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 turns out to be the outdated, and thoroughly discredited, ideas of whole brain learning and brain profiling.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

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.

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.

Revisiting nonsense

I have covered many nonsense educational techniques and therapies since starting Occam's Donkey almost two years ago. I have not really been doing the recommended activities to increase the blog's popularity and I do not typically get more than 50 hits per day. It has nevertheless been gratifying to find that Google searches on the names of some of the techniques I have been writing about, often find Occam's Donkey on the first page of results. At least some people are getting the message that pseudoscience and quackery are rife in education and its allied disciplines. Caveat emptor.

Here are some of the ideas, techniques and products I've covered. To see posts related to each idea, just type the italics printed words in the search box at the top of the blog home page.

The mind myths underlying many fads and scams

Brain Gym

Mind Moves

Brain profiling and genetic brain profiling

Left brain right brain

BioStrath for ADHD

Betakit Study System

Primitive reflexes

Quantum physics

Quantum Xrroid Consciousness Interface, or SCIO/QXCI

Human Pin Code

Learning styles

Multiple intelligences

Motivational speakers

Those are some of the ideas and techniques I have concerns about. A valid question would be whether there is anything I support? Well, many of the techniques under discussion are promoted as silver bullets that will solve all educational problems. There are no silver bullets in this field. I believe that not all problems can be solved. Those that can be solved are normally solved through hard work directly on the problem, a back to basics approach.

Science based (evidence based or evidence supported) solutions are the best route to go. While there have been recent scandals in the Big Pharma, medical interventions for conditions such as ADHD are still the best. So called "natural products" for conditions such as ADHD are typically ineffective and a waste of money. The most effective "treatment" for ADHD is a combination of medication (typically stimulant) and behaviour modification.

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.

Left brain right brain once more

Joseph Le Doux is the latest eminent neuroscientist to take on the left brain right brain myth. Writing in the Huffington Post, Le Doux reveals Why the "Right Brain" Idea is Wrong-Headed. He links a resurgence of right brain nonsense to Daniel Pink's book A Whole New Mind and the mindless promotion of it by celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey. I also commented on this on Occam's Donkey at Is Oprah a whole-brain half-wit too?

Some choice quotes from Le Doux on why the right brain idea is wrong-headed:

"Attributing functions to one side or the other just divides the "black box" in two. This kind of over-simplification is unnecessary given all we've learned about how the brain work."

"We have very detailed information about various tiny areas on the left and right side, how cells in these areas are connected to other cells in the same or different areas, and what neurotransmitters, enzymes, and genes are in the many of the cells that allow them to do their job as part of a network or system."

" ... there is no overall function of a side. Areas, whether on a small or large scale, don't have functions. Functions are products of systems. Systems are made up of cells that are interconnected by synapses. Systems span the brain vertically and horizontally -- they are not isolated in one hemisphere."

Le Doux concedes that Pink probably used the term right brain as a metaphor for thinking styles. This tired excuse is wearing thin, however. Right brained should perhaps rather be used as a metaphor for the gullibility of those whose who fall for the idea and the greed of those who propagate it for financial gain.

Also see my post on the left brain right brain mind myth.

Is Oprah a whole-brain half-wit too?

When will the left brain right brain myth suffer a welcome and timely death? Well, certainly not while celebrities such as Oprah Winfrey keep on mindlessly promoting it on their shows.

The neuroscience concensus is clear - it is nonsensical to refer to people as left brained or right brained. Oprah, however, states unequivocably that right-brainers will rule this century. She gained this penetrating insight into the workings of the human mind in an interview with Daniel Pink, the author of A Whole New Mind.

From the blurb for the show:

Pink, a former chief speechwriter for former Vice President Al Gore, presents a convincing argument that our country is entering a new era -- the so-called conceptual age -- during which right-brained skills such as design and storytelling will become far more crucial than traditionally left-brained skills such as accounting and computer programming.

Pink's views on which skills will be required in this century may well have merit, but what does it have to do with the right brain? Is he just trying to sell his book on the back of the seduction of neuroscience?

Oprah recounts on the show how she addressed graduating students at Stanford University and gave each student a copy of Pink's book. A fine gesture to be sure. I trust that, unlike Oprah, the students will have the sense to see through the nonsense. I'm not so sure about her millions of followers though.

Mind Myth 8: What about quantum physics!?

Much quacking mischief has been caused in the names of a trio of scientific impostors, pop-neuroscience, postmodernism and quantum quackery. From pop-neuroscience the idea that the brain is as easily manipulable as a yo-yo on a string; from post-modernism the idea that there is no objective reality and that any viewpoint is as valid as any other; from quantum quackery the idea that our thoughts can influence the physical world and change our destiny (without behavioural intervention).

