Read any good nonfiction lately? If so, how factual was it? Figuring out its accuracy is harder than you’d think, thanks to a hallucination trend you may not have noticed – in human brains.  

Ever since ChatGPT burst on the scene in 2022, AI hallucinations have become a recognized hazard — a “bug” we’re collectively trying to fix.

But the irony is that we tolerate all sorts of human hallucinations. For example, when prestigious authors are loose with facts, their book reviewers – often fellow prestigious authors – don’t comment but instead praise the authors for their “insights.”

Human hallucinations are common in casual conversations — unless people take time to fact-check each other. Informal hallucinations pose minor harm compared with what can happen with best-selling books, especially when the topic is the human brain and how it functions. Two recent examples include the 2026 best-sellers Flourish: The Art of Building Meaning, Joy, and Fulfillment by Daniel Coyle, and The Meaning of Your Life: Finding Purpose in an Age of Emptiness by Arthur Brooks.

Neither writer has claimed his book is about neuroscience. Yet, Coyle and Brooks each confidently present scientific information about the human brain that sounds authoritative but is fundamentally disconnected from current scientific reality. Both authors draw on the work of Iain McGilchrist, the British psychiatrist and philosopher, who favors left brain/right brain hemispheric lateralization.

Back in January, while reading an advance copy of Flourish, I contacted Dan Coyle, a fellow Medill alum, to ask him about his reliance on McGilchrist’s work. As I wrote in my March blog post Why I now trust NILES the brain-based AI coach more than a fellow alum, Coyle explained that he viewed McGilchrist’s work not as a definitive neurological map, but as a bridge between neurobiology, philosophy, and culture.

As for Arthur Brooks, he acknowledged in the Free Press Why Your Perfect Life Feels So Empty that this “old hypothesis turned out to be a clumsy and inaccurate account of neural processing.” Yet, for his new book Brooks also uses McGilchrist to resurrect a version of this hypothesis and presents it as settled science. In this same Free Press article, Brooks states that “Hemispheric lateralization explains the acute crisis of meaning today.”

Essentially, both authors are doing what AI gets a bad rap for. Rather than prioritize neuroscience accuracy, both authors tell compelling stories about flourishing, purpose and meaning. But for those of us who trust contemporary, peer-reviewed science over metaphors, their reliance on the old  “logical left brain/creative right brain” framework reads more like neuropoetry than neuroscience. 

Compared to AI, these authors have more prestigious credentials. For example, Brooks teaches at Harvard. And Coyle has a master’s in journalism from Medill at Northwestern University. (My degree is a bachelor’s.)

Furthermore, both books are marketed as evidence-based material grounded on rigorous scientific studies. This means that their book publishers and book clubs such as The Next Big Idea Club (of which I’m a charter member) are participating as institutional hallucinators while profiting from book sales.

3 more ironies about these human hallucinations

1. Modern neuroscience offers far more sophisticated explanations than the left brain/right brain framework. We now know the brain functions through coordinated networks, although hemispheres still play roles in specific activities. The brain’s default mode network, which we all have and can easily access, helps us flourish and find meaning and purpose. For a brief overview of how key networks function, see the box.

Three networks—the executive, the default mode, and salience– are key to daily activity. The brain uses the salience network to switch between the attention-focused executive function and the resting default mode network. The executive network supports targeted, goal-oriented tasks, which is critical for office workers. This network gets tired easily, especially when you’re doom scrolling on your devices. (This might not be “real” tasks, but your brain doesn’t know differently.) The default mode network, which is on 24/7, becomes more active when you allow your executive function to rest and recharge. The higher level of activity in your default network helps you reflect, make meaning, daydream, and envision your future. In other words, your default network helps you make meaning, find your purpose and flourish – if you give it time to work. To learn more, check out Lesson No. 2  “Your Brain Is a Network” in the book 7-1/2 Lessons about the Brain by Lisa Feldman Barrett PhD.

