50% Left Brain, 50% Right Brain, Still 100% Missing the Point: Part 2

Hello intrepid….readers. When last we spoke, I was teaching you all how to approach things that look like science but are obviously marketed for a massive audience. Can a Facebook quiz really tell you which side of your brain is more dominant? Hint: no. In short, I talked at you about approaching pseudoscience with skepticism that would make Dana Scully proud. But now, we’re going to dig deeper into why that quiz is an exemplary pile of fluff. In this segment, I’m going to use it to soapbox about the murky waters of psychological testing. In the next {and final, promise!} part, we’ll actually discuss left/right hemispheres and what those really mean and do.

Any sort of test claiming to have a degree of significance in its results has to be tested, retested, validated, and generally stand up to damn rigorous scrutiny. Down to how the questions are phrased, even. The amount of work that goes into developing psychological assessments is astounding and a ton of background research and testing needs to occur before you can use it to find any sort of conclusive result. And even then, the results are very nuanced and are understood to be taken as general indicators rather than end-all, be-alls on the matter.

For example, IQ testing doesn’t actually tell you how smart you are or how successful you’ll be. It tells you how you compare to others fitting roughly the same demographic as you in specific areas like working memory or verbal comprehension, which are generally lumped together to form a vague definition of “intelligence” or, more accurately, specific areas of cognitive ability. IQ tests are also subject to a lot of cultural bias and are so far from perfect it’s not even funny. This isn’t the place for me to rant but sometimes Psychology Today has some good places to start {with more sources, so I don’t have to} and I generally find this article to be a decent jumping off point to explore the matter further.

Perhaps at a later time I’ll dive into “intelligence” and rant about how messed up our perception is of it and how much false value is placed on doing well on standardized tests. Long story short, no human’s abilities can be boiled down into numbers and compared to a norm and give a complete picture. Having a high IQ means you’re more or less really good at the type of tasks in the IQ test but say nothing about the rest of you. In fact, multiple studies have found that IQ is a worse predictor of things like academic achievement as compared to, say, self-discipline. TL;DR on that link: in this fairly decent study, IQ appears to be a worse predictor of academic achievement than self-discipline as demonstrated by a few different analyses and measures of academic achievement and self-discipline. Neurotopical: reading, so you don’t have to {unless you really want to}.

Another issue in psychometric assessments is the fact that there are SO MANY sources of unreliability. New tests have to be researched and tested against similar batteries, validated in multiple studies, scrutinized, torn apart, critiqued, updated, and basically put through hell before they can be used by researchers with the caveat of “this test is probably indicative of this quality.” Interestingly enough, some researchers from Ohio State actually developed a pretty damn accurate measurement of narcissism…which is only one question. It’s called SINS, or the Single Item Narcissism Scale. Love it. As with all tests, factors like inaccuracy in self-reporting, differences in administration and scoring between researchers, cultural bias, aaand honestly this sample of a book chapter breaks it down better and in more depth if you actually care…all add up and are very unavoidable.

Luckily, statistical analysis takes some of this into account but we cannot have a completely accurate, quantifiable measurement of any one quality so always take such things with a grain of salt. MBTI, I’m looking at you {and specifically not going to address that here…if you’re curious as to what my take is on the MBTI, scroll up, read the first few paragraphs again, then imagine me raising my eyebrows and giving you a skeptical look. If you have no idea what I actually look like, imagine someone giving you a skeptical look. Guys, I’m an INTP/ Taurus/ Gemini cusp, I can’t help that I’m like this…whatever “this” is. All I know is none of those categorizations say anything meaningful about me on a scientific level, just sayin’. You’re welcome to have your beliefs but please don’t confuse them with my science.}

In short, hopefully I’m making you a paranoid freak who is going to question every number and measurement they see from now on, especially as it applies to psychological testing. But also, recognize that it’s often the best we have and overall, really well-developed psychological assessments do tend to at least tell us something about the person being evaluated and point us in a general direction. Assuming the participant is not lying. In the words of Dr. House, everybody lies. But some tests actually have questions designed to catch lies or exaggerations but I’m actively not going to tell you too much about those so that our clever ways of catching dishonesty is not revealed to the world.

So back to the original point….if our gold standard psychological tests don’t really tell us anything conclusive about what we’d expect said tests to reveal, what snowball’s chance in hell would a Facebook fluff quiz website have in producing any sort of meaningful result about your brain {or any brain, really}? Unsubstantiated metrics will often be wildly inaccurate and inconclusive, end of story.

Do you want me to stop beating this dead horse of a Facebook quiz over the head or nah….? No? Cool, then stay tuned for the final installment of vaguely related tangents where we finally get to the good stuff, ie. discussing what the whole left brain/ right brain deal is. Thanks for reading!

45% Left Brain, 55% Right Brain, 100% Missing the Point: Part 1

I will never discourage people from expressing interest in the brain but if you’re going to do so, at least attempt some legitimacy. I like to believe that a click-baity Facebook quiz that claims to approximate hemispheric dominance is blatantly not science to even the most casual observer. In fact, of the many people on my newsfeed that I’ve seen sharing these results {“Oh look, I’m 35% left brain, which means I’m confirming that I always knew I was more creative/emotional!”} most seem to at least post with some caveat {“Not sure how accurate this is but still interesting!”}. In this case, a BS in science trumps bs’ing science so sit down and let me tell you things {note: I actually have a BA in Neuro because liberal arts school but the phrase seemed clever so just go with it please}.

