The last twenty years have seen a particular craze for neuroscience and an acceleration in the understanding of how our on-board supercomputer works. Although this discipline is much older, it has evolved considerably thanks to medical technology and in particular functional magnetic resonance imaging, which sheds additional light on the mechanics of the brain, which has made it possible, and will make it even more possible in the future, to revisit a number of personal and interpersonal areas. A fad? More and more people are talking about it, with more or less real knowledge, and distinguishing the true from the false is becoming imperative. A desire to differentiate? A desire to profile oneself as a guru? A need to increase one’s knowledge? Reality probably lies at the intersection of these and other reasons.

Neuro-legends are erroneous beliefs about the functioning of the human brain. They appear, for example, when a discovery is relayed by the general media, in a simplified or even simplistic way, and loses its meaning. Sometimes a legend is based on prior knowledge that has lost its validity in the light of new information. Indeed, science works in iterations. Anything that seems valid today can be overturned tomorrow, in the light of technical and technological advances. As long as someone does not demonstrate that something that has been considered valid (a discovery, an idea, a method…), is false, it is supposed to remain exact. When the next iteration invalidates the previous one, and the latter does not disappear, a myth is born, and like all beliefs, it is hard-skinned and often has the last word.

As much as we might be tempted to incriminate these journalists eager for scoops and positioning, scientists themselves play an important role in creating these legends by pushing their duty to publish and mediate to excess. It is the world in which we live that pushes us to surpass ourselves, despite the fact that acting quickly, on the basis of fragmentary and not always verified information, is certainly not conducive to making good decisions.

It is not only members of the press or certain scientists who create myths or facilitate their emergence. Consultants, trainers and other facilitators sometimes play a role similar to that of the « sorcerer’s apprentice ». It is indeed tempting to declare oneself an expert in a subject, in the light of a book read in a treatise or a training course followed. There is a form of intellectual arrogance that translates into the impression of having understood everything and to »know it all », retained everything and being able to talk about it as if the person had studied the topic for decades. One of the causes of the problem is the role played by cognitive biases. In particular, the confirmation bias and that of the availability. Finally, there are those liked to personality. These mental shortcuts are dangerous traps for the truth.

Recently, I heard and saw on television, during the news, a short excerpt from a report in which an economics professor from a renowned Brussels’s « business school » talked about « reptilian intelligence ». Howard Gardner himself, one of the « fathers » of the theory of the 8 forms of intelligence, as well as those who followed him, would be jealous of this appellation. We are in the middle of science fiction. The tragedy is that, this kind of assertions enter the head of students (and viewers) who will have found this formulation interesting, will tell themselves that the individual knows what he is talking about and will relay this information. But if, as in this case, it is misinformation, we are at the genesis of a new, widely disseminated neuro-myth.

The same people who talk indiscriminately about attitude or behaviour, management or leadership, test or self-diagnosis…, during their interventions, slip false data into the minds of those who listen to them and cause intellectual damage. The difficulty is great and the challenge difficult to overcome because they possess a great power of conviction, like the « nuisance » power of some journalists or politicians, whether or not there is an intention to harm.

The relative lack of knowledge of our true memory capacity and our willingness to constantly search for meaning, even where it is not necessary, is a factor in this, and it unnecessarily increases the level of difficulty.

Moreover, the relative lack of knowledge of our true ability to memorize and our willingness to constantly search for meaning, even where it is not necessary, unnecessarily increases the level of difficulty.

In the same way that we are no more left brain or right brain, a confusion that comes from the fact that the two hemispheres of the Cortex are the seat of different specializations, the notion of reptilian, limbic and Neo-Cortex brains, must be considered as a simplification (oversimplification?) that is intended to help understanding. To say that our brain would only be used at 5 or 10% of its capacity is also wrong and it is medical imaging that shows the opposite. Women’s brains are multi-tasking is also incorrect. We are all capable of carrying out 2 tasks in parallel, as long as one of them is automated. Learning while sleeping is also a mistaken view of the mind (Read the remarkable book by Gil, Lacroix and Medjad « Neuro Learning »). And this is where the danger lies. These approximations, oversimplifications mislead everyone.

The school of Neurocognitivism, founded by Jacques Fradin, speaks about 4 governances, which are based on 4 structural sets of the brain: instinctive, gregarious, emotional and adaptive.

