The Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI) measures four thinking styles located in four neat quadrants of the brain
When faced with someone who has never studied medicine or psychology, but majored in physics and music, we should be wary of any claims that they can do a better job at analyzing the brain. Such is the case with Ned Herrmann (1922–1999). Following his career as an arts performer, he worked for many years at General Electric, where his responsibility was to oversee training program design.
Key words:
HBDI, brain dominance, left-right, lateralization, preferences, childhood, triune brain myth.
What is HBDI about?
Ned Herrmann developed his “ whole brain theory ” by dividing the brain into four neat quadrants that allegedly reflect our thinking styles. Each quadrant mainly consists of “one hemisphere and one limbic half.” Each of these four parts (two hemispheres and two limbic halves) can be dominant, resulting in a preferred (dominant) thinking style. Because one of these quadrants is supposedly dominant over the others, according to this speculation, he invented the name ‘Brain Dominance Instrument’ for his questionnaire.
According to this theory, at birth our brain is “essentially whole” (whatever that means) and children develop preferred a thinking style later on as a result of life experiences. Oh yes, and this model comes with colors too, just like the DiSC and Insights Discovery. And, once again, the colors mean something entirely different!
● Blue: the analyst: logical, analytical, fact-based, quantitative thinking, situated in the upper left (neocortex).
● Green: the organizer: organized, sequential, planned and detailed thinking, situated in the lower left (limbic system).
● Red: the communicator: interpersonal, feelings-based, kinesthetic and emotional, situated in the lower right (limbic system).
● Yellow: the creator: holistic, intuitive, integrating and synthesizing, situated in the upper right (neocortex).
To assess these thinking styles, a questionnaire consisting of 120 items (current) or 160 items is administered to participants. Participants in HBDI courses receive beautiful, multicolored reports. The report details 9 main scores: left and right brain dominance, four quadrant scores, ‘cerebral and limbic’ preferences, and introversion versus extraversion. According to the HBDI Group, one of the major applications is the link between preferred thinking styles and jobs that require that particular thinking style. It can therefore help you detect your vocational interests. But it can also help you acquire a deeper understanding of your communication styles, problem solving, and preferred learning. You can learn to achieve better sales, to think creatively, and manage change better in order to transform
your entire business! The Group’s ‘experience’ (not ‘research’) has shown that the applications are “almost without limit.”121 Strong claims, it looks like the Holy Grail.
Nowadays, Herrmann International claims that everyone can be trained to flex their thinking styles and that managers, for example, will make better decisions if they learn to use all four brain quadrants:
“Although you may prefer certain modes of thinking over others, everyone has access to all four quadrants. Using the skill of Whole Brain Thinking, agile leaders are able to fully leverage their preferences, stretch to other styles when necessary, and adapt to take an advantage of the preferences of those around them to be faster, more focused and more flexible in any environment.”122
Let’s see whether these strong claims are backed up by strong evidence, the very least we can expect in this case.
■ Executive Summary Theory
The HBDI theory posits that the brain can be divided into four neatly distinguishable brain regions (a combination of “left-right hemisphere” and “upper-lower” regions) that produce four neatly distinguishable thinking styles. Herrmann “integrated his concepts with Left Brain/Right Brain and Triune Brain theories into a new “brain dominance theory,” and assumed that we develop a preference for one thinking style during early childhood. The theory was entirely wrong, as the current status of brain research tells us a totally different story. Lateralization in left-right hemispheres is limited to a number of functions: our modular brain mainly works in networks, distributed throughout the brain. The HBDI theory is to be considered a highly oversimplified representation of early split-brain research.
Ned Herrmann abandoned his idea long ago, though the pages on the HBDI website don’t reflect this change of opinion. Indeed, he later admitted: “The whole-brain model, although originally thought of as a physiological map, is today entirely a metaphor” (1989, p. 63).
Empirical data
● The empirical data on brain lateralization (left-right) tells a much more complex story, leaning more in the direction of distributed functional neural networks.
● The data don’t allow for a conclusion to be made about dominant brain regions.
● There are no peer-reviewed published studies confirming the beneficial effects (learning to adapt to other thinking styles, thinking faster, being more focused, more flexible, enhanced innovation and revenue growth, increased productivity and engagement, etc.) of training based on the HBDI concept. Strong claims with a total absence of evidence.
● Although Bunderson wrote in 1998 that the supposed four quadrants in the brain should be backed up by actual brain research, no such research has been conducted by HBDI since 1989. Obviously, it is impossible to determine from just a questionnaire what brain regions are involved in thinking.
121 Website www.hbdi.com (now thinkherrmann.com): The Theory Behind The HBDI and Whole Brain Technology (text from December 1, 1998).
122 I cite this text from the ‘White Paper’ (page 7) from Herrmann International: “Navigating in an Unpredictable and Complex World – Why Thinking Agility is Critical to a Manager’s Success.”