Much of pop-neuroscience has been exposed comprehensively as pseudoscience, as documented on this blog in the previous mind myth posts. Scientists such as Alan Sokal in the famous Sokal affair exposed post-modernism as an emperor with no clothes and it has been on the wane, except in pockets of academia. Quantum quackery has also been exposed as nonsense by scientists such as Robert Park and Victor Stenger, but because of the very complexity of the science of quantum physics it claims to be based upon, and the support of guru quacks such as Deepak Chopra, continues to deceive many. It's often said that even physicists struggle to understand quantum physics. I'm not a physicist, but based on the work of others more knowledgeable than I am, I'll try to demonstrate that the science of quantum physics offers no scientific basis for various nonsensical ideas of mind-matter interaction.

I have often experienced the following scenario, as I'm sure have most skeptics who sometimes find themselves engaged in arguments with people espousing "alternative" views of scientific reality. After all the person's arguments had been exposed as lacking evidence and scientific credibility, he (or she) would get a faraway in his eyes, then pose the clinching question: "But what about quantum physics?" My typical exasperated response would be: "Quantum physics has nothing to do with it!" A useless response, because normally his mind's been made up and arguments about the irrelevance of Heisenberg, the measurement problems, entanglement, and so forth (half of which I did not understand in any case, and most of which I am sure he did not understand), would have made no difference.

What is quantum physics and how is it different from (or rather, how does it complement) classical Newtonian physics (which is a special case of Einsteins general general theory of relativity). These are not simple questions and on a brief Google search I could find no succinct answers, possibly for the simple reason that there are none. Let me, however, for present purposes and at the grave risk of oversimplifying it, try:

Newtonian physics, primarily characterised by Newton's laws of motion, is mathematically precise and deterministic. It is applicable mainly to macroscopic objects, from golf balls to planets.

Quantum physics, primarily characterised by paradoxes inherent in the dual nature of light as particle and wave, is best described mathematically as probabilistic. It is applicable to the very small, the universe of atomic and sub-atomic particles.

So, how does this tie in with quantum quackery? Wikipedia offers a useful definition:

"Quantum mysticism is the claim that the laws of quantum mechanics incorporate mystical ideas similar to those found in certain religious traditions or New Age beliefs. It is descended from the measurement problem – the seemingly special role which observers play in quantum mechanics. The related term quantum quackery has been used pejoratively by skeptics to discount claims that quantum theory might support mystical beliefs, while quantum mysticism has been used as a more neutral description of ideas that blend the ideas of eastern mysticism and quantum physics."

while an astrophysicist writing under the pseudonym Moonflake in the blog Smoke & Mirrors, described its origins:

"Historically, all this quantum flapdoodle began with Niels Bohr’s interpretation of quantum mechanics, the famous Copenhagen Interpretation, and Erwin Schrodinger’s response to it, the even more famous Schrodinger’s Cat thought experiment. Most people interpret these to mean that all reality is interconnected, including the human mind, and that the conscious observer is able to affect reality by will alone. Some take it even further and take it to mean that we actually create reality with our thoughts."

So, what about quantum physics makes quacks and New Age fluffy bunnies (Dave Snowden's term) so excited? First is the so-called measurement or observation phenomenon.

The measurement problem

Stephen Hawking in his book (with Leonard Mlodinow) A Briefer History of Time (Hawking Light so that even I can understand), explains this well. In order to predict the future state (position and velocity) of a particle, its initial state has to be known. The initial state can be determined by shining light on it. Light being both particle and wave, will limit the accuracy of the measurement to not better than the distance between its wave crests. You cannot use a small arbitrary amount of light, at least one packet of light (one quantum as determined by Planck's quantum hypothesis) has to be used. As predicted by Heisenberg in his famous Uncertainty Principle, the packet of light will disturb the particle being measured. The more accurate the position of the particle is measured, the less accurate can its speed be determined and vice versa. The speed or position becomes a matter of probability.

How do you get from the firing of a quantum of light to determine the position of a subatomic particle to the notion of conscious thought influencing reality? Surely an individual thinking about or observing a subatomic particle, does not emit a quantum of light in the process? The idea that the eyes emit rays when seeing dates back to Augustine and before. If anyone still believed it today, it would surely be on par with belief in a flat earth. Yet, that is exactly the implication of quantum quacks' belief that thoughts influence reality, based upon the measurement issue in quantum physics. There is is to my knowledge no scientific evidence to support such ideas.

This post is work in progress. I'm writing out of my area of expertise and with time limits due to work commitments. I'll welcome any expert comments (even comments for true believers in quantum mysticism).

For now I close with a quote from the physicist Robert Park from his book Voodoo Science:

"Where once the magician in his robes would have called forth the spirits, the pseudoscientist invokes quantum mechanics, relativity, and chaos."

