DESCRIPTION:

Nonsense about speech anxiety, empathy and mirror neurons: neuroscientific insights into brain research. How the brain processes emotions and imitates behaviour.

"Become disgustingly eloquent": Why are so many self-help tips for better speaking nonsense?

A viral Substack post promises that you can become "disgustingly well-spoken" by taking up 30 hobbies, using mirror neurons, neuroplasticity, and recording voice memos. It sounds scientific, but it's hardly that. In this article, we analyse what's really behind popular communication tips, the neuroscientific myths that underlie them, and what research actually says about language skills, speech anxiety, and verbal expression.

Why is the article "How to Become Well-Spoken" going viral right now?

The English-language Substack article "How to Become Well-Spoken: 30 Hobbies and Habits for Thinking Clearly and Speaking Confidently" has garnered over 8,000 likes and is being shared en masse. This is not surprising: it serves a real need. Many people know the feeling of not being able to find the right words in a meeting, an argument or on a first date. The article promises a solution in list form: 30 habits, garnished with scientific references ranging from Hermann Ebbinghaus to mirror neurons to neuroplasticity.

The problem is not that the article is useless. Some of the tips, such as reading regularly, writing and listening consciously, are quite sensible. The problem is the pseudoscientific packaging that turns harmless everyday tips into a neuroscientific revolution. Moreover, this is where it becomes dangerous: when half-truths are sold as science, people lose their sense of what counts as evidence and what counts as marketing.

Mirror neurons and language skills: Does watching really make you eloquent?

The most audacious claim in the article is that watching interviews with eloquent people automatically trains one's own speaking ability through mirror neurons. The famous work by Rizzolatti and Craighero (2004) is cited as evidence. This sounds compelling, yet it is misleading.

Mirror neurons were originally discovered in macaques, which showed neural activity both when grasping and when observing grasping movements. However, the transfer of complex human abilities, such as speech production, is highly controversial. In his book "The Myth of Mirror Neurons" (2014), Gregory Hickok explains in detail why the popular interpretation of these neurons goes far beyond what the data actually shows. The idea that passively watching an interview improves your ability to speak has about as much scientific basis as the claim that watching the Olympics makes you a better swimmer.

What actually helps is not passive observation, but active practice with feedback, a principle known in expertise research as "deliberate practice" (Ericsson et al., 1993). The difference is not academic, but practical: those who believe they can improve through consumption are investing their time in the wrong activity.

What does neuroplasticity really mean, and what does it not mean?

"Neuroplasticity" has become the favourite word of the self-help industry. The article cites it as proof that your brain is literally rewired by regular speech. Technically, this is true. Your brain rewires itself with every experience; that is the trivial truth behind the concept. Neuroplasticity is not a magical ability that can be "activated." It is simply the nervous system's ability to change through experience. This happens when you speak, sleep, scroll through TikTok, and wait at the bus stop.

When an article cites "neuroplasticity" as an argument, it says about as much as "your brain is a brain." It sounds impressive, but it does not explain anything specific. Neuroscientist Vaughan Bell has described this phenomenon as "neuroplasticity is the new quantum," a term so broad that it means everything and nothing. The reference to Bassett and Mattar (2017) cited in the original article addresses network neuroscience and learning theories, not the question of whether recording voice memos makes you more eloquent.

The real problem is that when everything is attributed to neuroplasticity, the real barriers disappear. Speech anxiety, ADHD-related word-finding difficulties, social phobia, autism-specific communication differences – all of these are buried under an optimistic "Your brain can change!"

Does recording yourself while speaking really help?

The tip of recording yourself speaking and listening to the recording sounds pragmatic. Moreover, for some people, it actually works. The problem arises when this method is recommended indiscriminately for everyone without considering the psychological risks.

