Do Script Writers Only Use 10% of their Brains?
If you do a google search on “10% brain” every relevant hit on the first page will inform you that the notion that humans use only 10% of their brain (or some similarly low figure) is a complete myth. I think I was one of the first ones to get such a debunking article on the internet, posting this article back in 1998 (I’m not going to repeat that information here – just read the original article if you are interested). My subjective sense is that more people are aware today that this is a myth than in the past, but a surprising number of people still believe this.
I was reminded of how embedded this myth is in our culture when I heard that not one but two movies out this past week repeat the 10% brain myth. In The Sorcerer’s Apprentice Nicholas Cage informs his young apprentice that normal people only use about 10% of their brains, but sorcerers can use all of it and that is what enables them to do magic. In Inception Leonardo DiCaprio makes a similar argument about his ability to enter the dreams of other people
So maybe it’s primarily Hollywood that didn’t get the memo. The 10% brain myth seems to be the go to explanation for any fantastical mental ability. I also see it crop up in science fiction from time to time. I was very disappointed to read it repeated in one of the Dune prequels, for example.
I have no problem separating fantasy and fiction from reality. I enjoy fantasy and science fiction and will allow for made up science in order to create the fictional world in which the story takes place. Sure, ships need some way to travel faster than light and the writer can make up whatever technobabble they wish to make this happen. In fantasy novels the existence of magic is taken for granted. If any explanation is offered for the mechanics of magic, that is a bonus.
But this does not excuse lazy fiction writing. The fictional science or metaphysics of these worlds is an important part of the setting and often an integral part of the plot as well. If it is done poorly, it does diminish the overall work. It’s not that I cannot suspend my disbelieve – it’s just bad fiction. If you are going to offer an explanation for why only certain people can do magic, make sure it’s not stupid. Thirty seconds on Google would have informed the writers that offering the 10% brain myth as an explanation was not fictional – it was just wrong.
And that is another important distinction to make, especially with science fiction. You are allowed to make up new science, but that is not an excuse to get known science wrong. To what extent blowing the science ruins a movie is a matter of taste. It certainly diminishes the story for me, but is not fatal as long as everything else is good. I am not the kind of person that would allow one bad thing to ruin an otherwise good movie or book.
The persistence of the 10% brain myth is evidence for cultural inertia – once misinformation gets into the culture, it is very hard to get rid of. This is especially true if the misinformation has some appeal – in this case suggesting that humans have vast untapped potential. Given that information on the internet is overwhelmingly debunking about this myth, I wonder if that will change. If these two movies are any indication – it hasn’t so far.
This seems to be simply a continuation of the fact that Hollywood uses only 10% of brain matter on most subjects….by choice.
To be fair, Inception didn’t actually say “10%”; they said that we use a “fraction” of the brain. I remember because it perked my ears up when I heard it, and I thought to myself, “Hmm, that’s an easy way to get around the 10% myth.”
True, but then Leo went on to say other highly questionable things about the brain, including that you use much more of your brain during dreaming than when you’re conscious. And then there’s the whole time slowing down when you dream thing, which was very important to the plot but is scientifically highly questionable as well.
Isn’t 10% a small fraction?
It’s smaller than 90%, which is also a fraction.
My point is that technically he could have meant we use a large fraction. From what I remember, all he said was that we use a fraction, which could be interpreted many ways.
Gee, I dunno, Alex Jones could possibly manage less than 10%.
10% of zero is still zero.
This is the true and important justification for all our skeptical nitpicking and knowitall corrections. If nobody fights misinformation, it sticks in people’s minds forever. Never give up!
If nobody fights misinformation, it sticks in people’s minds forever.
…clogging up 90% of their brains.
Maybe on average humans use 10% of their brains,and misuse the other 90%.
That’s a good line for The Skeptic’s Apprentice
Interesting article. I too assumed the 10% brain myth was a well known fallacy.
The way most people think of this myth is that 90% of the space in between the ears is lifeless grey matter – never utilised, and potentially containing some kind of highly devolved mystical power. THAT myth is surely dead. There is unfortunately no dormant telekinesis lobe.
So how can Hollywood still cling to that myth? It grates as a blatant device to infer unexplained mysticism. Let’s give Hollywood the benefit of the doubt here. Maybe they don’t assume that us moviegoers are the drooling, popcorn munching, great unwashed that we think they think we are.
