|
Comment on this article
If it sounds like neuroscience, it must be true
May/June 2008
by Emily Anthes '05
News outlets regularly announce that the brain's signature for love,
greed, aggression, or some other behavior has been discovered. "These studies
are everywhere in the media," says Deena Skolnick Weisberg, a doctoral student
in the Department of Psychology. And yet, "I was finding that the explanations
really weren't always that convincing."
| |
"The seductive allure of neuroscience."
|
Weisberg wondered whether information about the brain could be so
persuasive that it compromises the public's ability to evaluate research
critically. In the March issue of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, she shows that although people are reasonably
adept at identifying bad psychological explanations for human behavior, a dash
of neuroscience can make faulty logic sound far more credible.
Weisberg's team began by writing a series of explanations for well-documented
psychological phenomena. Some versions were "good," presenting solid reasoning
and the scientifically accepted rationale for a behavior, while others were
"bad," providing only circular logic. The researchers found that people without
any psychology or neuroscience training successfully distinguished the good
reasoning from the bad. But when the researchers added an utterly irrelevant
mention of the physical brain, subjects' powers of discrimination weakened
considerably.
In particular, people judged the bad explanations to be far more
believable when they included neuroscience. (The good accounts got only a
slight boost.) Only true experts -- people with advanced cognitive science
training -- were immune to what Weisberg and her team call "the seductive allure
of neuroscience."
"What would really be helpful is better education about how to read any
kind of popular report of science," Weisberg says. But barring that, even just
knowing about these cognitive mistakes can help people avoid making them.  |