Test construction
● I could only find two internal documents (1989 and 2014), both of which were written by C. Bunderson, a psychologist who claims to be specialized in psychometrics.
● The test construction doesn’t offer any evidence of either brain lateralization, the neat division into four regions, or the alleged brain dominance. The choice of words ‘left’ and ‘right’ for the two factors the authors of the questionnaire selected, is an entirely arbitrary choice. The assumed bipolar nature has not been demonstrated, in neither the first nor the second pa-per. The reported correlations between the “four quadrants” differ from those expected mathematically (geographic location by calculating cosine).
● Based on these internal papers, I will discuss several problems, including the lack of clarity regarding the number of factors found, how much vari-ance each factor explains, the effects of a forced choice (or ipsative) format with only four scales, the use of forced scores as if they were continuous scores (an inadmissible mathematical calculation), the omission of certain parts of the questionnaire before statistical analysis, etc. Some of the sta-tistical methods used differ quite a bit from standard test construction methodology. In at least one instance, unacceptable mathematical calcula-tions are made using ipsative scores. This makes it impossible to assess the true reliability and validity of the questionnaire.
● That being said, I want to remind the reader that it is possible to construct a questionnaire with seemingly good psychometric properties, even if the theory is entirely wrong. It reminds me of the dead salmon hoax described in the brain scan myth.
Theoretical/empirical grid
Conclusion
The concept of thinking styles being located in four quadrants of the brain is a ludicrous theory, and attempts to prove that the questionnaire is a valid and reliable measure of such brain dominance and thinking preferences have failed.
Moral Assessment
If even the founder (Ned Herrmann) has admitted the model is wrong, and if research has demonstrated that the brain works in a totally different manner than Herrmann had assumed, one can only conclude that proponents are making good money with the HBDI thanks to so many gullible HR people and managers. Like other models, it is unacceptable to use tools that might negatively impact career choices and decisions, have a negative economic impact or change one’s self-image.
Discussion
■ Theoretical soundness
The HBDI writes that Ned Herrmann combined the two brain halves theory that he attributed to Roger Sperry with Paul MacLean’s triune brain theory. By combining the left-right division and the horizontal distribution in three parts (triune), he obtained four quadrants. Eureka! Roger Sperry, however, never described the left-right division as a general division, he only noted some effects on epileptic patients by cutting the corpus callosum, thus reducing epileptic attacks in patients, while noticing some other effects. Paul MacLean hypothesized that our brain consists of three parts: a reptilian brain, a limbic or ‘paleomammalian brain,’ and the neocortex or ‘neomammalian complex.’
Since no peer-reviewed evidence for the four quadrants in the brain, as assumed by Ned Herrmann, can be found in the academic database, we must rely solely on what HBDI proponents and believers tell us. From the Bunderson ‘validation document,’ which anyone can download from the HBDI website, we learn the following assumptions: the preference for a thinking style follows the preference for right-versus left-handedness. Second, people prefer “one or two clusters” of information processing over other clusters: this is referred to as ‘dominance’—expressing the dominant preference. It is further speculated people may avoid using other clusters (one or two). This remains pure speculation and is not substantiated by any brain research evidence presented in the Bunderson paper.
They answer their own question “ Is the fourfold or quadrant model of brain dominance supported by research data? ” in the following manner: “ Four stable, discrete clusters of preference exist.” A careful reader will notice this doesn’t answer the question of whether brain dominance is supported by research data. The answer is rather a reply to another question: ‘Are there four preferences?’ These preferences are of course the result of a statistical analysis of the item-scores.
The current status of the sciences tells us a very different story than the one propagated by Herrmann and his successors. The brain cannot be divided into four separate quadrants as recent brain research has abundantly demonstrated. Put simply, the neat division of our brain in 4 quadrants is entirely false.
This is how it actually works: our brain consists of functional networks and only some of those networks have a fixed spatial location. Most of the other functional networks are actually clusters of networks that are spread out over the brain and interact. I will discuss this extensively in Chapter 1 of Part V.
The curious case of… a metaphorical brain
In the research manual, the HBDI model is often referred to as ‘metaphorical.’ Indeed, the website for Herrmann International Europe states: “Herrmann’s framework and HBDI® are built on a metaphoric representation of the brain, which identifies four quadrants, A, B, C
and D.” Using a metaphor to describe the brain? Strange, because they also refer to brain scientists who map the brain in a ‘real’ way and not a metaphorical one. I suspect this is just another example of a switcheroo: in case you can no longer defend your claims about the left-right dichotomy (or dominance, or one quadrant dominating the others) against criticism from serious brain researchers, then just call it a metaphor.
