Keep NLP out of education

The following was adapted from a comment I made on Training Zone, see my previous post:

The UK (and South Africa) has just been through the Brain Gym in education debacle. I believe that the legitimate role of neuroscience in education suffered as a result. Because of its unfortunate and pretentious title, neuro-linguistic programming (NLP) is (falsely) associated with neuroscience. I note that Andy Bradbury recognises this issue on his website, where he declares that "The name is a major pain." Elsewhere he indicates that NLP cannot be a pseudoscience because it never claimed to be a science in the first place. I, however (I think most people do), believe that if something looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck. Lay people (parents, teachers, managers) can often not distinguish between science and pseudocience (or art if you prefer) to the detriment of the former and the advantage of the latter.

I have read the report quoted by Garry Platt, “Neuro-linguistic programming and learning: teacher case studies on the impact of NLP in education.” This added to my concern. At least two of the authors seem to have a vested interest in NLP (Churches and Tosey). They have links with the University of Surrey group, most of whom according to Dave Snowden in the Wikipedia discussion pages on NLP, have NLP consultancies. Are there conflicts of interest?

The report consists of a literature study, which I do not now have time to peruse. The conclusion from the literature study states: "It was also clear from the literature that contrary to some popular opinion, there have been a number of academic publications on NLP that are supportive of its use in schools and education in general." For the moment I have to take that at face value.

The rest of the research consists of anecdotal "evidence" from teachers who have, or are using NLP in their classrooms. The authors conclude from the teacher anecdotes that " ... the impact of NLP is supported, or at least the perception of its effectiveness is supported." To my mind teacher anecdotes cannot provide scientific support for NLP and teacher perceptions of effectiveness are without value. Teachers who use NLP may themselves have a vested interest (also sunken cost fallacy) and are subject to confirmation bias.

While the authors of the report recognize that their evidence will be questioned, they suggest that NLP be taught to teachers because there should be a balance between evaluation and innovation. I wonder, however, how much nonsense have been introduced into education (and business) in the name of innovation? The one thing, in my opinion, that education does not need is another ill-considered fad.

Nonsense in management theories

This from an interview by Mike Levy with Prof. John Antonakis on the lack of science in some management theories. It's from Training Zone and registration (free) is needed to access. I place some selected quotations, the interviewer's comments in double quotes, Antonakis's in single quotes and italics:

"A man who criticises the basis of Myers Briggs, 'emotional intelligence', NLP and 'good to great' had better be sure of his facts. Professor John Antonakis is sure that he is. Catapulted into the media last year by his paper published in one of the most prestigious scientific journals, 'Science' - where he showed that little children could predict election outcomes merely on looking at the faces of politicians, the author of ‘The Nature of Leadership’ is able to defend his corner as a passionate advocate of evidence-based work on leadership. ... Antonakis, who is professor of organisational behaviour at the University of Lausanne in Switzerland, is not afraid to take on what he sees as the vested interests in supplying what techniques with dubious provenance."

According to Prof. Antonakis: 'There are too many snake-oil merchants in the guise of consultants, trainers and management gurus, ... Very little of what they claim is supported by hard evidence; most of which has been totally ignored by those making a lot of money by selling models and techniques that simply don’t work.'

"The absence of evidence (or evidence which proves otherwise) also leads Antonakis to cast grave doubts on cherished models and systems including Myers Briggs and NLP. A recent paper by Antonakis states: 'There are hundreds of methods or approaches like neuro-linguistic programming (NLP), whose proponents claim to be useful for predicting leadership or for developing leadership skills. Alas, NLP continues to persist in the world of practice even though [research] psychologists stopped taking this construct seriously a while back.' He is equally critical of work produced by Goleman and others on 'emotional intelligence' and methods to test it. 'The evidence simply isn’t there.' "

"Antonakis' critical gaze also falls on the whole area of leadership traits – what personality types can be predicted to make effective leaders? He gives two examples of popular models that have little or no validity: the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), and the DISC personality model. Says Antonakis, 'I could not identify any research on this (DISC) model, though plenty of claims about its validity are on the internet. As with the HBDI, this model does not have the requisite research behind it to be used in industrial settings.' "

The comments (mainly on NLP) are also very illuminating and well worth the read. Prof. Antonakis's views are absolutely in line with many of my views, as expressed in this blog. For what it's worth, he's an ex-South African.

Dilbert on gut based decision making

From Dilbert by Scott Adams.

Unforeseen disasters: salience and availability heuristic

Sonja from Narrative Lab blogged on a disaster that hasn't happened yet and Jonah Lehrer from Frontal Cortex on one that has happened. In both cases salience played a role in lack of action and poorly planned action respectively.

