The Neurobollocks Bestiary (the Best Of Psychotherapy)

Bringing you the very best of neurobollocks from psychotherapy, complete with delightful debunking. Laugh, cry, or both - but above all... enjoy the ride, baby!

Co-written Ana x Jehan Ganachaud* x Mike Tranter*

It’s been a good year for neurobollocks - too good, in fact. With so many high-quality neurobollocks to choose from, we faced some tough decisions and had to select only the most compelling examples. If your favorite brand of neurobollocks didn’t make the cut, we sincerely apologise. Don’t lose hope as there is always next time.

Neurobollocks tend to fall into several broad categories, and in this Best Of, we will be featuring seven of them, namely:

1. Deep neurobollocks (Instant Trauma Fix Leveraging Supposed Memory Reconsolidation)

2. The ANS bollocks (The Vagus Nerve Activation)

3. Dopamine neurobollocks (Dopamine Detox)

4. Right Brain/Left Brain Neurobollocks (Rebalancing the Hemispheres)

5. The Lizard-Brain Spin Off Neurobollocks (The Chimp Brain)

6. Another ANS bollocks (Lying As a Sympathetic Response)

7. Neuroplasticity bollocks (Neurosculpting)

Neurobollocks 101

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.

Terms like neuro-myth or neuro-snake-oil are not exactly synonymous with neurobollocks, but they describe similar concepts.

For more on the definition of neurobollocks and why we’re so drawn to it, check out my original neurobollocks blog post. The exploration of the term was inspired by others, such as Professor Joe Devlin, whose science communication around this topic first got me thinking about it. Tracing the origins of this funky term, I found its first recorded appearance in a 2012 New Statesman article titled "Your Brain on Pseudoscience: The Rise of Popular Neurobollocks.". The author of the piece also coined the term neuro-trash, which I must admit, I quite like as well.

Because I am a therapist, in this piece we will focus on psychotherapy and wellness neurobollocks. To to this, we will be using Professor Joe Devlin's neurobollocks scale:

4-levels neurobollocks scale (used with permission)

Ethics of Calling Neurobollocks

Anyone putting their work, theories, or methods out into the world should, and indeed is, liable to public scrutiny, especially by those who may use these methods to help others. A thought leader or method founder must be able to provide a convincing explanation and, in the case of neuroscience-based claims, bona fide neuroscience research to support them.

When this isn’t the case - when individuals use erratic neuroscience claims or overextend their scope - it must be called out. Doing otherwise risks exploiting the authority of science to support false claims, ultimately failing to serve the client’s best interests. I discuss the ethics and proper application of neuroscience in psychotherapy in more detail here.

Now, let's weed out some neurobollocks.

1. Instant Trauma Fix Leveraging Deep Neurobollocks (Neuro-trash)

   neurobollocks rating: 🧠 🦎 🦎 🦎 🦎 (Exploitation)

   The unanimous winner of this infamous competition is Paul McKenna, a former celebrity hypnotist who also refers to himself as "one of the world’s most important modern self-help gurus". Today, he claims to treat traumatic events in as little as 60 seconds. I suggest you watch the video first, but if you are a bit squeamish, you might choose to skip that part - it is, by some accounts, disturbing.

   Clip 1: What happens in the brain when we are traumatised

Clip 2: How 60 seconds de-traumatisation works on a molecular level

The videos likely speak for themselves, requiring no further unpacking of neurobollocks. However, let’s take a closer look at the discourse, delivery, and origins of these claims—an example of what we call Deep Neurobollocks. While this case is extreme, it exemplifies some of the common techniques used to pass neurobollocks off as scientific truth.

Besides the majorly cringe-worthy demeanor, questionable showmanship, and highly problematic approach - especially when dealing with something as serious as trauma - what is he even on about? The "100Hz wave from the thalamus," phosphorates the AMPA receptors (I’m pretty sure he means phosphorylates)... for real?

Deep Neurobollocks And 'Havening' Debunk

The "technique" demonstrated is, in fact, the Havening Technique, which claims to treat trauma and is increasingly gaining traction in psychotherapy circles as a neuroscience-based intervention.

Here is the formidable pitch, which should be setting off some serious neurobollocks bells:

Better Living Through Neuroscience

This website introduces you to an extraordinary application of recently acquired knowledge in the field of neuroscience. The techniques described herein are based in evolutionary biology and offer you the opportunity to live a healthier, hopefully happier and more productive life.

And what is this 'recently acquired knowledge in the field of neuroscience'? It stems from the theory of Dr. Ron Ruden (who is not a neuroscientist), who claims to have discovered a way to leverage neuroscience to "harness electroceuticals" through simple touch, supposedly capable of completely eliminating traumatic experiences. He lays out his principles and the so-called "neuroscience" behind them in a paper published in a journal called Explore, which specialises in alternative medicine. Notably, this journal was co-founded by a parapsychologist - a detail that should already set off alarm bells as potential neurobollocks central.

