This totally makes sense—and I think is a good framework for looking at misinterpretations of research in other fields, too. And it’s interesting and a little sad to me that the piece that’s often missed is the absolutely stunning complexity of it all—there are so, so many tiny moving pieces and connections and events that contribute to the things we observe that we’re just beginning to scratch the surface.
Loved your "absolutely stunning complexity of it all." Great phrase for conveying the emotional response you get when confronted with all the levels of complexity involved.
Thanks for this. I learned that communicating with my hemispheres will make me better at math! Buy my hemispheres program in .pdf and I’ll share my 5-for-5 brain hemisphere self-communication tools. Coming soon is my bi-weekly bi-modal hemisphere supplement powder! Pre-order and receive half an effective dose — no obligation required, simply choose your preferred hemisphere and start your life anew.
I also realized that every time I use my car, the wheels become activated near and around their respective hubs. This is spectacular insight into how I can drop everything and move to Spain.
Agree with the challenges of using neuroscience as a guide for self-help. Although I keep close track of neuro studies and occasionally find a practical one to write about, it's actually rare that I discuss an imaging experiment in a newsletter because it's too far removed from the behavioral/psychological outcomes people actually care about.
There are challenges with behavioral/psychology studies too of course (e.g. How much can you rely on a single study? Is the outcome too good to be true? How much time should you spend talking about limitations/caveats? etc). That's why I prefer to explain what researchers actually did in a study rather than making a cursory citation to support a point—readers are then better able to judge what it means.
I think it's worthwhile to take on these challenges (obviously, given my newsletter) because many people want to understand real research and its probable implications. But it's not an easy tightrope to walk for a writer.
Oof, "I feel seen," and not in a great way because I've been a victim of the self-help/productivity cycle for way too long now. I agree with all your points, and the more I get into my own research of co-creativity and music AI, all I have learned is that the extrapolations from these studies are often quite large (and not backed by the actual research) to justify getting a larger grant, publishing at a more prestigious venue, etc. It reminds me of a paper "Keeping it Plumb" for qualitative work, but clearly, we tend to err on being "too much" rather than "too little" with what we take away from the studies. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!
Thank you for this, I always thought because some people are neuroscientist they would know what works and what doesn't but beca you took the time to flesh out the details and how they're not always right is very insightful and has given meuch to think about when seeking out self help book or articles, I appreciate it
Adding a small amount of neuroscience probably also helps the so-called credibility of self-help. Seems to me that the self-help stuff has gotten so popular because it seems like a one-stop quick fix like a miracle drug. The real answer is years of focus and hard work!
"A good rule of thumb for evaluating self-help advice is to ask “is there behavioral evidence?” In the absence of behavioral evidence of a positive change in the behavioral measure in question, you should be careful about claims that you should abstain from digital media because your brain responds to it like cocaine."
This paragraph was the highlight for me.
Thank you for this very informative piece. I have better knowledge and perspective on self help books now. It will help me filter out.
Have you read the book, "The Body Keeps Score"? How effective do you think it is?
Thanks for this piece! I was starting to think I’m the only one who is getting annoyed by all the neuroscience stuff sold as the most important discoveries that could change our lives instantly. Last year, I was invited to run a webinar on empathy and compassion, and the organiser asked me whether I could discuss some research from neuroscience because people find that sort of stuff cool :)
I published this piece I wrote on self-optimisation and "laziness" today - I'd be interested in hearing what you think of it if you have time! And yes, explanations like "literally changes the brain, re-wiring the neural pathways" bla bla are so frustrating.
This totally makes sense—and I think is a good framework for looking at misinterpretations of research in other fields, too. And it’s interesting and a little sad to me that the piece that’s often missed is the absolutely stunning complexity of it all—there are so, so many tiny moving pieces and connections and events that contribute to the things we observe that we’re just beginning to scratch the surface.
Loved your "absolutely stunning complexity of it all." Great phrase for conveying the emotional response you get when confronted with all the levels of complexity involved.
Thanks for this. I learned that communicating with my hemispheres will make me better at math! Buy my hemispheres program in .pdf and I’ll share my 5-for-5 brain hemisphere self-communication tools. Coming soon is my bi-weekly bi-modal hemisphere supplement powder! Pre-order and receive half an effective dose — no obligation required, simply choose your preferred hemisphere and start your life anew.
I also realized that every time I use my car, the wheels become activated near and around their respective hubs. This is spectacular insight into how I can drop everything and move to Spain.
Can’t wait to share this to IFLScience!
Great article and thanks for the shout-out.
Agree with the challenges of using neuroscience as a guide for self-help. Although I keep close track of neuro studies and occasionally find a practical one to write about, it's actually rare that I discuss an imaging experiment in a newsletter because it's too far removed from the behavioral/psychological outcomes people actually care about.
There are challenges with behavioral/psychology studies too of course (e.g. How much can you rely on a single study? Is the outcome too good to be true? How much time should you spend talking about limitations/caveats? etc). That's why I prefer to explain what researchers actually did in a study rather than making a cursory citation to support a point—readers are then better able to judge what it means.
I think it's worthwhile to take on these challenges (obviously, given my newsletter) because many people want to understand real research and its probable implications. But it's not an easy tightrope to walk for a writer.
Oof, "I feel seen," and not in a great way because I've been a victim of the self-help/productivity cycle for way too long now. I agree with all your points, and the more I get into my own research of co-creativity and music AI, all I have learned is that the extrapolations from these studies are often quite large (and not backed by the actual research) to justify getting a larger grant, publishing at a more prestigious venue, etc. It reminds me of a paper "Keeping it Plumb" for qualitative work, but clearly, we tend to err on being "too much" rather than "too little" with what we take away from the studies. Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this!
Thank you for this, I always thought because some people are neuroscientist they would know what works and what doesn't but beca you took the time to flesh out the details and how they're not always right is very insightful and has given meuch to think about when seeking out self help book or articles, I appreciate it
Adding a small amount of neuroscience probably also helps the so-called credibility of self-help. Seems to me that the self-help stuff has gotten so popular because it seems like a one-stop quick fix like a miracle drug. The real answer is years of focus and hard work!
"A good rule of thumb for evaluating self-help advice is to ask “is there behavioral evidence?” In the absence of behavioral evidence of a positive change in the behavioral measure in question, you should be careful about claims that you should abstain from digital media because your brain responds to it like cocaine."
This paragraph was the highlight for me.
Thank you for this very informative piece. I have better knowledge and perspective on self help books now. It will help me filter out.
Have you read the book, "The Body Keeps Score"? How effective do you think it is?
Thanks! I haven't read that unfortunately so I don't have an opinion!
Been waiting for this one Tommy, thanks for writing it!
Thanks for this piece! I was starting to think I’m the only one who is getting annoyed by all the neuroscience stuff sold as the most important discoveries that could change our lives instantly. Last year, I was invited to run a webinar on empathy and compassion, and the organiser asked me whether I could discuss some research from neuroscience because people find that sort of stuff cool :)
I published this piece I wrote on self-optimisation and "laziness" today - I'd be interested in hearing what you think of it if you have time! And yes, explanations like "literally changes the brain, re-wiring the neural pathways" bla bla are so frustrating.
https://brainhealthandcapitalism.substack.com/p/i-dont-believe-in-laziness-anymore
Great article!
Thanks! It just seemed like such a good fit to this one :)
You're welcome😊 It does 🙂
Deep Work is a good book.