Neuro-Bollocks (And Psychotherapy)

What is it about the prefix 'neuro' that makes us so susceptible to suspending our disbelief? And why, as therapists, we should steer clear of neurobollocks. Oldie (but goldie).

My favourite book on neuroscience for psychotherapists begins with an interesting observation about the power of language: it invites us to conduct a thought experiment: take any common, everyday word, add the prefix 'neuro-' to the beginning, and observe what happens. Is there any emotional reaction, such as an increased heart rate, signs of anxiety, drive to know less or more?

The author then adds: 'Any science fiction writer worth their salt knows that to describe the future, you add powerful prefixes to common terms—for example, a rifle becomes a plasma-rifle, vitamins become nano-supplements, or spying becomes neuro-espionage.' Keep this statement in mind as you read along, as it likely presents, in a nutshell, the why and the how our attention or critical sense might be manipulated into suspending disbelief and embracing fantasy.

In fact, there's a paper out there on this very topic. Fittingly titled The Seductive Allure of Neuroscience Explanations. It's both hilarious and incredibly instructive, especially for us therapists, as our field is often inundated with techniques and explanations that supposedly stem from neuroscience.

In short, the authors of this paper tested and confirmed the hypothesis that adding a neuroscience element to an explanation - even when the information is irrelevant - interferes with people's ability to critically evaluate the logic of the statements. In authors' words, incorporating neuroscience language tends to mask otherwise obvious problems in the logic of these statements. This is another important point for us to keep in mind.

As a self-confessed neuro-geek, I find all of this incredibly interesting and it prompts me to reassess why I'm so drawn to neuroscience in the context of psychotherapy. Is it due to the genuine benefits gained from integrating elements of neuroscience research into therapeutic practice, or is it the mystique and seductive allure of neuroscience? Probably a little bit of both!

And while I’m reflecting on these questions - no stones unturned, remember? - let me introduce you to another term with the prefix neuro: neurobollocks.

What is Neurobollocks

I first came across the term 'neurobollocks' in a social media post, by Joseph Devlin, who is a Professor Cognitive Neuroscience in UCL.

neurobollocks

noun [ U ]

Neurobollocks is an informal term that can be used to describe overly simplistic or misleading claims that misuse neuroscience to lend credibility to ideas.

Neurobollocks is similar to the term 'neuromyth'. To me, the key difference would be that a neuromyth refers to something that was historically considered true but is now outdated. In contrast, neurobollocks encompasses not only these outdated beliefs but also contemporary, ad-hoc mental contraptions and neologisms that misuse neuroscience language.

I am fascinated by cognitive biases and human paradoxes. I also love the slight naughtiness of it and how unapologetic it is. Therefore, me and the word 'neurobollocks', it was love at first sight!

And can you think of any? Neurobollocks?

I can. And it would take more than one blog post. But let's start with a classic.

The Lizard Brain - The Neurobollocks classic

It’s got to be the lizard brain. In this short video, marketing guru Seth Godin delivers a masterful and expert explanation of brain anatomy and evolution in under a minute (spoiler: this video is very funny) :

In case you are a therapist and reading this: if you are using the lizard brain to think about your clients or even psycho-educate them, please consider not doing it anymore. By perpetuating the use of erroneous oversimplifications, we risk losing in credibility as a profession and can get dangerously close to becoming merchants of illusion, much like Seth Godin above.

You might say: speak for yourself Ana! Fair enough. But if you care to continue reading this blog post, I will further make my case as to why.

Here, neuroscientist Lisa Feldman-Barrett, talks about this neuromyth using simple language and explanations.

Four Levels of Neurobollocks

Professor Joseph Devlin proposes a scale of 4 levels of neurobollocks.

4 levels of neurobollocks. Reproduced with the permission of Prof. Devlin. The link to the original source can be found in the text.

1. Misinterpretation would be the mildest form of misuse and it happens without malicious intent, by misunderstanding concepts from neuroscience.

Activating one brain hemisphere behaviourally

To give an example, we could think of the belief that tapping one side of our body would activate the opposite side of the brain as a misinterpretation. While it's true that tapping one side of the body creates a neural signal that is then initially processed in the opposite side of the brain due to contralateralisation of the brain , tapping one side will not 'activate' the opposite side of the brain because both hemispheres of the brain are active all of the time (unless there is some form of brain injury).

I would like to think that the majority of neurobollocks happening in the sphere of psychotherapy belongs in this category.