Useful links:

Victor Stenger Quantum Quackery
Wikipedia Quantum mysticism
Smoke & Mirrors Midweek Cuckoo: Quantum Quackery
Smoke & Mirrors Quantum Quackery follow up - the culprits
SA Skeptics Society Body Talk & Quantum Quackery
General Relativity & Newtonian Physics
Quantum Mechanics
Special Relativity

Mind myth 7: Learning styles and multiple intelligences

This is the seventh mind myth in my series of mind myths applicable to education. It relates to two related ideas that are popular with "progressive" educators and educational policy makers the world over. The twin ideas that major individual, meaningful differences exist in children's (and adults') learning styles and multiple intelligences, have served to hide the unfortunate reality that some individuals struggle to learn whatever the input; and that some individuals lack mental capacity. Do individuals differ in terms of learning styles and multiple intelligences and can catering to such differences improve instruction methods in schools and colleges?

Learning styles

So-called learning styles are a mixed bag of different concepts - Coffield et al. (2004) identified more that 70 different and sometimes competing learning styles. Many of these are commercially based and offer expensive proprietary tests and training, trust the hucksters not to miss an opportunity for profit.

Stahl (1999) tried to order the field somewhat by differentiating between learning preferences, cognitive styles, personality types and aptitudes. He had to concede, however, that the learning style concept had much in common with fortune telling. Though he did not label it such, what he referred to is known as the Forer effect - where ambiguous statements that are hard to disagree with are made. The validity of different learning styles and the validity and reliability with which they can be assessed are equally a mixed bag.

Let us accept that some learning styles are valid concepts and can be validly and reliably assessed. The question then arises whether knowing learners' learning styles and adapting your instructional methods to complement those styles is feasable and effective? The answer is unfortunately an unequivocal NO. It sounds good in theory, but is does not work. Hattie (1999) showed that the effect size of individualization in schooling across 180 000 studies (no, not a typing error) was only 0.14 of a standard deviation, which is trivial. There are numerous other studies that come to the same conclusion, individualised instruction based on some putative characteristic of the learner does not work. Let me put it more bluntly, the evidence shows that catering your instructional methods according to the known learning styles of the learners in front of you is ineffective and a waste of time and energy. That also applies to the most widely spread learning style based methods used in teaching, the so-called visual-auditory-kinesthetic modality or VAK approach.

Another line of research that applies to both learning styles and multiple intelligences is the largely futile search for Cronbach's aptitude by treatment interactions (ATI's). In 1956 Lee Cronbach called for a combination of experimental and correlational research designs to address complex realities in fields such as education. This line of research came to be knowns as the study of ATI's. By 1975 Cronbach conceded that the search for ATI's had been unsuccessful. This is part of a much larger debate about the philosophy of science and scientific paradigms. Suffice to say, attempts to taylor instruction (treatment) to the personal characteristics (aptitude) of learners have been largely unsuccessful. For a discussion of some of these issues see a discussion by Cunningham.

It has been suggested that the learning style movement (and multiple intelligences) may lack scientific credibility and evidence for effectiveness, but that it has served to alert teachers to the fact that a repertoire of teaching methods is needed and that issues such motivation and emotions are important for learning. I largely agree with this and my questioning of the usefulness of these concepts is not a call for the exclusive use of so-called "chalk-and-talk" teaching methods (they have their place). The point is that teaching methods should be adjusted according to the nature of the subject matter, not based on putative individual learning styles.

Multiple intelligences

Gardner's multiple intelligence theory has been and still is very influential in education worldwide. It was also made to measure for the commercial educational solutions industry, eight intelligences to improve and make money from!

Gardner's theory is sometimes used in opposition to theories of intelligence that are based on factor analysis of ability tests and that emphasize a general intelligence factor, g. This is a complex and controversial field and I cannot begin to do justice to it in a blog posting. A good review by Prof. Daniel Willingham can be found online. Willingham argued that Gardner's theory is inconsistent with current views of intelligence as a hierarchical construct. Willingham questioned whether some of Gardner's "intelligences" should not rather be described as aptitudes or talents. Why only these eight intelligences? Willingham, and in another context Arthur Jensen, asked why not also olfactory, criminal and sexual intelligences?

Intelligence as a concept is generally associated with the kind of thinking capacity that make for success as school. Gardner's labeling the aptitudes he proposed as intelligences, naturally led teachers to erroneously assume that they were fungible (one could substitute for another) and should be taught to. Willingham pointed out that Gardner himself had doubts about the functional application of his ideas in school settings.

I believe that the issue of ATI's referred to above, is also applicable to multiple intelligences. There is just very little evidence that teaching should be adjusted according to putative characteristics of learners.

Further reading on learning styles and multiple intelligences:

Cunningham, J.W. (2001). The National Reading Panel Report. Reading Research Quarterly, 36(3), 326–335.

Professor pans 'learning style' teaching method. Telegraph, July 2007.

