Separating fact from myth

The Very Hungry Caterpillar

In a number of previous posts I questioned the importance of getting the facts right in fiction, especially for young children. Obviously there is a lot of fiction that is pure make-believe and fantasy and the facts don’t have to match those of the “real” world. However they do need to hold true for that imagined world.

The posts (links provided at the end if you wish to read) incited a great deal of discussion. A variety of opinions were expressed ranging from it doesn’t matter at all to it matters a lot. It seems many are willing to forgive inaccuracies in fiction if the book’s positive qualities make it more appealing. If the book as a whole is good, what is a little inaccuracy?

On the other hand, a book that “fails” for other reasons such as inadequacies or inconsistencies in plot, poor sentence structure, incorrect punctuation and spelling errors would fail regardless of the accuracy of the “facts”. Perhaps it is easier to accept one fault in an otherwise worthy product than it is to accept a faulty product with one redeeming feature?

The number of posts I have written on this topic indicates how much energy I have expended thinking about this topic. It is no surprise that my interest should be piqued by the post entitled The Irony of Believing Humans Use Only 10% of Their Brains, written by Paul Thomas and shared on his blog the becoming radical.

Thomas begins the post with a quote by Barbara Kingsolver from her book High Tide in Tucson.

“Write a nonfiction book, and be prepared for the legion of readers who are going to doubt your facts. But write a novel, and get ready for the world to assume every word is true.”

In the post Thomas refers to the movie Lucy, released in July 2014, which explored the effects of using more than 10% of our brains. Of course we do use more than 10% (100% in fact) but there is a commonly held myth that we don’t, and the movie served to perpetuate it.

In his post Thomas questions “when is fact, fact, and when is fiction merely fiction?” similar to the discussion in my posts. He says that the 10% of our brains myth is still widely accepted despite advances in neuroscience and understandings of how our brains work. He refers to the way “we” seek out information that supports our beliefs and ignore that which doesn’t. Mind you, in his article he mentions some myths related to education which I am going to ignore for now. I’ll leave those for another time.

Working towards his conclusion Thomas states:

“How much of our brains we use seems pointless if we remain a species characterized by closed minds, unable or unwilling to build on evidence to form new ideas, unable or unwilling to check our existing ideas against evidence.”

I’m inclined to agree.

What do you think? Do you accept the 10% myth or do you know it to be untrue?

Did you watch the movie Lucy? If so, how did your understanding of the 10% premise affect your enjoyment?

I’d love to know what you think.

Thank you

Thank you for reading. I do appreciate your feedback. Please share your thoughts.

Links to my posts exploring false “facts” in fiction:

Revisiting the Very Hungry Caterpillar

Which came first — the chicken or the duckling?

Empowerment — the importance of having a voice

Finding power in a picture book — the main event

Searching for truth in a picture book — Part C

Searching for purpose in a picture book — Part B

Searching for meaning in a picture book — Part A

 

35 thoughts on “Separating fact from myth

  1. Sherri

    Just watched the clip of ‘Lucy’ Norah and will need to watch the entire film at some point, but I get the drift. Anything exploring how far the brain might actually work fascinates me. Imagine if we could all move things with our mind? Ha! Seriously though, I enjoyed this clip and learning where the myth of our 10% brainpower came from in the first place. Just shows how these myths creep into our modern day psyche and we accept them without question. Scary actually. We have a joke though in our family, whenever one of us comes up with a ‘did you know’ factoid, eldest son nearly always counters it with ‘actually, that’s just a myth…’ and then goes on to explain why! Love your posts Norah, you always get me thinking way outside the box and I’m sure that you get all my brain working. In fact, now I have proof of it! So I thank you very much for that! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thanks so much for the generosity of your comment, Sherri! I love that comment about your son. I think the younger generation are growing up to question more. Not only that, they have a whole world of information at their fingertips. We had to pore through an encyclopedia in the library to find out an answer, if we remembered the question by the time we got there! Or asked an adult who fobbed us off with a “because”, “It just is”, “You don’t need to know”, or gave some convoluted and incorrect response. Hmm. I love that many of the old myths are being exposed for what they are!
      And I’m positive you’ve always used 100% of your brain! 🙂

