This post is Part 2 of a series.
In part 1 of this article, we explored some of the reasons for the research lag that exists between what researchers know and what clinicians and the general public may think is true.
This lag can be astonishingly lengthy (in the medical field, researchers found that it may take an average of 17 years for research findings to make their way to clinicians).
A similar lag exists in neurology and psychology, which means that much of what we think we know may have been disconfirmed decades ago.
We explored the famous—and mistaken—triune brain model that neuroscientist Paul MacLean began developing nearly 80 years ago. This model assumed that we had an unevolved lizard brain in charge of our impulses, and a slightly more evolved mammalian brain in charge of our emotions. This model also claimed that we could use our allegedly more evolved human brain to control our lizard-ish and mammalian tendencies.
This model separated humans from “mere” animals and impulses, and it helped us (incorrectly) see emotions as lower than and separate from logic. And sadly, it taught us to attempt to control, suppress, or extinguish our emotions (and glorify logic and rationality) instead of learning how and why emotions work.
It was an interesting idea, but it was found to be wrong, and most neuroscientists moved on to more grounded ideas way back in the 1990s.
However, due to the research lag, this disconfirming information was not available to clinicians or the general public for many decades.
How the lizard brain myth grew
Many college-level textbooks—and specifically, many Psychology 101 textbooks—referred to the triune brain as a real model until at least 2017.
That’s a research lag of more than a quarter-century, and as a result, many therapists, counselors, and psychologists were taught an incorrect model of the brain and emotions—as if it were still valid—many years after the model had been disconfirmed.
This research lag has meant that clinicians are still using the triune model today to explain emotions, human behavior, and the assumed aftereffects of trauma.
In fact, many popular trauma-healing modalities (including eye movement desensitization and reprocessing [EMDR], many somatic trauma therapies, and the polyvagal theory) are built on a foundation of the triune brain. This makes sense if their creators studied the triune brain model in college and were graded on their knowledge of it.
The continuing presence of this incorrect model is understandable, though unfortunate.
Tracking the lizard in the modern day
Because the triune brain model has been around for so long, its disconfirmed ideas have taken on a life of their own. If you hear people talking about their lizard brains or emotional brains, or that they’re “acting from their amygdala,” or that they need to “regulate their nervous system,” they’re calling back to the triune brain model.
The triune brain concept spoke deeply to people in Paul MacLean’s day, and because of the research lag, it still speaks to people today.
How—and why—research lags persist
In part 1 of this article, I explored three reasons for the lags that restrict our access to high-quality, current research:
- Research is an elite occupation that is not open to everyone.
- The lengthy research lag further separates clinicians and the public from the elite world of research.
- There is built-in, unequal access to research studies, research communities, and their findings.
There is yet another reason, and it’s a research norm that even some science journalists don’t understand: Research is a verb. It’s an activity, and it’s a highly social one, where publication is not the final word, at all. Publication is often an invitation to argumentation with one’s peers.
The science isn’t decided on publication; it’s communally built in responses, challenges, and conversations (some of which go on for years until confirmation is achieved).
Neuroscience Essential Reads
As a result, you may be able to read a research study, but if you’re not a part of its elite community of researchers, you may not understand the social context in which the study was created—and you may rush to judgment, or miss essential information that only insiders have.
I see this rush to judgment regularly in science journalism (“Eggs are healthy!” “No, eggs will kill you!” “No, egg whites are OK!”), and the confusion this poor reporting has created has made many members of the public—understandably—distrust research and science as a whole.
The implications are weighty
The research lag and the inaccessibility of research have meant that we in the public don’t receive the best information in a timely manner. This means that the forms of medicine, neuroscience, and psychology you and I can access are focused—in many cases—on outdated ideas and incorrect data.
Even if our clinicians have good intentions and the best information they can find, each of us might be relying on ideas that are decades out of date. For those of us focused on the social and emotional well-being of others, the ethical and professional implications of this situation are sobering.
Here are a few ideas to help us work around these structural obstacles:
Seek out subject matter experts who are actively connected to research
Popular books on science and psychological healing are selling you a viewpoint, and they’re often more PR than they are grounded knowledge.
Instead, seek out people who are directly involved in research. Three of my go-to people are
- Psychological researcher Lisa Feldman Barrett’s groundbreaking work on emotions and the brain have changed the face of psychology and neurology.
- Neuroscience researcher Birthe Macdonald has online courses that help therapists and counselors read research studies and find up-to-date information about therapeutic models.
- The hilariously brilliant science writer Mary Roach enters into numerous scientific communities to find the newest and strangest information on many fascinating subjects. She invites us into the highly social—and entertaining—world of research.
And hold ideas lightly
The elite researchers I’ve known are not ideologues or self-promoters. They hold their ideas lightly enough to be able to invite critiques, and even to watch their theories get disconfirmed. Each of us should do the same, because if research communities are working as they should, all concepts and approaches may require updates or replacement. That’s how the search for knowledge works.