Geake, J. (2008). Neuromythologies in Education. Educational Research, 50, 2 123 – 133.

Reschly, D.J. (2004). Commentary: Paradigm Shift, Outcomes Criteria, and Behavioral Interventions Foundations for the Future of School Psychology.School Psychology Review, Vol. 33.

Sternberg,R.J. et al. (2008). Styles of Learning and Thinking Matter in Instruction and Assessment. Perspectives on Psychological Science. Vol. 3. Just for balance, a view from the very influential Robert Sternberg supporting teaching according to learning styles.

Hattie, J. (1999). Influences of student learning: Inaugural Lecture: Professor of Education, University of Auckland

Willingham, D.T. (2004). Check the facts: Reframing the Mind.

Mind myth 6: Synchronizing and boosting the brain

This is the sixth post in the series on mind myths especially applicable to education and training. It relates to products that claim to manipulate and synchronize brain wave activity. Again the late Barry Beyenstein (in Della Sala, 1999, p. 61) perfectly described the pedlars who produce and market these types of products:

"New Age hucksters are repackaging shopworn folk psychology with cheap mysticism and giving it a gloss of scientific respectability by claiming unearned affiliation to neuroscience."

Beyerstein described how quack practitioners initially used EEG biofeedback as a shortcut to altered mind states that meditation was purported to produce. In a classic correlation equals causation confusion, they assumed that alpha brain waves associated with meditation produced a special state of consciousness meditators were assumed to have achieved. The alpha-wave hacks ignored some inconvenient facts, such as that animals who presumably are incapable of higher planes of consciousness also readily produce alpha waves, that most people produce alpha waves by merely closing their eyes and that ADHD children readily produce alpha waves. When research eventually showed that the generation of alpha waves held no benefit, the hacks moved their attention to theta waves. That was also soon shown to have no benefit. Predictably, that did not stop the brain wave enhancement industry.

"Tuning" the brain gave way to synchronizing the brain. Beyerstein pointed out that these were modernized versions of ancient sensory bombardment rituals. One of these was the so-called "hemi-sync" technology of the Monroe Institute, which also found its way into South Africa. They claim that their auditory tapes (now CD's) produce binaural beats which synchronize the two hemispheres of the brain. Binaural beats are subjective phenomena that had been known to science for decades, but no scientist has found any practical use for them. That had to wait for Monroe, however, without any evidence. As indicated before on this blog, the brain does not need to be synchronized and there's no evidence that such attempts would have any beneficial result. Beyerstein pointed out that the most synchronous states of the brain occurred during sleep and coma, not exactly periods of peak performance.

See more on the Monroe Institute in Wikipedia. In this case, however, the Wikipedia entry reads more like an advertisement than a serious encyclopaedic entry. I found it interesting to note that the institute's trainers engage in "astral projection and disembodied spirits" and that the founder, David Monroe, may still control the institute from the "other side" (he's somewhat dead).

There are various products currently on the South African market that claim to enhance learning through somehow directly influencing or synchronizing the brain. One that is widely and aggressively marketed is Beta Study Methods, also known as the Betakit Study System. They claim to do this through so-called modulated offset harmonic frequencies, which seems exactly the same thing as binaural beats; no acknowledgement to the Monroe Institute is to be found on their website, however. The only evidence that is advanced by Betakit Study System that their products work as claimed and are in any way effective, are from testimonials by satisfied customers. As has been pointed out on this blog before, anecdotal evidence is of little value. They would also obviously not place testimonials from unsatisfied customers. Interestingly, Beta Study Methods takes pains to emphasize that their techniques are not New Age based and that the music they use on some of their tapes is not New Age music (whatever that is), which they claim is harmful.

More on issues discussed in this post can be found in:

Beyerstein, B.L. 1999. Pseudoscience and the brain: Tuners and tonics for aspiring superhumans. In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Mind myths: Exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brain. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Druckman, D. & Swets, J.A. 1988. Enhancing Human Performance: Issues, Theories, and Techniques. (Online)

Previous posts in the series on mind myths were:

The 10% myth

The left brain right brain myth

Energy and the brain myth

The downshifts and blockages myth

The brain profiling myth

Mind myth 5: Brain profiling

This continues the series on mind myths especially applicable to education and training. The fifth mind myth relates to so-called brain profiles that have very little bearing on the brain, except in the very general sense that we all have brains and that all our behaviours are mediated by our brains. Brain profiles are favourite instruments for a variety of practitioners, many of whom use them as bait to involve gullible clients into pseudoscientific self-improvement schemes and quack therapies. They are widely used in schools and in the corporate sector.