The origin of the myth is that, on average, we use 10% of our brain at any given moment. Maybe the new incarnation of this myth should find its strength in posing the question; what would happen if all parts of the brain functioned simultaneously? The answer is probably brain aneurism, but we’ll never know because it’s not possible to us mere mortals.
Unlike the original myth, this could never be tested, and so might grant the ardent skeptic the ability to suspend disbelief for one more minute. The real power of the sorcerer might be conjured by enlisting the functions of all parts of the brain at once – an unexpected result of the meta-functioning of the brain.
I have yet to see Inception, and you might be able to tell that I’m determined not to let that line disrupt the experience!
I have been in on script meetings and sometimes when I point out that a gag or element uses a “fact” that is wrong, I am typically accused of being nitpicky or being too caught up in literal reality, the implication being that I need to lighten up and just “go with it” if it is funny or cool.
I don’t see it this way at all. As you said, fantasy is fine, but saying something that is patently wrong actually does the complete opposite for me- it breaks the fantasy of the film for me because, rather than being sucked into the story and forgetting I am sitting in a theater, I suddenly get jarred back to reality.
My argument is always “can’t we just come up with another idea that is as good or better, but not wrong?” That doesn’t always work, but at least it generally challenges them because I am essentially saying “don’t be lazy and take the easy way out.”
I agree. If a “fact” is wrong, then the joke stops being funny for anybody who knows it’s wrong. To go through with the joke anyway is kinda condescending to the audience.
I feel like Science Fiction has gotten a lot lazier in the 21st century. For every Sci-Fi writer like Neal Stephanson who puts exhaustive work into the science that is used in his books, you get a dozen people who are writers first, and scientists a far distant second. Which is why seeing articles where the sci-fi writers pat themselves on the back for being prescient about future problems that could come about through science bother me so much. That there is a suggestion of this while they shovel tons of gods, demons and ghosts into a materialist world bugs me.
My personal pet peeve in Sci-Fi are people that try and suggest that humans were the descendants of ancient space peoples. There are a lot of ways that there could be ancient interactions between people and aliens, but really, don’t ignore the fact that we are so similar to the rest of life on earth, and that native peoples weren’t so stupid that they required aliens to tell them how to move large blocks of stone.
Personal worst thing I’ve ever seen was in The Happening, where M. Night uses a quote from Einstein that is completely false. People, fiction is so much better when you use as much of the real truth as possible!
Hahaha, Leonardo is pretty cool in his latest movie. I wish I’d never seen Inception! It’s such a crazy movie that I think it destroyed the chances for me to enjoy any other movie!
I used to “script doctor” (Heroes Journey stuff) and the primary (official) reasons for dumbing down a script is because you’re dealing with an audience that 1) would be watching NOVA, if they wanted to learn something, and 2) thinking is thought to be antithetical to entertainment, and 3) A 6th to 8th grade reading level is equated (wrongly) with a sixth to eigth grade thinking level.
Part of the problem is that audiences feel that what, science, history etc., they see on TV and in the movies can be relied upon as factual, in the first place. After working for years in advertising, I can assure everyone that is not the case.
We live in a disinformation culture, in part because Democracies have to “lie” more so, than dictatorships, but more so because we live in a country that says everyone is an individual (I’m not) and all our opions are equally valid, despite any pesky facts to the contrary. People pass on information that has been given them, without doing the “heavy lifting” of critically analyzing it, and putting it through the BS test. Fad diets, “alternative medicine” etc.
In this environment, data/information, becomes a commodity, if you don’t like what’s being said on CNN, simply turn to FOX, or NPR, for information more aligned to your tastes, desires, and wishes.
Everyone feels special in their own environment, in which they are rarely challenged by an opposing view. When they are they become defensive, because they have a sense of entitlement to their own facts, rather than the humility required to discover truth. This, in turn, creates an environment that makes many of us dislike science, philosophy, reason and logic, because those disciplines challenge us, and often times point out our flaws, errors and biases, and in a culture that proclaims that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, that’s very bitter medicine for the ego addicted.
In other words, businesses, specifically entertainment outlets, will not make fact based claims, because it is easier to cater to consumer/customers desires, than it is to try to change their wants, and needs. Social engineering aside, customer service is about giving the customer what they want, not dictating what they “should” want.
Demographic studies, and marketing plans are expensive enough, with out adding educational, social engineering strategies to the mix. I don’t like it anymore than anyone else on this board, but profit is a large part of the problem.
