Blog

You are currently viewing 10 Myths Everyone Still Believes (But Science Says Otherwise)

10 Myths Everyone Still Believes (But Science Says Otherwise)

In business and life, the decisions we make are only as good as the information they’re based on. Yet even in our age of unprecedented access to scientific knowledge, persistent myths continue shaping how we think, work, and lead. These misconceptions aren’t harmless—they influence hiring decisions, productivity strategies, team management, and personal effectiveness. For business owners, entrepreneurs, and professionals committed to evidence-based practices, distinguishing myth from reality provides significant competitive advantages. This article examines ten pervasive myths that science has thoroughly debunked, revealing what the evidence actually shows and how this knowledge can transform your approach to business and life.

Myth 1: We Only Use 10% of Our Brain

Few myths have proven as durable as the notion that humans use only 10% of their brains, with vast untapped potential waiting to be unlocked. This belief appears everywhere from motivational speeches to corporate training programs, often accompanied by promises that accessing the unused 90% will unleash extraordinary capabilities.

The reality couldn’t be more different. Neuroimaging studies using fMRI and PET scans demonstrate conclusively that we use virtually all parts of our brain. Even during sleep, brain activity remains widespread. Different regions activate for different tasks, but over the course of a day, every brain area shows substantial activity. The 10% myth likely originated from early misinterpretations of neuroscience research and was perpetuated because it makes for compelling storytelling.

From a practical standpoint, evolution wouldn’t maintain an organ that consumes 20% of the body’s energy if 90% served no purpose. The brain’s high metabolic cost means natural selection would have eliminated unused tissue long ago. Additionally, brain damage to even small regions typically produces noticeable deficits, further confirming that all brain tissue serves important functions.

For business leaders, this myth’s debunking carries important implications. Training programs or productivity systems promising to “unlock unused brain potential” are fundamentally misguided. Real cognitive enhancement comes from evidence-based approaches like adequate sleep, regular exercise, proper nutrition, stress management, and deliberate practice—not from accessing mythical dormant brain regions.

The truth is actually more empowering than the myth. Rather than having vast unused capacity waiting to be activated, we have incredibly plastic brains capable of rewiring themselves throughout life. Neuroplasticity means we can genuinely improve cognitive capabilities through intentional practice and optimal conditions, though not through pseudoscientific shortcuts promising access to hidden reserves.

Myth 2: Different People Have Different “Learning Styles”

The learning styles theory—the idea that people learn best through their preferred modality such as visual, auditory, or kinesthetic—has achieved near-universal acceptance in educational and corporate training contexts. Billions of dollars have been spent designing curricula around this concept, with learners categorized and instruction tailored to their supposed style.

The scientific evidence tells a strikingly different story. Dozens of rigorous studies have failed to find support for learning styles theory. When researchers actually test whether matching instruction to learning style preferences improves outcomes, they consistently find no benefit. A comprehensive review published in Psychological Science in the Public Interest examined the learning styles literature and concluded that the theory lacks empirical support.

What does matter is matching instruction method to content type. Visual information like diagrams or spatial relationships is best learned visually—by everyone, not just “visual learners.” Sequential processes are best learned through step-by-step instruction—by everyone. The content determines optimal instruction method, not learner preferences. While people certainly have preferences about how they like to receive information, these preferences don’t predict learning effectiveness.

For businesses investing in training and development, this myth’s persistence represents significant wasted resources. Developing multiple versions of training content for different “learning styles” provides no educational benefit while substantially increasing cost and complexity. Resources would be better invested in evidence-based practices like spaced repetition, retrieval practice, interleaving, and elaborative interrogation—techniques proven to enhance learning across all individuals.

The practical implications extend to hiring and team management. Categorizing employees by learning style and making decisions based on these categories lacks scientific justification. Instead, focus on providing high-quality instruction matched to content requirements and incorporating evidence-based learning principles that benefit everyone regardless of preferences.

Myth 3: Multitasking Makes You More Productive

Modern work culture celebrates multitasking as essential for productivity. Job postings list it as a desired skill. Professionals pride themselves on juggling multiple tasks simultaneously. The ability to handle many things at once seems like an obvious advantage in fast-paced business environments.

Cognitive science reveals that human multitasking is largely an illusion. What we perceive as simultaneous task performance is actually rapid switching between tasks. This switching carries substantial cognitive costs. Each transition requires mental resources to disengage from one task, shift attention, and re-engage with another. The process leaves “attention residue”—cognitive resources still allocated to the previous task even after switching.

