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 turns out to be the outdated, and thoroughly discredited, ideas of whole brain learning and brain profiling.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

Typing this blog

You can now have your blog typed at Typealyzer, as in Myers-Briggs. Hat tip to Dave Snowden and the Neurocritic. Just like the Myers-Briggs, it should not be taken too seriously. So, what's the verdict?

This blog (and the blogger, I quess) is of the INTP type:

"The logical and analytical type. They are especialy attuned to difficult creative and intellectual challenges and always look for something more complex to dig into. They are great at finding subtle connections between things and imagine far-reaching implications.

They enjoy working with complex things using a lot of concepts and imaginative models of reality. Since they are not very good at seeing and understanding the needs of other people, they might come across as arrogant, impatient and insensitive to people that need some time to understand what they are talking about."

Well, it seems that no more than 20% of this blogger's brain is active. Right side is a bit neglected. The rear is a dead loss. An excellent case study for the whole-brain half-witters.

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.

"Genetic" brain profiling in rugby

In a previous post on brain profiling, I've indicated that the concept is pseudoscientific and in fact has nothing to do with the differential functioning of the left and right hemispheres of the brain. I quoted Ned Herrmann, the originator of the concept, as follows: "The whole-brain model, although originally thought of as a physiological map, is today entirely a metaphor." I've further indicated that brain profilists consider their brain profiles to be metaphors, although you often have to read very carefully to distill that fact from their writings.

Now we have one group of brain profilists who claims to be able to construct "genetic" brain profiles. Nowhere in their work do I find the weasel word, "metaphor". A description of the work of Dr. Annette Lotter and Associates with the South African Springbok rugby team appears in the normally scientifically reliable South African edition of the Popular Mechanics (September 2007). The full article by Andy Colquhoun is available here.

The article has the normal left brain right brain pop psychology nonsense that you'll find in such articles. I've previously referred to this as whole-brain half-wittery.

It then goes further and describes how 32 genetically determined combinations of left right dominance of brain hemisphere, hand, foot, eye and ear, determine people's reaction to stress. Based on the genetic brain profile, Lotter and Associates claim that they are able to predict "blockages" persons will experience under stress. These "blockages" cause different parts of the brain to become inaccessible under stress.

I quote one example:

"(Rugby) Players with left-eye dominance are overly sensitive to body langauge, and if you know that, you can throw them of their game by pulling faces or making gestures. You might also wonder how they would react to the haka (the Maori war chant used by the All Blacks)"

No, this is not satire. Have a look below at the All Black haka referred to. If there was any validity to the claim, any left eye dominant player who faced the All Blacks, would go into a catatonic state! To my knowledge that has never happened.



I have been an active target pistol shooter for many years. Pistol shooting is the one sport where the participant's dominant eye is fairly noticeable. Face pulling and grimaces are very common when bad shots are fired (add to that that many of my fellow shottists are an ugly lot!), yet I've never seen a left-eye dominant shottist being phased by that. The fact that there are many left eye dominant shottists competing at the top level, is a Popperian falsification of Dr. Lotter's claim. That, however, is anecdotal and as everone knows, anecdotal evidence have little scientific standing.

Let's look at facts. Consider that about 36% of the general population is left-eye dominant, that 34% of right-handed persons and 57% of left-handed persons are left-eye dominant Bourassa, 1996). Those are the percentages of rugby players you would prefer not to select when playing the All Blacks!

The claim that left-eye dominant people are sensitive to facial expressions assumes that eye dominance has a specific and predictable relationship to hemispheric asymmetries, from which specific predictions can be made about behaviour. This is questionable. Eye-dominance and its relationship to the hemispheres of the brain is not a simple either-or matter, as it is well known that each eye is connected via the optic chiasm to both hemispheres of the brain and that each eye has two visual half-fields that project to different sides of the brain. Sally Springer and George Deutsch, in their authoritative book, Left brain right brain (1998, p.133), point out that the relationship of eye and ear preference to hemispheric asymmetry is not particularly strong.



Left-eye dominant rugby players cave in under the haka? I think not! But consider for a moment the position of a left-eye dominant player who is not selected for a team because his coach believed this pseudoscientific nonsense.

As to Lotter Associates general claim that depending on the genetic brain profile and the pattern of motor and sensory dominance, different parts of the brain would become inaccessible or develop blockages under stress, I know of no scientific evidence to support this. There are stacks of reliable information on the internet on stress and the brain, but in no reputable website do I find anything on brain blockages as described by Lotter and Associates.