Sonja pointed out the role of salience in:

"A community living next the the "dirtiest dam in the world" seem to care less about getting involved in finding solutions for this issue, but that same community has one of the largest and most active neighbourhood crime watch volunteer groups I've come across."

To give a little perspective, this is what the particular dam's water looks like:


Lehrer pointed out the same process in the BP oil disaster:

"Because those rigs are so far offshore - outta sight outta mind - we haven't prepared for the possibility of this epic disaster. As a result, the unlikely event becomes inconceivable - this is the availability heuristic at work - and the inherent riskiness of a situation is underestimated."

Which brings to the fore the dilemma that the cognitive "blindness" brought about by our cognitive limitations (lack of salience and the availability heuristic) could leave us vulnerable to situations that science, engineering and technology can't solve. Said Adam Frank from NPR Blogs:

"In the old culture failure was impossible because, somehow, we could grab some duct tape and MacGyver our way back into business. The new culture must understand that limits and feedbacks express a kind of planetological wisdom that we are wise to work within rather than try and push aside.

As a technological society we have evolved to the point that we are, literally, playing in much deeper waters. At these scales we must understand that failure is very much an option."

Tips for learning retention

Donald Clark Plan B has one of his useful posts that restates well-known (but often neglected) learning principles. It is worth reading, but I follow his advise and summarize it for my own benefit.

Ebbinghaus Curve.

He starts with a classical Ebbinghaus "forgetting curve" that we all learned about in Psychology 101 and then adds:

"The real solution, to this massive problem of forgetfulness, is spaced practice, little and often, the regular rehearsal and practice of the knowledge/skill over a period of time to elaborate and allow deep processing to fix long-term memories. If we get this right, increases on the productivity of learning can be enormous."

Here are some of his tips for for implementation (get the details from his blog post):

1. Self-rehearsal, rehearse the work yourself on a set schedule.
2. Take notes, and rehearse.
3. Blog about it, and respond to comments
4. Repetition, mindfully.
5. Delayed assessment, by the teacher at different intervals.
6. Record material, and make recordings accessible to learners.
7. Games pedagogy, present and assess in games format.
8. Spaced e-learning (ties in with #6).
9. Mobile technology, use cell phones to drip feed information.
10. Less long holidays (not as applicable in South Africa where we do not have the long summer holiday.

Some of these may be difficult to implement at school level, with limited resources and the high work load of teachers. Collaboration may be helpful.

Neanderthals among us

Some interesting thoughts and ethical dilemmas from Ursula Goodenough at NPR Blogs. She links two interesting developments in genetics, to whit the claims by Craig Venter's company to have artificially synthesized a functional bacterial chromosome and by Svante Pääbo’s laboratory to have produced a first draft of the Neanderthal genome. Goodenough points out that:

"Hence it is now formally feasible, albeit not yet remotely practicable, to synthesize artificial Neanderthal chromosomes, insert copies into enucleated human eggs, and recruit volunteers to give birth to a Homo species that has been extinct for 30,000 years."

There are enough ethical dilemmas here to keep a troop of philosophers busy for years. Imagine a human mother giving birth to a Neanderthal infant and that Neanderthal having to grow up in human society.

Pääbo also estimates that most human genomes contain one to four percent of Neanderthal-derived DNA sequences, meaning there was interbreeding. The next time someone calls you a Neanderthal, they may be closer than you think!

(Quack)busting romance

From Dilbert by Scott Adamns.

A jaundiced view of management

Source unknown. Thank you to Cas for sending this to me. I do not really know any organization quite as bad as this, but read Bob Sutton's The No Ass Hole Rule for some good examples.

Dilbert on bullshitting and (lack of) leadership

From Dilbert by Scott Adams.

CP Conference 2010 - More brain profiling nonsense

Please, not whole brain learning and brain profiling again! A paper on IQ and EQ (sigh!) turns out to be the outdated, and thoroughly discredited, ideas of whole brain learning and brain profiling. The presenter (whom I'll leave anonymous), presented as if his own research, a concoction of whole brain learning, brain profiling and Gardner's multiple intelligences. For good measure he threw in Goleman's views of emotional intelligence (the less scientific version of EI) and Rosenthal and Jacobson's research on the influence of teacher expectations on learners' performance (the Pygmalion Effect).

The only aspect of his approach that was new to me, was his attempts to localize each of Gardner's intelligences to specific brain quadrants. These brain quadrants do not make anatomical sense and localization of higher level functions is contrary to current views of brain organization.

On being challenged about the pseudoscientific nature of his approach, his predicatable response was that his approach worked. To questions about possible confirmation bias, he had no answer.

Some of my previous (extensive) posts on some of these issues were:

Left brain, right brain, whole brain:

Mind myth 2: Left brain right brain.