      Like

      Reply
  2. lorilschafer

    I’ve long believed the 10% of our brain thing is a myth. It takes a lot of energy to support a brain, and it just doesn’t make logical sense that evolution would have created and sustained a system with so much superfluousness. I mean, I’m sure there’s some redundancy to protect us in case of brain damage, but 90%? I don’t buy that at all. And I definitely agree that movies like Lucy which perpetuate myths like these can be harmful, because people assume that the movie-makers know what they’re talking about. Which is funny, because fans of historical fiction will rip you apart if you make errors regarding people who were at an event two hundred years ago or the type of clothing that was worn at the time. But something like this that actually makes a difference in our perception of ourselves goes almost unnoticed.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      That’s funny what you say about historical fiction, but so true! Anachronisms are definitely not well received are they? Even time travelers have to get it right. Perhaps what is acceptable and what is not all depends on how well informed the audience is. If the audience doesn’t know you can get away with anything. Perhaps that’s why leaders like to keep their populations “in the dark”. Thanks for joining in the conversation and sharing your thoughts.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  3. Sherri

    Phew! I came over here to read your last couple of posts Norah and now my brain is buzzing! What a fascinating discussion going on here! I love you get us talking with the questions you ask. I don’t really know where to begin, nor how to add any more what has already been said. I did smile though, thinking of all the times when hubby and I’ve watched a film or TV show from a different time period and he always, always, will say that the type of cars are wrong even if out by a year or so. For him, the credibility is lost right there, and I have to say ‘but it’s only fiction and they can’t get everything right!’ But in a book, it would have have to be right, spot on, so I put it down to a lack of continuity with the film/tv crew rather than in the story itself.
    I agree with Sarah about the brain, I totally brought into the 10% myth, had no idea. Then I read Sacha’s comment about the difference between our physical brain and our potential. Then everything Charli said, and well, yes, so much I would like to chime in with…and btw, I adore the X Files 🙂 The quote is wonderfully thought provoking. What a fascinating thought. I have read something similar when researching about memoir writing. How easily it is when something sounds so outragous and fantastic that others think it must be made up. Yet in fiction, so many times we are left wondering, now just how much of that is true?
    I haven’t watched Lucy, but really would like to, and I hope to get to it asap. I must remember to do that, I know there are some other things i’ve forgotten. I find anything about the brain absolutely fascinating, and I thoroughly enjoyed reading your wonderful post and the comments here, thank you Norah 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thank you for joining in and adding so much to the discussion, Sherri. I love hearing everyone’s opinions and points of view. I think I believed the 10% myth at one stage too. I’m not sure when I stopped believing, but I’m sure I could do more with my brain than I do – is that potential more than physical? I love all the work that is being done now with neuroscience. It is a fascinating field. I read what I can to help me understand learning, but that is more to do with how we use it, rather than the physiology. The book “The Brain that Changes Itself” by Norman Doidge is very interesting.
      It’s funny what you say about you and your hub watching movies and comparing notes. We each seem to have our own standards of acceptability – something you may say causes loss of credibility may not matter to me, and vice versa. Interesting. Although the rest of my family enjoyed the X-files. I never watched them, so I can’t comment there. I’m not sure why I didn’t watch, whether they just didn’t appeal or I had other things I wanted to do. I am not a big television watcher.
      I’ll be interested to hear your thoughts re “Lucy” should you watch it.
      Thanks for your lovely comment. It’s always great chatting when you pop over. 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  4. Bec

    Great post as always Nor. I’ve responded to some ideas Charli raised, but in regard to your question of fact and fiction – I think the context is important. There’s often an implicit understanding about fantasy films and stories (like Lucy presumably, I haven’t seen it) where it’s about a fantastical change to the laws of reality placed into the real world. And it’s that mystery about how our lives would change with this one different rule which adds to the intrigue. So even though there’s no captioning along the lines of [this is fact] and [this is fiction] to explain the intentions of each plot device and detail, there is the shared understanding about what is real and what is not. And oftentimes it’s the fantasy element which is the focus of the story, and the ‘real world’ is the context. So in the Lucy case, the 10% seems to be saying ‘well this is in the real world, imagine if we could make change X – how different would life be then?’ and similarly, with the VHC the ‘magic ingredient’ which makes the story interesting isn’t that a butterfly caterpillar miraculously and implausibly spins a cocoon rather than a chrysalis, it’s that this caterpillar miraculously and implausibly eats a whole banquet of foods which aren’t within the caterpillar’s diet. So then of course as you would expect this leads me to consider ‘real world’ myths of Santa and fairies and the Easter bunny…

