Does woodpecker's tongue protect its brain? We drilled into research 13%

By Laerke Christensen12%

6/5/2026, 4:00:07 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Recency Bias, and Biased Writer Voice, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 42.8% saturation with 562 hits. Analysis detected 1,882 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,312 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.4% and a BS Rank of 13% (19,163 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.60% of the article peer group.

A persistent claim circulated online that woodpeckers avoid concussions from pecking because their long tongues wrap around their skulls, protecting their brains. 
It's true that some scientists in the past have believed the woodpecker's long tongue provides some sort of inbuilt protection against brain damage due to frequent and impactful pecking. 
However, peer-reviewed research in 2022 challenged this notion, using frame-by-frame video analysis. 
That research suggested woodpecker skulls appear to act like stiff hammers and don't have built-in shock absorption. 
The 2022 research supported another peer-reviewed study in 2006 that found the woodpecker's small, tilted brain and the short duration of its pecks allow for the bird to tolerate large hits to its brain without lasting damage. 
How does a hammering woodpecker avoid ending up bird-brained? 
Scientists have asked this question since the 1970s, researching the industrious bird's skull and brain in a bid to discover how its habitual head banging doesn't cause irreversible brain damage. 
One June 1, 2026, an X account shared one popular theory (archived), writing, "The tongue of a woodpecker wraps around its skull to protect its brain while pecking" 
The claim also circulated on Facebook (archived) and Instagram (archived). 
However, while some birding websites showcase this theory and some scientists have believed it in the past, recent research found that woodpecker tongues have little to do with actually protecting the bird's brain. 
Rather, researchers have pecked away at different theories to explain how woodpeckers avoid brain damage, notions that have inspired humans working in fields like crash safety and helmet design. 
According to peer-reviewed research published in 2006 (which another peer-reviewed study in 2022 affirmed), woodpeckers avoid damage to their brains while pecking because of the motion itself and the small size and tilted position of their brains  not their long tongues. 
These factors, in combination with the short duration of individual pecks, allow woodpeckers to withstand much harder hits than those that cause concussions in humans. 
Early studies suggest tongue provides some shock absorption 
Sir Isaac Newton's first law of motion dictated that an object in motion stays in motion. 
Therefore, when woodpeckers slam their heads against a solid object like a tree while pecking, their heads stop moving when they hit the tree, but their brains slam into the inside of their skulls. 
That impact is called deceleration. 
Because of deceleration and Newton's first law of motion, scientists long assumed that woodpeckers need some sort of built-in protection for their brains. 
The birds peck at trees to build nests, find food and communicate with each other. 
G forces measure acceleration or deceleration, meaning how fast an object speeds up or slows down. 
One G force is the equivalent of the pull of Earth's gravity. 
Humans might experience higher-than-normal G forces in a car crash when the moving car meets a stationary object. 
Woodpeckers experience G forces when their moving head meets a stationary tree, causing rapid deceleration. 
And, according to the Field Museum of Natural History, a pecking woodpecker experiences G forces up to 1,400 g. 
It is true that woodpeckers have long tongues that wrap around their skulls. 
In the past, some researchers assumed this must be how they protect their brains. 
According to Alex Bond, the principal curator for birds at the Natural History Museum in London, some woodpeckers have tongues up to 10 centimeters long, roughly one-third of their total body length. 
The birds use their long tongues to search for food deep inside trees. 
According to Bond, the tongue of a woodpecker wraps around the hyoid apparatus  a set of bones and muscles that start at the front of the skull by the upper beak  and runs between the woodpecker's eyes and around the skull before meeting at the base of the lower beak. 
Past peer-reviewed research argued that the hyoid apparatus plays a crucial role in protecting the birds' brains from injury through shock absorption or by creating a safety belt-like sling for the head to slow down the impact of deceleration. 
Other peer-reviewed research said special "spongy" bones within the woodpecker's skull lessen the blowback from powerful pecks. 
Meanwhile, researchers in other peer-reviewed studies theorized that woodpecker skulls have evolved to effectively redirect shock waves from pecking, dispersing the impact on the birds' heads and brains throughout their bodies. 
Other research focuses less on the tongue, more on anatomy overall 
However, some research dating back to the 1970s questioned whether woodpeckers' tongues help prevent damage from pecking or whether they needed shock absorption at all. 
In 1976, a group of researchers wrote, "It has been suggested that the shock is dampened by the flexible cartilage connecting the base of the beak to the bones of the skull. 
If this cartilage absorbed much of the impact, however, the beak would not be very effective in boring holes." 
This doubt persisted within the field of woodpecker research for years. 
Then, in 2022, researchers from the University of Antwerp analyzed high-speed video frame by frame to show that woodpecker skulls actually remain stiff while pecking and the birds seemingly don't need to cushion their blows. 
Rather, the 2022 study titled "Woodpeckers minimize cranial absorption of shocks" argued that the birds use their skulls and beaks as "stiff hammers." 
The study's lead author, Sam van Wassenberg, explained in a video that a regular stiff hammer could make a dent in a tree, but a hammer with built-in shock absorption "is simply a bad hammer." 
The 2022 study confirmed an earlier study in 2006 that found woodpeckers avoid concussions because their heads and brains are much smaller, and differently positioned, than human brains. 
These factors mean they can withstand larger decelerations without lasting damage. 
Professor Lorna Gibson of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology authored the 2006 study. 
Gibson explained in a series of videos in 2018, "The size matters. 
The smaller the brain, the larger the deceleration that it can withstand." 