Brain profiling:

Mind myth 5: Brain profiling.
"Genetic" brain profiling in rugby.

Multiple intelligences and learning styles:

Mind myth 7: Learning styles and multiple intelligences

CP Conference 2010 - Dr. I.P. Desai: Inclusive Education

It's CP Conference time again, this year held in Durban and organized by the A.M. Moolla Spes Nova School. I find it hard to believe that a year has passed since the previous conference, which I (with the Gauteng Cerebral Palsy Association) organized.

The Jimmy Craig Memorial Lecture was by Dr. I.P. Desai, retired professor in Education from the University of Melbourne, Australia. It dealt with inclusive education. A somewhat jaded topic by now, but in South African circumstances still topical. Dr. Desai's conclusion from literature and experience - inclusive education works where the necessary support is given to teachers and learners with disabilities. Nothing new there.

A question I had - is there a publication bias in this field that prevents negative findings from being published? From past literature reviews this seemed to me to be the case - the evidence for the effectiveness of inclusive education seemed just too good to be true (I'm not arguing with the principle and that it's mostly the right thing to do). While it is hard to question the philosophy of and necessity for inclusive education, the difficulties in implementation seem to be glossed over. Dr. Desai agreed that such a publication bias may exist. Moral imperatives and political correctness may sometimes have precedence over scientific evidence (my interpretation, not his).

Localizing g in the brain!

Deric Bownds from MindBlog reports on a fascinating study by Adolphs, Damasio, et al., that found an association between general intelligence (g) and:

"... damage to a remarkably circumscribed, although distributed, network in frontal and parietal cortex, critically including white matter association tracts and frontopolar cortex. They suggest hat general intelligence draws on connections between regions that integrate verbal, visuospatial, working memory, and executive processes."

Bownds quotes from their discussion:

"The largest overlap between WAIS subtests and g was found for Arithmetic, Similarities, Information, and Digit Span; the former two tests also exhibited the greatest conjunction with g. These subtests assess verbal knowledge about the world, verbal reasoning, and abstraction, as well as working memory capacity, and are associated with the left inferior frontal gyrus, the superior longitudinal/arcuate fascicule, and to some degree with parietal cortex. This suggests that g draws on the combination of conceptual knowledge and working memory, and that the communication between areas associated with these capacities is of crucial importance."

The actual article is available here.

Ritalin increases brain plasticity

From ScienceDaily: Ritalin Boosts Learning by Increasing Brain Plasticity. The report states that Ritalin not only improves concentration, but also increases the speed of learning (at least in animal models). It does this by increasing brain plasticity, especially in the amygdala. Antonello Bonci, the lead scientist, stated:

"We found that a dopamine receptor, known as the D2 receptor, controls the ability to stay focused on a task -- the well-known benefit of Ritalin," said Patricia Janak, PhD, co-senior author on the paper. "But we also discovered that another dopamine receptor, D1, underlies learning efficiency."

Fascinating stuff that bears looking into.

See the research abstract here.

Children not overmedicated?

There is a general concern that children are overmedicated, especially with psychotropic medication such as Ritalin. While in South Africa, the dosages used are typically lower than in the U.S.A., the same concern exists here. Judith Warner, columnist for the New York Times, started investigating this issue six years ago. Whereas she started out biased against the use of medication for childhood developmental disorders, against expectations she had to change her mind.

Here are some excerpts from a review of her book, We've got Issues:
Children and Parents in the Age of Medication:

"A couple of simple truths have become clear,” she writes with the passion of a new convert. “That the suffering of children with mental health issues (and their parents) is very real. That almost no parent takes the issue of psychiatric diagnosis lightly or rushes to ‘drug’ his or her child; and that responsible child psychiatrists don’t, either. And that many children’s lives are essentially saved by medication, particularly when it’s combined with evidence-based forms of therapy."

and

"But the big picture is far brighter than its components. Ms. Warner argues that child psychiatry is actually one of the major public health success stories of our time. As one expert tells her, when it comes to mental health, “the horse is out of the barn by adulthood.” Treating troubled children is more than symptom management for a calmer classroom: the medications seem actually to change the structure of the brain, helping it develop in what all evidence indicates is the right direction. More children in treatment should spell the beginnings of a healthier adult world."

Warner's conclusions are interesting and one has to recognize her intellectual honesty in coming to change her mind. One has to, however, recognize that her "research" method was not much more than the collection of anecdotes. For a more critical review of her book, read Alison Gopnick in The Slate.

