Newsgroups: comp.ai
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!hudson.lm.com!news.pop.psu.edu!news.cac.psu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!udel!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news.media.mit.edu!minsky
From: minsky@media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: What's with this 10% statistic?
Message-ID: <1995Apr18.175419.17041@news.media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@news.media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Cc: minsky
Organization: MIT Media Laboratory
References: <3msak1$ufo@ns.compumedia.com> <3mshnr$cl5@mark.ucdavis.edu>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 1995 17:54:19 GMT
Lines: 27

In article <3mshnr$cl5@mark.ucdavis.edu> mock@hyperion.cs.ucdavis.edu (Kenrick Mock) writes:
>In article <3msak1$ufo@ns.compumedia.com>,
>Monica Stewart <monica@compumedia.com> wrote:
>>
>>I notice here at comp.ai, and elsewhere, there is this much touted "fact" 
>>that we use only 10% of our brains. I run into this idea when I'm 
>>chatting with friends, reading science fiction, and sometimes when I talk 
>>to people who call themselves scientists.
>>
>>Where did this stat come from? It's been around for a while. I suspect 
>>that is a rumour that has become common knowledge.
>
>I think it comes from experiments that show that portions of the brain
>can be -destroyed- without the subject being terribly traumatized. So
>someone must have concluded that if parts can be destroyed, they aren't
>being used, hence only a small portion of the brain is really used.  Of
>course this is like saying if A->B, then B->A which is not necessarily
>true (and in the case of the brain, I think it is all being used).

Actually, those "experiments" aren't true any more, and the 10% number
is older than them.  It originated in a disparaging remark by Oscar
Wilde about the mental ability of an acquaintance.

(Actually, I just made that up, but if enough people propagate it, that
might lay this silly legend to rest.)