This quote by Druckman and Bjork (1991) from the excellent report of the American Academy of Sciences, based upon research commissioned by the American Army, says it all:

Sports performance is a quintessential problem in complex motor, cognitive, affective, and attentional processes, and it depends on functions that are widely distributed throughout both cerebral hemispheres. Studies that characterize the cognitive, attentional, or motor components of sports as “left hemisphere abilities” or “right hemisphere abilities” are fatally flawed. Not only is it inherently insupportable to characterize sports abilities by brain hemisphere, it is also methodologically and logically flawed to narrowly localize these complex processes.

This and the previous report by Druckman and Swets (1988) are both available free online. Sporting bodies, even those with limited funds, have no excuse not to properly research approaches and fads they subject their players to. The Springbok team have a history of involvement with management fads. This included whole-brain half-wittery. They should also take heed of the Druckman and Bjork quote above.

Brain profiling - science or pseudoscience?

My son returned from school a while ago with a pamphlet. A speaker at school distributed the pamphlets after a talk on whole brain functioning. The pamphlet suggested that parents have their children's brain profile tested for a small sum of money. What it did not say that it was a classical bait and switch scam. The assessment would lead to a programme to promote whole brain functioning and that was not at all cheap.

A while before that a friend had to undergo a brain profile assessment at work. Being a bit more neuroscientifically astute that the average worker, he questioned the concept, as well as the reliability and validity of the brain profile "test". Hopefully this was not a career limiting move, as his boss seemed set on knowing each employee's brain preferences.

So what is brain profiling and what is its scientific status, if any?

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 profiling seemed to originate with Ned Herrmann, a trainer/consultant who developed his four quadrant brain model based the split brain research of Roger Sperry, combined with the triune brain model of Paul McLean. Herrmann developed his Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) to test determine so called brain profiles. The scientific rejection of the simplistic brain model his theory was based on, soon led Herrmann to state that his four quadrant brain model was to seen as a metaphor.

I quote from the extensive critique of learning style research by Coffield et al. (2004, p. 86).

Although Herrmann began with a brain-based theory of hemisphere dominance, he later accepted that this was an oversimplification with inadequate empirical support and recommended (1989, 63) that A, B, C, D quadrant terminology be used instead: ‘The whole-brain model, although originally thought of as a physiological map, is today entirely a metaphor.’

Hat tip to Jon Mueller at PESTS for this link.

Brain profiling instruments mostly seem to be derived from either Herrmann's HBDI or a shorter "test" by Paul Torrance, the "Your Style of Learning and Thinking" (SOLAT). Organisations affiliated to the Herrmann International group use the HBDI, while the Kobus Neethling Group and its affiliates use the Torrance derived instument, as adapted by Neethling.

Herrmann International claim that the HBDI is valid and reliable, but according to Prof. De Amato in the "The Eleventh Mental Measurements Yearbook, 1992", both validity and reliability are questionable. The SOLAT's validity and reliability is even more doubtful. Neethling claims high validity and reliability for his version of the SOLAT.

Claiming validity for either instrument must of necessity bring into question the validity of the "whole brain" concept on which both are based. I've indicated in a previous post that the concept is pseudoscientific nonsense that can best be described as whole-brain half-wittery. Is it sensible to even consider the validity of a psychometric test if the concept it purportedly measures is nonsense?

Even though Herrmann suggested moved away from the brain profiling idea, current Herrmann affiliated organisations, as well as Neethling affiliates, continue using brain based terminology extensively. The fact that it's meant as a metaphor, is normally only mentioned in passing and is probably missed by most of their clients. The fact that both organisations use the whole brain concept so extensively in all their programmes and do so very literally, brings about the question whether the metaphor idea has not merely become a fallback position for when they'e challenged by neuroscientifically astute clients?

My conclusion? Brain profiles are pseudoscientific in nature. The only way these instruments can get scientific respectability, would be to totally drop the pretense that they are in any form, metaphorically or otherwise, brain profiles. They are measures of thinking preferences, nothing more.

Von Manstein's officer types

Field Marshall Erich von Manstein allegedly categorised military officers into four types (I have been unable to find an original reference and I have seen the same categorisation ascribed to Von Clausewitz). These types are:

The brilliant and energetic man makes the best staff officer. He handles routine work with accuracy and completeness.