The claims made so far, when considered in the context of their publication, should trigger a common-sense alert in clinicians even before starting to read the paper. If there truly were a neuroscience-based "cure" for trauma in 60 seconds, wouldn’t neuroscientists be leading the charge and cashing in the kudos of it, rather than allowing such a groundbreaking discovery to languish in the pages of an obscure alternative medicine journal? I’ll let you be the judge.

But back to the paper in question. It’s an interesting one for neurobollocks lovers. I’d classify it as deep neurobollocks, because on the surface, it almost sounds legit - especially to a non-neuroscientist. It’s packed with mentions of the amygdala, receptors, phosphorylations, and other neuroscience buzzwords. But somehow, it leads you into that uncanny intellectual valley where you can’t quite shake the feeling that something is off.

When one digs deeper, you realise the genuine elements of neuroscience - such as those related to trauma and memory reconsolidation research - are awkwardly stitched together with whimsical, unrelated concepts to craft a convenient narrative that leads to an easy application. To the inattentive eye, this might appear like legitimate science. But it’s not. It is crafty and misleading neurobollocks, that is what it is - the very definition of deep neurobollocks!

Of note: some Memory Reconsolidation (MR) techniques are grounded in bona fide neuroscience, and there is currently a thriving ongoing research effort happening around this topics (neither the paper described nor the 'Havening technique' are part of those efforts though). However, the claims around MR are often overstretched and oversimplified一often times by MR "gurus"一to create an illusion of a much broader scope of application and to make overinflated claims about "memory erasure." At that point, they’ve securely segued into neurobollocks territory.

And if you’re still hungry for more, here’s an example of Dr. Ruden demonstrating how to use Havening to "open your mind." Truly, this is neurobollocks taken to an exponential degree, right there in front of you. You are welcome.

2. Massage ‘Activating’ the Vagus Nerve. Or Is It Resetting? (ANS/Vagus Nerve Neurobollocks)

• neurobollocks rating: 🧠 🦎 🦎 (Oversimplification)

ANS neurobollocks一and specifically its potent sub-branch, Vagus neurobollocks一is a rich and widespread category that has grown into a neurobollocks cottage industry. At this point, it not only influences therapists but also extends to a variety of other more or less related professions, such as coaches, mindfulness teachers, yoga teachers, body-workers including massage therapists and more. Here, I have chosen just one example among many to unpack.

The usual yadda yadda yadda that seems virtually copy-pasted across similar websites promoting this "miraculous" technique, with what seems to be an absence critical evaluation, sometimes beggars belief. I am using this particular instance of a Vagus massage guru as an example, but it’s no better or worse than countless other websites of a similar ilk.

Let me clarify: I am not questioning the importance of the vagus nerve itself or its role in the parasympathetic and sympathetic nervous systems. The twist into fabulous neurobollocks happens when the discussion turns to "vagus stimulation."

For instance, the author states: “Vagus nerve stimulation (or VNS) refers to any technique that stimulates the vagus nerve, including manual techniques such as massages or electrical stimulation.” They even reference three studies to back up their claims. But if one takes the time to actually check these references, it becomes clear that all three studies focus on vagus nerve stimulation through electrical stimulation, either via implants or transcutaneous electrodes. Not a single study mentions manual- or massage-based vagus nerve stimulation. In fact, one of the studies even promotes VNS implants!And yet, the author goes on to claim: “Studies suggest that vagus nerve massage techniques can have a positive impact on ‘vagal tone.’ "without providing any such reference.

From "Clinical Perspectives on Vagus Nerve Stimulation" Tanaka et al. 2022, access the paper by clicking on the image.

Which level of neurobollocks are we dealing with here? It’s difficult to say. In this specific case, the author appears to have gathered some literature but employs the technique of mis-citing, and possibly banking on the assumption that no one will take the time to click on the references. Smells like level 4 (exploitation).However, I do believe that in many instances, practitioners and clinicians simply gullibly repeat claims they’ve heard elsewhere一perhaps from a self-proclaimed "guru vagus whisperer." In their eagerness not to miss the chance to "change their client’s life" or finally provide the key to unlocking the secret of ANS nirvana, they unknowingly engage in level 2 neurobollocks: oversimplification.

3. Brain Out of Balance (Right Brain/Left Brain Neurobollocks)

• neurobollocks rating: 🧠🦎🦎 (Oversimplification)

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).

The brain consists of 86 billion neurons and 10x more of other brain cells (glial cells), where hundreds of millions of neurons communicate across the hemispheres and literally trillions of connections within the whole brain. Simply tapping a part of the body (activating a tiny group of neurons within the somatosensory cortex to localise the sensation of touch), basically does nothing to the whole brain and the trillions of other connections, why would it?

