Neuro-babble
A study
published in this week’s issue of the Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience finds
that including irrelevant neuroscientific information in an explanation can
make people more likely to believe that explanation.
Three
groups of subjects – neuroscience ‘novices’, neuroscience students, and neuroscience
experts – were given descriptions of psychological phenomena followed by one of
the following types of explanation:
I. A
good explanation excluding irrelevant neuroscientific information
II. A
good explanation including irrelevant information
III. A
bad explanation excluding irrelevant neuroscientific information
IV. A
bad explanation including irrelevant information.
Novices
rated bad explanations to be more satisfying when they contained neuroscientific
information (i.e. IV > III) while students rated both good and bad
explanations more satisfying when the contained irrelevant neuroscientific
information (i.e. IV > III and II > I). No similar effect was found for
experts, who in fact rated good explanations to be less satisfying when they
included irrelevant neuroscientific information (i.e. I > II).
That neuroscientific
novices may be persuaded by neuro-babble is, of course, troubling.