For people with social anxiety or pronounced self-criticism, listening to their own voice can be a trigger for ruminative brooding. Cognitive behavioural therapy research shows that so-called "post-event processing", the repeated analysis of one's own behaviour after social situations, is a central factor in maintaining social anxiety disorders (Clark & Wells, 1995). For those who already tend to dissect conversations endlessly, an audio recording does not help; it reinforces the problematic mechanism.

What is missing is differentiation: for whom is this technique helpful, and for whom is it potentially harmful? A good communication course or therapy would ask this question. A listicle cannot do this, nor does it pretend to want to. This is precisely the dilemma of popular self-help advice.

Is vocabulary really the same thing as eloquence?

The article confuses two fundamentally different things: vocabulary and verbal eloquence (articulation). The study cited by Twenge et al. (2019) shows a decline in vocabulary test scores among American adults. However, concluding from a declining vocabulary that people "speak poorly" is a logical fallacy.

Eloquence is much more than the sum of your words. It encompasses prosodic features such as intonation and rhythm, pragmatic competence such as adapting to the conversational context, narrative coherence, turn-taking skills and emotional regulation under communicative pressure. Someone with a vocabulary of 10,000 words who freezes up in meetings out of fear is not "less eloquent" than someone with 50,000,000 words; they have a different problem that cannot be solved with crossword puzzles and dictionary reading.

Linguistic research also distinguishes between productive and receptive vocabulary. Many people understand far more words than they actively use, which is not a deficit but a normal aspect of language behaviour. The Substack article does not address this difference because it needs to make the problem seem bigger than it is. After all, the ultimate goal is to sell a Notion template.

Forgetting curve and generation effect: Is the science in the article correct?

The references to Ebbinghaus and the Generation Effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978) are fundamentally correct. We do indeed quickly forget much of the information we absorb passively, and active processing improves our memory performance. These are well-replicated findings.

The problem lies in the application. Ebbinghaus' forgetting curve was determined using meaningless syllables rather than meaningful material. Meaningful information is generally retained better than "DAX" and "BUP". The blanket assertion that we forget 90 per cent of everything we learn is a popular exaggeration that ignores the context of the original research. Moreover, the generation effect explains why active processing is better than passive processing, not why voice memos are the key to eloquence.

What is happening here is a classic pattern in self-help literature: genuine research findings are correctly cited, but then applied to contexts for which they were never intended. The result is neither wrong nor right; it is the scientific equivalent of a sleight of hand.

Why don't listicles help with real language problems?

The article offers 30 tips. That alone is a problem. The paradoxical effect of long lists is well documented: the more options presented, the less likely someone is actually to take action (Iyengar & Lepper, 2000). 30 hobbies are not an action guide; they are an overload disguised as empowerment.

What is more, when someone really struggles to express themselves verbally, the cause rarely lies in a lack of hobbies. Clinically relevant language problems can be related to social anxiety disorder, ADHD, autism spectrum differences, trauma, depression or neurological conditions. A listicle that recommends "practising storytelling" and "attending improv classes" without even mentioning these differential diagnoses pretends that eloquence is purely a matter of willpower.

Not only is this inaccurate, but it can also be actively harmful. People who need real support are instead made to feel that they are simply not doing enough. They need to listen to a few more podcasts, record a few more voice memos, and read a few more books. The individualisation of structural and clinical problems is the business model of the self-help industry.

What psychological factors really influence language competence?

If we put aside the listicle logic and ask ourselves what research actually says about verbal communication skills, a more nuanced picture emerges. Empirically proven influencing factors include: executive functions (especially working memory and cognitive flexibility), emotional regulation under stress, anxiety reduction in social contexts, the quality of early language models in childhood, and specific, contextualised practice with feedback.

The connection between anxiety and language performance is particularly relevant. Eysenck and Calvo's (1992) Processing Efficiency Theory shows that anxiety consumes cognitive resources, leaving fewer available for language production. Someone who "cannot find the words" in a meeting may not have a vocabulary problem, but an anxiety problem. Anxiety problems cannot be solved with crossword puzzles.