 

2. The hallucinations play to our brain’s biases, namely “pedigree bias” and “halo effect”

 We’re neurologically wired to defer to perceived expertise. Our brains shortcut critical evaluation when we encounter impressive credentials, such as a Harvard professorship, a record of bestsellers, and a journalism degree that implies precision with facts. We assume the pedigrees validate the content, even when they don’t.

Plus, an impressive credential can influence us that everything about the individual is equally credible, known as the “halo effect.”  (For example, someone knowledgeable about neuroscience, psychology and human behavior may not be as well versed in the natural sciences but we humans may give them those with prestigious credentials the  benefit of the doubt.)

By contrast, AI can provide a more balanced view that includes both the author’s legitimate experience and points of view AND their potential blind spots or controversial opinions.

3. “Circular citing” within an “echo chamber” creates a “credibility network effect” with “credentialed misinformation”

After reading the same “brain-based” claims in these two bestsellers, you may start to assume that you’re reading proven facts. Instead, you’re observing an echo chamber with the authors using the same source. And they’re viewing this source more as a shared narrative rather than a current evidence-based research study.

Also, respected bestselling authors often endorse each other’s work. As another journalist turned best-selling author said about Coyle: “He discovers a simple but profound idea.”  This results in book blurbs contributing to the echo chamber for the authors’ ideas and reputations. The ideas and explanations get reinforced and amplified across multiple books and platforms to anyone exposed to these media.   

These authors aren’t intentionally deceiving us. But their influential platforms and elite pedigrees amplify misconceptions exponentially, creating “credentialed misinformation.” We assume that prestigious authors have used their critical thinking skills, hired fact checkers, and earned the right to our trust. This assumption is precisely what makes this dangerous.

Even with concerns about AI hallucinations, AI exhibits more critical thinking than some humans. Due to training on vast amounts of scientific papers, AI is synthesizing a broad consensus of content. As I’ve experienced, if you use the same neutral prompts with multiple AI platforms, the AI agents provide a balanced view of the authors and their books. This includes the authors’ experiences, perspectives, , potential blind spots and any significant controversial opinions.  And unlike one previously-mentioned author, AI doesn’t “ghost” you when the conversation gets uncomfortable.

About my research for this blog post

For this blog post, I consulted with Gemini, Claude and NILES (The NeuroLeadership Institute’s Neuro Intelligent Leadership Enhancement System). All three AI systems were highly critical of nonfiction authors showing more interest in story-telling than ensuring their content was based on sound research and then fact-checked. After all, AI makes fact-checking so easy and accessible these days.

In discussing sourcing materials and standards with Claude during my research, Claude noted an additional irony, number 4: “AI systems are increasingly expected to cite sources, while bestselling human authors face no such expectation from their publishers.”

Tips to avoid human hallucinations in nonfiction books

To protect yourself from human hallucinations in current nonfiction books, ask two to three AI systems. If they all share similar results, you’ll be getting multiple expert options that converge on the same conclusion. That’s what I experienced in researching this article. All three systems confirmed my working knowledge of neuroscience and neuroplasticity as well as my respect for sound research and fact-checking. Once I conducted my research, I wrote this article.

Here are my other tips to ensure authors care about the content of their books:

• The book includes notes with references to and an index.
• The author acknowledges factcheckers by name in the book.
• The author includes a bio and the bio matches the book topic. (You want the author to have expertise in the book’s subject matter.)

Be skeptical about these red flags. All may be okay but readers beware:

• The book title refers to “The Art of Whatever” yet the book blurbs, summaries and marketing materials describe the content as “evidence-based” or “science backed” with “leading edge research.”
• The book reviews are primarily from fellow book authors rather than experts and practitioners in the book’s subject matter.
• The author is releasing a new nonfiction book every 12 – 18 months. Note that this time period is incredibly fast for the publishing process, especially for researching, writing, fact-checking and editing.

In closing, another irony….When we use our human critical-thinking skills on our own or even in combination with AI, we readers reclaim our power. We show we can think for ourselves as well as protect ourselves from human hallucinations, even from those with the most impressive pedigrees.