The brilliant and lazy man makes the best commanding officer. He tends to see the big picture accurately and avoids preoccupation with detail work which might distract him.

The stupid and lazy man makes the best subordinate. He will do what he is told properly, no more no less.

The stupid and energetic man, however, is to be avoided at all costs. He is quite capable of ruining the best laid plans.

These descriptions are from Colonel Jeff Cooper.

In wartime such a categorisation may be a useful quick and dirty heuristic. One would wonder to what extent it was actually consistently acted upon and whether Nazi party membership did not feature strongly in such decisions. Von Manstein himself was one of the best of the German generals and was eventually fired by Hitler when he opposed his irrational military decisions.

This military rule of thumb is, however, also sometimes proposed as a corporate management tool, classifying people in boxes, as seen below in this figure from Slow Leaderhip.




Now, I believe one should be very careful about such categorisations and I doubt that this matrix is quite what Von Manstein had in mind. People's actions are often context specific, something categorisation does not allow for. The application of a rule of thumb from a military context in a corporate context is also questionable.

I am concerned that such classifications may become self-fulfilling prophesies. Writing about it as I am here, one's staff or customers may wonder in which part of the matrix you have placed them. Even worse, where will they categorise you!?

Having said that, I doubt that Von Manstein's classification is any worse than pseudoscientific classification systems such as brain profiling or the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. At least Von Manstein's does not claim to be scientific and does not have a whole mythology built around it. Staff is not subjected to being tested with pseudopsychometric tests of doubtful reliability and validity. They are not subjected to workshops to manipulate their classification, or to show them to get along with others with different different brain or personality profiles. Best of all, Van Manstein's officer typology is free and no consultants are needed to interpret it or follow it up!

It is finally, however, a use now and pay later system. Eventually you'll pay the price for categorising people and losing sight of their individuality in the process.

Nonsense congregates

In checking information for an upcoming post on this blog, I was once again struck by the way nonsense attracts nonsense.

Some trainers and consultants seem to be naturally drawn to pseudoscience bullshit. In fact, it seems that you can with a fair amount of certainty judge a specific approach (teaching, therapeutic, management) by the company it keeps. Some years ago I was requested to address an academic meeting at the Technicon Witwatersrand (now part of the University of Johannesburg) on scientific perspectives on cerebral hemispheric asymmetry and my views on the left brain right brain issue.

After my presentation I was confronted quite aggressively by some of the participants - they were worried that I had compromised their credibility in the technicon. They were attached to a recently established unit for professional development at the technicon. The approaches they pushed included a Pandora's box of nonsense, including Brain Gym, Neurolinguistic Programming, brain profiling and Suggestopedia. I debunked all of these on neuroscientific grounds and lack of evidence, but was hammered with quantum mechanics and Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, with subtle energies and mystical interpretations of the Hawthorne and placebo effects, with the Mozart effect and heaven knows what else. Eventually we agreed to disagree, we were clearly not of the same universe, let alone the same planet.

The unit was apparently disbanded not long after our meeting. Correlation does not necessarily imply causation, so I can't be held responsible!

Since then I was involved in numerous similar discussions and I have found that where people were involved in one form of nonsense, you could quite accurately predict what else they would be involved in. Nonsense congregates.

A new motivation theory?

The South African cricket team, ranked second in the world, just lost the first cricket test against the West Indies, ranked seventh. In the aftermath of the shock defeat, coach Micky Arthur "punished" the South African team by forcing them to remain in their dressing room to listen to the West Indies' victory celebrations next door (Beeld newspaper, 31 December 2007).

While keeping in mind that newspaper reporters sometimes misquote people or get the context wrong, the idea of "punishing" an international sporting team in such a childish and demeaning fashion, seems questionable to say the least. I can't imagine even a primary school cricket coach "punishing" his team like this for losing.

Or is it perhaps part of a new management fad, motivation by shaming?

Sports coaches seem enthusiastic users of quackish and even crazy management fads - consider Kamp Staaldraad and genetic brain profiling in South African rugby. I have it from Dave Snowden that the former British rugby coach, Clive Woodward was also into management fads. The Welsh centre, Gavin Henson, found himself in the rugby wilderness after resisting some of Woodward's management methods. Is Mickey Arthur following the same path?

An the other hand, maybe I'm guilty of committing a kind of strawman fallacy here, with the pressure coaches are under these days, Mickey Arthur may just have lost it!