My two previous posts on brain profiles described the pseudoscience concepts in more detail and can be found at Brain profiling - science or pseudoscience? and "Genetic" brain profiling in rugby. I described a brain profile as follows:

"A brain profile assessment is not as one may imagine a neurological or neuropsychological examination of brain function. As envisaged here, it is a questionnaire of thinking and behavioural preferences, putatively representing underlying differences in brain organisation. The questionnaire is sometimes combined with simple tests of motor and sensory dominance (hand, foot, eye, ear) (Brain Gym calls this a dominance profile)."

Brain profiles of this kind all involve some version of the left brain right brain mind myth, sometimes combined with the downshifts and blockages mind myth. Brain profilists essentially pretend to test the brain as pop-psychologists 40 years ago thought Roger Sperry thought it was organised, but did'nt. Ned Herrmann admitted that this view could only be a metaphor, but his later followers were careful to downplay that - such a view not being good for business. People who undergo brain profile tests after all, expect to learn something about their brains, not about the profilists' inaccurate metaphors for the brain.

A typical pseudoscience brain profile test comprises a number of simple questions about thinking or behavioural preferences and lasts about 30 minutes. Brain profiling instruments mostly seem to be derived from either Ned Herrmann's HBDI or a shorter "test" by Paul Torrance, the "Your Style of Learning and Thinking" (SOLAT).

While pseudoscience brain profiles have little value in my opinion, many find them amusing, even useful. Should amusement be your motivation to do a brain profile, there's a number of free brain profiles that can be done online. Do one for amusement value. Just don't get carried away and start referring to yourself as left brained or right brained, revealing yourself in the process to be no-brained. Here are some links for free online brain profiles, Brainworks; Hemispheric Dominance Test. Be reminded, however, that free tests are often bait to involve you in other activities you have to pay for.

Some people who have done brain profiles, quite seriously declare them accurate and useful. I believe that a number of cognitive effects, biases and logical fallacies play a role here.

Firstly a combination of gullibility and the power of suggestion. Gullible clients buy into the pretence of neuroscience and the suggestions offered to them by the profilists. It comes as no surprise that some brain profilists are good motivational speakers.

Secondly, the Forer effect. According to the Skeptic's Dictionary, the Forer effect "... refers to the tendency of people to rate sets of statements as highly accurate for them personally even though the statements could apply to many people." This could also be more specific, i.e. an engineer would see himself as ordered and logical, answer the brain profile questions (which tend to be quite transparent) accordingly, be classified in a left brain quadrant, the description of which he will find accurate. It's circular reasoning and also a Forer effect. Confirmation bias could also play a role, with people just ignoring results that do not fit their preconceptions.

Thirdly, cold reading may play a role. Cold reading is a style of telling someone something about themself that seems more accurate than it actually is by using ambiguous generalities. Dr. Terry Sandbek, in discussing brain typing (similar to brain profiles), indicated how cold reading could be at work in these type of instruments by " ... (giving) enough positive, but ambiguous, information for (them) to be influenced by the Forer Effect."

Blogger Sean Carmody at Stubborn Mule connected the dots and pointed out the similarities between brain profiling and astrology. Hat tip to him for this amusing image of a brain profiles encircled by astrology symbols.

While brain profiles may be of amusement value to adults, I believe that they are potentially harmful applied to children. It should be remembered that brain profiles are often just the bait for pseudoscientific therapy programmes. Parents of children who require evidence supported therapies, may be duped into enrolling their children into quack therapies, wasting valuable time and resources in the process. These children could also fall prey to the pseudoscientific beliefs or belief systems underlying these therapies - consider this statement by Sense about Science about children involved in Brain Gym: "These exercises are being taught with pseudoscientific explanations that undermine science teaching and mislead children about how their bodies work."

Another danger for children concerns Gattaca-esque notions that sometimes form part of brain profiling. Consider Naas Botha, an ex Springbok rugby player turned sports commentator, gushing here about "genetic" brain profiles for children in sport:

"It’s very, very scary. It’s also very exciting. I can see a future where we will establish at the age of five or six exactly who has the brain profile to make it to the top and in what position. The potential is absolutely amazing. ...I had my whole family brain-profiled and was amazed... "

Scary indeed. Gattaca-esque selections are scary enough when based on science, based on pseudoscience they're downright frightening. Consider the plight of a child of an overambitious parent, selected at an early age and programmed for "greatness". Consider also the child not selected or excluded for a team or a sport due to not having the "right" brain profile. As a parent I have no problem if my child is not selected for a sports team for valid reasons. I would have a major problem, however, should he or she not be selected because of not having the right brain profile. In today's high stakes sports environment, I would not be surprised if litigation followed the exclusion of competitors based on this kind of pseudoscience practice.

