TE
科技回声
首页24小时热榜最新最佳问答展示工作
GitHubTwitter
首页

科技回声

基于 Next.js 构建的科技新闻平台,提供全球科技新闻和讨论内容。

GitHubTwitter

首页

首页最新最佳问答展示工作

资源链接

HackerNews API原版 HackerNewsNext.js

© 2025 科技回声. 版权所有。

Debunking the Myth of 10% Brain Usage

43 点作者 iuliangulea将近 5 年前

11 条评论

Exmoor将近 5 年前
For some reason this reminded me of one of my favorite Wikipedia pages: <a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_common_misconceptions" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;List_of_common_misconceptions</a><p>I read through it every couple of years and am amazed at the number of things considered &quot;common knowledge&quot; which are completely untrue.
评论 #23821321 未加载
tlarkworthy将近 5 年前
This article does not really debunk anything as it seem to use some very poor chains of reasoning:<p>&quot;If we are using only 10% of our brains, that means a person would be fine if the other 90% of the brain got removed. 10% of the 1400g average brain is 140g—that’s the size of a sheep’s brain.4 Since I doubt sheep have their own 90% hidden potential myth, it makes no sense that humans have advanced so far as a civilization by using only part of their brains equivalent in size to a sheep’s brain.&quot;<p>1. That using 10% of brain means 90% can be removed. Where did that logic come from?<p>2. That size of the brain is important (i.e. the size of a sheep brain is relevant to human intelligence, this is a poor argument as an elephants brain is much larger than a human&#x27;s)
评论 #23821581 未加载
评论 #23821592 未加载
评论 #23821510 未加载
评论 #23823675 未加载
评论 #23821513 未加载
评论 #23821903 未加载
alexpotato将近 5 年前
When the article mentioned brain size, it reminded me of a story about Einstein&#x27;s brain.<p>He donated his brain to science and one of the first things noted after his death was that his brain was roughly average sized. This was a big setback for the &quot;brain size correlates with IQ&quot; crowd and was one, of many data points, showing that brain size and volume did not correlate with IQ.<p>Years later, as we got better understandings of the brain and its sub-components, it was realized that he was actually MISSING a part of his brain. I forget the exact piece but what was most interesting is that it was the portion of the brain that &quot;pushes&quot; up against another of the brain believed to be used for visualizing problems.<p>Because he was missing the first component, it allowed the visualization portion to grow to roughly double the size of a normal person&#x27;s. It&#x27;s thought that this &quot;supercharged&quot; his ability to mentally visualize complex physics and math problems in a way average people couldn&#x27;t.<p>To me, it&#x27;s fascinating that missing part of you might lead other parts of you to becoming more efficient and&#x2F;or more powerful.<p>EDIT: Fixed some grammar.
评论 #23822907 未加载
doublekill将近 5 年前
We can use 90% of our brains at the same time, but the medical term for that is a seizure and it seems to involve a lot of involuntary movements.
vilhelm_s将近 5 年前
&gt; If we are using only 10% of our brains, that means a person would be fine if the other 90% of the brain got removed [...] There are instances in history when people were injured and got parts of their brain removed (although not as close as even 10%)<p>Actually you can do much better. There are people who had 50% of their brain removed and were fine. [<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Hemispherectomy" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Hemispherectomy</a>]<p>And there are examples of people who lost up to 95% of their brain and still seem pretty normal. (Actually, some are claimed to be be <i>smarter</i> than average, leading to the suggestion that the rest of the brain is just cramping our style, but that&#x27;s probably an exaggeration.) [<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gwern.net&#x2F;Hydrocephalus" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.gwern.net&#x2F;Hydrocephalus</a>]
评论 #23821984 未加载
评论 #23822039 未加载
评论 #23821948 未加载
HPsquared将近 5 年前
It&#x27;s like saying only one cylinder of a four-cylinder engine is &#x27;working&#x27; at any given time. Technically true in a way, but somewhat misleading.
评论 #23821605 未加载
TheOtherHobbes将近 5 年前
It&#x27;s a metaphor for general ability, not a concrete estimate of actual physical brain usage. People who use it tend to mean &quot;You, yes <i>you</i>, could amazing and magical things if you were more focussed.&quot;<p>That&#x27;s very unlikely to be literally true in the way they hope. But given how poorly most people are educated, and how often they&#x27;re fed lies and distortions in adulthood, there&#x27;s likely to be some metaphorical truth to it.<p>So the population as a whole certainly could be smarter, more aware, more effective, and probably more creative too.<p>But it&#x27;s not something you could easily put a number on. Certainly a one dimensional measurement like IQ won&#x27;t capture it.
talove将近 5 年前
Not sure how this is on the front-page. The article chases to debunk something that is only used as a metaphor for the capacity of the mind. IMO the idea that we only use 10% of our brain is oversimplified way to get the attention of a child when conveying the minds power. For example, you only activate 10% of your brain when reasoning a difficult math problem, or recalling a memory. I don&#x27;t think anyone ever asserted that 90% of your brain is turned off.
评论 #23821455 未加载
sunstone将近 5 年前
Evolution doesn&#x27;t waste resources unnecessarily. The human brain requires substantial energy to operate, why would brains have evolved they way they have unless there was a purpose for very close to all the power of the brain?
onion2k将近 5 年前
I&#x27;m a JS dev. There&#x27;s no way I use as much as 10%.
评论 #23821748 未加载
评论 #23825068 未加载
himinlomax将近 5 年前
Geniuses use 100% of their brain, just like champion drivers use the gas pedal, brakes and door handles all at the same time.