My all-time favourite example of neuro-bollocks comes from Porsche.  In their video, they claim that “taking a hard left in a Porsche is actually comparable to taking a hard left in a fighter jet” based on electroencephalography (EEG) data.

A fabulous Twitter account (@neurobollocks) calls out pseudo-neuroscience and s/he brought this particular example to my attention.

In brief, Porsche wired up a volunteer with a portable EEG headset and plonked him in a fighter jet. A professional pilot then took him for a spin.  In fairness, that does look awesome.  But down in a bunker, they’ve had a “scientist” measuring his brain activity saying “we see the nucleus accumbens light up due to the release of a huge amount of dopamine.”  

Next, the volunteer is seen being driven around a race track in a Porsche and then our scientist-friend is back saying: “the dopamine levels are higher in the jet, but overall there are clear similarities” – basically arguing the brain finds Porsche almost as cool as fighter jets.  

Where to begin?

There is so much straight-up nonsense in this video that it is difficult to know where to begin.  Some of the highlights include:

• EEG doesn’t measure dopamine release – it measures electrical activity in the brain.

• Moreover, it has limitations in accurately measuring activity from deep brain structures like the nucleus accumbens due to its low spatial resolution. The nucleus accumbens is located deep within the brain, making it challenging to directly measure its activity with EEG. You certainly cannot see the nucleus accumbens “light up” with EEG.

• Heck, the nucleus accumbens does not even release dopamine -- it receives it.

• Muscle movements on the head (like moving your eyes, smiling, gurning, etc) produce electrical noise that is far stronger than the brain signals EEG tries to measure. You cannot put a helmet over an EEG kit and then bang your head around in a jet or race car and get anything but pure noise.

• For what it’s worth, the brain graphics, the real-time streaming of EEG data, and even the “scientist” appear to be entirely made-up.

To be clear, it is a fun video but it is also dishonest: it fabricated the “science” out of whole cloth to tell a story.  

‍

So what?

Yeah, yeah -- so a neuroscientist is offended by bad neuroscience.  Why should I care?

It's not just bad neuroscience, in this case though, it is actively dishonest. This is pure neuroscience snake-oil. And from a company that trades on its reputation for outstanding science and the highest quality engineering. (sigh). If consumers became worried that Porsche was simply faking their expertise, what consequences would arise from the loss of trust in their brand?

Good neuromarketing combines valid neuroscience with strong marketing.  If the science is wrong, then the insights are too.  Decisions based on those insights are at best useless and at worst, actively harmful.  If Porsche had considered the potential harm to their brand, they almost certainly would not have chosen to fake the science in their advertisement.

Getting the science right matters.

‍

For additional information on consumer neuroscience, download our free Guide to Quality Neuromarketing.