Sunday, February 27, 2011

Brain Gym's disingenuous response to being caught out

Three years ago Brain Gym was comprehensively discredited and faced a perfect storm. What has happened to them since? My observation is (no specific evidence) that they had been lying low. Certainly in South Africa they seem to have been less visible, which may however, have been due to the rise of competing quackeries rather than the bad publicity.

Image from liveandlearn.net.au

During the storm faced by Brain Gym in 2008, I tried to find a comprehensive online response from them without success. In preparing for this post,I finally found a response by Paul and Gail Dennison, the founders of Brain Gym. They responded specifically to the excellent review by Sense about Science. I had hoped for an honest appraisal of Brain Gym, taking into consideration all the science based criticism they have previously ignored. As shown below, that was not to be and I can only describe their response as disingenuous.

The Dennisons' general reasoning was that Brain Gym worked, that they did not know and had never claimed to know why it worked. Further that they did not understand the neuroscience underlying the putative effects of Brain Gym and had never claimed to do so.

Brain Gym works?

Let's consider the Dennisons' first claim, Brain Gym works. They base this on "... more than a hundred anecdotal, qualitative, and quantitative studies and reports, ... available in the Research Chronology and published in Brain Gym Journal". Now that will only fool the Brain Gym faithful, whom of course the Dennisons' piece was written for. Anecdotes are not evidence. I've seen most of the studies they refer to. Mostly they were performed by Brain Gym practitioners (not independent), no control groups were used, or if there were control groups blinded designs were not used. Being published in the Brain Gym Journal obviously mean that the studies were not published in independent, peer reviewed journals. The Dennisons surely knew that the lack of credible evidence has been one of the main objections against Brain Gym, see for instance, Hyatt, K.J. 2007. Brain Gym: Building stronger brains or wishful thinking? Remedial and Special Education, Vol. 28, No. 2, 117-124. Who are they trying to fool?

The next line of "evidence" to support their claim that Brain Gym works is the self report of their subjects. Now keep in mind that Brain Gym is used primarily in primary schools (although you find the odd high school and even corporate that values the dignity of their students or staff so little as to subject them to such nonsense).

Here are two typical quotes from their article:

"Our students report that, after holding the Positive Points, they are better able to think clearly, make choices, consider consequences, and let go of emotional overlay from past experiences."
and
"Many students notice that their abilities to comprehend and think independently have improved upon increased spinal flexibility."

Keep in mind that one of Brain Gym's claims is that their techniques work almost instantaneously. I've known some pretty bright people, but that level of instant introspection and insight I've never experienced. It is well-known that people's self-assessments are inaccurate and that on average, people rate themselves above average in any skill (which makes no statistical sense). See for instance this article Flawed Self-Assessment: Implications for Health, Education, and Business, hat tip and more information in Barking up the wrong tree.

Look, however, at any Brain Gym manual and you see that the improvements their subjects (whether teachers or children) report are based on suggestion, acquiescence bias and confirmation bias. Children in particular are known to be suggestible and acquiescent to adults. What do you expect a child to report after reading in the Brain Gym manual for kids that:
"We hold (our Positive Points) ... whenever we feel nervous of afraid. We know we can achieve our goals when we stop worrying about things and start working on them. In less than a minute, we begin to feel peaceful about planning for the future."
That is the kind of evidence the Dennisons advance for their claims for the effectiveness of Brain Gym. It is sad to realise that many parents,teachers and even educational administrators will find that sufficient.

They were clueless about the neuroscience?

I've shown the Dennisons' claim that Brain Gym works to be without evidence. That makes the rest of their argument, i.e. they cannot be blamed for getting the neuroscience wrong as they never claimed to understand it in the first place, irrelevant. It is cynical and disingenuous, however.

I've read numerous Brain Gym documents and attended a number of Brain Gym presentations over the years. Never once did I hear any Brain Gym consultant, including the Brain Gym gurus in South Africa at the time, admit to not understanding the science behind it. Their modus operandi was always to dazzle the audience with pop neuroscience, including Paul Maclean's triune brain, Roger Sperry's split brain and neurophysiology claims purportedly by Paul Dennison himself and also by Brain Gym's Carla Hannaford. I had one Brain Gym consultant telling me that he knew very well that the neuroscience claims were nonsense, but that he could not say that to the university of technology students he was working with as would destroy the placebo effect (which he claimed was due to quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's uncertainty principle)!

