Talk:Brain types

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Marked this arcticle as pseudoscience. In fact, this "theory" has absolutly no scientific ground, only fraud claims as already noted by APA members. IMHO, position of this article should be much stronger, because I see only commercial purpose of such information, and no science. Waiting for NPOV comment :)

Please read these references:

http://www.americanboardofsportpsychology.org/Portals/24/BrainTypingSANDBEK.doc

http://www.listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0208&L=spssx-l&D=0&P=8229

http://www.listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0208&L=spssx-l&P=8791

Unex 01:08, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

==============================


NPOV comment/response: The recent edit of this article attempts to foist anti-brain-typing opinion on Wikipedia, which is indeed against NPOV policy. Brain typing has neither been entirely proven or disproven at this juncture, so editing the article to say it is 'pseudoscience' is highly assumptive. Providing the disputing views of the APA is fine, but editing the article to say things like it 'cannot' be proven just reveal a clear agenda. Make room for both sides of the coin.

--Khendra1984 14:50, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

==============================


Addendum: The links given are also not necessarily unbiased. Sandbek himself, with his appearances on the Oprah Winfrey show, sounds just as likely to be a commercialist as anyone connected to brain types (who do have some scientific supporters as well, including Vic Braden and Bob Arnot). The only notable skeptics who have come out openly against brain types seem to be other people in the sport psychology field (Carlstedt, Sandbek, et al.), who have a vested interest in making their products look better. I prefer this link distinguishing science from pseudoscience:

http://www.sfu.ca/~beyerste/research/articles/02SciencevsPseudoscience.pdf

--Khendra1984 09:38, 29 December 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your comment. Yes, I agree, saying 'cannot' is not correct. But to be honest, I really doubt about the purpose of Brain types to be validated science. I didn't go deep into theoretical grounds of Brain types - in fact, I couldn't found any _concrete_ and scientific paper neither in scientific databases nor in the internet at all - but current states of the author and his web page is populistic and orientated to commercial benefit without any mentioning about real/concrete scientific works (neither in past nor in future).

Of course, arcticles should be neutral, but I don't think that Wikipedia should be compliant to commercialist which tend to be lying (essentialy that stated APA, and IMHO it quite clear even without APA).

I apologize for my strong words, but in this POV, I would like to defend psychology (with which I am familiar, and such theories like MBTI and socionics) which suffers from such "scientists" influence. Unex 01:09, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

According to professional protocol, I feel it has been unprofessional, unfortunate, and a noteworthy injustice for Sandbek to formally and publically criticize Niednagel and Brain Typing without ever having taken the time to speak with him, or to meet with him (or any of BTI's employees) personally. This seems to demonstrate a prejudicial approach to his research. How accurate can an investiagtion be from that vantage point? I have noticed that those who assail Brain Typing and Niednagel have only scrutinized and/or participated from a distance. The record shows that those who have personally associated with Niednagel find merit and benefit from his principles.