Sarcasm and the right hemisphere

Jonah Lehrer from Frontal Cortex posted on the cognitive challenge posed by sarcasm:

"Sarcasm is a cognitive challenge. In order to get the sarcastic sentiment, we can't simply decode the utterance, or decipher the literal meaning of the sentence. Instead, we have to understand the meaning of the words in their larger social context. For example, if it's a beautiful day outside - the sun is shining, etc - and somebody states "What a nice day!," there is no sarcasm; the sentence makes perfect sense. However, if the same statement is uttered on a rainy day, then there is a clear contradiction, which leads to an interpretation of sarcasm. (We typically exaggerate the expression of sarcastic statements, thus making it easier to pick up the verbal/social contradiction.) Psychologists refer to such utterances as an incongruent word-emotion situation."

He continues to point out the involvement of the right hemisphere in processing sarcasm. I've previously posted on this in the context of contextual processing (unintended pun) and Cook's model of topographic callosal inhibition. Read more about it in my post on the left brain right brain myth.

Scientific consensus

Steven Novella from Neurologica posted on the value of scientific consensus and how it differs from the logical fallacy of an argument from authority. Some selected quotes:

"... we advocate rigorous and robust scientific methodology as the best way of understanding nature, we trust this process to some degree. We understand there can be fraud or sloppy studies, but generally if the research of others is all pointing toward one answer, we trust that research and its conclusions.

... science is complex, and few people can master more than a fairly narrow range of scientific expertise. And so outside our area of expertise (which is all of science for non-scientists) the best approach to take, in my opinion, is a hybrid approach – first, try to understand what is the consensus of scientific opinion.

... those interested in science will want to understand the evidence directly and how it relates to the consensus. But at the same time it must be recognized that a non-expert understanding of the evidence is a mere shadow of expert understanding.

... it is extreme hubris to substitute one’s frail non-expert assessment of a detailed scientific discipline for the consensus of opinion of scientific experts."

Novella continues to also point out that consensus of opinion is not always right – it is just usually right. He addresses important issues and I would recommend reading his whole post.

Increasing brain plasticity through diet

The Independent reports on research that indicates that brain plasticity is improved by the availability of magnesium to the brain.

"The international team of researchers from MIT, Tel Aviv University (TAU), Tsinghua University in Beijing and University of Toronto found an increase in 'brain magnesium enhances both short-term synaptic facilitation and long-term potentiation (LTP) and improves learning and memory functions.'"

Said Inna Slusky, PhD:

"We are really pleased with the positive results of our studies, but on the negative side, we've also been able to show that today's over-the-counter magnesium supplements don't really work. They do not get into the brain."

Supplements not being effective, the alternative is eating magnesium-rich foods such as spinach, almonds, cashews, soybeans, oatmeal, halibut and even chocolate pudding.

See the actual study in Neuron.

Why consumers buy snake oil

Steven Novella from Neurologica reports on a behavioural economics analysis of why people buy snake oil (and modern supplements) even when its ineffectiveness is apparent. It boils down to: "What can I lose?" I've previously blogged on this in Snake oil for rusty snakes and quoted this delightful remark by author Terry Pratchett just after being diagnosed with early onset Alzheimers:

"Some of them wanted to sell me snake oil and I’m not necessarily going to dismiss all of these, as I have never found a rusty snake."

Here are some selected quotes from Novella's discussion of research by Werner Troesken:

"... people still wanted to buy patent medicines, even after their previous experience with such products resulted in failure.

... Troesken’s basic model – medicines do not work, consumers judge them solely on whether or not they work, and consumers correctly perceive that they do not.

... consumers felt that they had little to lose and the world to gain, leading to repeated experimentation with, and even high demand for, patent medicines."

Other factors for the continued popularity of snake oil, as pointed out by Novella, include the effect of false positives (false anecdotal "evidence") and the placebo effect. Of particular interest is that the very success of science based medicine leads to people living longer and their age related ailments creating a larger market for snake oil.

Novella makes the point that, based on the above, it cannot be expected that market forces will result in better and more effective health products, or even keep entirely worthless or even harmful health products from the marketplace.

Some genetic and epigenetic correlates of vulnerability and resilience

Hat tip to Andy Smarick from Flypaper for alerting me to a fascinating article by David Dobbs in The Atlantic. It relates to the interaction between genetic and environmental factors to produce either vulnerable or resilient phenotypes based on the same risk allele. The specific risk allele is one for ADHD and externalizing behaviours.

Dobbs explained as follows:

"Most of us have genes that make us as hardy as dandelions: able to take root and survive almost anywhere. A few of us, however, are more like the orchid: fragile and fickle, but capable of blooming spectacularly if given greenhouse care. So holds a provocative new theory of genetics, which asserts that the very genes that give us the most trouble as a species, causing behaviors that are self-destructive and antisocial, also underlie humankind’s phenomenal adaptability and evolutionary success. With a bad environment and poor parenting, orchid children can end up depressed, drug-addicted, or in jail—but with the right environment and good parenting, they can grow up to be society’s most creative, successful, and happy people."

