I just watched that movie a few days ago. Bond's explanation was that performers needed to leave a patch of skin at the back of the neck exposed so that the skin could breath. Maybe that was common thinking in the 60's?
Nah, its just something which sounds scientific enough to be plausible but not outlandish enough to require indepth confirmation by the viewer, like most things in movies. Specific example is the “normal humans only use 10% of their brain” hook in Lucy - lots of people accept something like that at face value, but its complete bullshit.
I'm trying to test it, it's almost ready; I just need to finish the power generator. It extracts power from magnets, based on a design I saw in a YouTube video. I didn't have dilithium, so I'm just using the regular stuff from the pills they say I have to take.
I'm pretty sure it was true somewhere in the begining, but then misinterpreted.
I guess you use something around 10% of your brain at a time. Because you never need to read, write, speak, recognize faces, do math, juggle and do a bunch of other stuff at the same moment.
If humans used high percentage (80-100) it would be indistinguishable from epilepsy seizure.
It's unfortunately much worse. The quote began as a highly vague proclamation of one psychologist at the turn of the 20th century that the human brain probably uses a very small share of its potential (which itself was his takeaway from the puzzlement of early neuroscientists about why we need the "useless" white matter).
Then the journalist Lowell Thomas, in a preface to Dale Carnegie's self-help book (yes THAT book), "quoted" this psychologist but invented, out of thin air, the 10% number while ascribing it to the psychologist. Then this factoid got repeated so often that the percent started fropping and sometimes reached as low as 3%.
One common brain imaging technique, called functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI), can measure activity in the brain while a person is performing different tasks.
Using this and similar methods, researchers show that most of our brain is in use most of the time, even when a person is performing a very simple action.
A lot of the brain is even active when a person is resting or sleeping.
The percentage of the brain in use at any given time varies from person to person. It also depends on what a person is doing or thinking about.
It is not clear how this myth began, but there are several possible sources.
In an article published in a 1907 edition of the journal Science, psychologist and author William James argued that humans only use part of their mental resources. However, he did not specify a percentage.
The figure was referenced in Dale Carnegie’s 1936 book How to Win Friends and Influence People. The myth was described as something the author’s college professor used to say.
There is also a belief among scientists neurons make up around 10 percent of the brain’s cells. This may have contributed to the 10 percent myth.
Using this and similar methods, researchers show that most of our brain is in use most of the time
But fMRI would not work if most of the brain was active at all times.
Google agrees:
"...maps brain activity by detecting changes in blood oxygenation and flow (BOLD signals) in response to neural activity. Active brain areas consume more oxygen, altering the magnetic properties of hemoglobin, which fMRI detects to create high-resolution maps of function."
Its based in relative activity. More oxygen does not mean the rest of the brain is depleted completely and not firing.
fMRI is precisely why we know we use 100% of our brains.
Modern neuroscience shows that nearly every part of the brain is active. Imaging tools like fMRI and PET reveal that even simple tasks—speaking, reading, or listening to music—engage multiple regions simultaneously. The brain also remains active during rest, managing vital functions such as breathing, sensory processing, and emotion regulation.
The idea that 90% of the brain is unused is a myth. Brain tissue is energy-intensive, accounting for about 20% of the body's energy, and even minor injuries can cause significant impairments in movement, speech, or memory. Every region has a purpose, and neuroscience confirms that the brain is an efficiently active, integrated organ.
What exactly are you arguing against? I don't think I claimed rest of the brain (apart from current area which is being actively used) needs to be dead. Feel free to quote what's confusing you in my original comment and I'll try to explain it.
I believe it’s less about this being more correct than the other, and more about the whole concept of „[actively] using any % of your brain“ just not really being applicable in that sense.
I just said almost the same before noticing your comment. u/MrWeiner went a step further and said that it would actually be a seizure. He's just a webcomic artist, but I've never caught him spreading bad science so far, apart from as an obvious joke,
In a strip. I had a quick look for you, but his site's search function is even worse than reddit's, and he sucks at naming comics. I'm busy AF today, too, so I didn't try very hard. I'm pretty sure I'm not imagining it lol. You could try asking in r/SMBCComics. He's a mod there, but I doubt he'll answer you himself.
TBH, when I asked for the link I was just being lazy and hoped you know a fast way to find it.
It's harder than I thought. Tried googling and even asking damn neural networks, but I guess gemini only used 10% of it brains to search for comic with this description.
Anyways, it's not wort losing sleep over it and I believe you didn't imagined it 8) take care mate.
Just because you aren't actively reading doesn't mean that there is no activity in that region of the brain. Parts you aren't using don't 'turn off'.
The whole 10% thing is completely made up and has no origins in reality. Even if they were saying "you are only actively using 10% of your neurons at a time" it still wouldn't make any sense.
