Case Study 1: The Neuromyth Industry — From Self-Help Books to Brain Training Apps

The Scale of the Problem

Neuromyths — false beliefs about the brain that sound scientific — are not just popular culture curiosities. They drive billions of dollars in spending and influence educational policy, corporate training, and personal decisions.

Brain training: ~$8 billion global market. Lumosity, BrainHQ, Peak, Cogmed, Elevate, and dozens of others sell the promise of cognitive enhancement through games.

Learning styles industry: Billions spent on educational materials, teacher training, and student assessments designed around a framework that doesn't work (Chapter 12).

Baby products: Baby Einstein (acquired by Disney), classical music CDs for nurseries, "brain-boosting" toys — all marketed on the Mozart Effect premise that has no support for infants.

Self-help: Motivational speakers and self-help authors who invoke the 10% myth, left-brain/right-brain thinking, or "neuroplasticity hacking" to sell transformation programs.

The Commercial Pipeline

Let's trace how a neuromyth becomes a product:

Stage 1: Real finding (often modest). A researcher reports that brain area X shows activity during task Y.

Stage 2: Oversimplified translation. "Brain area X is the [creativity/memory/happiness] center!" (In reality, brain areas participate in multiple functions in complex networks.)

Stage 3: Commercial adoption. "Our product targets the [creativity/memory/happiness] center!" (The product doesn't target specific brain areas, and even if it did, that wouldn't mean what they claim.)

Stage 4: Consumer absorption. "I'm improving my brain's creativity center by using this app!" (The consumer has absorbed a claim that is wrong at every stage.)

Case Example: Lumosity

Founded: 2005 by Kunal Sarkar and Michael Scanlon

Marketing claims (pre-FTC action): - "Train your brain to perform better" - "Improve memory, attention, speed, flexibility, and problem-solving" - "Backed by neuroscience research"

The evidence problem: Lumosity cited research on "brain training" in general, but much of this research was on different programs, different populations, or didn't show far transfer. The company's own studies were limited and didn't demonstrate the broad claims made in marketing.

The FTC action (2016): The Federal Trade Commission charged Lumosity with deceptive advertising and imposed a $50 million judgment (reduced to $2 million based on the company's financial condition). The FTC found that: - Lumosity "preyed on consumers' fears about age-related cognitive decline" (FTC statement) - The company did not have "competent and reliable scientific evidence" for its claims - The marketed benefits were not supported by the research cited

Post-FTC response: Lumosity modified its marketing language (from "improve your brain" to "challenge your brain") but remained in business. Many consumers continued using the product, often unaware of the FTC action.

The Persistence Problem

Even after the FTC action, the brain training industry continues to grow. Why?

The placebo effect of self-improvement. Users feel sharper because they believe the games are working. This subjective improvement reinforces continued use, regardless of objective evidence.

The near/far transfer confusion. Users do get better at the games (near transfer), which feels like cognitive improvement. They don't realize that this improvement doesn't generalize.

Marketing evolution. Companies have become more careful with their language while maintaining the same implications. "Challenge your brain" doesn't technically claim cognitive improvement, but it implies it.

The appeal of the alternative being nothing. "You can improve your brain by playing a fun game" is more appealing than "the best thing you can do for your brain is exercise and sleep well." The game is a product. Exercise and sleep are not.

Discussion Questions

  1. Should brain training apps be required to include disclaimers about the lack of far transfer evidence? What would effective disclaimers look like?

  2. Lumosity was fined $2 million on a $50 million judgment. Is this proportionate to the harm? How should regulators balance consumer protection with commercial freedom?

  3. Many brain training users report feeling cognitively sharper. If the subjective benefit is real (even without objective improvement), does the product have value?

  4. How should educators respond to neuromyth-based products being used in schools (brain training, learning styles software, left-brain/right-brain assessments)?