I've looked again at Dennison's Switching On and Hannaford's Smart Moves. While much of what they wrote was scientifically questionable, nowhere did they admit to being clueless about the neuroscience. They were bullshitting then about the science behind Brain Gym and they're bullshitting now about never claiming a scientific basis for Brain Gym.

Thursday, February 24, 2011

Gullibility bracelets, what's the harm?

I'm a Johny-come-lately to this story, just about every newspaper and skeptical blog has covered the Power Balance bracelet fad started by the brothers, Troy and Josh Rodarmel. My first reaction was to call the brothers scam artists and worse. But, just think about it, what a boon for skeptics and bullshit busters - the scientific illiterati exposing their gullibility on the wrist for all to see!


OK, that's a bit over the top. But still, it's quite amusing to observe and see just who is wearing the silly bracelets. As far as health scams go, the bracelets are fairly harmless. To my knowledge, no one is wearing the bracelets and as a result foregoing cancer treatment. What's the harm if some old folk wear them and due to the placebo effect believe that they're experiencing fewer aches and pains? No one will be bankrupted by buying them, especially with counterfeit bracelets costing less than candy bars flooding the market.

Well, I believe the harm comes when children are involved. I see more and more disabled children wearing these things, believing their balance and coordination have improved. For many children with cerebral palsy and their parents, improved balance and coordination are crucial for better functioning and even for better career prospects. Improved balance and coordination is the false promise of Power Balance bracelets. These children and parents have typically had many disappointments in their lives, these bracelets will be more.

Other areas of concern with children, are the false ideas they gain about science and how the body works. Parents (adults) may be satisfied with placebo induced illusions of improved power and coordination, but do they really want their children to believe that holograms can manipulate non-existing energy to produce mysterious improvements in the body?

I am not going into the scientific detail of why Power Balance bracelets are a scam, there are many other blogs doing that. One excellent post is by Brian Dunning in Skepticblog, entititled Power Balance: Magical energy bracelets or nonsense?

Tuesday, February 22, 2011

The only reward ... schadenfreude?


I've alluded in a previous post to the futility of exposing quackery and nonsense. I cannot recall a single instance of someone engaging in quackery or pseudoscientific activities recanting or apologizing for misleading his or her followers. Quacks and charlatans, accepting that they are honest and well-meaning (debatable), are subject to sunken costs and unlikely to recant.

Their faithful followers are subject to confirmation bias, the placebo effect, the sunken cost fallacy, gullibility, anti-science attitudes, being misled by celebrities and so forth. The net result is that one is often just preaching to the converted and hoping that some undecided people will be swayed. The only doubtful reward may be schadenfreude.

Tuesday, February 15, 2011

The post hoc fallacy, World Youth Fest and Egypt

When pushed into a corner about the 100 million rand wasted at the recent World Beer and Condom Fest, sorry, World Festival of Youth and Students, Andile Lungisa claimed that the Fest had been instrumental in freeing Tunisia, Egypt and South Sudan. From News24:

Lungisa said that Egyptian youth who had attended the festival in Pretoria in December, had recently been "at the forefront of the Egyptian revolt".

"I'm not saying we started the protests, but before the festival there were no protests in Egypt. After the festival, there were. Draw your own conclusions," Lungisa told the media.


That was of course a classic post hoc ergo propter hoc error. From Skeptic's Dictionary:
"The post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this therefore because of this) fallacy is based upon the mistaken notion that simply because one thing happens after another, the first event was a cause of the second event."
Lungisa'a remarkable assertion was implausible, but not totally impossible (very little is). He offered no evidence, however. He could not even indicate how many Tunisians, Egyptians or Sudanese youth, if any, attended. Two thousand Zimbabweans attended, following Lungisa's reasoning, why is Mugabe still in power?

Sunday, February 13, 2011

Resurrecting Occam's Donkey

Occam's Donkey has been dormant for about eight months. Why? Futility?

Well, as the ex-pilot (Randy Quaid) yelled at the aliens in Independence Day before he destroyed their ship:

"Hello boys! I'm baaack!!!"


To the quacks and charlatans out there,

Hi guys, I'm baaack!



Not that they're likely to quake in their boots, they know as well as I do that gullibility reigns and that a fool is still born every minute.