Keep in mind that not all brain profiles are pseudoscientific. Neuroscientists sometimes refer to large datasets of information about patients' brains as brain profiles. Here is one example (contrast these scientific neuropsychological assessments of more than eight hours duration, typically done in at least two sittings, with pseudoscientific brain profiles described above):

"The Brain Profiling Group (BPG) specializes in the testing and evaluation of brain function, for the purpose of detecting and quantifying abnormalities arising from psychological disorders or physical trauma. BPG provides this specialist service for professionals, medical and legal practitioners and patients seeking clarification of psychological and organic trauma, and others who seek to obtain peak brain performance."

In closing, spare a thought for brain profiling consultants who "innocently" became involved with this pseudoscience practice. Many of these are teachers or ex-teachers. Yes, they should have known better, but neuroscience, critical thinking and evidence supported practice have never featured strongly in teacher training. I can't be as charitable to the originators of these practices.

Other mind myths in this series were:

The 10% myth

The left brain right brain myth

Energy and the brain myth

The downshifts and blockages myth

Mind myth 4: Downshifts and blockages

I'm continuing my series on mind myths especially applicable to education and training. This one is a lucrative favourite of many brain based pseudosciences. They typically claim that people's brains get blocked when under stress and that only their brand of snake oil can get it unblocked again. This goes far beyond the generally accepted effects of stress triggering the fight or flight response. Consider this claim about rugby players from a pseudoscientific technique called genetic brain profiling:

"There are 32 different combinations of dominance between the left and right brain and the ear, eye, hand and foot, and each has implications for the way a stressed player will perform. Lotter assesses players and is able to predict the “blockages” they would suffer as a result.

For example, in an age-group provincial team she recently assessed, she found a tighthead prop with four blockages (“basically, he was unable to function under pressure”), while the fly-half and inside-centre were among those with three blockages (“key decision makers would lose the ability to communicate and perform under stress”)." (See article here).

Where do these ideas come from and is the any evidence to back them?

It starts with another popular myth called downshifting. This mixed metaphor is based on a car's gear system on the one hand and the triune brain model on the other.

Image from The Architect of Life


The hypothesized downshifting response is seen as a negative response to even mild stress in which the brain shifts down to "lower" brain formations where primitive survival modes predominate – and then remains stuck there. Supporters of the downshifting hypothesis then each have their own special techniques to get the brain unstuck. These may be simple motor movements to activate certain brain areas, or the drinking of water in order to "instantly oxygenate" the brain and allow it to upshift again.

The triune brain is a model of brain function developed by Paul MacLean. He suggested three basic brain formations based on evolutionary history, namely a reptilian formation (brainstem structures), early mammalian formation (midbrain/limbic) and neomammalian formation (neocortex). MacLean's triune brain model is influential, but quite controversial, see some of the issues (not really applicable to this post) in this discussion by Jaak Panksepp. I have always found the triune brain model quite useful and was saddened by the way it was diminished by being appropriated by pseudoscience hucksters. The chapter by Panksepp does provide another perspective from within neuroscience itself.

Many brain based pseudoscientific techniques, such as in the rugby example referred to earlier, extend the downshift hypothesis to include the left brain right brain myth and then propose that based on the putative pattern of brain dominance, parts of the brain switch off, or become blocked. Thirty two potential brain blockages should certainly be much more lucrative to "cure" than only a few.

Little evidence is to be found in MacLean's own work to support such simplistic interpretations of his model. His triune brain is an integrated system in which the three brain formations exchange information and the whole functions better that the sum of its parts. The reaction of the brain to stress is a well studied area (see here and here, for instance), but there is no evidence to support the idea of semi-permanent downshifting and of brain blockages that would require outside intervention to upshift or clear.

Concurring with this, in a critique of Brain Gym, neurobiologist Dr Stan Lazic writing for the British organization Sense about Science, stated that:

"... in reality the only time a neurological signal would become "jammed”,“blocked” or “switched off" is during a pathological event such as a seizure, stroke, head trauma, or perhaps due to a neurodegenerative disorder."

A further critique of the downshifting concept was provided by Prof Robert Sylwester and can be read here.

Mind Myth 3: Energy and the brain

This is the third in my series on mind myths. I'm dealing with those myths mainly applicable to the educational arena and often found in alternative medicine and controversial therapies.

Some years ago a parent requested me to excuse her child from school as she was taking him to an enerologist. Because her child was attending our incontinence clinic, I initially thought she was referring to either a urologist or gastro-enterologist. It turned out that enerologist was a misleading term for a quack energy healer, in this case one who specifically claimed to be able to manipulate the brain by manipulating psychic energy. He no doubt believed that he could share in the status of mainstream medical science by using a term that sounded similar to that used by medical specialists.

References to energy and energy meridians (also known as acupuncture points or chakras) in any educational product or therapy that claims to affect the brain in some way, should immediately set the alarm bells ringing. What is referred to is psychic energy, sometimes also called chi, prana, etc. These are not scientific concepts and cannot be detected or measured by scientific means. This "energy" is referred to in practices such as homeopathy, some types of chiropractic and other forms of alternative medicine, but have no role to play in neuroscience.