According to this, that would excuse George Lucas for ‘mitochlorians’ ? Sometimes its good to have a fake science explanation, like star trek. Sometimes its good to just have no explanation, like the good parts of the star wars saga. But yes, its always bad to have a totally wrong explanation, attempting to modify known science or use bad science.
Exactly right. Sometimes plot points require things that aren’t real, much like movies themselves.Insilling a sense of imagination, and wonder from an entertainment perspective, is a different animal, than doing the same thing from a scientific/learning perspective.
More to the point, we make a distinction between entertainment and informative programming for a reason. Recently the lines have become increasingly blured (The Fourth Kind, What The Bleep Do We Know…, and all the Michael Moore and Lose Change BS) but to require that entertainment be factually correct, all of the time, would put it into the other category i.e., informative/factual.
If we required that of entertainment, it would only result in a further confusing of the two genres.
Bottom line, the onus is on the viewer to be critical of the content they consume, and should be factually correct only if it is meant to be informative. Entertainment, by definition, doesn’t have to meet any such requirement.
Entertainment might not have to meet any such requirements, but good entertainment should. Like some pointed out, it’s not just the fact it’s made up, it’s the fact it’s lazy thinking. Maybe their audiences in general are stupid, but that doesn’t mean the writers have to emulate that stupidity while writing. It might be harder to give a reasonable (if untrue) explanation while keeping it intelligible to the masses, but that’s exactly what separates good from bad writing.
I understnad where you’re coming from, but let’s say, hypothetically speaking, that I am writting drama, that hinges on two opposing characters and their beliefs. One belief is blatantly “wrong” and the other “right.”
In order for me to build the drama, I have to portray/write the wrong information, accurately. So, if I’m writing the dialogue for a Conspiracy Theorist, I can’t misrepresent his beliefs, by writing them as close to the truth as possible, that would make his character unbelievable.
This doesn’t take into consideration that people are mistaken, and in error about their beliefs, in “real life” a lot of the time. Do I have to ignore this fact, when writing dialogue for a character, making sure that everything that I write is factually correct, and consistent with the evidence at hand?
Fantasy, horror and many other genres, by definition, have little, or nothing to do with fact, or objective reality. That’s why they are labeled as such. If people decide to believe that they are factual, that’s their problem. If, however, so-called informative content is false, misleading and the like, that is a breach of ethics, but again, it is up to the individual to do, or not do the critical thinking on the content they consume.
Chris,
You wrote: “So, if I’m writing the dialogue for a Conspiracy Theorist, I can’t misrepresent his beliefs, by writing them as close to the truth as possible, that would make his character unbelievable.”
That’s not the issue here – while what you write is true, it has no bearing on what I wrote. This is not a matter of accurately representing the beliefs of someone, whether right or wrong, but passing them as truth, by mean of their position as experts on the subject. Like having a scientist misrepresent a scientific fact, for example. I don’t see it as “wrong” that they did that, because indeed they didn’t have an obligation to be factually correct. I just believe, like I said, that it’s lazy, bad writing. The writers could have come up with a different, more original explanation, even if wrong all the same, just maybe not as patently wrong. You can be wrong without being stupid. And that’s why I don’t buy the reasoning that scripts are stupid because audiences are stupid – I think it’s more likely just an excuse used by bad writers. This is not a fact – it’s my opinion.
Thinking a bit more about what you wrote, it seems to me that’s part of the problem. People seem to start from the premise that informative content is not entertaining. I would point again that only bad informative writing is not entertaining. This has much more to say about the quality of most script writers than about the intelligence of the audiences.
I’m facing some of these issues myself, because I’m developing a series for children where I want to teach chemistry and environmental facts while keeping them entertained, and I’ve realized firsthand how hard it is to accomplish that – but it’s a welcome challenge, nonetheless.
It’s a logic problem. Informative content has, or rather should be accurate, and can be entertaining, but entertainment doesn’t have to be accurate to be entertaining.
It is also a matter of context. Entertainment is not supposed to inform, it’s not created to do so. It is supposed to entertain.
Informative content may use entertaining devices to teach, but it does so to further the goal, which is learning.
What’s the age range of your demographic?
