The problem is seeing a reaction and just making up an “explanation” is much more to do with religion than science.

Dressing that “explanation” up in pseudo-science is deception and hypocrisy of the worst kind.

There may be some benefits (although they are like to be the same as any form of coordinated group light exercise), but the explanation (“brain buttons” and such) is just plain rubbish and you’re not helping or education kids by teaching them rubbish, I’m afraid.

I think the way they’re explaining it is wrong – probably ‘pseudoscience’ as people are fond of saying. But I think at the heart of it is some good practice.

I also think that there is something of great value in the kinesiological (sorry I don’t know the correct terminology) techniques they are using – being a biological scientist and also doing yoga regularly, I can say that there are many things that fall within the realm of human experience but beyond the realm of ‘scientific’ method, which by it’s virtues relies on the availability of good quality empirical data and the necessary tools to measure it. I can’t measure my ‘chakras’ physically for example, but conceptualising the human body in this way has it’s practical merits, and regardless of science’s ability to comment eitherway on this, it remains a practice that has tangible and significant, but subjective, benefits.

The system that they use in schools that identifies kinaesthetic, auditory, visual and read/write learners is also seemingly pseudoscientific. What exactly the terms refer to and the specifics of the theory are nebulous – worrying especially because this system is the basis of the entire national curriculum which was introduced in 1991. However, the system does represent an attempt to make teachers aware of the diversity of learning styles that may be present in their classroom and to have at their disposal all the available methods of teaching their learners. Maybe for a teacher that’s trying to overcome barriers in a practical rather than a theoretical sense, the ‘scientific truth’ of the matter takes a lower priority to the evidence right in front of their eyes that this stuff helps.

It seems to me also, that the stuff being branded (as BrainGym) and simplified is essential to it being passed on as a consistent idea that doesn’t meet with continual questioning, cynicism and interference.

If you have neither had any training in the subject nor experienced the beneficial effects of using the exercises yourself, you cannot be sufficiently competent to express an opinion.

The fact is that Brain Gym is part of the science of Kinesiology and Kinesiology stems to a great degree from Traditional Chinese Medicine which has been more than successful for over 4000 years – indicating that it must have something going for it.

If you had seen children getting bad marks due to stress and mental blocks and then using brain gym to reduce the stress and indeed eliminate the mental blocks and go on to get top marks then you would realise that your arguments are superfluous.

For a lot of children – and indeed adults – brain gym works.

Just because you are biased doesn´t mean you have the right to deny others this possibility.

You see, preconceived ideas about how the world should work are not in my opinion impressive enough to diminish my belief in the effectiveness Braingym. I’ve come to understand and experience Braingym as a focused means of stimulating the brain. Much of this stimulation comes from the sensation of -indeed- rubbing your fingers in a certain area of your body.

You see, science has proven that parts of the brain associated with specific functions tend to “fire” when a certain area of the body is massaged. The other way around works too. Athletes muscles “fire” when a brain thinks of a (series of) motion(s). It is today how athletes train for certain extremely difficult performances.

In conclusion I would like to suggest you keep a somewhat open mind to “pseudo science”, because you may think you know everything, but so did the people who “knew” the world was flat.