�ֲ���ý

By Ross Spears, PhD, LPC, Natasha Villalobos, MS, LPC, and Whitney Zahar-Rich, MS, LPC-A

Information can have a funny way of changing the further it travels from the original source. In the game “Telephone,” people in a circle take turns excitedly whispering their unique interpretations of a specific message. However, the last person may often hear a very different narrative from the first person, and this tendency can also occur in complex, nuanced disciplines that infiltrate mainstream dialogue. 

Counselors are uniquely positioned as intermediaries in psychoeducation. We are tasked with translating clinical counseling concepts into client-friendly language. Preserving the integrity of the knowledge we transmit is paramount in maintaining trust in our field and supporting client outcomes. 

Some neuroscience research findings have become prevalent in the counseling field, appearing in peer-reviewed articles, podcasts and even on social media. However, our well-intentioned efforts to stay informed about relevant mental health topics, including neuroscience, may inadvertently contribute to the perpetuation of misinformation. While neuroliteracy initiatives identify the necessary knowledge, skills and tools needed to improve care, counselors should try to remain curious about our sources of more specialized information.

Neuromyths, or the misconceptions of brain-based findings, were once considered “neurofacts.” Neuromyths are often based on empirical findings but have been conflated as professional fields enthusiastically integrate neuroscience knowledge into their respective philosophies. Here are two neuromyths that have endured in the counseling field: 

The Right-Brain vs. Left-Brain Myth 

These concepts stem from early neuroscience research that found certain brain functions, such as language and visual-spatial processing, are often partially or primarily localized in one hemisphere. These findings prompted a blanket assumption that personality and processing are dependent upon hemispheric dominance, influencing either a more analytical- or emotion-driven neural pathway. 

However, modern brain imaging and related research continue to demonstrate that, while a given brain function might be primarily localized in a specific hemisphere, multiple regions of the brain are highly interconnected and collaborate on a range of cognitive, problem-solving and emotional-regulation tasks.

Counselors should try to be cautious about adhering to this myth, as this perspective might inadvertently narrow our understanding of clients' strengths and challenges. Assuming that “right-brained” clients struggle with thinking critically, while “left-brained” clients have difficulty processing emotion, might encourage unhelpful stereotypes. Additionally, this approach risks overlooking valuable opportunities for collaborating alongside clients in their therapeutic conversations, treatment plans and overall holistic development. 

The Fixed Learning Styles Myth

Known as either meshing or mating in education, this hypothesis suggests that improved learning and knowledge retention are achieved when instruction is matched with a preferred learning style. While comparing how visual, auditory, kinesthetic and other styles might support those with various learning considerations, research repeatedly demonstrates that matching instruction to a student’s specified learning style does not singularly improve performance outcomes. 

In fact, these studies instead suggest exploring student motivation, teaching philosophies and systemic factors as more impactful variables. Considering instruction alone, a more evidence-based approach supports the use of multiple modalities, offering diverse ways to engage with material. 

Relying on this myth in the clinical setting might unintentionally narrow our therapeutic interventions or place unhelpful expectations on our clients. Assuming a client prefers to process information visually may prevent us from using creative, experiential or other strategies that could be equally beneficial. Moving beyond rigid learning-style labels and adopting more flexible, integrated approaches honors both our humanistic roots and pivots away from a reductive view of our clients’ abilities to hold layered realities.

Why This Matters to Counselors

Counselors have an ethical obligation to verify scientific claims and exercise healthy skepticism toward trends in mental health. Having mental health knowledge be more accessible to wider audiences can improve outcomes for all. This is especially true as the counseling profession progressively integrates a variety of neuro-based interventions including cognitive behavioral therapy and somatic and trauma-informed modalities.

While some brain-based modalities — like Eye Movement Desensitization Reprocessing — have gained traction in the media, the overgeneralized depiction of these practices also actively invites confusion and criticism to the field of mental health, which has an undeniable history of unorthodox and harmful practices. 

Openly discussing the reasoning behind our approaches and the limitations of our science inherently builds trust in the profession and paves the way for future counselors and researchers to develop new modalities and techniques congruent with innovative knowledge of the brain. 

Note: Opinions expressed and statements made in this blog do not necessarily represent the policies or opinions of �ֲ���ýand its editors.