<p>There isn’t a new model, exactly, since as the poster stated, the brain doesn’t operate as a model and earlier versions of brain structures simply modify themselves to evolve— it’s one brain. Meaning, one’s “lizard brain” is actually just a mammalian brain now. The new model perhaps is The Human Brain? But given that the Triune model was most popularized by lawyers needing it for defense against emotional (irrational) behavior and psychologists adopted it for explanation of emotional dysregulation, then likely the best replacement is theory about emotion. Emotions are not well understood, and there are several theories about them, but the latest and most provocative development is the Theory of Constructed Emotion. See Barrett-Feldman et al.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-22T12:10:01.460Z
Welcome to Psychology.SE. Please visit our site [tour]. There are a lot of bold claims in your answer without corroborated evidence. We work differently to many SE sites, where we have a strict policy that [all answers should be backed up with reliable references](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/406/7604) so that the answer can be independently verified, regardless of the reader's/answerer's background. If you still have trouble with this, feel free to visit the [help] or [meta]. Unreferenced claims can be challenged and lead to deletion of your answer.
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T04:38:37.973Z
@ChrisRogers the answerer cites Barrett-Feldman et al?
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-14T06:29:54.203Z
@Ooker and what is Barrett-Feldman et al.? Full citation is required as that could be anything
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-15T15:59:55.757Z
@ChrisRogers I ask this on the meta, hope to have your thought there: [Is it a requirement to have full citation?](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2560/12937)
Ooker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-06-15T19:14:43.983Z
@Ooker I agree with the answer given
Chris Rogers
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T13:54:32.333Z
2021-05-13T14:01:50.317Z
2021-05-13T14:01:50.317Z
J McNeely
<p>The Triune brain model suggests our brains evolved adding more layers, a lizard brain, then a mammal brain, then a new human brain. As that's false, and the same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages, what is the name of this current model?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T21:28:33.257Z
I wouldn't say you've stated the triune model correctly, but in any event I don't think there is any such "name" for modern understanding of forebrain evolution. Nor is there any need for one named hypothesis to be replaced by another.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T21:34:05.200Z
@BryanKrause "Nor is there any need for one named hypothesis to be replaced by another" Yeah, it's not like pop psychology and masses of people still aren't mislead into thinking this is still a credible theory and that redirecting them to the name of the more credible one would be helpful.
randomgues123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T21:37:58.557Z
The problem there is not there isn't a named model to replace it with, but that science is often too complex to fit into a pithy statement. "Reptile brain" is easy to grasp; there isn't an equivalently easy way to explain the complex ways that different forebrain structures have evolved in different lineages.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T21:52:48.527Z
@BryanKrause "science is often too complex to fit into a pithy statement" There's no theory where the name explains complexity - that's not the purpose of a name. It doesn't need to be perfect, just something to distinguish it from other models in history. "oh you're referring to the triune brain model, that's an outdated model replaced by the ___ model", "here's a table/diagram comparing the triune model to the ___ model".
randomgues123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T21:56:47.490Z
Yes, but... **there is no replacement model**. The replacement is a multitude of observations that explain why that model is not sufficient. Mind you, accompanied by the 'triune' model still having some usefulness at some levels of explanation as long as you're willing to forgo the specific evolutionary history while retaining the concept of different levels of processing.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T22:47:42.627Z
@BryanKrause I didn't suggest there was a replacement model - that's not what this tangent was about. I'm addressing your point about "there any need for one named hypothesis" by explaining how there is a need with examples on how it would be helpful. You're also suggesting the new understanding doesn't have a definable trait to form a helpful named replacement model, which is false as you already agreed that the fundamental idea of the current understanding is that "same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages". Naming that idea post-hoc would be helpful.
randomgues123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T22:53:25.053Z
Sorry, by need I meant actual *need* as in requirement or certainty. Maybe a more clear way to write it would have been "when a model becomes outdated it is not necessarily replaced by one with a new name". I did not mean that such a named model would not have any purpose, but that it doesn't really describe what happened here. There was no paradigm shift, it's just that this triune model has accumulated enough inconsistencies with observations that it should be referred to with caution. As you note, pop psych isn't usually much concerned with this sort of caution.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T22:54:47.793Z
The problem is "same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages" isn't really a model that adds any information. It just says "evolution happened", something taken for granted within the world of biology as fact even if some people outside continue to find some issue with it. It might stand as a criticism of the triune model, but a criticism isn't itself a model. It also does not make clear what elements of the triune model are still useful.
Bryan Krause
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-26T23:50:18.267Z
@BryanKrause The triune brain was actually a model based on evolution, the author titled their book "The Triune Brain in Evolution". They of course misunderstood how that part of the body evolved, but it's still an evolutionary theory. " a criticism isn't itself a model" they did not discover brains evolved in different ways in different lineages to specifically to criticize the Triune model, observations just ended up debunking it. And those findings all converged on that new understanding. It's needed in the same way an extensive wiki page for flat and spherical earth is needed (and exists).
randomgues123
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-27T21:16:38.363Z
"replaces" assumes the [evolutionary] triune model (and the replacement) were/are widely accepted... which is probably not the case.
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-27T21:24:29.647Z
If you just want to read on some more recent theories, see "mosaic brain hypothesis" vs "concerted bran theory" https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.0433
got trolled too much this week
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-01-28T20:09:52.263Z
@Fizz Thank you, that's actually very helpful.
randomgues123
<neuroscience><psychology><brain><evolution>
The "Triune brain" model is obsolete, what is the name of the model that replaces it?
randomgues123
# The "Triune brain" model is obsolete, what is the name of the model that replaces it?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2021-01-26)

The Triune brain model suggests our brains evolved adding more layers, a lizard brain, then a mammal brain, then a new human brain. As that's false, and the same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages, what is the name of this current model?