For neurodivergent people, especially those with ADHD or on the autism spectrum, there are additional specific challenges: difficulties with turn-taking, prioritising information in real time, or pragmatically adapting to the context of the conversation. These differences are not deficits that can be "trained away" by reading more; they are neurological variations that require specific strategies.

What actually helps to communicate better?

If you remove the neuromyths and list logic, you are left with a core of useful recommendations. However, it looks different from what the Substack article suggests. Evidence-based approaches to improving verbal communication include targeted exposure to social speaking situations with a gradual increase, structured feedback from qualified individuals rather than self-recordings in a vacuum, and cognitive behavioural therapy for clinically relevant speech anxiety.

Regular reading and writing are indeed helpful, but not because of "neuroplasticity" but because they expand active vocabulary, promote syntactic flexibility, and practise narrative structures. The mechanism is not magical, but simple: practice. Moreover, this practice works best when it is contextualised, i.e., when it occurs in situations that resemble the target context. If you want to be more eloquent in meetings, you should practise in meetings, not in front of the bathroom mirror.

What the article completely ignores is the role of listening as a communicative skill. Research on therapeutic conversation shows that the most eloquent communicators are often those who listen best (Rogers, 1961). Eloquence is not a monologue; it arises from interaction.

How can you recognise neuromyths in self-help articles?

The article discussed is not an isolated case. It is representative of a genre that uses scientific references as a signal of trustworthiness, yet does not accurately present the studies cited. Some reliable warning signs can help you see through such texts.

Firstly, if an article cites "neuroplasticity" as an explanation without naming a specific mechanism, it is not an argument; it is a buzzword. Secondly, if individual studies are used as evidence for broad claims, there is a lack of systematic evidence. Thirdly, if a product is sold at the end (in this case, a Notion template and a waiting list), the article is not an educational offering, but a sales funnel. This does not automatically delegitimise the content, but it does explain the motivation behind the simplification.

Another warning sign is the absence of restrictions. Reputable scientific communication always specifies for whom and under what conditions something applies. Blanket promises such as "Your brain will be rewired" or "You will become 10 times more eloquent" are not science; they are marketing.

Summary

·         Mirror neurons do not make you eloquent. Passive observation is no substitute for active practice with feedback. The popular interpretation of mirror neurons is highly controversial in scientific circles.

·         "Neuroplasticity" does not explain anything specific. Every experience changes the brain. This is trivial, not transformative. Be sceptical when this term is used as an argument.

·         Vocabulary does not equal eloquence. Verbal communication skills include anxiety regulation, pragmatic competence, narrative coherence and contextual adaptation, not just the number of words you know.

·         Recording yourself can be counterproductive. For people with social anxiety, this technique can increase rumination rather than improve speaking ability.

·         30 tips are not a strategy. Overly long lists cause decision paralysis, not action. A few targeted and individual measures are more effective.

·         Genuine speech problems often have clinical causes. Social anxiety, ADHD, autism or trauma require professional support, not hobby lists.

·         Reading and writing do help, but not because of magical brain rewiring, but because they expand active vocabulary and promote syntactic flexibility.

·         Listening is an underrated communication skill. The most eloquent people are often the best listeners.

·         When there is a product at the end, the text is a sales funnel. That is legitimate, but do not confuse it with psychoeducation.

·         Evidence-based communication improvement involves graduated exposure, structured feedback and, if necessary, cognitive behavioural therapy, not watching Denzel Washington interviews.

RELATED ARTICLES:

TikTok, The Brain and Neuroplasticity – How Learning Changes People

Dopamine Is Not Just a Happiness Hormone

Reading – How It Changes the Brain and How Learning to Read Affects the Brain

The Lukewarm Trance of Rumination and Worrying – How Overthinking Numbs the Mind and How to Wake Up

404 – 12 Signs That the Nice Listicle on a Page Is Not Nice at All but Cheap SEO Rubbish