Since humans tend to have a limited attention span, I’m going to break this topic into a few different posts. I think it’s valuable to examine multiple angles and give due diligence to each but part of the issue is that people like bite-sized, easily digestible content. Why am I wasting my time on some just-for-fun Facebook quiz? Well, because it’s a really good jumping off point to touch on multiple topics like how to deal with pseudoscience, the importance and troubles of psychometrics, and what the whole left brain/right brain deal is anyways. So in lieu of one hefty post, you’ll get at least two smaller ones. This first post is going to focus on why this left/right brain dominance quiz is an example of pseudoscience and how to think like a scientist, even if you aren’t one. I’ll make a skeptic of you yet….

How to Approach Dubious Claims

          I want to teach others how to combat pseudoscience and think critically about claims so we’re going to explore that first. I can tell you right now that sites behind the left/ right brain ones put out others {Who Secretly Has A Crush on You? Who Were You in a Past Life? What Color is Your Aura? What Kind of Mythical Creature [That Isn’t a Succubus Because We have No Creativity] Are You?} with about as much regard for scientific accuracy. The truth behind you being 50/50 left brain/right brain as dictated by that quiz is about as accurate as you being Napoleon in a past life. Only this one quiz is masquerading as having some sort of scientific basis because we all know brains have two halves and stuff, right?

Before we jump in too far, I want to keep context in mind and briefly answer the pressing question of “but do the hemispheres do different things?”. Yes, different parts of the brain are specialized for different functions but this is not new. Your frontal lobe and occipital lobe both occupy roughly equal space in both hemispheres but have vastly different functions. While I’ll explore hemispheric specialization in more depth in following posts, yes, there are some functions a particular area in one hemisphere is mostly responsible for. However, there is no one “language” area since it’s a complex process that requires communication between multiple parts of your brain. This article from McGill University’s website gives an example of such areas and does a pretty good job of going more in depth about left brain/right brain stuff if you’re too antsy to wait for the other posts.

The version of this quiz I linked to above {and again here} states before you start that “the idea of delineation of tasks between the left and right brain is not just an idea that people have thrown around- it’s backed up by scientific proof. American neuropsychologist Roger Sperry won the 1981 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine for his work in split-brain research. Want to know which side of your brain, left or right, is more dominant and by how much? Take this test to get the most accurate results.” Let’s do some dissecting and break this entire trainwreck of a paragraph down…by color!

          A. Hokay. First rule of science is that nothing is ever proven, hypotheses are just supported {or not} by the data. If ever you encounter something that claims “scientific proof,” little skeptical alarms should go off in your head right away. Undergrads are conditioned to be so averse to the term “proof” that it makes us instantly wary because boy, have many of us lost valuable points on a paper for using inherently inaccurate terminology. That sticks with you.

          B. Split-brain sounds scientific and relevant, Nobel Prize in Physiology in Medicine…well, that’s about as legitimate as you get. Roger Sperry’s prize was based on work with patients who had the main link between the hemispheres severed {if you’re curious, it was a method of treating epilepsy}. Thus, they could observe how each side functioned more or less independent of the other, hence the “split brain” bit.

If you bother to read what his work was about, you’ll see that they mostly observed how the brain functions differently when the two hemispheres can no longer communicate effectively. Interestingly enough, when you split the two halves, people actually tend to react the same way when given the same tasks. Chew on that for a second if you wish but I digress {hint: if there were any weight to being “dominant” in one hemisphere, you’d probably expect to see split brain people vary drastically in terms of performance on cognitive tasks, no?}.

Sperry himself even said “experimentally observed polarity in right-left cognitive style is an idea in general with which it is very easy to run wild… it is important to remember that the two hemispheres in the normal intact brain tend regularly to function closely together as a unit” in one of his papers. So. You know. Using an appeal to authority to give yourself validity is cool and all except when there are more updated sources and also your person specifically cautions against taking his work out of context.

          C. More dominant? What? How is this quantified? Brain activity? Because I don’t see this quiz offering to use ANY physiological metrics. Can your answers tell us which part of your brain activates more often? Sure, perhaps, on a well-calibrated test which I don’t think the people who made this quiz had the ability to develop fully. Notice how “dominant” is not defined, nor is it a particularly meaningful term when you think about it in context and how it relates the the test. The “and by how much” bit also lends support to the illusion of science {because, ya know, quantification} but offers no real answers as to how this is done. In the face of pseudoscience, ask yourself “HOW is this thing doing what it claims? What concrete measures are used?” and I’m sure you can come up with many other examples. Fly free, question EVERYTHING! Even the links I’ve included, question that. Science is pretty imperfect so you need to form your own opinions.