Research by Clifford Nass at Stanford University found that people who regularly multitask actually perform worse than non-multitaskers on tests of task-switching ability. Heavy multitaskers show reduced ability to filter irrelevant information and demonstrate poorer working memory. Rather than developing superior cognitive abilities, chronic multitasking appears to degrade the very skills it’s supposed to enhance.

The productivity costs are substantial. Studies estimate that multitasking can reduce productivity by up to 40% compared to focused single-tasking. Error rates increase significantly. Complex cognitive work suffers most, as these tasks require sustained mental engagement that multitasking prevents. Even brief interruptions can significantly extend task completion time due to reorientation requirements.

For business owners and managers, these findings suggest that encouraging multitasking represents counterproductive management practice. Instead, organizational practices should minimize interruptions, batch similar tasks, establish focus periods, and structure work to enable sustained attention. The professionals who produce the highest quality work most efficiently are typically those who focus deeply on single tasks rather than juggling many simultaneously.

The exception involves genuinely automatic processes like walking while talking. These don’t compete for the same cognitive resources. However, for tasks requiring conscious attention and cognitive processing—essentially all knowledge work—attempting simultaneous performance degrades both speed and quality.

Myth 4: Sugar Makes Children Hyperactive

Parents and teachers widely believe that sugar causes hyperactivity in children, leading to dietary restrictions and anxiety about candy consumption. This belief influences everything from birthday party planning to classroom policies, with sugar often blamed for disruptive behavior.

The scientific evidence consistently refutes this connection. Numerous double-blind, placebo-controlled studies have found no relationship between sugar consumption and hyperactivity or behavioral problems in children. A meta-analysis published in JAMA examined 23 different studies and concluded that sugar doesn’t affect children’s behavior or cognitive performance.

The myth persists partly due to context effects. Children typically consume sugary treats at events like parties or holidays where excitement and stimulation naturally run high. Parents attribute the resulting energy to sugar rather than the inherently stimulating environment. Expectation also plays a role—when parents believe their children have consumed sugar, they rate behavior as more hyperactive regardless of actual sugar consumption.

For business owners, particularly those in food service, education, or children’s products, understanding this evidence prevents unnecessary product restrictions or marketing based on misconceptions. The real concerns about sugar relate to dental health, obesity, and metabolic issues—legitimate problems that don’t require exaggerating effects to justify moderation.

The broader lesson concerns the importance of distinguishing correlation from causation. The fact that hyperactive behavior often occurs in contexts involving sugar doesn’t mean sugar causes the behavior. Careful controlled studies that isolate variables reveal the true relationships. Business decisions should similarly rest on rigorous analysis rather than assumed causal relationships.

Myth 5: You Need 8 Hours of Sleep Every Night

The “8 hours of sleep” recommendation has achieved status as universal truth, repeated by health authorities, productivity experts, and wellness programs. Individuals who sleep less often feel guilty or worry about health consequences, while those requiring more feel abnormal.

Sleep research reveals substantial individual variation in sleep needs. While average optimal sleep duration clusters around 7-9 hours for adults, the range of healthy sleep extends from roughly 6 to 10 hours. Genetic factors strongly influence individual requirements. Some people genuinely function optimally on 6 hours, while others require 9 or more. Age, health status, activity level, and life circumstances all affect sleep needs.

The sleep quality and consistency matter more than hitting a specific duration target. Regular sleep schedules, adequate deep and REM sleep, and waking feeling refreshed indicate healthy sleep regardless of total hours. Sleep tracking data shows that two people sleeping 7 hours might have vastly different sleep quality and resulting cognitive function based on sleep architecture and disturbances.

For business leaders, rigid adherence to specific sleep duration targets misses the point. Supporting employee wellbeing requires flexibility recognizing individual differences rather than one-size-fits-all prescriptions. Some employees thrive as early risers with shorter sleep, while others need more hours and later schedules. Accommodating these differences where possible enhances both wellbeing and productivity.

The emphasis on sleep duration can paradoxically worsen sleep by creating anxiety. People who sleep 6 hours and feel fine may develop sleep anxiety after reading they should sleep 8 hours, with the resulting stress actually degrading sleep quality. The focus should be on sleep quality, consistency, and whether individuals feel rested and function well rather than hitting arbitrary duration targets.

Myth 6: Cracking Your Knuckles Causes Arthritis

Generations have been warned that cracking knuckles will lead to arthritis and joint damage. This myth has influenced behavior worldwide, with many people consciously avoiding or feeling guilty about the habit.

Medical research finds no connection between knuckle cracking and arthritis. A study published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine examined habitual knuckle crackers and found no increased arthritis rates compared to non-crackers. The sound comes from gas bubbles forming and collapsing in joint fluid—a harmless process that doesn’t damage cartilage or bone.