2. Next level of neurobollocks is oversimplification. Here the more complex neurosceince findings are reduced to a simplified narrative losing on accuracy and nuance to make for a compelling headline or an appealing claim in psychotherapy.

The Happieness Molecule

An example of oversimplification is the claim that serotonin is 'the happiness molecule.' Happiness is a complex feeling that is difficult to define, and while serotonin, like many other neurotransmitters, plays a role in that feeling, it cannot be exclusively labeled as the happiness molecule. In fact, serotonin is notoriously involved in virtually every mental process, including aggression and the maintenance of social dominance.

3. Level three is misapplication. As the name says, the neuroscience results are applied in the wrong context.

Gut serotonin affects brain serotonin

Continuing with the example of the neurotransmitter serotonin, we often hear claims that 90% of serotonin is produced in the gut and that, therefore, the state of our gut directly impacts our happiness levels. I find this example particularly compelling because it combines neurobollocks at two levels: first, the oversimplification of labeling serotonin as the happiness molecule, and second, the misinterpretation that gut serotonin influences brain serotonin. While it is true that a large proportion of serotonin is produced in the gut, it does not cross the blood-brain barrier, meaning that serotonin levels in the brain are not affected by levels in the rest of the body, including the gut.

4. The highest (and sometimes the darkest) ranking in neurobollocks goes to exploitation. Professor Devlin defines it as 'the most cynical misuse of neuroscience for commercial gain, trying to fool the consumer that the product or a method is based on "cutting-edge" neuroscience'.

In fact, for that reason, the phrase 'cutting-edge' has become a red flag for me in most contexts.

Neuro-Linguistic Programming

Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) has been consistently marketed as being grounded in neuroscience and has been 'sold' to life coaches and therapists as such. Who in their turn 'sell' it as such to their clients. However, there is no scientific evidence to support the claim that the linguistic and behavioural techniques used in NLP can actually 'rewire' the brain in the desired fashion.

Neo Neurobollocks

For an example of newly coined neurobollocks I was thinkning "The Neuroscience of Manifesting - The Magical Science of Getting the Life You Want". How is that? And which level do you reckon?

If you think that I am giving into the cynicism too soon regarding the neuroscience foundations of the art of manifesting, fair enough. I would find it quite amusing to be proven wrong here, so please let me know if you have read this book and you disagree.

For reference, and according to Wikipedia, manifesting is a practice rooted in the spiritual beliefs outlined in the book Law of Attraction. It posits that thoughts are energy, and since everything else is also energy, similar energies attract each other. For example, if I focus persistently on getting a fancy car, that thought somehow attracts the energy of that car, leading to its manifestation. Or something like that.

How to Recognise Neuro-bollocks

Am I being too cynical and too critical here?

On one hand, I am in awe of the immense creativity that people display in bending definitions, misapplying concepts, taking artistic license, and making sense of vague associations. It’s a testament to ingenuity and creativity of human spirit. So from my perspective of a post-ironic millennial, I find this infinitely amusing.

On the other hand though, as a therapist, when I think of misinterpretation and misuse of science and neuroscience, while working with clients and making claims and promisses that something is neuroscience-based while it is not, suddenly the whole thing takes on a darker and less amusing turn. Wouldn't you agree?

As therapists, we are not required to know and master all the facts of neuroscience - of course not. However, thought leaders who propose theories to us, claiming to rely on science, should be able to do so.

Whenever someone makes an extraordinary claim, remember that an extraordinary claim requires extraordinary proof, and the burden of proof is on the one making the claim.

When critically assessing the validity of a claim that is made, here are elements and red flags look out for:

• What are the references? In other words the scientific peer-reviewed papers, that are used to support the theory in question?

• Is that study relevant (or is there some oversimplification, or misapplication going on)?

• Is there a body of evidence or a signle, isolated study? Related to this is cherrypicking, or choosing only the evidence that supports the claim we are making and omitting to report the opposing evidence.

• How old is the study? My rule of thumb is cut-off value of 20 years. In other words, if all the references supporting a specific new theory or intervention are more than 20 years old, then it is probably outdated.

Please let me know your thoughts, and feel free to share your own examples of neurobollocks in the comments. Or on how to become proficient in manifesting rather than being a bloody cynic about it. I am open to suggestions.

As always, thank you for reading. For updates you can follow me on BlueSky or subscribe to my mailing list.