Image from Scientific American.

















Practitioners of brain based pseudoscience sometimes deliberately or through ignorance confuse the scientific concept of energy and psychic energy. They may by design neglect to inform clients of the origin of some of their activities, i.e. have children press certain buttons (energy meridians) without informing them or the parents that the brain is supposed to be activated by the channelling of psychic energy. This reticence seemed to develop after parents of specific religious persuasions objected to psychic energy based activities.

Confusion through ignorance is often found where practitioners invoke Einstein's famous equation E = mc2 to prove the point of our "unlimited" capabilities. Fernando Sarav (see reference below) pointed out that they are confusing a simple combustion process occurring metabolically in the body with the transformation of matter into energy. The difference is staggering. One mole of glucose (180 g) would yield about 3,1 kJ through combustion, but 1,62 x 1013 kJ if transformed into energy. That amount of energy would power a mid-sized city for a year.

When these practitioners are honest about the origins of their techniques, they often invoke the "it can't be wrong, the Chinese have been using it for 5 000 years" argument. I quote Dr. Paul Dennison, the Brain Gym guru, from his embarrassing British television interview (see it here in a previous post):

"There are studies to show that we are electrical. Acupuncture and other procedures are based on the fact that there are electrical circuits in the body and we are building on the shoulders of these people have been doing this for thousands of years."

This is a fallacious argument, the so-called Argument from Age (Wisdom of the Ancients) fallacy.

In an excellent recent blog post on acupuncture, neurologist Steven Novella points out that Western societies had their own pre-scientific theory of disease:

"An example from Western culture of philosophy-based medicine was the humoral theory - the notion that health was the result of the four bodily humors being in proper balance while illness reflected one or more humors being out of balance. Treatments therefore sought to increase or decrease one or more of the humors (such as the practice of blood-letting) to re-establish balance. The humoral theory survived for several thousand years in Western societies, perpetuated by culture and the power of deception inherent in anecdotal evidence."

I would submit that the only reason for psychic energy based theories to be preferred to humoral theories (in the absence of evidence), would be another logical fallacy, the genetic fallacy. Could a reversed not made here bias be the only reason to prefer Eastern origin psychic energy theories to Western origin humoral theories?

For further reading, see:

Sarav, F.D. 1999. Energy and the brain: Facts and fantasies. In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Mind myths: Exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brain. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Also see Robert Todd Carroll's Energy Healing: Looking in All the Wrong Places

Other posts in the Mind Myth series:

The 10% myth
Left brain right brain

Mind myth 2: Left brain right brain

Practically all brain based pseudosciences encompass some version of the left brain right brain / whole brain myth. The myth is actually nothing new and dates back at least to Broca and Wernicke's findings in the 1860's about the role of the left hemisphere in language. This lead to a dichotomania, much as we have now, for the rest of the nineteenth century. It culminated in the Victorian educational ideal of ambidexterity, in order to promote two-brainedness. Lord Baden-Powell, the founder of the Boy Scout movement, was one of the supporters of the ambidexterity movement - in order to get more effective soldiers! This history was almost forgotten, but fortunately brought to light again in 1985in separate publications by Anne Harrington and Lauren Harris (see references at the end of this post). Also see my previous blog posting Whole-brain Half-wittedness.

Almost 60 years passed before the myth was resurrected again following on Roger Sperry's split brain research in the 1960’s. Sperry and colleagues bisected the corpus callosum and other cerebral commissures of patients in order to control intractable epilepsy. They then found the separated hemispheres of their patients to have different specialised abilities, the left’s mainly related to language comprehension and production, the right’s mainly related to spatial perception.

The myth-makers jumped into action and soon long lists of supposed left brain and right brain functions were generated. The left brain was associated with Western logic and the right brain with Eastern mysticism. Western education was supposed to neglect the right hemisphere and whole-brain learning became the goal. Children were classified as left brained or right brained on the basis of simple tests of undetermined validity and reliability. Predictably this lead to views that the right hemisphere was inactive and had to be activated by various simplistic means.


Neuroscience moved on and most of the above were soon proved wrong. It became clear that while differentiation of function occurred at a fine-grained level of analysis, the brain functioned mainly in an integrated fashion under all circumstances.

Hemispheric asymmetry related to language was especially revealing. The left hemisphere in almost all right handers and most left handers is dominant for language, including speech production, comprehension, semantics and syntax. The right hemisphere, however, simultaneously deals with contextual issues, such as intonation, metaphor and humour.