4. The Chimp Brain (The Lizard Brain Wave of Neurobollocks)

• neurobollocks rating: 🧠🦎🦎 (Oversimplification)

  The Chimp Brain is a relatively new brain model, riding the wave of already well-established neurobollocks brain theories, such as the Lizard Brain, which has enjoyed remarkable success. Interestingly, these proponents are almost never neuroscientists—strange, when you think about it!

This model simplifies the brain into three parts:

1. The Computer System (the Parietal Lobe)"The Computer is a reference source for both the Human and Chimp. It stores their beliefs about what is right and important in the world. The Computer also stores memories, providing advice from past experience. Whilst it does not think for itself, the Computer can be programmed to take action in certain circumstances, making it the fastest system in the brain."

2. The Human System (the Prefrontal Cortex)"The Human is the conscious thinking system in the brain – it is you. Only you can decide how you would like to be in life and how you would like to live your life. The human’s basis for thinking therefore is facts and logic, which can take time to piece together."

The Chimp Brain (the Limbic System)"The Chimp is a primitive system in the brain which you do not control. The Chimp can think for itself and works with drives and instincts for surviving in the jungle. The Chimp’s basis for thinking is its feelings and impressions of the world; it is emotionally driven, impulsive, and quick to react."The selling pitch for this model is:The Chimp Model is an incredibly powerful mind management model that can help you become a happy, confident, healthier, and more successful person.This system might have started as an honest attempt at simplification; however, it is often misunderstood. I’ve heard clients and mental health practitioners alike say things to the effect of: “ I need to shut down the chimp in my brain” or “We all have a chimp in our brain,” which makes me question whether it’s achieving its intended purpose. Other than swapping out the word "reptile" for "chimp" (why a chimp, by the way? Who knows), it seems almost identical to the reptilian brain "doctrine." So, dare I say it一why simply exchange one neurobollocks for another?

5. Dopamine detox and dopamine diets (Dopamine Neurobollocks)

• neurobollocks rating: 🧠🦎🦎🦎 (Missaplication)

The idea of "dopamine detox" or "dopamine fast" has certainly captured our collective imagination, making its way into pop culture vocabulary and the canon of widely accepted ideas.

"Dopamine detox" search term from 2004 to now

And to be sure, the idea is compelling: as we increasingly find ourselves "craving" smartphones, validation, junk food, shopping, social media, porn, sex - you name it - wouldn’t it be nice if addiction (or at least behavioural addiction) and its negative effects could be neatly explained as a simple disruption in dopamine levels caused by overindulgence?

According to this narrative, indulging in addictive behaviours triggers a release of dopamine一 the famous "dopamine hit"一which provides a fleeting feel-good sensation. However, the story goes that excessive use leads to a cumulative depletion of dopamine levels, resulting in generalised mental states of restlessness, lethargy, or a lack of drive and motivation. It’s a nice story. Too bad it’s not true.

Instead of talking about "porn detox" or "smartphone detox," we now talk about "dopamine detox" - and, of course, attaching a neurotransmitter to the narrative makes it sound more "neurosciencey" and therefore more compelling. But being compelling doesn’t make it true. As it happens, the logic of "dopamine detox" or "dopamine fasting" is not supported by neuroscience.

For starters, dopamine in the brain does far more than mediate pleasure, motivation, or addictive behaviors. In fact, one of its most critical roles is regulating movement一which is why conditions like Parkinson’s disease, which affect dopamine levels in certain areas of the brain, result in movement disorders like tremors. Simply put, if checking your social media feed excessively depleted your dopamine levels, you would have much bigger problems than just feeling lethargic or unmotivated.

More than anything, it’s incredibly difficult, if at all really possible, to actually fully deplete neurotransmitters. For starters, once released into the synapse, they are recycled and even absorbed back by the very neurons that release them. They are in a constant cycle of being broken down and created, all the time, every second, of every day. Without some serious pharmacology or experimental manipulation in a lab somewhere, neurotransmitters don’t just vanish because you check your phone a lot.

The concept of "dopamine fasting" has, amongst other places, been promoted in the bestselling book Dopamine Nation, but these ideas fall apart under scrutiny. Neuroscience neither supports the claim that we could nor that we should "reset" the brain dopamine levels. This is because its levels, dopamine being a key neurotransmitter in a range of vital processes, is maintained through homeostatic regulation.The same line of argument is valid when it comes to dopamine diets, as simply eating a balanced diet provides an adequate supply of amino acids, which are later converted into dopamine. This notwithstanding, some rehab facilities now offer "evidence-based" interventions that include dopamine-rich diets.

