Kestas, so I take it(from the above bashing) that this
guy has ABSOLUTELY no scientifically valid data to
provide to perspective talent evaluators? I was
wondering, coming from your background, how this kind
of science is treated...as it seems, at least from the
article, that this sort of science is experimental at
best, but not sufficiently proven either way. Have
there ever been any long-term experiments concerning
brain types and their effect on overall life success?
There is no science in this BS whatsoever. First, there is no such thing as
a "brain type", let alone an "inborn brain type" (Niednagel's terminology
from his website). The term itself gives him away as a know-nothing con
artist. Just to be sure, I checked MEDLINE and PsychINFO, and neither
search revealed any trace of scientific work by anyone named Niednagel. He
has no credentials or training of any kind; his "science" rests on
long-discarded ideas peddled by a quack psychologist Carl Jung nearly a
century ago. Niednagel's credibility derives from puff pieces in sports
magazines by equally know-nothing scribes, and from testimonials by a bunch
of naive ex-jocks and other sports personalities, among them - ahem - Danny
Ainge. The same brand of "science" is practiced by tarot card readers, palm
readers, ESPers, numerologists, and other hucksters of the same ilk,
except they invoke supernatural abilities for their incredible (quite
literally) insight, not science. We might as well hire Ms. Cleo to advise
Danny Ainge on the draft. She's just as good as Niednagel and Wallace, if
not better, and would come a lot cheaper.