Mind Myth 9: Primitive reflexes, a new old fad

If you studied in any field related to child development, you would have learned about primitive reflexes. These reflexes are present in early childhood, but are inhibited and disappear in normal children. They may be retained in conditions such as cerebral palsy and may re-appear after serious brain injury, especially of the frontal lobes. Where significant primitive reflexes are retained or re-appear in later life they are invariably signs of significant brain injury. Persons with athetoid cerebral palsy sometimes learn to utilize some of their retained primitive reflexes to induce more reliable and predictable movements, i.e. the asymmetric tonic neck reflex to induce arm movement.

A new (old) fad has developed around the phenomenon of primitive reflexes. It is based on the old idea that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (or the development of the individual organism repeats the evolution of the species), the basic idea behind one of the classic 20th century quackeries, Doman and Delacato's patterning. One of Doman and Delacato's aims were to inhibit primitive reflexes in severely brain injured children through long term, intensive therapy.

Now in the 21st century, some modern, controversial therapies claim that physically normal individuals typically still have retained primitive reflexes that hinder achievement and that their particular brand of therapy can correct that unfortunate state of affairs in short order. Predictably, with many gullible educational officials and teachers always on the lookout for a magical silver bullet, therapies that claim to integrate putative primitive reflexes have taken a foothold in education.

This is from an interview in The Herald (Edinburgh) with Professor Sergio Della Sala, Professor of Human Cognitive Neuroscience at the University of Edinburgh, on the issue of the newfound popularity of primitive reflexes in quack therapies:

Professor Della Sala adds: "A primitive reflex is a very serious thing - people with cerebral palsy have it. Did they win a Nobel Prize for this? Because someone who could treat a primitive reflex would be in line for one." ...

The professor adds that he is "greatly sceptical" about the science behind it. "Why not report proper studies and proper trials?" he asks.

In fairness to the therapy under discussion, the Institute of Neuro-Physiological Psychology, it seems to have done some research. As Professor Della Sala pointed out, however, where is the evidence?

A range of other therapies have joined the primitive reflexes bandwagon, despite the lack of evidence. These are typically what I would call shotgun therapies, therapies that are so eclectic that they incorporate just about any nonsense ideas into their therapeutic approaches. Those that I have seen include Brain Gym, Mind Moves and HANDLE. In my opinion, all of these are long on claims and short on evidence.

HANDLE is particularly 'comprehensive' and claims to encompass aspects of INPP, Montessori‘s educational concepts, Kephart‘s visual-perceptual-motor programs, Ayres‘ sensory integration and praxis therapies, Bobath neurodevelopmental therapy, developmental optometry, Tomatis and Berard auditory therapies, Irlen‘s scotopic sensitivity screening, Piaget‘s cognitive psychology, Lindamood‘s approach to language learning, the effects of nutrition on neurodevelopment, homeopathy, reflexology, myofascial release, cranio-sacral therapy and energy therapy. With such a hodgepodge of ideas, how can you miss? The therapist should be able to fit any sign (normal or abnormal) the patient/client presents with somewhere in the framework. I wonder whether insurance and medical aid companies will fall for this?

The myth of the creative, right-brained child

I'm getting tired of tilting at windmills. The whole-brain half-wits are at it again. This time they want children to become creative risk-takers, as this is what they believe the job market will require in future. They propose that the way to promote such skills is "... getting the right brain to mix with the left." This of course is Daniel Pink and company at it again.

I wonder to what extent "creative risk-takers" have landed the world in the mess it is in right now. Be that as it may, the reality is that not everyone can or should be a risk-taking leader, not everyone can be exquisitely creative, and fortunately for us, not everyone has the greed to go with these "skills".

Let us also not forget that Pink's view of brain function is a myth and that there is little or no scientific evidence that creativity and risk-taking are specifically right-brain functions.

Germany honours bravery

Der Spiegel reported on 7 June 2009 that for the first time since World War II, Germany has introduced a military award for bravery, the Military Cross. It was awarded to four sergeants of the Bundeswehr for saving the lives of other soldiers and children after a suicide bomb attack. While one understands Germany's reticence in the past, given its terrible history, it was long overdue. Having sent its soldiers in harms way in Afghanistan, it seemed unconscionable not to fully support them, even when engaged in combat.


Images from Der Spiegel.

Feeling validated vs being correct

A recent article in the Psychological Bulletin did a meta-analysis and found that people typically preferred information that supported their pre-existing positions (normally called confirmation bias, but called congeniality bias in the article), rather than correct information that challenged these positions. This tendency is moderated by various variables. This is as expected and reinforces my view that one should use critical thinking techniques consciously to avoid fooling yourself.

Read the article by Hart et al, Feeling Validated Versus Being Correct: A Meta-Analysis of Selective Exposure to Information.

Here is the abstract from the article:

"A meta-analysis assessed whether exposure to information is guided by defense or accuracy motives. The studies examined information preferences in relation to attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors in situations that provided choices between congenial information, which supported participants’ pre-existing attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors, and uncongenial information, which challenged these tendencies.

Analyses indicated a moderate preference for congenial over uncongenial information (d
0.36). As predicted, this congeniality bias was moderated by variables that affect the strength of participants’ defense motivation and accuracy motivation.

In support of the importance of defense motivation, the congeniality bias was weaker when participants’ attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors were supported prior to information selection; when participants’ attitudes, beliefs, or behaviors were not relevant to their values or not held with conviction; when the available information was low in quality; when participants’ closed-mindedness was low; and when their confidence in the attitude, belief, or behavior was high.

In support of the importance of accuracy motivation, an uncongeniality bias emerged when uncongenial information was relevant to accomplishing a current goal."

Hat tip to BPS Research Digest for the reference.

The most elegant description of confirmation bias that I've encountered was from The Times obituary of Thomas Carlyle:

"Though incapable of lying, Carlyle was completely unreliable as an observer, since he invariably saw what he had decided in advance that he ought to see."

On dignity

David Brooks recently wrote an op-ed column in the New York Times entitled In Search of Dignity. He pointed out the importance that George Washington, the first president of the USA, attached to what Brooks called the "dignity code". Washington drew up a list of etiquette rules, Rules of Civility and Decent Behaviour and also lived his life in accordance with these rules.


According to Brooks:

"They (the rules) were designed to improve inner morals by shaping the outward man. Washington took them very seriously. He worked hard to follow them. Throughout his life, he remained acutely conscious of his own rectitude.

In so doing, he turned himself into a new kind of hero. He wasn’t primarily a military hero or a political hero. As the historian Gordon Wood has written, “Washington became a great man and was acclaimed as a classical hero because of the way he conducted himself during times of temptation. It was his moral character that set him off from other men."

More of a few of South Africa's public figures would do well to heed Washington's rules, dignity in public life being in short supply these days. How often do we see public figures making spectacles of themselves by behaving with absolute disregard of dignity and decency? But, no names, no pack-drill. I'm sure readers of Occam's Donkey can fill in the blanks.