One must realise that the corpus callosum and other cerebral commissures (white matter connections between the hemispheres) have to play important roles in integrating the function of the two hemispheres. Both inhibitory and excitatory roles have been suggested for the corpus callosum. I have found the mind model of Norman Cook useful in order to explain the integrated functioning of the brain, especially as related to language lateralization. His model deals well with the left and right hemisphere language processing, as described above. In his theory of topographic callosal inhibition, excitation of columns of neurons in the left hemisphere inhibits equivalent columns in the right, but promotes surrounding context-associated processing. The diagram below demonstrates the proposed process. Dark circles represent columns of neurons that are firing. It is quite complex and one really needs to read Cook's paper, or the summary in Springer and Deutsch's book (see at the end of this post).




Cook's brain code, as he called it, is now somewhat dated. I shall welcome newer information that any reader of my blog be aware of.

To conclude, most of the popular left brain right brain ideas are myths - whole-brain half-wittery. The myth-makers, however, at most only pay lip service to that fact. The left brain right brain myth is good for business and they are not about to let science stand in the way of prosperity.

I cannot put it better than Michael Corballis:

"The main difficulty is that reference to the brain can be seen as a legitimizing force that gives scientific credence to dubious practices."

"The problems arise when we allow myth to escape from scientific scrutiny and become dogma, and when dogma creates financial opportunities for charlatans and false prophets. That is what I thinks has happened with the left brain and the right brain."

"Another secret that I can reveal is that lying on the left side enhances left-brain function, while lying on the right side tunes up the right hemisphere. Lying through the teeth is best left to the therapist."

Some useful references:

William CalvinThe throwing madonna: Essays on the brain.
Jeremy Dean Two brains for the price of one?
Cook, N.D. 1984. Callosal inhibition: The key to the brain code. In Behavioral Science. Vol. 29, pp. 98-110.
Harrington, A. 1985. Nineteenth-century ideas on hemisphere differences and "duality of mind". In Behavioral and Brain sciences. Vol. 8, no4, pp. 617-659.
Harris, L. 1985. Teaching the right brain: Historical perspective on a contemporary educational fad. In C.T. Best (Ed.), Hemispheric function and collaboration in the child. Orlando: Academic Press.
Springer, S.P., & Deutsch, G. 1998. Left brain right brain: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (5th Ed.). NewYork: W.H. Freeman.
Corballis, M.C. 1999. Are we in our right minds? In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Mind myths: Exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brain. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Mind myths: The 10% myth

This is the first of a series of posts on mind myths. Mind myths typically arise as a result of hucksters' attempts to use the allure of neuroscience to sell New Age type self-improvement products. I would place such mind myths in one of four categories:

Representing the originator's fantasy and bearing no resemblance to any neuroscience findings. The 10% myth would be one of these.

Misinterpretation or misrepresentation of actual neuroscience findings. The whole-brain craze comes to mind.

The inappropriate or premature application of actual neuroscience findings, for example attempts to implement neuroscience findings before they have been well replicated.

Using neuroscience explanations redundantly for well-known cognitive processes in order to sound more scientific. Much of so-called brain based education and brain based management would fall into this category.

I'm starting the series with the most common of the myths, the claim that we only use 10% of our brain. Hucksters commonly claim that their products can activate the other 90% and that we all could then become Einsteins! Barry Beyerstein indicated that the myth was already common early in the 20th century. This myth is typically encountered as “… scientists say we use only 10% of our brains”. Who these "scientists" are and how they determined this fact is never indicated.

Beyerstein and others exposed the myth on a number of grounds:

The brain comprises 2% of body weight, but accounts for 20% of the body’s oxygen consumption. There would no evolutionary advantage in maintaining such an extravagant organ that is only 10% functional.

If we used only 10% of our brain, damage to large areas of the brain should have no effect. There is, however, virtually no area of the brain that does not result in some deficit when it is damaged.

The principle of "use it or lose it" also applies to the brain. If we used only 10%, the remaining 90% would deteriorate permanently. That has never been found in histological examinations of normal brains at autopsy.

Modern brain imaging research has completely refuted the idea that large areas of the brain are inactive most of the time.

What we and our brains could have looked like if we used only 10% of it! (Image from Internet, origin unknown)

The 10% myth, however, is good for business and the myth-makers are not about to let it go. Under the premise that if 10% is good for business, less will be even better; there has been claims that we may use as little as half a percent (0,5%) of our brain! This claim, incidentally, was in a magazine called Insight and was by who else but a Brain Gym practitioner!

See more on this myth in or at:

Beyerstein, B.L. 1999. Whence cometh the myth that we use only 10% of our brains? In S. Della Sala (Ed.), Mind myths: Exploring popular assumptions about the mind and brain. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

See Beyerstein online at Do we really use only 10 percent of our brains?

Jeremy Dean's PsyBlog:
Seriously, Would You Admit to Only Using 10% of Your Brain?

Also see Eric Chudler's excellect Neuroscience for Kids: Do we use only 10% of our brains?