6. Lying as a 'lesser' know sympathetic response (the ANS Neurobollocks)

• neurobollocks rating: 🧠🦎 (Misinterpretation)

It is in vogue today to blame it all on the sympathetic nervous system (the poor thing gets a bad rep). This specific claim about lying is just one of many similar vague claims that use the ANS neuro-babble to presumably empower the client (or the person who is reading the Instagram post). Other examples include statements like "procrastination is a sympathetic response".The issue here isn’t whether we should try to understand why someone lies or procrastinates instead of simply casting judgment. Of course we should. The real problem is that using vague neuro-babble doesn’t explain anything at all.

Let's unpack this: the sympathetic nervous system mostly works without our ongoing conscious input. It supports the homeostasis of the body in times of stress by preparing the body for physical activity. The reactions that ensue are extremely fast (to ensure the individual’s survival) and are seen physiologically throughout the body. Because it focuses on physiological response readying the body, it would not make sense that a cognitive response such as lying would fall within a “sympathetic response”.

Lying is also an extremely sophisticated and coordinated cognitive task for the brain. It might seem easy for you to quickly say something that isn’t true, but I assure you, the brain is working very hard in those moments, especially if we are trying to convince another person of our lie. It involves a mesmerising ballet of communication throughout the brain and constant social vigilance. Saying that lying is a sympathetic response, might have some weight in other fields, but it has no place in neuroscience. It’s just a weird thing to say.

7. Neurosculpting (Neuroplasticity Neurobollocks)

• neurobollocks rating: 🧠🦎 (Misinterpretation)

Neuroplasticity sits in a category of its own as one of those neuro-buzzwords with an irresistible, seductive allure. A number of videos, multiplying like mushrooms after the rain, promote the idea of neuroplasticity through finger exercises, and Neurosculpting is just one of many programs promoting it. The claim is simple: by moving our fingers in unusual ways, we can stimulate the brain’s neuroplasticity, leading to improved memory, cognitive ability, and a host of other benefits. It’s yet another panacea for wellbeing (similar to the earlier craze around vagus nerve stimulation), but the practitioners making these claims fundamentally misunderstand what neuroplasticity actually is. The affirmation specialist, Dr. Vanda, boasting 23.4K YouTube subscribers, demonstrates the simple finger exercises that emprove the concentration and memory through neuroplasticity (🤷‍♀️). As a bonus - we are in luck - these exercises help our hemispheres speak to each other (I thought it was the corpus callosum?) by "balancing" and "enhancing their communication" (see the Right brain/Left brain neurobollocks).

"Neuroplasticity" is not a magical ingredient that sprinkles stimulation across all areas of the brain一akin, perhaps, to a fertiliser that stimulates the growth of roots in soil. Instead, neuroplasticity is more specific一if I am learning a new language for example, this will engage the neuroplasticity mechanisms in the areas of the brain that are involved in language and memory. However, moving the fingers in intricate ways will not, for example, improve my cognitive capacity or improve memory. It will only (slightly) improve dexterity of finger movements, over months and years of it.

Is Psychotherapy a Neurobollocks Closet?

The most perspicacious among you might have noticed the conspicuous absence of the most prominent neurobollocks in psychotherapy: the Polyvagal Theory. For non-therapists reading: you’ve probably never heard of it. It’s a quirky pseudo-evolutionary theory that blends some truths with whimsical ideas about evolution and autonomic nervous system functioning, making claims about (very specific) hierarchy of human autonomic responses. It has gained a profound—if somewhat disturbing—foothold in the therapeutic community and I shall relish the opportunity to debunk this "theory" on another occasion.

But for now... let’s just say that while therapists are, without doubt, big suckers for neurobollocks, they’re not alone, other professions (like business and education) and even the general public fall for it too. Still, I dare to believe we can do better. We can raise the bar and show, as a profession, that we are capable of employing our critical sense, learning to separate good science from bad (or no science at all). By doing so, we will be in the best possible position to discern which advances in neuroscience have real potential to be translated into psychotherapy interventions that genuinely help our clients. Let’s do it.

A few words before we say goodbye:

• if you would like to sharpen you critical sense and become more neurobollocks-savvy, here are some of the things to 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.

• If you are a practitioner and using in your work some of the neurobollocks mentioned above, perhaps it's worth reconsidering their use. We all live and learn, and discovering that something we have leaned might not hold water is part of the process. Maybe today is the day you became aware of one such "neurobollocks"—and that's a win.

  One neurobollocks at the time.

We hope you enjoyed reading this neurobollocks bestiary as much as we did writing it. We also hope you found it useful, insightful or that it made you smile, at the very least. Triggering thus your parasympathetic response, so all good!😂.

Ana & Jehan & Mike 🧠🦎✊

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