ESSAY: Scientology and the Great 10% Myth
Chris Owen
Albert Einstein (in image at least), proclaims that the average person
uses only 10% of their mental capacity. With Dianetics, this figure can
supposedly increase. The same message has been repeated by Scientology
for decades. But where does it come from and on what is it based?
Scientology's source for the claim comes from L. Ron Hubbard, as you
might expect. In the original "Dianetics: Modern Science of Mental
Health", published in 1950, he wrote:
"Thought processes are disturbed not only by these engramic commands but
also by the fact that the reactive mind reduces, by regenerating
unconsciousness, the actual ability to think. Few people possess,
because of this, more than 10% of their potential awareness."
["Dianetics: MSMH", 1988 ed., p. xiii]
This was not a new "discovery" on Hubbard's part. The claim that people
only used a small proportion of the brain had been around for many years
previously, though just where it came from is unclear. The American
psychologist William James declared in 1908 that "We are making use of
only a small part of our possible mental and physical resources".
This is probably where Hubbard picked up the idea, as he is known to
have read at least some of James' works - James is credited in both
"Science of Survival" and "Scientology 8-8008". Strange though it may
seem, James was actually Hubbard's favourite psychologist:
"I wouldn't even stoop to kid any one psychologist, except William
James. And he actually is quite interesting. They call psychology a
science; it would be a science if William James had been able to codify
it for communication. Because as far as I can find out, he's the only
source for modern psychology. He wrote a book, very nice book. Did you
ever see his book - 1898, I think it is, something like that. Very nice
little book. If somebody had read that they would have been in good
shape, too."
[Hubbard, "Study of the Particle (continued)", lecture of 29 October
1953]
However. the "10% myth" appears to have originated well before James,
who was evidently citing "received wisdom". The notion may have its
origins in the 19th century pseudoscience of phrenology, which claimed
that specific human behaviours and characteristics could be deduced by
the pattern and size of bumps on the skull. The 19th century debate was
dominated by the question of whether brain functions could be localised
to particular regions of the brain or whether the brain acted as a
whole. Phrenologists tended to believe in localised brain functions;
the more developed a particular function was, the larger the relevant
area of the brain and thus the lumpier the skull in that area. The
theory was brought to a grim conclusion in Nazi Germany, where the heads
of thousands of Jews, homosexuals and common criminals were carefully
examined to record their "defective" characteristics - a practice which
had also taken place in "civilised" countries such as Britain and the
US.
Phrenology's critics tended to argue that brain functions relied on the
brain as a whole and not any specific part. To demonstrate the point,
experiments were carried out to carve away the brains of laboratory
animals to test how brain functions were progressively impaired. One
prominent researcher in this field was Karl Spencer Lashley, whose
experiments showed that the ability of rats to solve simple tasks, such
as mazes and visual discrimination tests, were unaffected by large-scale
removal of cerebral tissue. As long as a certain amount of cortex
remained, the rats appeared normal on the tests he administered. In a
1935 experiment, he found that removal of up to 58% of the cerebral
cortex did not affect certain types of learning. His results appeared
to indicate that large areas of the mammalian brain were effectively
unused. "Corroboration" was provided by electrically stimulating
exposed cortical tissue in a variety of species. Because this did not
provoke an obvious response, it was believed that the bulk of the brain
- up to 90% - was "silent" and therefore unused.
But is the claim true? In short, no. Since those experiments were
carried out in the 1930s, a wide variety of new techniques have been
developed to examine the brain - EEGs, CAT-, PET- and MRI- scans,
magnetoencephalography, regional cerebral blood flow measures, etc.
These show conclusively that the so-called "silent cortex" is anything
but; rather than dealing with such visible tasks as motor functions,
"silent" parts of the brain govern many subtle aspects of thought and
personality. Scans show that no part of the brain ever goes "silent";
it may be used at different intensities, but even in the deepest sleep
the brain continues to be active. It could hardly be otherwise. The
brain consumes a large amount of the body's energy resources, meaning
that an efficiently utilised brain is not only desirable but an
evolutionary necessity. A mostly unused brain could never have evolved
in the first place because of the wasteful overhead it would represent.
Animals, humans included, have brains only as large as they require;
that is why humans don't have whale-sized brains, for instance.
It isn't even clear what is meant by using 10% of the brain. If an
individual were to use only 10% of their brain, this means that 90% of
each functional area would have to be unused in order not to lose
certain functions totally in a 90% dormant brain. It would be much
simpler if the brain was an undifferentiated mass, but it isn't. The
famous case of Phineas Gage, the 19th century railwayman who was
accidentally lobotomised and suffered a radical personality
transformation as a result, showed at an early stage that certain areas
of the brain have a key role in determining personality. Modern brain
scanning techniques show that different areas of the brain are used at
different rates of intensity for different tasks. In computing terms,
the brain is a cluster of parallel processors rather than one single
super-chip.
In conclusion, it's clear that Scientology's claim about only using 10%
of the brain is completely incorrect. There is no evidence to support
it; the claim itself is based on 19th century pseudoscience and badly
flawed early 20th century experimentation. Most ironically of all, the
originators of the claim were the very same psychologists whom
Scientology professes to hate. This would seem to be an unwitting case
of "forwarding the enemy line". It demonstrates - not for the first
time - the shallowness and inaccuracy of Hubbard's knowledge about the
workings of the brain, and highlights the gulf between his claims and
scientific reality.
--
| Chris Owen - chr...@OISPAMNOlutefisk.demon.co.uk |
|---------------------------------------------------------------|
| THE TRUTH ABOUT L. RON HUBBARD AND THE UNITED STATES NAVY |
| http://www.ronthewarhero.org |
Gerry Armstrong
Good one.
> If an
>individual were to use only 10% of their brain, this means that 90% of
>each functional area would have to be unused in order not to lose
>certain functions totally in a 90% dormant brain.
Yes, and if you can actually completely lose the 90%, then the 10%
would be 100%. Maybe that's what's happening when $cientologists are
gaining one point of IQ per hour of auditing. They're actually losing
their minds.
> It would be much
>simpler if the brain was an undifferentiated mass, but it isn't. The
>famous case of Phineas Gage, the 19th century railwayman who was
>accidentally lobotomised and suffered a radical personality
>transformation as a result, showed at an early stage that certain areas
>of the brain have a key role in determining personality. Modern brain
>scanning techniques show that different areas of the brain are used at
>different rates of intensity for different tasks. In computing terms,
>the brain is a cluster of parallel processors rather than one single
>super-chip.
>
>In conclusion, it's clear that Scientology's claim about only using 10%
>of the brain is completely incorrect. There is no evidence to support
>it; the claim itself is based on 19th century pseudoscience and badly
>flawed early 20th century experimentation. Most ironically of all, the
>originators of the claim were the very same psychologists whom
>Scientology professes to hate.
Par for the course.
> This would seem to be an unwitting case
>of "forwarding the enemy line". It demonstrates - not for the first
>time - the shallowness and inaccuracy of Hubbard's knowledge
You've said the worst thing you could say about Hubbard, and the fact
about himself he most desperately wanted to cloak. And he cloaked it
by claiming great depth and perfect accuracy of his knowledge. Oh yes,
and ruthlessly attacking anyone who noted his shallowness and
inaccuracy.
> about the
>workings of the brain, and highlights the gulf between his claims and
>scientific reality.
Which can never be bridged.
(c) Gerry Armstrong