The instinctive governance refers to the survival of the individual in his environment, as an individual element. This imperative mission is articulated around 2 major sets, which are themselves subdivided into different elements:

Facing a threat, which generates 3 possible reactions:

• Flight
• Wrestling
• Inhibition

Not facing any threat, which conditions the following:

• Avoiding danger (avoiding the unknown, favouring the known and repeated experiences, being part of a group)
• Avoiding starvation (abundance, scarcity, owning what you can get).
• Reproduction (sex, feeding)

In marketing and in the commercial approach in general, these elements are the subject of real strategies aimed at attracting the consumer and inciting him to consume, without him realising it. It is sometimes difficult to question convictions that are so solidly anchored that they have become an integral part of the way we operate and alter our ability to question them through critical thinking. As an example, consider the following image:

Two identical circles a few centimetres apart. Now let’s move on to the image below:

Again, two circles of the same size but different colours. Finally, let’s consider the last image, resulting from the combination of the previous images:

No fundamental surprise, we do have twice two concentric circles. However, we see that if the colour of the large circles remains the same, the perception of the colour of the inner circles changes. From this, we can deduce something fundamental for the « neuroseller » or « neuromarketer », in the context of influencing a customer or consumer: the environment created around a product, a service, a project, an idea, plays a fundamental role in their perception. This would mean that on a par with « perceived value », in a rational way, the environment is likely to strongly change the total perception. What will influence the consumer will therefore consist of the addition of rational and non-rational elements. To be left to decant.

The gregarious governance is at the heart of our confidence in ourselves and our trust/mistrust in others. We « instinctively » perceive our place in a group, whether known or not, as well as that of others. From this perception stems our spontaneous degree of ease within the group as well as our a priori confidence towards the individuals who make it up.

It manifests itself in our interactions with others. Everyone has this instinctive perception and a necessarily different place in a group. It determines the balance of power or cooperation within a group.

The aim of the system is to regulate social relations between individuals of the same species while limiting internal conflicts in order to ensure both individual and collective survival. It therefore seems that the gregarious positioning is fixed early enough, and in a sustainable way, on two « dimensions »: that of hierarchy within the group and that of confidence in relation to the other members of the group.

It is interesting to note that at the intersection of these two axes lies the concept of assertiveness. Sufficiently confident in the other without exaggeration and confident enough in oneself without going beyond a certain limit. To be meditated upon.

The emotional governance takes a simplified look at the outer and inner worlds of the individual. Even simplified, this vision has the advantage of allowing quick decisions based on criteria such as desire or aversion. It aims at integrating the individual into society and promotes his or her adherence to codes and conventions. Among its characteristics, we find the search for pleasure and the avoidance of pain, the valorization of emotions, social integration and adherence to social norms. This is achieved through different levels of motivation:

• Primary or intrinsic: independent of an outcome or social image.
• Secondary: dependent on achieving a result or avoiding a non-result and are heavily influenced by social image.
• Tertiary: « nice to have », even if, like some New Year’s resolutions, they may never see the light of day.
• In addition to these three levels of motivations, there is also the hyper-investment that could be the subject of another article.

And finally, adaptive governance, which allows us to take a step back, to make thoughtful and creative choices, a real race car that will generate its benefits if we learn to drive it. We are talking about using what neurocognitivism calls the « switch », to move from an instinctive mental mode (which brings together the 3 previous governances) to the adaptive mental mode which is at the heart of this one. Where the automatic mental mode corresponds to the following 6 elements: routine, perseverance, simplification, certainty, empiricism and social image, the adaptive mental mode corresponds to the other 6 elements: curiosity, flexibility, nuance, relativity, reflection, personal opinion.

The « switch » consists of a set of tools that allow us to move from the first list to the second one. The adaptative mode is particularly useful and effective whenever an activity is out of routine, out of the known and requires the recruitment of our reflection.

In conclusion, and again with the aim of illustrating the process of persuasion that is exploited by brand owners, salespeople, politicians (or their campaign management), lobbyists in general and probably representatives of other professions, who rely on the automatic mental mode, that is, instinctive, gregarious and emotional governance to exert influence on people like you and me, here are six general principles that they apply:

• Focus on the other
• Simplify messages and limit them to a minimum amount
• Creating surprise
• Tell stories
• Use images
• Strengthen beginnings and ends

We will have further opportunities to elaborate on these latter elements.