One physician, Donald Unger, even conducted a 60-year personal experiment, cracking the knuckles on one hand but not the other. He found no difference in arthritis development, publishing his findings in Arthritis & Rheumatology and earning an Ig Nobel Prize for his dedication to debunking this myth.

While knuckle cracking doesn’t cause arthritis, it can occasionally lead to reduced grip strength or minor soft tissue swelling in heavy crackers. The sound may annoy others. However, the dire warnings about arthritis lack scientific basis. Real arthritis risk factors include genetics, age, obesity, joint injuries, and certain occupations—not knuckle cracking.

For business owners in health, wellness, or ergonomics, understanding actual risk factors versus myths enables more effective interventions. Workplace wellness programs should address evidence-based arthritis prevention like weight management, proper ergonomics, and injury prevention rather than focusing on harmless habits like knuckle cracking.

The persistence of this myth illustrates how readily causal relationships are inferred from temporal associations. Because arthritis develops later in life and some older people crack their knuckles, people assume connection. Rigorous research isolating variables reveals the truth.

Myth 7: Eating at Night Makes You Gain More Weight

Weight loss advice commonly warns against eating after certain hours, claiming nighttime calories convert to fat more readily than daytime calories. This belief influences eating patterns, diet plans, and guilt about evening snacking.

Metabolic research shows that calories have the same effect regardless of when consumed. Weight gain or loss depends on total caloric intake versus expenditure over time, not meal timing. Your body doesn’t process evening calories differently than morning calories. The thermic effect of food—energy required for digestion—remains consistent throughout the day.

The myth likely persists because people who eat late at night often consume additional snack calories beyond daily requirements, leading to caloric surplus and weight gain. The timing isn’t causal—the excess calories are. Additionally, late-night eating often involves less nutritious food choices and distracted eating while watching television, contributing to overconsumption.

For business owners in health, fitness, or food service industries, this evidence enables better customer guidance. Rather than arbitrary time cutoffs, focus on total intake, food quality, and mindful eating. Some people perform and feel better eating larger evening meals, while others prefer light dinners. Individual circadian rhythms and preferences matter more than universal timing rules.

Recent research on time-restricted eating and intermittent fasting shows potential benefits, but these stem from total caloric reduction and metabolic changes from fasting periods rather than avoiding evening specifically. The benefits come from the fasting window itself, which could be achieved through early or late eating patterns.

The broader principle involves distinguishing between correlation and causation. Late-night eating correlates with weight gain in some populations, but the mechanism involves behavioral patterns and total intake rather than metabolic time-of-day effects.

Myth 8: Humans Have Five Senses

Elementary education teaches that humans possess five senses: sight, hearing, touch, taste, and smell. This framework has become so ingrained that most people never question it. The reality of human sensory systems proves far more complex and fascinating.

Neuroscience recognizes many additional senses beyond the classical five. Proprioception provides awareness of body position and movement in space. Equilibrioception enables balance detection through the vestibular system. Thermoception senses temperature. Nociception detects pain. Interoception monitors internal body states like hunger, thirst, and heart rate. Some scientists identify over twenty distinct sensory systems.

Even the classical five senses involve multiple subsystems. “Touch” encompasses distinct sensory systems for pressure, vibration, texture, and more. “Taste” includes at least five basic taste qualities and possibly more. The senses interact extensively through multisensory integration, meaning our perceptual experience rarely involves single isolated senses.

For business applications, understanding human sensory capabilities enables better design, marketing, and user experience. Product designers can leverage proprioception and haptic feedback. Workplace environments affect interoceptive states influencing mood and performance. Marketing can engage multiple sensory dimensions for stronger impact and memory formation.

The persistence of the five-senses model illustrates how simplified educational frameworks, while useful for introducing concepts, can become limiting misconceptions. Business innovation often requires questioning fundamental assumptions and exploring more nuanced reality. Companies that understand actual human sensory capabilities gain advantages in design, interface development, and experience creation.

Myth 9: Goldfish Have Three-Second Memories

The notion that goldfish possess three-second memories has become shorthand for forgetfulness and short attention spans. People reference it in jokes, use it in comparisons, and accept it as established fact. This myth has even influenced how we view and care for pet fish.

Animal cognition research thoroughly debunks this myth. Studies demonstrate that goldfish can remember information for months, not seconds. They can be trained to respond to signals, navigate mazes, and recognize individual human faces. Research shows goldfish learning and retaining associations between feeding times and locations over extended periods.

Experiments by researchers at MacEwan University and other institutions have documented goldfish memory spanning at least three months. The fish demonstrate temporal awareness, anticipating feeding schedules. They exhibit place learning and can distinguish between different shapes, colors, and sounds. Their cognitive capabilities far exceed popular perception.