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Hmm. More food for thought. Thank you. And I did respond to your reply to Charli’s interesting discussion. You are great at extending the conversation and challenging the thinking, as is Charli and many others who engage in these discussions. I am very happy to be able to learn so much through the opinions of those who comment. What a wonderful opportunity for discourse is a blog. I used to enjoy getting together with others for philosophical discussions. Now I don’t even need to leave the comfort of my own home!
      This discussion of truth vs myth will no doubt wage for a long time. I wonder how many of our modern “truths” will turn out to be myths in the future.

      Like

      Reply
  5. Annecdotist

    I haven’t seen the film nor had I come across the 10% myth, but I agree with Sacha that there’s a question as to what using our brains actually means. I’m familiar with – was at one stage – the research now popularised by Daniel Kahneman about the biases in our thinking, and more interested in this kind of psychology than the firing of neurones.
    But this is a fascinating post some equally fascinating comments – you do provoke a good debate. Alas, my brain is a little too tired to engage with it all just now.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thanks Anne. I am listening to one of Carol Dweck’s books at the moment and she has some interesting things to say about the use we make of our brains, not surprisingly, to do with her ‘not yet’ thinking.
      I can understand that you must be tired. All that tripping around and globe trotting. There’s a lot of writing going on there! It’s a great reason to be tired though. Bring on tiredness if that’s what it takes! 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
  6. Sarah Brentyn

    I always believed that myth. It’s hard to believe that we use 100% of our brain. I thought there were sections, parts, areas, whatever that we didn’t use… Interesting. I have been wanting to see Lucy so thank you for the reminder. Well, whether we use 10%, 30%, or 100%, I still love this quote: “How much of our brains we use seems pointless if we remain a species characterized by closed minds, unable or unwilling to build on evidence to form new ideas, unable or unwilling to check our existing ideas against evidence.” Excellent.

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. Sarah Brentyn

      OH! Also, forgot to mention, I LOVE the quote by Barbara Kingsolver! “Write a nonfiction book, and be prepared for the legion of readers who are going to doubt your facts. But write a novel, and get ready for the world to assume every word is true.”

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
      1. Norah Post author

        That’s a good one too, isn’t it? I wonder does it have anything to do with the number and variety of absolutely amazing things there are in this world! Most just seem so incredible!

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply
    2. Norah Post author

      Interesting isn’t it? I wonder how much of our generally accepted ‘truth” is really myth. I think there is much left to explore and learn. I hope you enjoy “Lucy” should you watch it.
      I’m pleased you like that quote. I think it’s pretty powerful.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
  7. Sacha Black

    Very interesting. I adored the film Lucy because it’s in my face genres! It’s also a concept I find fascinating.

    Having studied psychology I know a bit about this topic. Like for instance, when the brain is engaged in an activity if you use an fMRI scanner you will see it light up – depending on the activity depends on which bits – do enough activities and it looks like it all lights up.

    BUT – let me pose a few questions – intelligence for one – we all have the same brain capacity, volume and potential. So why then are there some brains that have a higher resulting IQ?
    Is it because they have more neurones? Maybe, but unlikely. Einstein had deeper sulcus folds which meant he had more surface area and therefore more neurones – so for him that may have been a direct cause and effect result of increased intelligence. But I don’t think that’s the end of the story.

    We can ‘train our brains’ a few years ago there was a phenomenon around a game which claimed to increase intelligence and brain dexterity. But to be frank – what is education if not training the brain? Anyway, my point is I don’t think this question is quite right. If you mean physical use of our brain – well then yes – We use neurones all over our brains – however if you mean the ‘potential’ of our brains then no, I don’t think we do. Proof being in our ability to learn and keep learning. That in itself Is proof we can keep pushing our brains.

    Our brains conduct electricity – that’s how our synapses work by firing electricity across synaptic gaps. That means our brains need as much nutrients that enable electrical conduction as possible. And what’s the best conductor known to man? Well actually, it’s gold. It’s a little known fact that our brains need noble minerals (like gold) in tiny amounts of course, but there are scientific studies (can share if you like) which show those who take colloidal golds have increased intelligence… Because their brains are more able to conduct electricity – that brings me nicely back to Lucy – where you see visuals of her brain conducting electricity better – albeit not explained like that.

