Nice.

themilligan.wordpress.com/2009/01/04/brain-gym/

A UK that recounts a whole day of professional development devoted to this rubbish.

Makes for interesting reading.

I’m not about to try and persuade my pupils we are stimulating “brain buttons”. I’m meant to be teaching them to recognise bad science not promoting it.

I think there is a good basis for muscular movement or relaxation changing cognitive processing – in many ways we do “think” with our muscles (see the work of Professor Edmund Jacobson on Progressive Muscle Relaxation). I can imagine that some of the exercises could be beneficial.

The lack of RCT evidence combined with a theoretical basis that is non-aligned to current psychological or physiological theory is the issue.

There were indeed many aspects of report that were very disturbing. However narrow minded dismisal of everything in Brain Gym is the other side of that coin. There are probably some gems in the Brain Gym system – it would be good to extract those that look potentially effective and study them. (Yes – the theoretical explanation of them is probably cuckoo… but that is neither here nor there for an evidence-based approach.)

Never heard the water one. I’m inclined to agree with you there.

I’d be surprised if tipping your head forward didn’t tip blood towards the frontal lobes. Just tested this, perhaps more likely to give you a migraine than anything else.

Massaging your jaw might improve one’s ability to use language – who has tested it?

If someone deceives you into buying a Brain Gym programme, there is plenty of recourse in law for that. I’m guessing most teachers are actually pleased with the results and this is why Brain Gym is spreading so quickly.

No, I neither teach nor use Brain Gym.

I think that science does back the detractors of Brain Gym despite your comment to Martin;
anatomists have failed to find “brain buttons”, water is not absorbed through the roof of the mouth, nodding your head does not tip blood into the frontal lobes of the brain, massaging your jaw does not improve one’s ability to use language etc etc.

You think it’s ok to deceive people sometimes. Is it ok to deceive people in order to shovel large quantities of tax-payers cash into your bank account?

BTW, are you a Brain Gym coach?

I ask again – did any of Solity’s research exclude experimenter bias?

It’s not hard to see that a group of teachers would get better results teaching what they are enthusiastic about.

Again, this doesn’t mean that phonics isn’t the best single method for getting children through the early stages of reading. Of course, an entirely different method is required to teach them how to spell.

You originally said: “Your statement “ERP is based on sound psychological principles and research evidence” probably falls into this category [pseudoscience] as I could find little evidence to support it.”

That looks to me very like ‘if I can’t find evidence for it, then it’s pseudoscience’.

It’s important to remember here that science doesn’t back your view of Brain Gym any more than it backs the advocates’.

Pseudoscience can lead people to make significantly bad choices but nobody seems to be denying that the placebo benefits alone of Brain Gym might be worthwhile – especially if the pseudoscience was left out.

And we seem to agree that all children should be taught to see through pseudoscience. It will lead to the same battle of spin we see in politics today – but I think, overall, people will be much better informed.

FWIW, I’m a hypnotherapist/coach.

sidcumberland: I wouldn’t worry about your inferences since in this case they were entirely inaccurate.
Solity’s research doesn’t seem to be freely available on the internet. Did any of it exclude experimenter bias?

JQH: It’s proof that it’s sometimes OK to deceive people.

What relevence does a palliative placebo given to a terminally ill patient have to do with Brain Gym? By attempting to conflate the two issuesyou are implying that people who oppose Brain Gym would be heartless enough to tell a terminally ill patient that their medication doesn’t work.

I’m sure that there is a posh Latin name for this kind of obfuscatory argument but I’ll put it in Anglo-Saxon:

It’s fucking bollocks mate!

There is piles of evidence from Solity’s research, as you will know if you had googled. If you didn’t google, where did you look?

I don’t know of any studies that have been performed into what form of exercise produces the best results – if anyone else knows of any I’ve a couple of friends who are teachers who would welcome the ammunition! But I’m also unaware of any studies into the effectiveness of Brain Gym, so until they can claim that their methods are superior I don’t need to substantiate my claim. I have a greater quantity of ancedotal evidence than they do.

As to not teaching children to question science until 15-16, I’m afraid that I shall have to swear here. WTF! Children choose which GCSEs they do when they are 14. I started getting a good scientific education at 10, partly because I had some great, dedicated scientific teachers even at middle school, where one teacher was expected to teach everything from science to English. If children don’t learn to question what they are taught they’ll grow up believing anything anyone in authority says to them.

Oh.

Martin: your implied assertion that “Simple stretching would allow them to do the same [as Brain Gym]” is unsubstantiated. I agree with your other points and that children should be taught to challenge all assertions of science, though perhaps at 15-16.

Dr* T: Would you tell an otherwise terminal patient that their working placebo doesn’t work? This is a moral issue that I and many health professionals frequently face.
If not, doesn’t this imply that the morals wrt Brain Gym are not as black and white as you imply?

sidcumberland: Yours requires a more in-depth response.

I think part of the disagreement is because we’ve been sloppy with the use of these words.

To say that a body of work is pseudoscience makes about as little sense as to say that it is science.

Pseudoscience does not mean that something is scientifically invalid. Pseudoscience actually refers to the *presentation* of something as scientific, while lacking the evidence which would expected to support that status.

Your statement “ERP is based on sound psychological principles and research evidence” probably falls into this category as I could find little evidence to support it.

However, your enthusiasm for what/how you teach will undoubtedly make you a much more successful teacher – surely much more important.
I hope this serves as an example of 2 of my original points:
1) How much would restricting teachers to scientific claims limit the results they get?
2) How can we blame non-scientists for confusing science and pseudoscience when many scientists have the same confusion? Especially when your audience expects ‘science’ and your competitors are marketing with pseudoscience?

re Brain Gym – I’m with the bulk of the responses here. Evidence based practice is what we need.

“To deny schools access to it would be equally wrong” – No, it wouldn’t.