an episode of Nova, (or perhaps Nature) which dealt with this topic as well and documents the brain scans and interviews with the people who suffer from this condition. The conclusion left in the episode was that in some circumstances, during infant development the brain can rewire itself drastically - such that although the cerebral cortex is entirely missing - it is missing without observable cognitive consequence.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

While perhaps overstated and misunderstood, the general contention that 90% of our brain is unused to its full potential is entirely justified - and well supported by inconvenient medical evidence.
Neurons without stimulation die. They do.

A brain's potential ability to heal/"rewire" from damage or stress doesn't have much to do with unused portions waiting to be "unleashed" in all of us.
 



So is it a mistake that some people say that drinking beer causes brain cells to die?

No, that is not a mistake, per se. Alcohol is toxic and causes many cells to die; and yes, some of those which die from alcohol are located in the brain.

We do, however, have billions of those cells. And it is exceedingly clear that the adaptability and redundancy built into the brain at a cellular level is very, very large.

My comment was not that it is false that neurons do not die; rather, it is false to say that they die if not stimulated. They do, however, atrophy from disuse and that makes it more difficult for those neurons to form connections.

Those connections can be revived though. An example many people are likely to be familiar with is the learned motor reflex associated with learning how to ride a bike. Once learned, that skill does not go away, even if unused for many years. The neurons endure.

You are, however, "rusty" when calling upon a bike riding skill that has been left dormant for many years. The phenomenom quickly wears off however, as those connections are renewed.
 

Alright. Time to come to the rescue of the "myth".

Shocking thing is, the myth of the so-called 10% brain use?

Isn't a myth at all. The urban legend and misconception cited on the venerable and always accurate Wikipedia? Inaccurate and - more to the point - incomplete.

While perhaps overstated and misunderstood, the general contention that 90% of our brain is unused to its full potential is entirely justified - and well supported by inconvenient medical evidence.

Quite a longwinded overly intricate post, to say "some people with smaller brains are smart". It folds back into "does the myth refer to 10% of mass being used, or to 10% of potential being used". Your case doesn't answer anything because it can't assume that the smart guy with 1/10th brain would be smarter with 9/10s brain. A compressed sponge doesn't have more sponge than a wet sponge.

Again, if you think the "we only use 10% of our brain" means "brains potential", than it's not a debatable point, since that "potential" is not and cannot be quantified. If you think it means "10% of the physical mass", than your example/ counterpoint doesn't apply either, because we're still using it, even if we're using it lazily/ not at peak efficiency.
 

Quite a longwinded overly intricate post, to say "some people with smaller brains are smart". It folds back into "does the myth refer to 10% of mass being used, or to 10% of potential being used". Your case doesn't answer anything because it can't assume that the smart guy with 1/10th brain would be smarter with 9/10s brain. A compressed sponge doesn't have more sponge than a wet sponge.

Evidently, the difference between volume and mass was a concept that your particular brain seemed to gloss over when reading the above.

The brains in the extreme cases of the afflicted that still exhibited above average brain performance were 50 to 150 grams in mass, vs. a normal brain mass in an adult human of 1.5kg.

Less volume in the cranial cavity? Hell yes. Less mass? Oh yes. Less than a tenth of normal brain mass.

This is the medical evidence that underlies all these sci-fi writers to make the sweeping comments that annoy the OP so.

My point: there is some real biological basis upon which to make the claim. NOT 100% stupid.

Again, if you think the "we only use 10% of our brain" means "brains potential", than it's not a debatable point, since that "potential" is not and cannot be quantified. If you think it means "10% of the physical mass", than your example/ counterpoint doesn't apply either, because we're still using it, even if we're using it lazily/ not at peak efficiency.

Some of us, evidently, use it more efficiently than others. :)

I'll try not to pollute the thread with any more facts.
 

Whatsa... huh?

Does that mean that scientists know when we're going to stop evolving? We're going to gain 90%* more brainpower in the total span of our evolution? What happens after that? Does the human race die out? Do we start devolving at that point?

How do scientists know what our potential is?

*Yeah, I know that's not the way that percentage math works, but I'm too lazy to work out the real math, and don't think it's worth it anyway.
That's why its called theory
 

Evidently, the difference between volume and mass was a concept that your particular brain seemed to gloss over when reading the above.
Nicely insulted, but in this case it doesn't really matter between volume and mass, if you're saying that mass and volume are both light and thus the 10% of physical use is true.

This is the medical evidence that underlies all these sci-fi writers to make the sweeping comments that annoy the OP so.

My point: there is some real biological basis upon which to make the claim. NOT 100% stupid.
Oh, are you debating the percentage of stupid then? Is it only 86.3% stupid because of your "evidence"?


Some of us, evidently, use it more efficiently than others. :)

I'll try not to pollute the thread with any more facts.

Ah yes, again you insult me without addressing which arguement you're making. Is the "myth" that we only use 10% of our physical brain true or fales, or is it the "myth" that we use only 10% of our nebulous unquantifiable "potential" false.

In case1, your evidence is still meaningless, because the average person does use their whole brain, even if it's not at peak efficiency. If all the parts of a car are moving, but you're not going 100mph, you're still using them.

In case2, the evidence is equally meaningless, simply because there is no way to arrive at this magical, made up number of 10%. There is no way to theorize how much the brain can do with any hope of accuracy.
 

That's why its called theory
More accurate might be hypothesis or speculation. What one might colloquial describe as a "theory" is not the same as one might define in the scientific community (except, again, if used colloquailly.)
To even hope to qualify for the latter, I'd ask:
- On what data do you base your hypothesis?
- What does your hypothesis predict?
The latter is critical - a "theory" that doesn't give us any falsifiable (testable) predictions is useless.
 

Remove ads

Top