> Could the inclusion of a university neuroscience course in teacher training counter neuromyths? Plausible, but unfounded. Taking a course would improve neuroscience knowledge among future teachers but likely without reducing their false beliefs.
That is an interesting question that I am asking myself from time to time (I am a software engineer with a keen interest in psychology and neuroscience) and the findings in the linked research paper are very surprising. It seems explaining the principles of brain functioning doesn't do too much in addressing one's beliefs in different myths. I can only hypothesize that debunking these myths should be done by addressing them directly, going through each of them one by one, and asking what are the main pillars upon which their beliefs are based. I've written recently a post on the 10% brain usage myth[0] that addresses specifically that belief.
> from the 100 billion neurons that the brain has at birth
This is something I see frequently, but FYI, the latest plausible estimates are 86B neurons[1] (which might not seem like a big deal, but the difference of 14B is like the brain of a baboon)
Finally, to aid the debunking of the VAK model, it might help explaining the small conscious throughput capacity of human senses and how focusing on only one plane of the VAK model doesn't make sense, since it cuts out precious cognitive capacity[2]
EDIT: your subscription address on the site has an expired certificate.
1 comment
[ 2.7 ms ] story [ 13.2 ms ] thread> Could the inclusion of a university neuroscience course in teacher training counter neuromyths? Plausible, but unfounded. Taking a course would improve neuroscience knowledge among future teachers but likely without reducing their false beliefs.
That is an interesting question that I am asking myself from time to time (I am a software engineer with a keen interest in psychology and neuroscience) and the findings in the linked research paper are very surprising. It seems explaining the principles of brain functioning doesn't do too much in addressing one's beliefs in different myths. I can only hypothesize that debunking these myths should be done by addressing them directly, going through each of them one by one, and asking what are the main pillars upon which their beliefs are based. I've written recently a post on the 10% brain usage myth[0] that addresses specifically that belief.
> from the 100 billion neurons that the brain has at birth
This is something I see frequently, but FYI, the latest plausible estimates are 86B neurons[1] (which might not seem like a big deal, but the difference of 14B is like the brain of a baboon)
Finally, to aid the debunking of the VAK model, it might help explaining the small conscious throughput capacity of human senses and how focusing on only one plane of the VAK model doesn't make sense, since it cuts out precious cognitive capacity[2]
EDIT: your subscription address on the site has an expired certificate.
[0]: https://iuliangulea.com/blog/debunking-the-myth-of-ten-perce...
[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19226510/
[2]: https://iuliangulea.com/blog/how-people-learn-human-senses/