Chris,
I’m trying to keep it as wide as possible, but starting from around 9-10 years old. The idea is to weave science in the stories without labeling it as such, not even suggesting it. So when the kids get to the point where they are taught those facts at school (hopefully), it completes the circuit. I see it as a way to increase the chances of a long term synapse potentiation, and therefore learning.
Good demographic. They’re usually pretty receptive to that sort of thing at that age. Break a leg.
Thanks, Chris.
I can’t really talk much about it because it’s not registered yet, but if you (or anyone) are interested just send me an email and I’ll tell you more once I get it done.
Ops. I just realized the email doesn’t show up here – it’s nh@nighthiker.com.
NightHiker,
I’d love to check it out. My Portugese is a bit rusty, to say the least. I live in San Marcos, Texas, so the second language for most “Anglos” around here is Spanish.
I am, sadly, not bilingual.
Thanks for the invite.
Chris,
I’m planning to pitch it to international markets (sadly there’s not much market for it here in Brazil), so I’ll have an English version as well.
If you aren’t aware, we just had a huge text book debacle, here in Texas. The reason that this may be important is that text book/educational material publishers, in the U.S., adopt thier content to fit two states cirricula. Those of California, and Texas. They do this because those two states buy the lions share of the text, and since the education system in the U.S. isn’t Federal, and standardized, the whims of the states dictate the content of the education materials.
So, as if the state of U.S. science and mathematics wasn’t bad enough, now if the material doesn’t meet Texas standards (which are abhorently, and blatently Religous Right leaning) the material doesn’t get taught.
Chris,
Yes, I followed that debacle, and was saddened by it. Things are not much better here, if at all. That’s why I’ll pitch this mostly as entertainment, leaving the educational side almost hidden in between the lines. Maybe you could call it covert education, if you will.
I’ll look forward to your email.
Steven,
In the original text you linked here you wrote that the brain “comprises 5% of total body mass”, when it’s more like 2%. I’m surprised no one noticed that in 12 years. It doesn’t really detract from the gist of the argument, but considering it’s an article regarding misinformation about the brain, you probably should fix it.
Well, in “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”, Balthezar was a 1200 year old that had been locked in an urn for the last ten years. My 88 year old father doesn’t use the Internet, so if you were one of the first to debunk the myth on the Internet 12 years ago, is it any wonder Balthezar still believed it? He only had two years to get the word!
NightHiker – You’re right, I fixed it. Thanks.
Regarding truth in fiction – as I said, it is OK to make up as much stuff as you want in fiction. I loved Inglorious Bastards, despite all the historical inaccuracies. But let’s say the Germans were using the wrong rifles, for no artistic or cinematic reason – just out of pure laziness and disregard for such details. Those kinds of things would likely annoy someone who is a WWII history or military buff – while the fact that Hitler is killed in the movie would not, as it was obvious fantasy.
This is not about what writers “should” do, nor about using entertainment to educate. My point is that fiction is better when the writer does not casually insult the intelligence of their reader/viewer, and when they make an effort to get basic details correct or at least consistent. Science fiction in particular is better when the science is either correct or fictional. When it is wrong because the writer is not knowledgeable, or just doesn’t care – it’s lazy bad writing that detracts from the work.
Exactly. If you want a good (or should I say bad?) example of the later, watch “Mission Mars”. They managed to get almost everything wrong. It’s so bad it might actually be educational if a science teacher tasks kids to find everything that’s wrong with it as an assignment.
Maybe, maybe not. Tons of westerns, of the John Wayne variety, are horribly inacurate, as are historic epics, such as the old Berrymore swashbuckler movies, or Sparticus, or even Shakespeare, for that matter, but they are wildely entertaining, and I don’t think the inacuracies detract from the work at all, no?
Jack Ryan novels are a prime example. The setting is, or has existed. It is as close a representation to objective reality as the author can get. Jack Ryan and his many exploits and actions, are not possible, and never happened, but temporary suspension of disbelief kicks in, and the reader is, or is not (depending upon ones tastes) entertained. Even though it isn’t possible, or remotely accurate, it’s still entertaining writing.
The other thing here is, how do we know the writer is “lazy” or that he/she is writing from a characters perspective knowledge? He could be pandering to a common myth, misconception, or mistake, because it is more realistic for people to have mistaken views on all things. Isn’t that a more acurate and realistic representation of how people actually think? So, in a certain way an author may be portraying a more honest representation of a character, that is flawed and mistaken, no?