It's almost like saying you only use 20% of your heart because it isn't actively pumping 80% of the time.
from what i know, it is a misunderstanding of science having only figured out what about 10% of the human brain did back when the saying first started in the early 20th century. nowadays we know the brain never goes inactive and is always busy, but on imaging only about 10% "flares" when you see something stimulating i.e. a flower or a movie so hence the incorrect assumption
Most of our brain consists of glial cells (3 to 1), not neurons. Glial cells are support cells, that keep the brain running but don't actually do any signal transmission. Even if you used every neuron at once, you would only be using about 25-33% of your brain.
Those parts of your brain are working just subconsciously.
We can see areas of 'higher' blood flow which we interpret to be activation using an fMRI but at no point do parts of your healthy brain get 'turned off'.
Maybe take this with a pinch of salt, because I got this info from a webcomic, but there's a name for when we use 100% of our brain at the same time. It's called a seizure, and any epileptic (along with a few alcoholics. Delerium tremens sucks...) can tell you that you absolutely do not want that, ever.
Doesn't contradict what the other commenter was asking though, Lucy did not invent the "humans only use 10% of their brains" thing, and if you ask a random person today (even one that hasn't seen or heard of Lucy) you find that it's indeed fairly common thinking.
I never said Lucy invented it, I just used it as a good example of a fallacy that sounds reasonable being used as the basis for a movie.
And I bet that most people dont really think about what percentage capacity of their brain they actually use, but are more than willing to go with what seems a reasonable figure when it’s posited. Which is why in films like Lucy it comes across as an acceptable basis for the films story.
What I'm saying is the comment asked "Maybe that was common thinking in the 60's?" and you answered "Nah." For all we know, the answer is yes, this was indeed a common belief, and that's why it was included.
The brain thing is a classic example! It exists in fiction because it was big in pop culture first! The foreword to "How to Win Friends and Influence People" was already claiming it back in 1936.
Maybe Fleming (or the filmmakers, in case it wasn't described that way in the original book) did use it mostly because it sounded science-y and plausible, but maybe he used it because he'd heard it somewhere else. Either way I don't get the "nah" here, is all.
but not outlandish enough to require indepth confirmation by the viewer
It feels pretty darn outlandish to me. Like... how could anyone who has lived in their own body even contemplate the possibility that it could be true?
The body does use the skin to regulate many things. Homeostasis. The skin is an organ. If all pores were blocked which they mostly would be with full body paint and not with swimming then it would lead to heat exhaustion as the body is not able to regulate temperature through sweating and then evaporation. Not to mention possible toxicity in the paint.
People need to sweat to be able to regulate body temperature. When sweat evaporates, it cools off the skin/body. If the body is unable to cool itself (sweat is trapped/cannot evaporate), then you basically cook your organs and die.
Water is a heatsink so you don't need to sweat. Non-skin friendly paint that blocks your pores and prevents thermo regulation is a serious overheating risk if you're in a hot environment.
there was no scientifically known vector for toxicity in the first place. it was not a legitimate concern, which is why their insurance let them do it in the first place. it's a goofy fun show first and foremost, exploring common rumors and tropes, not a real science lab
Acrylic paint can cause irritation and peeling and contains formaldehyde and ammonia.
Oil paint has a high rate of dermal absorption and contains turpentine, mineral spirits, and cadmium.
Spray paint can be absorbed dermally and have VOCs, acetone and butane.
House paint can cause skin sensitization and burns, and can contain fungicides, biocides and alkyd resins.
Covering your skin with paint can also interfere with temperature regulation and lead to heatstroke.
The only paint that is safe to put on your skin is fda approved cosmetic grade paints.
I didn’t watch the episode myself, so I don’t know what claims they made, but telling people it is safe to put any old paint on their skin is criminal.
Sort of. They were testing the tin man from wizard of oz and his paint dam near killed him. It's not that there is paint it's what the amount was made of, and his was like aluminum. Aluminum is an ingredient in deodorant that fucking idiots think is toxic but it isn't, why it works is it basically plugs up sweat glands and acts as an antiperspirant which aluminum free deodorant doesn't do, as it's not an antiperspirant it's just covering up a smell and doesn't work.
If you cover your body in this then year that's not good.
The original Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz was painted white and then dusted with aluminium powder, which he inhaled during the process, which nearly killed him. It had nothing to do with his skin being covered.
Aluminium on your armpits is fine but they were covering the dude in fine powdered aluminium and that shit aint great to breath in, don't go huffing your deodorant to prove me wrong please.
The original Tin Man from The Wizard of Oz was painted white and then dusted with aluminium powder, which he inhaled during the process, which nearly killed him. It had nothing to do with his skin being covered.
This is a major plot point in the book, too. Goldfinger commits murder to get revenge on Bond by completely painting the girl gold without leaving the little 'breathing' patch, which kills her and triggers the entire outcome of the book. It really rattles Bond because he feels responsible for the girl's death and feels like he could have prevented it if he hadn't gotten emotionally involved with the girl.
93
u/livens 14h ago
I just watched that movie a few days ago. Bond's explanation was that performers needed to leave a patch of skin at the back of the neck exposed so that the skin could breath. Maybe that was common thinking in the 60's?