elwoodblues

Odd you should mention evolution. That particular theory is probably fundamentally the best argument for saying that we DO 'use' all (or practically all) of our brains. Carrying around excess, superflous gray matter is NOT conducive to survival. It is not a trait that would be reinforced and carried on. We pay GREATLY for the large brains we have, especially in child birth and infant mortality. If ANY of that gray matter could be pared down without losing important functions, it'd happen.

But no. We have huge skulls full of brains. Our mothers suffer for it, in childbirth. Our parents suffer for it, having to raise us on a very short leash, helpless as we are (development of the human animal can't take place in utero; the skull quickly becomes too large). We suffer for it, being susceptible to head wounds and concussions (other animals with smaller brains have room for more cushioning and armor around the brain; we have relatively little).

That's a great price to pay. There's got to be great, great advantage in every ounce of that brain, with very little or no 'excess' or 'extra' brain just sitting there taking up space.

Veil of Fire

Doesn't anyone else find it odd/strange/ironic that a bunch of internet geeks like us can, off the tops of our heads, produce more evidence against the 10% myth than the so-called 'professional' hoax exposer does in the Snopes article?`

Liquidrage

Nope. You appear to be overlooking the context of the site the article appears on.
It is a quick hit ubran legends sight. Not a scientific journal.
It gives just enough information to cover the basics.

I would rather willingly state that if the author in question was asked/inclined too produce a rather in depth article on the subject he would be more then capable.

[ June 08, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Secular Pinoy

Coming from someone who seems to embrace all matters irrational...

Duvenoy

"Yes, that old 10% myth is certainly persistent. Funny thing is, nobody seems to know where it came from in the first place."

I remember reading it in 'Ripley's Believe It or Not', many years ago, back when Rip was still alive and his, well, it was a simple drawing with a short text, column was in the newspapers. Very popular, too.

Of course, Ripley was never an authority on much of anything. Documentation was, for him, a hand-written note from anybody. Be that as it may, it was a damned well done artical.

I think that here was, if not the begining of the myth, one of the major means of spreading it.

d

Veil of Fire

"Coming from someone who seems to embrace all matters irrational..."

What's irrational is rejecting out-of-hand any claim that 'sounds stupid'.

parkdalian

I am not defending the 10 percent myth but I do think the problem of how we do use our brain matter and brain size is more interesting than cut and dried.

Here is one theory from John R. Skoyles:


<a href="http://www.skoyles.greatxscape.net/brain.html" target="_blank">Small brains yet normal IQ: a new theory</a>

MrDarwin

Hmmm, you could easily prove him wrong by backing up your objections with a hard fact/link/whatever, or perhaps you're above that sort of thing.

chekmate

I asked this question a while ago on the <a href="http://boards.staightdope.com" target="_blank">Straightdope Message Boards</a>. The reason I asked was because someone said something retarded, like that we only use 10% of our brains, and that the other 90% was our "soul." Ugh! So, I had to find out for real to prove him wrong. Here's the <a href="http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=113172" target="_blank">SDMB question</a> I asked, and they gave me some good links. Hope this helps!

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: chekmate ]</p>

Undercurrent

So this person was positing that our souls are not a supernatual thing, but rot in our graves after we die like the rest of our brains? Wierd.

m.

[ June 09, 2002: Message edited by: Michael ]</p>