The study explores how neuroscience information influences public perception of psychological explanations. It found that explanations with irrelevant neuroscience information are judged as more satisfying, especially by nonexperts, even if the neuroscience details do not logically support the explanation. This effect was observed in three groups: novices, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts. Nonexperts were particularly influenced by the presence of neuroscience information, which made bad explanations seem better than they actually were. Experts, however, were not affected by the neuroscience information, indicating that their expertise allowed them to recognize the irrelevance of the added details. The study suggests that neuroscience information can seduce nonexperts, leading them to accept explanations that may not be accurate. This has implications for how neuroscience findings are used in public discourse, as they can influence opinions beyond the evidence supporting them. The findings highlight the need for caution when applying neuroscientific findings to social issues, as the public may not critically evaluate the role of neuroscience in explanations.The study explores how neuroscience information influences public perception of psychological explanations. It found that explanations with irrelevant neuroscience information are judged as more satisfying, especially by nonexperts, even if the neuroscience details do not logically support the explanation. This effect was observed in three groups: novices, students in a neuroscience course, and neuroscience experts. Nonexperts were particularly influenced by the presence of neuroscience information, which made bad explanations seem better than they actually were. Experts, however, were not affected by the neuroscience information, indicating that their expertise allowed them to recognize the irrelevance of the added details. The study suggests that neuroscience information can seduce nonexperts, leading them to accept explanations that may not be accurate. This has implications for how neuroscience findings are used in public discourse, as they can influence opinions beyond the evidence supporting them. The findings highlight the need for caution when applying neuroscientific findings to social issues, as the public may not critically evaluate the role of neuroscience in explanations.