Training teachers with 'pop Science': are humans as simplistic as Science suggests?

I have written before about the pedagogy attached to training sessions for teachers (see link here). My thoughts have been brought back to this topic after a recent training session in attachment theory. In particular, the use of popular science when training teachers.

Since I started teaching I have been involved in numerous training programmes, which upon reflection, has incorporated scientific findings about the brain to training sessions. The most recurring example is the synaptic connections within the brain which strengthen knowledge through practice. Similarly, I have become familiar with the amygdala, which according to session facilitators is actively involved with the flight, fight or freeze reactions that humans find themselves within when their “chimp” is out.

Sociology of scientific knowledge has been concerned with researching the effect of scientific knowledge upon social life and this is an example of this. During these training sessions I have often been skeptic of the use of scientific understanding of these social characteristics, which has led me to reflect, why? I think it may be due to my social science training. During A-level Sociology, I learned about the sociology of science and read works by Kuhn, Popper and Potter. Is it really true that social conduct is all down to functions within the brain? Perhaps my skepticism is a weakness and my lack of scientific knowledge is causing me to be ignorant but from my point of view this type of “popular science” is too simplistic and reduces humans to cause and effect models.