Related: Can the right kinds of play teach self-control?

Music training helps with dyslexia?

By now it is known that the so-called Mozart Effect is a myth. Just listening to music does not have the specific cognitive benefits claimed.

There has, however, been some research suggesting that music training and playing a musical instrument does have cognitive benefits. It is known that lack of phonemic awareness is one of the most important determinants of dyslexia.

Prof. Nina Kraus, Hugh Knowles Professor of Neurobiology, Physiology and Communication Sciences at Northwestern University, recently claimed that music training enhances brainstem sensitivity to speech sounds. She added:

"Playing an instrument may help youngsters better process speech in noisy classrooms and more accurately interpret the nuances of language that are conveyed by subtle changes in the human voice."

According to ScienceDaily, her and other neuroscientists' research suggest that music education can be an effective strategy in helping typically developing children as well as children with developmental dyslexia or autism more accurately encode speech. Something to think about for schools who have scrapped music training.

but, a contrary view that came to my attention later:

Music therapy no help to dyslexics.

Related: Children who grow up in noisy homes may have lower verbal abilities.

Repeat after me: "Teaching to learning styles does not work"

I despair of ever weaning gullible teachers of the nonsense of teaching to learning style. Educational consultants are not going drop learning style theory from their repertoire while there is good money to be made. Thank your to Donald Clark and Wil Thalheimer for the following from the Association of Psychological Science:

"We conclude therefore, that at present, there is no adequate evidence base to justify incorporating learning-styles assessments into general educational practice. Thus, limited education resources would better be devoted to adopting other educational practices that have a strong evidence base, of which there are an increasing number. However, given the lack of methodologically sound studies of learning styles, it would be an error to conclude that all possible versions of learning styles have been tested and found wanting; many have simply not been tested at all." (p. 105)

Reference: Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2008). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9, 105-119.

Concussion is serious, really

From ScienceDaily, Mild traumatic brain injury, not so mild after all. I've blogged before here and here about the negligent manner in which childhood concussion is often handled, especially at sporting events. ScienceDaily reports on the molecular mechanisms involved in mild brain injuries, as determined by a team led by Douglas Smith, MD, the director of the Center for Brain Injury and Repair and professor of Neurosurgery at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.

"Despite the prevalence and impact of mTBI, little is known about how mTBI affects nerve cells and connections in the brain, and therefore clinical outcomes after injury. Smith and colleagues have begun to amass data from human and animal studies on mTBI at 2-4 days after injury using advanced neuroimaging techniques. They have found distinct changes throughout the white matter in the brain. Also, protein markers of brain pathology were identified after mTBI in the blood of mTBI patients."

This is significant, especially in view of the greater importance ascribed to white matter and to disconnection syndromes in modern neuroscience.

Orac trashed the EPFX/QXCI!

The redoubtable Orac from Respectful Insolence comprehensively trashed the Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface (a quack name for a quack device used by ???) in a recent post. It's a repeat of a previous post that I wish I've known about when I previously blogged on the same issue. Read Orac's post, The miraculous quest for quantum woo, before you waste you money on this scam. All you gullible South Africans so taken in by "quantum medicine", hear Orac speak:

"The beauty of this woo is that quantum theory is invoked to explain almost every "alternative medicine," from homeopathy to acupuncture, and it's all packed into a single volume of concentrated woo (a veritable black hole of woo, so to speak)."

How to scam someone

Jeremy Dean from PsyBlog has a typical insightful post on the how scam artists deceive. In The 7 Psychological Principles of Scams, he identifies these principles as:

1. Distraction
2. Social compliance
3. Herd principle
4. Dishonesty
5. Deception
6. Need and greed
7. Time pressure

Read his post and try not to be the next victim.

Irrationally positive

Donald Clark from Donald Clark Plan B reviewed the new book by Barbara Ehrenreich, Smile or Die, in a post entitled Beware of the happy campers. I haven't read the book yet, but it's on my to buy list, as I've always enjoyed Barbara Ehrenreich's columns.

From Amazon:

"This brilliant new book from the author of Nickel and Dimed and Bait and Switch explores the tyranny of positive thinking, and offers a history of how it came to be the dominant mode in the USA. Ehrenreich conceived of the book when she became ill with breast cancer, and found herself surrounded by pink ribbons and bunny rabbits and platitudes. She balked at the way her anger and sadness about having the disease were seen as unhealthy and dangerous by health professionals and other sufferers. In her droll and incisive analysis of the cult of cheerfulness, Ehrenreich also ranges across contemporary religion, business and the economy, arguing, for example, that undue optimism and a fear of giving bad news sowed the seeds for the current banking crisis. She argues passionately that the insistence on being cheerful actually leads to a lonely focus inwards, a blaming of oneself for any misfortunes, and thus to political apathy. Rigorous, insightful and bracing as always, and also incredibly funny, "Happy Face" uncovers the dark side of the 'have a nice day' nation."