    And what of those people who have peculiar abilities the rest of us don’t? I for one don’t believe that, given the similarities of brain structure across the human race, we can’t all do the same things. It’s a matter of training or engaging our brains in the right way.

    There are still parts of brain anatomy that scientists don’t really know what they do…. So I’m not sure anyone can credibly claim one way or another that we do or don’t use our brains to full capacity.

    Think I’ve rambled enough.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thanks for rambling, Sacha. It’s great to hear your thoughts. I know you love science fiction, so I’m not surprised you enjoyed “Lucy”.
      I like the way you separated “brain” and “potential”. I think they are separate things, but potential is a difficult one to measure. My school report cards always said that I could do better if I tried harder! How were “they” to know how well I could do or how hard I was trying. I had to try pretty hard to be successful at school. I have never been particularly good at remembering things. I’m hopeless on a trivia team!
      It is an interesting thought of yours: that because we all have similar brains we should all be able to do similar things. I’ve never thought about it like that before but the current reality doesn’t appear to be that way.
      I definitely agree with you that there is much that scientists don’t yet know about the workings of the brain. They are finding out more and more all the time, but whether they will ever know everything is questionable, I think.
      Thanks for sharing. 🙂

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply
  8. TanGental

    Like Charli this is a great topic. I saw Lucy and enjoyed it but then anything with Scarlett in it…. The 10% notion is interesting. Personally I doubt we use all our brains to the max, which was the Lucy premise. But equally I was never in doubt that the conceit – if we did we would be super-powered and become neat intelligence – was probably bunkum too. It didn’t ruin my enjoyment. We hear dinosaurs were probably covered in feathers not just scales but that doesn’t mean Jurassic Park would be any less enjoyable. Or any number of disaster movies. Sure I prefer the movies to stick as closely as they can to established facts, ditto books and TV but if it’s a good story and a few liberties are taken then I’m old enough to realise i shouldn’t believe everything i see. My latest book (cheap plug this) requires a bit of an understanding of how embryos are used by genetic researchers. I’ve done a lot of research and spoken to biology graduates from Oxford to make sure the science doesn’t stink. But I’ve taken liberties with what might happen in the future for the plot’s sake. I think this is fair enough. But informed readers may take issue.

    Liked by 4 people

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      I agree. I think you do the research, know the facts and then stretch the imagination with “plausible” if not “real” possibilities. Who can predict the reality of the future?
      Did you know (I realise now having written this comment that that is probably a ridiculous thing to ask you, but having written it now I’ll leave it anyway!) that the velociraptors of Jurassic Park were based on Deinonychus and were nothing like the real velociraptors? http://www.businessinsider.com.au/what-velociraptors-look-like-2015-5
      I have had great discussions about this with my 5-year old dinosaur-expert grandson. One day hub was discussing the pterodactyls from the original King Kong with the dinosaur expert. The expert asked what size they were. When hub described them, expert immediately said, “Well they weren’t pterydactyls, they were quetzalcoatlus!” And proceeded to explain the differences, sight unseen. Another movie myth shot down in flames. I guess when we know the fiction element and are prepared to accept it in that realm, everything changes.
      Do I really have to go back and rethink the cocoon/chrysalis debate?
      Thanks for your great comment, and you are welcome to a cheap shot, I mean plug, for your book.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply
  9. Charli Mills

    You know, Norah, this continues to be a fascinating discussion because you bring up so many provocative points. I read your posts and my mind jumps into the debate! So let my fingers say…

    One, I’m a fiction writer and as such I appreciate fiction. Often, when people read novels (or watch movies) we are willing to suspend our beliefs. The Hub has a bigger “that’s wrong” detector than I do and often when we watch movies together, he’ll say, “This movie just lost credibility.” We always thought it a funny expression because why would we think a fictional story was supposed to be credible? Sometimes, I think the pressure for a novel to be credible undermines the imaginative process. Imagination is not about what is factual, but about what could be conceived, what is possible. If we stick to the credible facts, we might miss incredible discoveries.

