Nope. Saying something like that effectively screams ‘I haven’t thought about this’. Either that, or the speaker is being ironic (as Clement Bezemer is in asking me about one of my pet peeves here).Here is a ‘brain scan’. Don’t ask ‘which type?’. Don’t ask ‘how is the data processed?’. Don’t ask ‘what are the experimental conditions?’. This shows a person using their brain, right? Look?See? The bits on fire are where their soul is, and it’s touching those bits of the controls like Joy and Sadness in Inside Out. They can only use 10% because the controller can only operate 1% with each of their 10 fingers (and that’s only if the pineal gland isn’t calcified? If it is then they can only work one-handed).It’s science, people? Actually it’s the most insightful and sympathetic parody of cognitive psychology I’ve seen.Anyway, the explanation I’ve given above should be good enough for anyone saying ‘we only use 10% of our brains’, and given six months they might even incorporate the jokes I just told there as serious justifications of that statement via the phenomenon of false memories. Remember that time you read an article on Memory Distortion? No you don’t, I’m just messing with you.This was the article. Maybe you did read it after all? Doesn’t the title look familiar? Check it again. You’ve read that before?This is the thing about brain science - everybody thinks they know something about it, because everyone believes they have a brain, and that entitles them to knowing something about it.The really scary thing is that only a tiny portion of patients have ever had their cranium opened while they are conscious and seen proof of that. All the rest just believe with blind faith, or say that the funny pictures the people who charged them lots of money for a ride in their noisy tunnel shows their brains are right there in their heads - behind their eyes.Think about that for a second. What a great scam?That’s what’s really behind the iron curtain of the skull. Hence, the computational theory of mind is more popular among Mac users…But to return to the beginning - the scan I showed you is a Blood Oxygentation Level Dependent Functional MRI image presented by the wonderful CREST-Brain Imaging Team in Japan who contribute to the National Institute of Information and Communications Technology. They are tasked with quantifying neurological phenomena in order to enable non-invasive information transfer from cerebral tissues to (for example) computer interfaces. Miguel Nicolelis at Duke University is another leader in this area.So, if anyone would know how much of the brain ‘people use‡ it would be these guys.However, like anyone with even minimal expertise here knows, there is no way to separate a ‘person‡ from the operations of a brain in functional terms - so the statement is stupid to start with - but more importantly 100% of brain tissues are doing exactly what those brain tissues do 100% of the time.The various excursions from background levels of activity that are represented (with time delays, mind you) by changes in cellular metabolism are only ever phenomena that are associated with sets of conditions.For this reason the person who says we use 10% of our brains can be said to be demonstrating exactly such a state - which is anything but normal, and thankfully impossible.Oh, and the brain scan up there shows the sort of areas that are more active in REM Sleep. People don’t ‘use‡ much stuff when they’re like that.Opening the third eye will give a clear internal view of the scatiform gullibulonea. It’s a structure that usually becomes obsolete in infancy, but apparently it can become dominant in some adults.