The trouble with brain scans

[Olm the Water King]

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/may/27/brain-scans-flaws-vaughan-bell

Vaughan Bell: the trouble with brain scans

Many of the methods on which brain scan studies are based have been flawed – as one image of a dead salmon proved

Neuroscientists have long been banging their heads on their desks over exaggerated reports of brain scanning studies... They bemoan how people misunderstand the subtleties and draw unwarranted conclusions. But now neuroscientists have had to come to terms with the fact that many of the methods on which brain scan studies are based have been flawed.

...Yarkoni explains that "researchers have a big incentive to come up with exciting new findings", meaning scientists are motivated to "torture" the data and journals are attracted by the media-friendly results.

In this light of this, stories about the discovery of "brain centres" fall flat and efforts to base public policy on brain scans become nothing short of ridiculous. But perhaps the most important problem is not that brain scans can be misleading, but that they are beautiful. Like all other neuroscientists, I find them beguiling. They have us enchanted and we are far from breaking their spell.

 

[Ingrid in grids]

Yup. Dario Nardi's research also comes to mind...

 

[Evo]

The trouble is with human error

neuroscientists can filter the fMRI data to highlight the signal within the noise, but in so doing, rigorous statistical checks have to be maintained.

 

[/DG/]

Fun fact that is not really related!

Before the advent of techniques like MRI, CT, PET, etc. scans, we only had x-ray technology. You can't really image someone's brain like this, so people found out that if you drain the cerebrospinal fluid (fluid that cushions the brain and spinal cord) from someone and replace it with air, you can sort of see someone's brain with an x-ray. The body will eventually produce more CSF, but it was incredibly painful when you didn't have any...

Docs/researchers called this technique pneumoencephalography.

*goes back to her corner*

 

[meowington]

Yup. Dario Nardi's research also comes to mind...

Yeah, perhaps brainscans are indeed beguiling like mentioned in the OP, but I still find it remarkable that Dario Nardi found patterns corresponding to MBTI type.
Hard to say wether that's self fulfilling prophecy or not. Seek and you shall find, or not.
There are probably huge issues on validity, but can't help but think that by doing researches like this we have at least taken a few steps further away from the time where craniology was considered scientific as well. In the long run wrong theories will get dismissed anyway. Even the ones once considered as conclusive.

 

[Cellmold]

Yeah, perhaps brainscans are indeed beguiling like mentioned in the OP, but I still find it remarkable that Dario Nardi found patterns corresponding to MBTI type.
Hard to say wether that's self fulfilling prophecy or not. Seek and you shall find, or not.

Well...you challenged your own assumption bolded with a seriously important question coloured.

I think Nardi is just kicking his bucket down an echoing chamber.

 

[meowington]

I think Nardi is just kicking his bucket down an echoing chamber.

Cut him some slack

I don't think he's all pretentious about it anyway. I watched his google speech the other day and found it amusing and interesting in the very least.
Anyone know what Nardi's own type is btw ? Or did he mention it himself on occasion ?