By the way, did you know that in the initial questionnaire your level of extraversion used to be measured by… only one question? How’s that for construct validity? Reliable questionnaires such as the NEO-PI-R use 44 questions to measure extraversion. And did you realize that your dominant brain quadrant can be identified by how you hold a pencil? Should it be any surprise then that Herrmann International was awarded the Scam of the minute award by Skepdic.com (April 6, 2008). This is what Skepdic wrote:
“You might call the HBDI Myers-Briggs for Dummies. Instead of sixteen basic types, the HBDI has only four, based on four alleged quadrants of the brain, one of which is said to be the dominant form of thinking in each of us. One type is creative (the imaginative person); another is analytical and logical (the rational person); another loves order and is good at following directions (the organized person); the last type is more emotional and social (the interpersonal person). This instrument is used by corporations, governments, educational facilities, and independent consultants to determine such things as who gets hired, fired, promoted, or assigned to which task. The word on the street is that it works just as well as using astrological signs or graphology.”123
In the FAQ section on the Herrmann International website, we can still read what Ned Herrmann thought about astrology (which is total pseudoscience, of course):
“I think of astrology as a very complicated construct based on ancient myth and anecdotal data. Even after its existence for well over 100 years it remains highly speculative and scientifically invalidated. One of the reasons that the birth date question is included in the research questions portion of the survey form is to attempt to discover the degree to which there are brain dominance correlations with astrological signs.”
Lastly, you may be interested to learn that Herrmann International also helped spread Brain Gym, a method described by Ben Goldacre124 as “riddled with transparent, shameful and embarrassing nonsense.” One of the exercises is to “enhance the experience of whole brain learning.” It was very easy for Ben Goldacre, a medical doctor, to debunk Brain Gym as it spreads entirely false claims such as:
● “Processed foods do not contain water.”
● Brain Gym say you should not drink soup because “All other liquids are processed in the body as food, and do not serve the body’s water needs” Their support in spreading Brain Gym as a bad meme was one component that led them ‘deserve’ the Scam of the minute award in 2008.
However, you may want to participate in an HBDI session, because after all, in many countries you receive a present: a little bear in the color of your thinking style!
A little bit of Sherlock Ned Herrmann claimed that several notable scientists contributed to his model. But is this true? Let’s first look at the claims. In the frequently asked questions section of the website (www.hbdi.com, 2005), we find the following Q&A:
123 http://skepdic.com/news/newsletter90.html
124 Ben Goldacre (2008). Bad Science And on the internet: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2011/may/28/bad-science-goldacre-brain-gym
“Q: Is the brain dominance theory and the whole brain concept valid? What proof exists?
A: The brain dominance concept has been strongly validated in a number of different ways; First, through the research and experimentation of leaders in the field including Roger Sperry, Robert Ornstein, Henry Mintzberg, and Michael Gazzanniga. Secondly, it has been validated by the hundreds of EEG experiments carried out personally by Ned Herrmann. Third, it has been further validated by the public demonstrations conducted by Ned Herrmann over the past 15 years. Fourth, it has been validated by specific validation studies carried out by C. Victor Bunderson and James Olsen of Wicat and later by C. Victor Bunderson and Kevin Ho, and in parallel with those studies by validation experiments carried out by Schadty and Potvin at the University of Texas. Additional validation comes from the more than 60 doctoral dissertations based on both the HBDI and the whole brain concept.”
We can also read an even more explicit claim:
“Q: Who are the key contributors to Whole Brain Technology™?
A: Roger Sperry, Robert Ornstein, Henry Mintzberg, Paul MacClean, Joseph Bogen, and Victor Bunderson.”
Some of these people are still alive, so I decided to contact them. Henry Mintzberg is not a brain researcher, but an organizational psychologist. This is what he wrote to me on January 12, 2005:
“Dear Mr. Vermeren
I certainly never worked with Herrmann nor do I recall citing his work, and I did no research as such on the brain, just an article using Sperry and Ornstein’s work called “Planning on the Right Side and Managing on the Right.”
Thank you for this.
Henry Mintzberg”
Roger Sperry was a celebrated Nobel Prize-winning brain researcher, so this reference is quite significant. To check the claims about his ‘contribution,’ I contacted his research team. This is what I asked M.D. Antonio Puente back in December 27, 2004:
“Question: Has Roger Sperry ever worked with Ned Herrmann?
Question: Did Roger Sperry ever support the theory or tests from the late Ned Herrmann?”
Dr. Antonio E. Puente wrote back:
“I am not familiar with Ned Hermann or the HBDI. I do not believe that Dr. Roger Sperry was aware of either the individual nor of the instrument.
My impression, having reviewed the website, is that this system is a business consulting one based very loosely on recent theories of brain functioning, personality typology, and industrial-organizational psychological principles.
I will forward this to Mrs. Sperry to determine whether my answers are valid.