    Two, as an historical fiction writer I do feel an obligation to represent history as accurately as I can. I think this can translate to a science fiction writer’s obligation to represent accurate science. Sometimes readers skew that expectation. For example, romance fiction writers have an obligation to represent what is accepted in the romance genre, such as supplying a happy ending (which isn’t accurate to real life romances). It is based on what readers expect and the genre is the biggest grossing sales genre in book publishing. Therefore, formula reigns over facts for the time being. Readers will be the driver in changing that. For now, writers of the genre comply. As I mentioned in historical fiction, readers also expect that the author has researched the location, time period and events. I do my best to find the facts, but then I imagine what people’s behavior or treatment of the facts might have been. Based on fact, I try to keep it “plausible” so I can support my theory if a reader ever says, “no way that happened.” With enough facts, I can say, it’s possible.

    Three, as far as perpetuating myths, I think popular media (what is supposed to be news) has more negative impact than fictional stories. People believe pseudo-science because they read it in a news article or saw a celebrity endorsement. We question the 10% use of the brain and say a movie is faulty, when we’ve seen that “fact” outside of the fictional realm for years. I love news stories that bust myths or include diligent research. Fiction can be a platform to discuss science, theories and facts but I don’t think we need to completely discredit a movie or novel because it doesn’t have all the facts correct. It’s fiction. By definition, that means it is made up. And good educators can use fiction as a learning tool to teach critical analysis, to encourage research and to even inspire students to imagine what might be possible outside of what is known.

    Great topic to put your energy into!

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Fabulous response, Charli. It is almost a blog post in itself. In fact, with your permission, I’m tempted to post it as one. I think you have offered much to the debate in the detail of your response. So in reply to your comment:
      One: I love your hub’s comment about a movie losing credibility. In my partnership I’m the one who’s more likely to make that comment. My hub says, “It’s a story. It’s not meant to be credible.” I can accept the incredible e.g. Ironman (I’m completely accepting of him!) but for me, what happens within the realm of the story must be credible, regardless of whether it is credible in “my” reality. So for me, the exploration of Lucy’s 100% usage of her brain compared to the supposed 10% we all use was quite fun, plausible and interesting. I’m not against a little imagination. I knew the premise was incorrect but I was happy to put that aside to enjoy the fiction of the movie. And I definitely agree with you about imagination – how can we know what is possible unless we imagine that which until now was not? Thank goodness for all the imagineers in the world. They improve our lot!
      Two: Your critique of the romance genre is interesting, and you’re right. The situations are probably far from the reality of the everyday but they continue the fairytale of princess stories for young girls, creating the elusive fantasy. Perhaps that fantasy is a contributing factor to some broken relationships. Reality can’t always compete with the fantasy. I think if the stories didn’t end with the ‘happily ever after’ they would be drama (I can’t think of the appropriate genre) rather than romance.
      I also agree with what you say about historical fiction, and fiction about science (as opposed to science fiction). The basis needs to be true but the plot and characters may differ e.g. no planes in the 19th century please.
      Three: I also agree with you about the “popular” media. I think it is popular too because people seek it out and find the stories that fit their world view. The 10% myth was around long before the Lucy movie. I didn’t mean to imply that I thought the movie was solely responsible for perpetuating the myth as probably appeared in my post. But I wondered if it endorsed that thinking in those who already held that belief.
      I think there is so much left to find out and it is important to question, even science. What science tells us now is the best explanation we have so far. In the future there will be more discoveries which may confirm and extend the “facts” as we know them, or may totally refute them There have been many occasions throughout human history where this has occurred e.g. Earth as the centre of the universe, flat Earth, and evolution. Having an inquisitive and open mind, a willingness to think critically and to step outside the box to challenge practices that are no longer appropriate, acceptable or meaningful is essential for our species to progress.
      Inspiring imaginations through critical analysis of fiction is a great place to start. Space exploration was once only something that could be imagined.
      Thank you so much for the richness of your thought and comment. What a discussion. 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
      1. Charli Mills

        I’m enjoying the discussion — it’s a rich topic! And it has a wide reach on us all. And, of course, you can use any part or whole you want. Your compensation for allowing me to post at length on your page!