          D. One question: “most accurate” as compared to what? We don’t even know how this thing is being measured so like accuracy is meaningless as there is no established basis of comparison. UGH. Is it more accurate than a magic 8-ball? Is it the most accurate quiz out there? C’mon, substantiate your claims, mysterious authors of this quiz.

     Anyways. Perhaps this seems like it doesn’t apply to you. Perhaps you scoff at stupid clickbait. Perhaps you’re not so foolish as to believe everything you read. But here’s the thing: being able to think critically applies to even the most accepted scientific theories. Nothing is proven, thus there is always a need to continue questioning, refining, asking questions, and seeking answers. Science progresses because people question what seems obvious. Perhaps you think this entire exercise was pointless. Perhaps you’re wondering what I have against fun. Believe what you’d like, that’s fine, just don’t call unsubstantiated claims science. And if you REALLY want to learn things, if you actually give a crap about brains, I want you to know it’s not that hard to find decent answers to complex questions. That’s…what I’m trying to do.

So. Rip me apart, sing my praises, ask questions, call me on my crap. There will be at least one follow-up post centered around this quiz, which….it’s not so much about the quiz itself and more about a common misconception about neuroscience and how that culturally manifests and stuff and things and I don’t know, leave me alone, I’m tired. Nothing I’ve linked to in this post was created by me, nor do I own it, nor do I claim to, though a Nobel Prize would be pretty rad. Stay tuned for Part 2, also known as “wow, this quiz REALLY sucks from a psychological testing standpoint and oh by the way IQ doesn’t matter much.”

 

Let’s Begin…

Just remember that it was your choice to click the link and the only one who can compel you to continue reading is {wait for it}….you. Congrats. No really, I mean it. For whatever reason, you’re willing to give me a shot and I appreciate your trust in me. Thanks for joining me as I attempt to use my brain in its most meta capacity: explaining how the brain works. The TL;DR of this first post right here is in the “About” section. But in case you want the expanded edition of why this blog exists….have at it!

Sometimes I joke that I only majored in Neuroscience in college because it sounds impressive. That’s not really a joke. The field of neuroscience is littered with alphanumeric strings, acronyms, and technical jargon that makes even a seasoned researcher’s head spin. It is not an inherently welcoming field for the casual participant but {and I am acutely aware of my own bias here} it is hugely important to at least have some idea of how brains work. Mental illness, medication, cognition, social interaction, movement: all of these are broad topics that are not well understood by the general public. And yet…all of us have brains, all of us think, and issues in neuroscience tend to touch each of our lives daily.

We live in a terrifying world where clickbait and advertising revenue at the cost of bad science and a misinformed public reign supreme. Our society in particular likes simple explanations for complex issues and wants easily digestible information. Hell, even I get mentally lazy and really want to believe many things I read online to save myself the arduous task of sifting through dense research in pursuit of a truth I’m not particularly vested in. I’m also going to come out and say that people are idiots and claim authority, confusing subjective experience with good data. So if you’re going to proceed, learn this motto and take it to heart: the plural of data is not anecdotes. Actually, data is already plural but that’s besides the point. Just because your cousin smokes weed every day and has never had a negative side effect doesn’t automatically mean marijuana is completely harmless. Good on you for getting through your PhD in physics with severe attention issues and no medication, still doesn’t mean ADHD is just laziness disguised as a disorder.  And so on.

I am not a doctor. I don’t even have my Master’s. I’m just an average graduate with a bachelor’s degree in neuroscience and a passion for educating people who want to learn more about the brain without a lifetime of college debt to learn how to answer questions about the brain and behavior. I cannot give you medical advice and while I’ll give sources to support claims, also keep in mind much of what I have to say comes from me doing the legwork and research and translating neuroscience into plain English. Some stuff might get lost in translation and my wording relies on my discretion. I am also human and prone to error.

If you’re knee deep in this field, please feel free to correct egregious errors but if you’re going to write me a lengthy epistle on how I should’ve also covered the impact of antacids on benzodiazepine function, think about if that’s what you want to spend your time doing. Also, if your opinion doesn’t line up with my science, cool. That’s fine. You’re entitled to your opinions, I’ll just be over here with my empirical, non-subjective numerical support for a particular hypothesis. Nothing in science is actually proven, just….strongly supported or not. I’ve no interest in fighting but I ALWAYS will be happy to answer questions, take constructive feedback, and engage in general discourse about anything I write. The purpose of all this is education and making knowledge accessible to those looking to learn.

This blog is, for the time being, entitled NeuroTopical, which is a play on word. The term “neurotypical” originally was coined to refer to those not on the autism spectrum but since has gained traction as a blanket term for people free from any or all clinically significant mental disorders. It’s actually a pretty flexible, broad term but as you’ll come to hopefully learn, there’s not really such a thing as “neurotypical.” Perhaps “neuro-middle-of-the-bell-curve” is more accurate but that doesn’t have the same ring to it. So. Y’know. NeuroTopical. On the topic of the brain. And that’s right. Sometimes, just….sometimes, I’m going to get really lazy and use Wikipedia as a source. And you’re going to like it.

Anyways, enough pfaffing {faffing? piaffing? fiffing?} about. Ready to embark?