It isn’t necessarily bad writing or ignorance on the authors part. Any given character may be written a certain way, for a myriad reasons. Laziness, and bad writing are just two possible explinations.
“It isn’t necessarily bad writing or ignorance on the authors part. Any given character may be written a certain way, for a myriad reasons. Laziness, and bad writing are just two possible explinations.”
I agree with this, but I think some times you can differentiate between a good writer pandering to myths and just a bad writer. It clearly includes subjective judgement, so there’s no clear cut set of rules to help separate bad from good writing. I tend to give something a pass if it’s necessary to develop the plot further – it all depends on how consistently the script keeps up with its own internal logic.
Hi Steve.
On Sunday, I listen to alex tsakiris interviewing you on skeptiko.
There’s a guy who’s not even getting close to 10%.
Ad hominem intended.
I agree it’s a myth – I never use my brain; in fact I’m not sure if I have one these days. I’ve never thought of thinking for myself at all.
Surely the self-improvement gurus need to perpetuate these lines as selling spin; “great brain this, only 10% used, aged auntie, church on Sunday”, sort of thing. Get off your executive couch and use your overpaid but insecure supra-tentorial potato productively to crush fair competition and exploit the third-world conscience free, sort of thing.
In Inception’s case, Leonardo was merely trying to sell his reception skills (or something like that, it’s 24 hrs since I saw it – memory issues), a la that guy with the big head and his giant within sort of thing. That’s it. Sort of thing.
Since Hollywood tends to use only a fraction of their brain on creating movies on most subjects, maybe they should use the disclaimer that “the characters are questionable the facts are not to be taken seriously”……..so have fun…..and pay more attention to science to enhance the other 90% of you brain. I know many people that go to any movie, no matter how stupid, and believe it could be accurate or true! Like the Passion of the Christ…..etc…
Christopher Chabris and Daniel Simons of the Invisible Gorilla fame, in their recent book entitled The Invisible Gorilla, address the 10% myth in the what they refer to as the Illusion of Potential. It is a good read for anyone interested in the many illusions perpetrated by our intuition. Check it out!
There is untapped potential. For example, one could learn a new language or a new skill.
Dr. Novella is probably the best one here to verify this info., but according to my sensation and perception class, we use all of our brain, just not all at once.
As I understand it, if we were to gain enhanced hearing, or x-ray vision, or some such extrasensory perception, we would have to have bigger craniums, or a sack, coming off the side of our head, to hold all of the extra gray matter required to process the added “superpower’s” needs.
I don’t know about you, but I already eat way too much, and since the brain is the “hungriest” organ in our bodies, the last thing I need is more brains… wait, that didn’t come out right.
“As I understand it, if we were to gain enhanced hearing, or x-ray vision, or some such extrasensory perception, we would have to have bigger craniums”
Not necessarily.
The biggest change may have to be at the sensory organs. It all depends on what you define as “extrasensory perception”, which, by itself, is an oxymoron (if you perceive it, it can’t be extrasensory). In order to hear better, we might just need more sensitive eardrums, or in order to hear or see new frequencies or wavelengths, we would need modified receptors with triggers for such wavelengths. That by itself might be enough to give us some sort of new perception, even if the brain remains the same, because since the new information will start to trigger a response in the auditive and visual cortices, it will generate some sort of sensation. How the result will look or feel like I have no idea – probably at first just would fool the brain to think the new data is like the old data, generating some sort of surreal, less than useful result, but I guess plasticity allied to the training of our cognitive faculties might in the end make us learn a new, useful perception if given enough time.
Also, considering much in the brain is the result not only of the processing of many specific modules, but how these modules are wired together, you could reach some sort of new perception by just rewiring the brain in some way to elicit processing from different modules (which is probably what already happens with synaesthetic people), without adding any new grey matter.
None of those things have anything to do with us using just 10% of our brain, but might be feasible things to do (with biological or electronical engineering) once we better understand our brains’ inner workings (maybe in a few decades).
It is horrible that films don’t get it right. I get more upset by the sentimentality and anthropomorphization in movies than the using 10% of brain myth. The one that sticks in my head and ruined a movie was the terminator reprogramming thing. So for those who haven’t seen it the “good” terminator is captured and made imoble by the enemy one and gets reprogramed. So far so good, makes a certain sort of sense. Then the now evil terminator works to defeat the new (or really old programming). This is when my face hits my desk.