The myth’s origin remains unclear but likely stems from observations of goldfish behavior in inadequate aquarium conditions where stress, poor water quality, and understimulation impair normal cognitive function—much like humans perform poorly in suboptimal environments. Proper goldfish care reveals impressive capabilities.

For business leaders, this myth’s debunking offers metaphorical lessons. Assumptions about capabilities—whether of fish, employees, or systems—often reflect inadequate conditions or observations rather than true potential. Creating optimal environments reveals capabilities that poor conditions obscure. The employee who seems to forget instructions might need better training, clearer communication, or different environmental conditions rather than having poor memory.

Additionally, this myth illustrates how casual observations without controlled testing generate persistent misconceptions. Rigorous investigation reveals truth obscured by assumption. Business decisions benefit from similar rigor—testing assumptions rather than accepting conventional wisdom.

Myth 10: Lightning Never Strikes the Same Place Twice

This proverb appears in countless contexts, suggesting rare events won’t recur in the same location. It influences risk assessment, decision-making, and probability intuitions. Buildings and natural formations have been struck multiple times, yet the phrase persists.

Meteorology and physics demonstrate that lightning frequently strikes the same locations repeatedly. Tall structures like the Empire State Building get struck dozens of times annually. Lightning rods work precisely because lightning tends to strike the same high points repeatedly. Geography, height, isolation, and conductivity all influence strike probability—characteristics that remain constant, making repeated strikes highly likely.

The phrase originated not from observation but as metaphorical encouragement—essentially meaning that one shouldn’t let a singular bad experience prevent future attempts. As metaphor it may serve useful purposes, but taken literally it misrepresents probability and risk.

For business applications, proper risk assessment requires understanding actual probabilities rather than intuitive assumptions. Past events provide information about future risk. Locations, circumstances, or behaviors that produced problems once often produce them again unless conditions change. The business that experiences a cybersecurity breach faces elevated risk of future breaches unless vulnerabilities are addressed.

This myth reflects broader challenges in human probability assessment. We tend to underestimate recurrence likelihood for rare events and overestimate it for recent events. Recency bias, availability heuristic, and clustering illusions all distort risk perception. Business decisions require overcoming these cognitive biases through systematic analysis and evidence-based assessment.

Understanding that lightning repeatedly strikes the same locations when conditions favor it provides useful metaphor for business: success and problems both tend to recur in environments that produce them. Creating conditions for positive outcomes makes repeated success likely. Similarly, failing to address underlying issues makes repeated problems nearly inevitable.

Why Myths Persist Despite Contrary Evidence

Understanding why myths persist despite scientific debunking helps prevent their influence on business decisions. Several psychological and social factors contribute to myth durability, and recognizing them enables more critical evaluation of information.

Confirmation bias leads us to notice and remember information supporting existing beliefs while dismissing contrary evidence. Once we believe sugar causes hyperactivity or that we use 10% of our brains, we selectively attend to information reinforcing these beliefs and discount contradictory research. Business leaders must actively counteract this bias by genuinely seeking disconfirming evidence and rewarding those who challenge assumptions.

The availability heuristic makes easily recalled information seem more valid than hard-to-recall facts. Memorable stories about multitasking success or late-night eating causing weight gain stick in memory more readily than statistical evidence to the contrary. Business communication should recognize that memorable examples often carry disproportionate weight relative to their evidential value.

Social proof and authority influence belief persistence. When myths are widely accepted or endorsed by respected figures, individuals hesitate to question them. Creating organizational cultures that reward evidence-based thinking over deference to authority or majority opinion helps overcome this tendency.

Myths often persist because they’re emotionally satisfying or serve social functions. The idea that we use only 10% of our brains is more exciting than the truth. Believing in learning styles makes people feel understood and special. Effective communication of scientific truths requires addressing emotional needs and providing compelling alternatives rather than simply correcting misconceptions.

Applying Evidence-Based Thinking to Business Decisions

The myths examined here represent broader challenges in distinguishing evidence from assumption. Business success increasingly depends on evidence-based decision-making that questions conventional wisdom and demands rigorous support for beliefs.

Developing organizational cultures that value evidence requires several commitments. First, reward intellectual humility—the willingness to say “I don’t know” or “I was wrong.” Leaders who model this behavior create environments where evidence trumps ego. Second, establish processes that demand evidence for claims, particularly those influencing significant decisions. Third, invest in developing analytical capabilities and scientific literacy throughout the organization.