Gibson said: "We can say that there's really three factors that have allowed the woodpeckers to tolerate these high decelerations. 
One is their small brain size, that was a factor of eight. 
One is the orientation of the brain, that gave another factor of two. 
And one is the duration of the impact and that gives a factor of 4. 
So that altogether there's a factor of 64. 
The woodpecker brain should be able to withstand decelerations about 64 times that, that a human brain can tolerate without injury." 
Gibson found that woodpeckers can tolerate up to 6,000 Gs of deceleration for pecks lasting between half a millisecond and one millisecond without suffering brain damage. 
By comparison, according to Gibson, humans suffer brain damage at around 100 Gs of deceleration for three to 15 milliseconds  a lower force but a longer period of time compared to a pecking woodpecker. 
In sum ... 
A myriad of theories has circulated for many years about how woodpeckers protect their brains from injury. 
However, recent research departed from a long-held assumption that the birds somehow cushion their brains from the impact of pecking. 
If the birds' anatomy did somehow cushion their peck, that would only serve to make their pecks less powerful, according to a 2022 study. 
The 2022 study backed up Gibson's 2006 findings and found that a woodpecker's "cranial skeleton is used as a stiff hammer to enhance pecking performance and not as a shock-absorbing system to protect the brain." 
Instead, Gibson pointed to three factors  brain size, orientation of the brain and duration of impact during pecking  that allow woodpeckers to withstand higher impacts than humans without damaging their brains. 
As for their tongues  while the hyoid apparatus does wrap around the birds' skulls, recent research does not support the theory that it functions as a seat belt or cushion to slow down the impact of deceleration. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 11.8%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.4%Confirmation Bias11.8%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 0.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.7%Laerke Christensen: 2.6%Snopes: 3.4%Availability Heuristic3.7%This article: 2.7%Laerke Christensen: 1.3%Snopes: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic2.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 6.3%Laerke Christensen: 1.7%Snopes: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias6.3%This article: 0.5%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.4%Framing Effect0.5%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 4.1%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.5%Status Quo Bias4.1%This article: 1.1%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.1%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 0.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.7%Laerke Christensen: 4.4%Snopes: 5.1%Negativity Bias0.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.2%Snopes: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.2%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.6%Halo Effect2.2%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 11.7%Laerke Christensen: 1.9%Snopes: 1.5%Recency Bias11.7%This article: 0.9%Laerke Christensen: 0.3%Snopes: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.9%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 1.3%Snopes: 1.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 42.8%Laerke Christensen: 6.2%Snopes: 6.0%Appeal to Authority42.8%This article: 6.4%Laerke Christensen: 2.1%Snopes: 0.9%False Dilemma6.4%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 3.6%Laerke Christensen: 4.0%Snopes: 3.5%Hasty Generalization3.6%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.9%Laerke Christensen: 0.7%Snopes: 1.5%Bandwagon2.9%This article: 3.4%Laerke Christensen: 3.7%Snopes: 3.0%Appeal to Emotion3.4%This article: 4.3%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.4%Begging the Question4.3%This article: 3.7%Laerke Christensen: 1.6%Snopes: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)3.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 1.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 3.4%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.2%Appeal to Nature3.4%This article: 4.6%Laerke Christensen: 0.3%Snopes: 0.2%Composition/Division4.6%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.9%Snopes: 1.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 2.3%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.3%This article: 2.7%Laerke Christensen: 1.8%Snopes: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)2.7%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.8%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.1%Middle Ground0.8%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.2%Snopes: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.0%Snopes: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.5%Snopes: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.6%Laerke Christensen: 2.0%Snopes: 3.3%Unattributed Quote4.6%This article: 2.1%Laerke Christensen: 1.8%Snopes: 2.3%Quote-first Misdirection2.1%This article: 10.1%Laerke Christensen: 2.2%Snopes: 2.5%Biased Writer Voice10.1%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.1%Snopes: 0.7%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.6%Snopes: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Laerke Christensen: 0.4%Snopes: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

1312 words analyzed.

Speakers

6speakers23%attributed speech1,013writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 42 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageField Museum of Natural History • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Bond • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAlex Bond • 52 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageUniversity of Antwerp • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageSam van Wassenberg • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMassachusetts Institute of Technology • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 20 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 8 words • 0.0% coverageLorna Gibson • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 35 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Sam van Wassenberg

100%flagged-word coverage
35 attributed words12% of attributed speech90% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Biased Writer Voice-13.1 ptsWriter: 13.1%Sam van Wassenberg: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-5.9 ptsWriter: 5.9%Sam van Wassenberg: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-2.8 ptsWriter: 2.8%Sam van Wassenberg: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.