Back to Donald Clark. He echoed my thoughts in many of my previous posts when he wrote:

"There’s something odd about relentlessly jolly people, a sort of deep sadness. But this is nothing compared to the people who sell ‘happiness’ as a commodity – behind the smile lies a lie and a hefty daily rate. I have an instinctive distrust of motivational speakers, positive psychologists, life coaches, NLP fanatics and other happy-clappy types. Call me old fashioned, but I’m a sucker, not for pessimism, but for realism."

Well said.I agree with him distinguishing "jolly people" from those who sell "happiness" for a living. Even among the latter group, you have those who are sincere and those are charlatans. I would not be so negative about naturally upbeat people, they are great to be around, even if their views sometimes have to be tempered with realism.















The childrens' cartoon series (also enjoyed by many adults, including me), Spongebob Squarepants, has two characters on the two extremes of being positive and being negative. Spongebob and Squidward, to my mind both deliciously dysfunctional.

Some research bearing on the issue: Brain Activity Levels Affect Self-Perception: 'Rose-Colored Glasses' Correlate With Less Frontal Lobe Use

Bohr was a gunfighter!

Niels Bohr needs no introduction. He was one of the pioneers of quantum mechanics, often being associated with the Copenhagen interpretation. The Bohr-Einstein debates on the nature of quantum physics have become legendary.


Bohr made headlines again more than forty years after his death, not due to his contributions to physics, but due to his contributions to the science of gunfighting! Bohr was a gunfighter. His "gunfights" with fellow physicist, George Gamow, may also become legendary! I quote from a recent article, The gunfighter's dilemma:

"It turns out that the celebrated Danish physicist and Nobel laureate, Niels Bohr, liked to take time off from figuring out the structure of the universe by watching westerns. Bohr noticed that the man who drew first invariably got shot, and speculated that the intentional act of drawing and shooting was slower to execute than the action in response. Here was a hypothesis that could be tested, and with the aid of cap guns hastily purchased in a Copenhagen toyshop, duly proved it. In a series of mock gunfights with colleagues Bohr always drew second and always won."

Bohr's "research" was recently replicated in a laboratory:

"Welchman's team organized simulated "gunfights" in the laboratory, with pairs of volunteers competing against each other to push three buttons on a computer console in a particular order. The researchers observed that the time interval between when players removed their hands from the first button and when they pressed the final button was on average 9% shorter for the players who reacted to an opponent moving first. However, those who reacted to a first move were more likely to make an error, presssing the buttons in the wrong order. Welchman speculates that this rapid, if somewhat inaccurate, response system may have evolved to help humans deal with danger, when immediate reaction is essential and the risk of an error worth taking."

The effect, however, was small, not enough to overcome the time lost by drawing second. So why did Bohr always win? Simple, he was a gunfighter. Good thing for Einstein that their debates never became duels!

The Midmar Mile - again!

Last year I swam the Midmar Mile and vowed not to do another dam swim. It was for frogs, I said.

Here is part of it, the biggest open water swim in the world!

Photo from the Midmar Mile website.

Well, here I am again, not quite as fit as I should be, but preparing to swim the Midmar Mile again. Not that great an achievement, there are some octogenarians also taking part! In my case it's for a good cause; to get sponsorships to have an internet Wi-Fi linked notebook computer in every class in Muriel Brand School. This is the school of which I am the principal, a special school mainly for children with cerebral palsy. Every class has been challenged to get R5 000,00 (about $650,00) in sponsorships, which will buy a basic notebook computer. The sponsorships are coming in and while we shall probably not reach the target, we'll get some way to doing so.


My swim, for men 31 year and older (wish there was a separate one for the over 50's!) will be on Valentine's Day, 14 February. At least I won't be alone, Rolandi Greyvenstein (one of my teachers), my son and four of his school friends, as well as some of his teachers (Hoërskool die Anker - The Anchor High School) will also swim. In addition to this, we form part of the Blackfin Swimming Club contingent, probably about 30 swimmers in all.

Any reader of my humble blog who would like to contribute to the cause, can e-mail Muriel Brand School at mbrand at uskonet dot com for details on how to go about it. If we get enough computers, I can stick to the swimming pool in future!

