By A Psychologis,Contributor,Mark Travers

Copyright forbes

These two blockbuster movies’ box office success came at one great cost: the perpetuation of fear and misinformation.

Hollywood isn’t exactly known for its strict accuracy and rigor when it comes to portraying scientific plotlines. That said, some films still manage to take creative license to the point of outright distortion. The field of psychology, in particular, often gets the shortest end of this stick.

Below are two notorious examples. Both of these films were commercially successful, and arguably for good reason. But, from a psychological standpoint, they got almost everything wrong.

1. Lucy (2014)

The central premise of Lucy is that humans are only capable of using 10% of their brains. It’s one of the most enduring and enthralling ideas in popular culture — and it’s also total hogwash.

Lucy, portrayed by Scarlett Johansson, is an unwilling drug mule who is accidentally dosed by a highly powerful synthetic substance. Supposedly, this drug has the power to “unlock” the human brain’s full potential. In turn, Lucy gains the ability to manipulate physical matter around her, as well as time itself. Eventually, she’s able to transcend humanity altogether.

It makes for very flashy cinema, and, admittedly, a great watch. But, unfortunately, the foundation of this plot is complete nonsense.

MORE FOR YOU

The fact of the matter is that humans don’t use just 10% of their brains — a fact that was empirically proven six times over by neuroscientist Barry Beyerstein in the book Mind Myths.

Since the technology for it came into existence, neuroimaging scans have consistently shown regular activity throughout the entire brain, even when we’re sleeping.

Of course, not every single one of our brain regions will fire all at once; different neural circuits will be “recruited” depending on whatever task we’re busy with, and the executive functions required for it. But, regardless, you still won’t find a giant swath of dormant, unused brain tissue that’s waiting patiently to be “unlocked” or “activated.”

As Beyerstein explains, it’s most likely that this myth was first perpetuated by late 19th and early 20th century scientists. At the time, it was noted that certain regions of the brain were seemingly “silent” under what were, for the time, rather crude methods of measurement. But as the years went on, those observations were somehow twisted into a catchy claim that we only use 10% of our brain’s full capacity.

Lucy’s debut on the silver screen has only since furthered the reach of this myth. As Lucy’s “unlocked” percentage of her brain climbed, so did her abilities. Over time, she gained enhanced memory, instant language acquisition, telekinesis, total immunity to pain and, eventually, complete omnipotence.

By the time she hit 100%, she no longer resembled a human being at all.

As entertaining as this narrative was, it also gave audiences a profoundly distorted sense of how both intelligence and cognition function. In reality, our brains don’t work according to a specific percentage. Our neurocognitive abilities stem purely from the efficiency and connectivity of our neural networks.

Importantly, these can only be influenced by our experiences, education and genetics; there’s no magic drug that could make you into a superhuman overnight. The idea that there’s a switch waiting to be flipped, that’ll grant us with psychic powers, is something that belongs squarely in the realm of science fiction.

Ironically, in its pursuit of the false 10% myth, Lucy overlooks the many of the very real marvels of the human mind. The truth is actually far more impressive: that every single part of our brain is already in use, thanks to them being fine-tuned over millions of years of evolution.

2. Split (2016)

M. Night Shyamalan’s 2016 psychological horror Split follows Kevin Wendell Crumb, portrayed by James McAvoy, a man with 23 distinct personalities. Crumb also houses a more sinister 24th personality, known as “The Beast,” whose emergence is paired with superhuman strength and violent tendencies.

It’s a gripping thriller, but its portrayal of Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID) — formerly known as multiple personality disorder — can only be considered a parody of psychopathology.

As a 2023 study from Cureus denotes, DID is a highly complex psychiatric condition. In a vast majority of cases, it’s typically rooted in repeated, severe childhood trauma. Individuals with DID experience the presence of two or more distinct identities, which are often referred to as “alters.” Each of these alters can have their own memories, behaviors and ways of interacting with the world. Switching from one alter into another can be incredibly disorienting and stressful, and it may lead to extreme disruptions to their daily life.

As the study notes, DID is a somewhat contentious disorder; some clinicians have debated its prevalence. But among psychologists and psychiatrists who do treat it, DID is recognized as both a serious and debilitating condition.

What’s especially important to note is that people with DID are not more prone to violence than anyone else. In fact, research from the Journal of Psychosocial Nursing and Mental Health Services notes that individuals with DID are more likely to be victims of violence — especially women.

But in Split, Kevin’s DID is played for horror. The more “frightening” personalities gain control, which culminates in “The Beast:” the near supernatural alter who’s able to climb walls, shrug off bullets and who terrorizes innocent victims. The film almost completely neglects that DID is a trauma-based disorder. Rather, it doubles down on the representation of DID as a pathway to superhuman villainy.

It goes without saying how problematic a portrayal of this nature can be. Split’s many psychological stereotypes feed heavily into the long-standing trope of the “evil split personality,” which conflates mental illness with danger. DID is a contentious enough disorder as is in the clinical world; hackneyed clichés like these are precisely what make it so difficult for sufferers to be taken seriously by both professionals and the public.

Of course, many will argue that movies serve to entertain, rather than to inform. But, psychology is one field where accuracy matters – a lot. Most people will never take the time to read a peer-reviewed study in neuroscience or clinical psychology; most people won’t even be granted access to them. Instead, the average person’s impression of how the brain works or what mental illness looks like will come from cultural portrayals like Split.

This is what made Split particularly frustrating: it had every opportunity to tell a nuanced story. McAvoy’s performance was objectively impressive from an artistic standpoint. If it had perhaps been based off of a more accurate script, it could’ve raised some much needed awareness about the complexity of DID. But instead, as Hollywood tends to do, the film ultimately opts for spectacle over accuracy.

Do you often fall for compelling but unsubstantiated psychology plots? Take this science-backed test to find out how far you’ve been misled: Psychological Misconception Questionnaire

Editorial StandardsReprints & Permissions