**Tags:** neuroscience, psychology, brain, evolution

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I wouldn't say you've stated the triune model correctly, but in any event I don't think there is any such "name" for modern understanding of forebrain evolution. Nor is there any need for one named hypothesis to be replaced by another.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause "Nor is there any need for one named hypothesis to be replaced by another" Yeah, it's not like pop psychology and masses of people still aren't mislead into thinking this is still a credible theory and that redirecting them to the name of the more credible one would be helpful.  
> **username_1**: The problem there is not there isn't a named model to replace it with, but that science is often too complex to fit into a pithy statement. "Reptile brain" is easy to grasp; there isn't an equivalently easy way to explain the complex ways that different forebrain structures have evolved in different lineages.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause "science is often too complex to fit into a pithy statement" There's no theory where the name explains complexity - that's not the purpose of a name. It doesn't need to be perfect, just something to distinguish it from other models in history. "oh you're referring to the triune brain model, that's an outdated model replaced by the ___ model", "here's a table/diagram comparing the triune model to the ___ model".  
> **username_1**: Yes, but... **there is no replacement model**. The replacement is a multitude of observations that explain why that model is not sufficient. Mind you, accompanied by the 'triune' model still having some usefulness at some levels of explanation as long as you're willing to forgo the specific evolutionary history while retaining the concept of different levels of processing.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause I didn't suggest there was a replacement model - that's not what this tangent was about. I'm addressing your point about "there any need for one named hypothesis" by explaining how there is a need with examples on how it would be helpful. You're also suggesting the new understanding doesn't have a definable trait to form a helpful named replacement model, which is false as you already agreed that the fundamental idea of the current understanding is that "same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages". Naming that idea post-hoc would be helpful.  
> **username_1**: Sorry, by need I meant actual *need* as in requirement or certainty. Maybe a more clear way to write it would have been "when a model becomes outdated it is not necessarily replaced by one with a new name". I did not mean that such a named model would not have any purpose, but that it doesn't really describe what happened here. There was no paradigm shift, it's just that this triune model has accumulated enough inconsistencies with observations that it should be referred to with caution. As you note, pop psych isn't usually much concerned with this sort of caution.  
> **username_1**: The problem is "same structures have become modified in different ways in different lineages" isn't really a model that adds any information. It just says "evolution happened", something taken for granted within the world of biology as fact even if some people outside continue to find some issue with it. It might stand as a criticism of the triune model, but a criticism isn't itself a model. It also does not make clear what elements of the triune model are still useful.  
> **username_0**: @BryanKrause The triune brain was actually a model based on evolution, the author titled their book "The Triune Brain in Evolution". They of course misunderstood how that part of the body evolved, but it's still an evolutionary theory. " a criticism isn't itself a model" they did not discover brains evolved in different ways in different lineages to specifically to criticize the Triune model, observations just ended up debunking it. And those findings all converged on that new understanding. It's needed in the same way an extensive wiki page for flat and spherical earth is needed (and exists).  
> **username_2**: "replaces" assumes the [evolutionary] triune model (and the replacement) were/are widely accepted... which is probably not the case.  
> **username_2**: If you just want to read on some more recent theories, see "mosaic brain hypothesis" vs "concerted bran theory" https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.0433  
> **username_0**: @Fizz Thank you, that's actually very helpful.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2021-05-13. Score: -1

There isn’t a new model, exactly, since as the poster stated, the brain doesn’t operate as a model and earlier versions of brain structures simply modify themselves to evolve— it’s one brain. Meaning, one’s “lizard brain” is actually just a mammalian brain now. The new model perhaps is The Human Brain? But given that the Triune model was most popularized by lawyers needing it for defense against emotional (irrational) behavior and psychologists adopted it for explanation of emotional dysregulation, then likely the best replacement is theory about emotion. Emotions are not well understood, and there are several theories about them, but the latest and most provocative development is the Theory of Constructed Emotion. See Barrett-Feldman et al.

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: Welcome to Psychology.SE. Please visit our site [tour]. There are a lot of bold claims in your answer without corroborated evidence. We work differently to many SE sites, where we have a strict policy that [all answers should be backed up with reliable references](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/406/7604) so that the answer can be independently verified, regardless of the reader's/answerer's background. If you still have trouble with this, feel free to visit the [help] or [meta]. Unreferenced claims can be challenged and lead to deletion of your answer.  
> **username_5**: @ChrisRogers the answerer cites Barrett-Feldman et al?  
> **username_4**: @username_5 and what is Barrett-Feldman et al.? Full citation is required as that could be anything  
> **username_5**: @ChrisRogers I ask this on the meta, hope to have your thought there: [Is it a requirement to have full citation?](https://psychology.meta.stackexchange.com/q/2560/12937)  
> **username_4**: @username_5 I agree with the answer given  

---

