I've spent a lot of time over the last couple years thinking about #sciComm, both in sharing research with the public and other scientists. 

Doing research for my latest Penn NeuroKnow post debunking common myths about the brain was fascinating as I traced through where several of these myths originated. Oftentimes they start with real #neuroscience results that get twisted into something overly generalized or not quite accurate. In some cases, as with the "tongue map" myth, we have a pretty clear idea of what single decision or moment in time caused the confusion, but in other cases it's less clear how we got to such widespread misconceptions. 

In my post I briefly talked about how anyone can help stop this cycle of miscommunication, but I'm eager to hear other opinions about where the responsibility to prevent future neuromyths lies and what we as neuroscientists can do to stop them.

You can read my post, "Neuro MythBusters: The truth behind 10 common myths about your brain", here: https://pennneuroknow.com/2023/09/05/neuro-mythbusters-the-truth-behind-10-common-myths-about-your-brain/ 

 @c4c92358 
Great question! Analogous to Box & Draper’s “all models are wrong but some are useful”, that applies to descriptions too. When does the wrongness of a description cross the line into a myth that’s worth busting?

If individuals want to dopamine dress or dopamine detox, I applaud the spirit (even if I don’t agree on the mechanism). Who am I to rain on that party?

My take is that it is my role to 1) spread sense not nonsense (silence across the board is suboptimal; fill the world with good content! 2) do it in a way that is not obnoxious.