Daydreaming, neural connectivity and intelligence

Jonah Lehrer from The Frontal Cortex reports on research that links resting state activity (the state in which daydreaming occurs) in the brain with the stimulation of long-range neural connectivity and hence intelligence. He refers to an article by Whitfield-Gabrieli and Gabrieli in Mind Matters and states:

"(they) ... outline some interesting new research on the link between resting state activity - the performance of the brain when it's lying still in a brain scanner, doing nothing but daydreaming - and general intelligence. It turns out that cultivating an active idle mind, or teaching yourself how to daydream effectively, might actually encourage the sort of long-range neural connections that make us smart. At the very least, it's time we stop discouraging kids from staring out the classroom window, because mind wandering isn't a waste of time."

He quotes Whitfield-Gabrieli and Gabrieli in their discussion of research by Ming Song:

"Like prior researchers, they found that the posterior cingulate cortex is the hub of the human brain - it is the most widely and intensively connected region of the human brain at rest. Moreover, the strength of connectivity among distant brain regions was greater in people with superior than average IQ scores. Another 2009 study came to a similar conclusion, and noted that the strongest relations between resting connectivity and IQ were observed in the frontal and parietal brain regions, which have been most associated with performance on IQ tests.

Thus, remarkably, the strength of long-distance connections in the resting brain can be related to performance on IQ tests. We are often impressed when people make creative connections between ideas - perhaps long-range connectivity in the brain empowers such mental range."

Interesting stuff indeed, but still no justification for therapies that focus without evidence for effectiveness on the claimed improvement of inter- and intra-hemispheric connectivity.

Trauma debriefing in schools ineffective?

I have long wondered about the effectiveness of trauma debriefing in schools and whether it may not cause more harm than good. ScienceDaily may have the answer:

Recent systematic reviews indicate that psychological debriefing of adults does not prevent post-traumatic stress disorder and it may even increase the risk of this disorder. While there is little research on the effectiveness and safety of these interventions in schools, "the evidence clearly points to the ineffectiveness of these interventions in preventing post-traumatic stress disorder or any other psychiatric disorder in adults. (They) urge that psychological debriefing not be performed after traumatic incidents in schools, and that more research is needed to assess psychological and mental health interventions prior to implementation in schools.

It has become the custom in South Africa that after traumatic events trauma debrievers from different disciplines and presumably different competencies descend on schools en masse. I'm not sure that they do any good, or may even cause harm.

Vygotsky and Piaget: Outdated theories?

Donald Clark in Donald Clark Plan B can usually be trusted to cut through to the quick. His take on Vygotsky and Piaget will not endear him to educationists who hold them dear. Vygotsky especially is held in high regard by so-called progressive educators.

Donald Clark has the following to say about Vygotsky:

"Why have learning academics been so keen to resurrect an old Marxist theorist, dress up half-baked sociology and pretend it’s psychology? Having worked my way through 'Thought and Language' and 'Mind in Society' along with several other Vygotsky texts, I'll be damned if I can see what all the fuss is about. He is to the psychology of learning what Lysenko was to genetics. Indeed the parallel with Lysenko is quite apposite. Forgoing the idea of genetics he sees interventionist, social mediation as the sole source of cognitive development. Vygotsky is a sort of ‘tabla rasa’ Lamarkian learning theorist. ... Vygotsky puts learning before development - a sort of social behaviourist. This is in direct contradiction to almost everything we now know about the mind and its modular structure (this sentence used outside the original sequence). He is simply wrong."

He also does not spare Piaget:

"... there’s almost nothing left of his theories that is remotely useful to a new teacher. His four-stage theory of child development has been so completely wiped out by subsequent studies, that there’s nothing left. It’s merely an exercise in the history of science. What’s shocking is the way he’s still revered and taught in (such) courses. It’s like teaching Lamarck, not Darwin.

The good news is that his mistakes led to more rigorous studies that really did unravel child development, although one wonders why he is taught at all. The bad news is that the hole was filled by an even less rigorous and more flawed theorist, Lev Vygotsky. Don’t get me started on him!

What's worrying is the fact that teachers are coming out with a fixed view of child development based on 'ages and stages' that are quite wrong. This leads to amateurish teaching methods and a lack of understanding of when and how to teach numeracy and literacy. The 'whole-language' teaching fiasco in primary schools was the perfect storm of this amateurish approach.

The sad fact is that education and training is still soaked in this dated theory, as they suffer badly from 'groupthink'. The community literally thinks that theories are sound if a) they've been around for a long time (sorry, but in science, especially psychology, the opposite is true) b) everyone does it (that's precisely the problem)."