        What I see happening is a melding of pop culture, fiction and science, yet I see less exploration for truth. Now, perhaps “truth” is a loaded word, but I think back to one of my favorite sci-fi shows, “The X-Files,” and the premise that “the truth is out there.” I like that idea that we are never done seeking, questioning or learning.

        I like the pause imagination gives us to coalesce science findings, mysteries and ideas. Sometimes we are called to suspend belief, but I’d also like to see it spur more critical thought, such as having discourse. I think audiences today are more caught up in the entertainment value and accept the semi-science instead of being driven to find out. Did you see Sacha’s post on sound? There’s a perfect example of a writer intrigued by science and takes it into fiction, the realm of possibility. Yet, I’d love to see readers just as enthusiastic, to come away from such a sci-fi novel or movie and be inspired to learn about the science. Writers and readers/viewers both need to cultivate critical thinking. The writer will write better stories and the reader takes ownership of further learning. That’s what I’d like to see over fiction simply becoming part of the endorsement.

        But maybe I’m imagining a perfect order to our societies! 🙂 Lots of great thoughts captured here in your post and comments.

        Liked by 2 people

        Reply
        1. Bec

          What a fascinating discussion! Charli your comment on the popular media perpetuating myths made me think of some of the research on the frustrating quirks of humankind… For example the ‘backfire’ effect, where when someone’s false belief is countered by ‘facts’, they tend to adopt a more stringent stance on the issue! Here are a couple of articles on this point: http://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/i-dont-want-to-be-right and http://skepdic.com/backfireeffect.html

          The other concept is that of cultural cognition, and Kahan’s incredible work on how our ideologies shape the way we interpret information – even accounting for abilities in numeracy! Here are a couple of articles on this: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/09/new-study-politics-makes-you-innumerate and http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2319992

          So of course when as you say Charli the popular media seems to delight in perpetuating falsehoods, the implications aren’t just that there are temporary mis-understandings until they can be corrected, but potentially some people are being steered toward entire universes of mis-truths due to the impact of these psychological factors like backfiring and cultural cognition.

          And of course there’s the same false facts which get seeded at one point, and quickly spread, e.g. : https://theconversation.com/factcheck-does-coal-fired-power-cost-79-kwh-and-wind-power-1502-kwh-44956 – this mistake which goes to an order of magnitude about the cost of energy generated by wind turbines managed to spread significantly before it was corrected (and acknowledged by one of those people who helped to unknowingly spread the misinformation – so what does this tell us about cultural cognition and backfire? Perhaps irrefutable evidence *does* work sometimes?).

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply
          1. Norah Post author

            Thanks for joining in the conversation, Bec. You do like to keep us informed! Seems like it’s hard to know what to believe! If it proves one thing, it is the importance of critical thinking, questioning everything, checking sources and investigating widely. That is probably more than one thing, but then my ability with numeracy may have more to do with my political persuasions than I would like to think! Thanks for adding so much depth to the conversation. 🙂

            Liked by 1 person

            Reply
        2. Norah Post author

          I did see Sacha’s post on sound. What a fascinating concept that is! And I think you have a great point there – if writer’s research well, then they are able to use what they have found out as the basis of an idea from which they stretch out the possibilities through their imaginings. Then, if the readers are so inspired, they revert to the source to find out the “truths” that inspired the imagination. Who knows what creativity and innovation may be based upon the fictional imagining. A wonderful spiral of possibility. Thank you for adding your great thoughts to the pot, and providing more richness to consider.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply
  10. Gulara

    Super important topic. Thank you for your passion and pouring your energy into raising awareness. I’m reading a fascinating book ‘the power of habit’ and blown away by research into what our brain does, which I haven’t questioned before. It’s time to open up our minds…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      Thank you Gulara. I appreciate your comment. That sounds like an interesting book. I’ll have to check it out when I finish my current read. It is definitely time to open our minds – and engage them!

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  11. desleyjane

    I haven’t seen the film, although I did want to. I find it difficult to believe that we only use 10%. Although I know some people who only use that much lol. It’s very interesting though the way these myths become accepted as truth. There are so many of them out there…

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply
    1. Norah Post author

      There are too many myths that science has proven to be untrue but are still generally accepted as being true. Sadly it takes a long time to dispel the myths, particularly when many accept them without question. Thanks for your comment.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

I appreciate your feedback. Please share your thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s