We do use 100% of our brain, but not all at the same time. Let’s pretend there’s a table you have that you place and move things on it a lot. Do you use 100% of the table at any instant? No (unless the whole table is covered with objects all the time). Do you use 100% of the table throughout the year? Yes. After a year, most likely almost every part of the surface of the table will have had something put on it. Do we use 100% of our brain at a given instant? No, about 10% to 30% are being used at any given instant depending on the task. Do we use 100% of our brain throughout the day? Yes, most likely every single part of the brain will have been used after a day, but they weren’t all used at the same time. Is 100% of the brain active all the time? It kind of depends on your definition of “active”, but in general, yes. Are 100% of the neurons in the brain constantly activated? No, only some are activated at any given instant. But that certainly doesn’t mean the rest of the neurons are dead. It just means they aren’t being used (they aren’t firing nor receiving signals from adjacent neurons). So do we use 100% of our brain at an instant? Never. But we do use 100% throughout the day right? Yes. So technically we do use 100% of our brain but just not all 100% at the same time right? Exactly. So the “we only use 10% of our brain” myth is kind of true right? Yes, at any given instant we use 10% to 30% of our brain depending on the task. Therefore, the answer depends on how you interpret the question. Watch 1:57 to 2:53. Pay very close attention. She explained what I'm trying to say quite perfectly.
I think you're oversimplifying things. That line of thought would be similar to someone saying that they're an expert car mechanic because they can put gas in the tank or change a flat tire.
1:14 But if psychology is a subdivision of biology then surely biology is just a subdivision of chemistry because we are powered by reactions between molecules and we are made from atoms but if that is true then chemistry must just be a subdivision of physics because all atoms and chemical reactions follow the laws of physics and so why doesn't every scientist call themself a physicist since everything is just a subdivision of that?
Yes we use our whole brain ...meaning our whole brain is active.But we dont use the full POTENTIAL of the brain. What these people dont realize is that the brain is a muscle and it expands the more we use it, the neuron connections increase through critical thinking. Just like when starting to lift weights you are using your entire muscle...but not to its potential....after several months of weight lifting and gradually increasing the weights, you find that lifting the weight that at first took your entire muscle strength would now take only a small portion of muscle strength.So just like that the more you use your brain the more powerful the brain becomes. Hence we only use 10% potential of the brain. :)
3.) The belief that "intuition" is science - That's obvious to us all. And I don't understand why did you use this statment. However, important hypotesis can be brought by intuition and not only, firstly, by observation. 4.) The belief that conformity = intelligence - Dude, wtf? 5.) The usage of logical fallacies such as "argumentum ad populum" or "argument from authority" etc... - What? I really would like to know "what the heck is this". There is not such a thing in any of Psychology fields.
I'll do It. 1.) Lack of objective analysis - Not true. It's objective, there is no space for interpretation in a science. Instead, interpretation could be present in Clinical Psychology, maybe, sometimes. But there is a reason, an important one, and I won't deal here with It. 2.) Lack of empirical data - Not true. As a science, It can provide a lot of empirical data with a wide range of instruments (especially technological ones).
That smells a bit like bullshit. Clearly, you neither know what Psychology is. And, to be honest, talking about "Psychology" in such a generic way makes me sick. "Psychology" covers a very wide range of subfields, from Social Psychology to Behavioral Neuroscience or Cognitive Neuroscience, that are based on a lot of kind of data (qualitative, quantitative; statistical, 'mathematical' [even if statistics is a part of maths]).
Prometheus Complex was right, psychology is not a science. A science uses spectroscopy methods, chromatography methods, and other methods that allow you to witness physical phenomenon and prove things about the world around you that none can deny or refute. The best psychology can offer up as evidence is statistics. Statistically speaking, African Americans purchase more watermelons than whites. Based on stats and psychologies logic, what scientific conclusions can I draw?
Normal heart rates range from 60 to 100 beats per minute, where lower is healthier. 60 beats per minute, you don't say? Your comment made me think, too. Our perception of time could definitely be related to the heart rate, and our ability to recognize slight time differences could have helped us notice underlying heart conditions as well. I think this is a plausible evolutionary theory for human time perception! :)
I'd like to see some more videos on this channel. Perhaps you could make a video on connections between neuroscience and psychology. For example, Jeff Hawkins' "Memory Prediction Framework" is a good theory about the brain that gives some explanations for different behaviors examined in psychology.
Please Brady, work on that volume levelling. I love your videos, but they are often very quiet and then BOOM RU-vid hits me with a blasting ad. Do it for our ears! :)
I can very easily imagine how dodgy devices and advertised training courses are scam, but lucid dreaming is as real as anything else. I can say because I was there. It's definitely neither awake nor unconscious state. I can't explain something that's so far from everyday life in terms of everyday life though, you'd have to see for yourself. Or you can keep your truth about not believing, because that's what your life taught you, and I will keep my memory of it, for that's what my life taught me.
It is really hard to say whether psychology is really a science, since what it studies is itself in essence immaterial (even though it behaves with some predictability in respect to its material "basis"). The mind is directly known and experienced only by the individual, with the existence of other minds being only indicated at through the observance of actions which postulatedly require a human agent. But the question is, is demarcation really so important?
4:10 Yes, because pressing buttons is silly while reading and writing isn't. Back a thousand years ago plenty of people would tell you reading and writing is silly while remembering entire epic oral stories is not. Times change, buttons are simply the new pens.
I think that if a specific part of the brain is never or only rarely used it will simply decay over time, so if you dont use certain parts of your brain once in a while they will be gone after some time.
I'm sure there exists psychologists you can basically buy a diagnosis from, but such behavior does not undermine psychology as a science more than doctors doing the same undermine the medical sciences.
The best example of this is perhaps how anti-depressants can be used to enable people to become more active, get a positive feedback loop going and subsequently not need the drugs after they get their lives in order. I think what you may be thinking about is cases where parents or lawyers are hounding "psychologists" either for access to drugs or for a diagnosis.
Ultimately, modern psychology is fusing more and more with neuroscience and can often offer causal explanations for many types of dysfunctional behaviors and trace them back to brain malfunctions or learned disorders and often can have quite a bit to say about how to treat them even without medication. In fact, it is quite uncommon to put people on permanent medication because of "chemical imbalance". Psychologists primarily use medication to enable people to get started on therapy.
You should also realize that psychology started out as a hard science working out the limitations of human senses using all kinds of objective tools and techniques to acquire the data and this tradition has continued right through fads like Freud. You might want to look up B.F. Skinner's work in Behaviorism as well. While the field ran into methodological limitations and has been superseded by the cognitive approach, it was thoroughly scientific and produced many interesting applications.
"There are also zero scientific instruments involved." Utterly false. Psychologists perform hard measurements of all kinds of phenomena in their research. Psychometrics has a long history that you apparently are completely ignorant about. "People that are quick to call Psychology a science typically do not understand what "science" is." No. The problem here is that you have no clue how broad the field of psychology is. Google "cognitive psychology" and "psychometrics" for a start.
I suggest you read "The Brain That Changes Itself", by Norman Doidge. It explains clearly how neuroplasticity works and how it's optimally 'used'. Very interesting to read, and I think you'd enjoy it.
All I can see from here, by almost every comment, is a big lack of knowledge about "Psychology" and all It's subfields/specializations. Greetings, everyone.