I'm not an expert on Vygotsky and Piaget, but I can't fault Donald Clark's conclusions. My concern is that these theories are often taught uncritically in education faculties at universities (at least in South Africa). As I've remarked in the past, critical and scientific thinking do not feature strongly in most teachers' training (in South Africa). Purveyors of scientifically questionable educational techniques often mention Piaget and Vygotsky as influences on their eclectic theories. This makes their theories seem more familiar to teachers and fool their bullshit detectors, which are rarely effective in any case. My solution? Teach student teachers the rudiments of critical and scientific thinking!

NLP - the cradle of budding quacks?

During my journeys into the dark heart of educational quackery (OK, that's a bit over the top, but I like it), I was struck by how often quacks claim the magic über quack affirmation - NLP Master Practitioner. What should be a source of embarrassment to be mentioned behind closed doors, becomes a beacon to attract the gullible. Which self help guru coined the phrase "... turn the negatives into positives"? NLP is clearly a quacking granfalloon, but it also seems to be the cradle of many budding educational quacks.

Wikipedia is a usually a good source to start reading up on any topic. It is also for Neuro-linguistic Programming. The danger with Wikipedia articles on questionable practices is that they may been be written by practitioners in mufti. In this case Dave Snowden, a critic of NLP, is one of the authors/editors of the article, which makes for a more objective view. It is always instructive to look at the discussions between the authors/editors on the discussion pages of any Wikipedia article. In this case there are interesting discussions between Snowden and some NLP supporters. The discussions range from guardedly civilized to downright hostile.

I'm not going to spend too much time here on NLP, as there's a lot of information on the Web. Here are two useful links:

Wikipedia on NLP.
Barry Beyerstein on pseudoscience.

Where will Chopra draw the line?

Deepak Chopra, the doyen of quantum quacks, is not a happy man. He has been quite vocal lately about the constant criticism he attracts from science based skeptics. He seems to be specifically irritated by Michael Shermer. But let him speak:

"It used to annoy me to be called the king of woo woo. ... I had an unpredictable reaction. I realized that I would much rather expound woo woo than the kind of bad science Shermer stands behind. He has made skepticism his personal brand, more or less, sitting by the side of the road to denigrate "those people who believe in spirituality, ghosts, and so on," as he says on a YouTube video." (This after a square-off with Michale Shermer on Larry King Live).

Chopra explained his views at the Indian Astrology Conference:

"Western science is still frozen in an obsolete, Newtonian worldview that is based literally on superstition -- and we can call it the superstition of materialism -- which says you and I are physical entities of the physical universe, ..."

Here he was essentially referring to his understanding of the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum physics. The Copenhagen interpretation (especially as he (mis)understands it), however, is not generally accepted. See here for a good discussion by Wadhawan and Kamal.

Regarding medical practice, Chopra and co-authors made the
following statement in an article entitled The Mythology Of Science-Based Medicine in the Huffington Post:

"We are not suggesting that Americans adopt any and all alternative practices simply because they are alternative. These, too, must demonstrate their effectiveness through objective testing."

That is exactly what proponents of science-based medicine have been saying all along! Someone, I can't recall who, said that there are only two types of medicine - scientifically supported and scientifically unsupported. In view of that, I wonder how Chopra would judge something such as "Prof" William Nelson's Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface, or SCIO/QXCI, a bullshit device that I've blogged about before here and here.

I'm interested to know, where will Chopra draw the line? Why then, should all so-called alternative medicine not be subjected to objective scientific validation?

Back to the future

Techno-junkies, but anti-science; conspiracy minded, but gullible; cynical, but superstitious. These are some of the contradictions I see in people around me. Constantly on their Blackberry's, jabbering about Botox and whether to innoculate their children. Big pharma is screwing them, but quantum quacks are trusted. AGW is a conspiracy, but they call up the dead. Their tolerance for cognitive dissonance must be off the scale.

Eighty years ago the poet C. Louis Leipoldt decried quackery and superstition in South Africa. Yet those I know from that era, including my parents (father, 85 and mother, 79) who had no training in science, have a great appreciation of science and a fair amount of general knowledge about the ideas of the Curie's, Einstein, Darwin and Bohr. They grew up in a time when people were excited by science and new discoveries. They seem less gullible than most younger people I have contact with. Evidence? No, I have no specific evidence - just observation. Yes, that is subject to confirmation bias and may well be inaccurate, but I don't think it is.

The older people I know trust mainstream medicine (OK, they have a weakness for homeopathy), consider Chopra's quantum quackery to be bullshit, find The Secret hilarious and consider John Edwards to be a charlatan. They experienced the tragedy of terrible illnesses such as polio and diptheria. They had the good sense to see that their children (us) were immunized when vaccines became available, as we did for ours. They did not look to celebrities for advice in matters of science and medicine.

I repeat this graphic I used earlier - are we on our way down?