So, I was listening to the radio on the way back from DEMF. They played an intro to some kind of science discussion show where they mentioned the popular myth that people use only 10% of their brain. They played a clip of someone declaring that Einstein used 13%.
As I often do when I hear patently absurd assertions, I found myself mentally rehearsing the argument I would make to debunk such a statement.
When I was a teenager, I was often accused of being overly argumentative (true). Over time, I’ve swung the other way, taking a live and let live approach with regard to volunteering my own opinions about how others are wrong. One, I don’t see the point (people are tend to be very attached to their absurdities), and two, hey, I could be wrong.
Even so, I tend to think that if obviously wrong assertions are allowed to slip by unchallenged, that these memes will spread to other defenseless minds, and that the various infections of irrationality will propagate unchecked.
What’s the moral right, here? From a position of larger societal ethics, is it justified for me to challenge these things when they come up, at the expense of being cool?
Or is the entire proposition just veiled narcissism?
Tags: navelgazing
I listened to that NPR clip. They were interviewing a brain researcher who recently wrote about popular brain myths with another researcher and how they teamed up to write after originally working on separate projects. One thing I took away from that story was that tried not be a purely debunking book but when they took away a myth, they would give back some tidbit of wonder or awe about the brain that would take its place. I think that is a very legitimate strategy. They understood the elemental appeal of those myths and like democracy and room for improvement elements to the 10% myth, and took that into account in how the debunked it.
I remember listening to a American Life story (at least I think that where I heard it) that was following a bunch of scavenger hunt time geeks from MIT, basically your brilliant knowitall, who the world has little use for outside these esoteric games of skill. One of the guys who used to work writing Greeting Cards I think, talked about they day he realized he why people didn’t get appreciate him, in the midst of monologue explaining the difference between monkeys and apes, he had a AHa! moment! That in conversation he essentially educated people against their will. Some people certainly resent that.
You have to know your audience. Some people love learning something new, getting something right, rather than getting it wrong but familiar, and others no matter how wrong they are just aren’t going to hear you. And also your context. People are much more likely to take correction on a one on one basis than when they are being told they are wrong in front of a crowd.
And of course there are things are that purely subjective.