Decision-making frameworks should incorporate systematic bias correction. Techniques like pre-mortem analysis, devil’s advocate assignments, and outside view consulting help identify assumptions and blind spots. Diverse teams with different perspectives naturally challenge groupthink and surface alternative interpretations.

Access to quality information matters enormously. Businesses should invest in research capabilities, whether through internal staff, academic partnerships, or professional research services. The costs of decisions based on misinformation far exceed investments in good information. Additionally, developing skill in evaluating information quality—distinguishing rigorous research from advocacy or marketing—provides competitive advantages.

The myths examined here demonstrate that even widely accepted beliefs can lack foundation. Business leaders should approach received wisdom skeptically, particularly in domains lacking rigorous evidence. When claims seem too neat, too simple, or too conveniently aligned with common sense, deeper investigation often reveals more complex reality.

Conclusion: The Competitive Advantage of Truth

In business and life, the quality of decisions depends on the quality of information they’re based on. Myths persist even when debunked because changing minds requires more than evidence—it requires overcoming psychological biases, social pressures, and emotional investments in comfortable beliefs. However, the organizations and individuals willing to do this difficult work gain significant advantages.

Understanding that multitasking degrades performance enables better productivity strategies. Recognizing that learning styles lack empirical support allows more effective training investment. Knowing that all brain regions serve important functions focuses improvement efforts on evidence-based cognitive enhancement. Each myth debunked represents an opportunity to align beliefs with reality and improve outcomes.

The broader lesson extends beyond specific myths to encompass general principles of critical thinking and evidence evaluation. Business environments reward those who question assumptions, demand evidence, update beliefs based on data, and resist the pull of comforting myths. These capabilities distinguish leaders who navigate complexity effectively from those trapped by misconceptions.

The ten myths examined here represent countless others influencing business decisions, management practices, and strategic thinking. Developing habits of seeking evidence, questioning conventional wisdom, and updating beliefs creates compounding advantages over time. Organizations that cultivate these practices outperform those relying on assumption and tradition.

The commitment to evidence-based thinking isn’t about intellectual superiority—it’s about effectiveness. Reality doesn’t care about our beliefs, preferences, or traditions. Success comes from aligning understanding with how things actually work rather than how we wish they worked or assume they work. The businesses and individuals willing to face uncomfortable truths, abandon cherished beliefs unsupported by evidence, and continuously update their understanding based on best available research position themselves for sustained success in increasingly complex environments.

In an age of information abundance and widespread misinformation, the ability to distinguish evidence from myth represents a crucial competitive advantage. The myths explored here demonstrate that even seemingly obvious facts often prove false under scrutiny. This reality should inspire both humility about current beliefs and commitment to continuous learning and adaptation. The pursuit of truth—uncomfortable, complex, and sometimes inconvenient as it may be—ultimately serves business success better than comfortable myths ever could.

References

  1. Dekker, S., Lee, N.C., Howard-Jones, P., & Jolles, J. (2012). “Neuromyths in Education: Prevalence and Predictors of Misconceptions Among Teachers.” Frontiers in Psychology, 3, 429.
  2. Herculano-Houzel, S. (2012). “The Remarkable, Yet Not Extraordinary, Human Brain as a Scaled-up Primate Brain and Its Associated Cost.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(Supplement 1), 10661-10668.
  3. Mark, G., Gudith, D., & Klocke, U. (2008). “The Cost of Interrupted Work: More Speed and Stress.” Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 107-110.
  4. Nass, C., Ophir, E., & Wagner, A.D. (2009). “Cognitive Control in Media Multitaskers.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(37), 15583-15587.
  5. Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). “Learning Styles: Concepts and Evidence.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105-119.
  6. Unger, D.L. (1998). “Does Knuckle Cracking Lead to Arthritis of the Fingers?” Arthritis & Rheumatology, 41(5), 949-950.
  7. Van Cauter, E., & Knutson, K.L. (2008). “Sleep and the Epidemic of Obesity in Children and Adults.” European Journal of Endocrinology, 159(Supplement 1), S59-S66.
  8. Wolsko, C., Ariceaga, H., & Seiden, J. (2016). “Red Bull ‘Gives You Wings’ for Better or Worse: A Double-Edged Impact of Brand Exposure on Consumer Performance.” Journal of Consumer Psychology, 26(1), 57-69.
  9. Wolpert, S. (2009). “Is Technology Producing a Decline in Critical Thinking and Analysis?” UCLA Newsroom. University of California, Los Angeles.
  10. Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C.M., & Wittenbrink, B. (2000). “Framing Interethnic Ideology: Effects of Multicultural and Color-Blind Perspectives on Judgments of Groups and Individuals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 635-654.

Additional Resources

Leave a Reply