Thank you,
Antonio E. Puente”
Part two followed on December 30, 2004:
“Have now heard from Mrs. Sperry and Dr. Arches; Mrs. Sperry- Roger nor her had / have ever heard of the concept nor of the person
Dr. Bogen- “Ho, Ho, Ho” (he thought it was a practical joke on my part)
Oh, well... Happy New Year.
Tony Puente “
So, neither Roger Sperry nor Joseph Bogen, who are real brain researchers, have ever collaborated with Ned Herrmann. Henry Mintzberg never worked with Herrmann either. It seems Ned Herrmann had a vivid imagination and wasn’t worried about the risk of such false claims one day being unveiled. And Victor Bunderson? Well, he isn’t a brain scientist. According to the HBDI website, he has a “ background in educational measurement and psychometric methods.” Elsewhere, I found out he received his Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology from the University of Utah and received his Doctorate from Princeton University.
What else is wrong with this stuf?
I first published articles and a book on this subject back in 2006, and to my pleasant surprise, HBDI has not changed many of the texts, though they were criticized quite a lot at the time. Most likely the Dutch review, or reviews on skeptic websites, didn’t do much damage, so they carried on with their business as usual.
Take this example from their current website:
“Upon superficial examination, the brain consists of two half brains and therefore the simplistic left brain/right brain dichotomy seems to adequately describe the differences between these two brain halves. Closer scrutiny of the brain reveals four structures rather than just two. These four paired structures consist of the two cerebral hemispheres and the two halves of the limbic system. These are paired structures connected by what are called commissures. The two cerebral hemispheres are connected together by the Corpus Callosum and the two halves of the limbic system are connected together by the Hippocampal Commissure.”
“Extensive data speaks loudly that there are an equal number of people whose mental preferences are primarily cerebral or limbic as those that are primarily left or right.”
These explanations fly in the face of everything that true brain experts can tell you. The explanation sounds ‘science-y,’ but is far from scientific. These wild speculations about our preferences have never been proven.
I found several other claims on the Herrmann websites that contradict the current state of science. For example:
“While there will always be exceptions, we feel that on the average nurture represents 70% of who we are compared to 30% for nature. It is the profound influence of parenting, schooling, friendships, work, and life experiences in general that shape our mental preferences that in turn lead us to do what we do the way we do it.”
Perhaps ‘feeling’ is not the right way to address brain and personality science. The current scientific position has demonstrated (through twin research) that the genetic component alone accounts for 40 to 69% of variance in personality traits.125 My Champions League no longer talks about nurture versus nature, but rather about how personality is the result of inherited traits (through genes) and other biological factors (e.g. hormonal influences on the fetus during pregnancy) and learning processes (interaction with the environment).
What does my Champions League of experts say?
Neuroscientist John Bruer put it like this:
125 See the discussion in the chapter on Recruitment in Part V of this book.
“Right brain versus left brain, or hemisphericity, became a popular and influential theme in brain-and-education circles through the mid-1980s. It persists in the popular mythology and in educational circles, despite neuroscientist’s criticisms that educational applications of hemisphericity are based on a highly oversimplified understanding of the underlying research.”126
Take that.
Both Joseph Ledoux and Antonio Damasio, considered by many to be the foremost expert brain researchers, have entirely refuted the ideas of the both triune brain (MacLean) and the simple left-right division of the brain that results in hemispheric dominance. Michael Gazzaniga, a colleague of Joseph Bogen and Roger Sperry who worked on ‘split-brain patients’ obviously concurs: in an interview by Tony Retrosi on April 17, 2015, he dispelled they myth of the hemispheric brain dominance calling it “overly simplified and overstated.” Moreover, these days it is widely accepted that no decision can be made without also involving emotion.
What does the majority of the feld of experts think?
The field of experts follows the same line of thinking as my Champions League. The left brain versus right brain division is considered a neuromyth by all knowledgeable experts. The other important cornerstone of the HBDI theory is highly problematic: MacLean’s triune brain hypothesis (1960) has been “out of favor for a couple of decades or more” according to neuroscientists like Bill Skaggs (Quora, November 28, 2014). All vertebrates have a reptilian core and it is important to select actions at all levels of the brain. The limbic system is far from the sole responsible area for processing emotions. The cortex has essentially the same structure in all mammals (which have six layers in their neocortex, more than non-mammalian vertebrates). I could go on and on, but the triune brain is only a footnote in the history of brain speculation.
Jeff Anderson summarizes the myth of left brain versus right brain thinking applied to personality pretty neatly: “ The neuroscience community has never accepted the idea of ‘left-dominant’ or ‘right-dominant’ personality types. Lesion studies don’t support it, and the truth is that it would be highly inefficient for one half of the brain to consistently be more active than the other” (interview in The Guardian, November 16, 2013). In a recent study, he and other coauthors write: “Lateralization of brain connections appears to be a local rather than global property of brain networks, and our data are not consistent with a whole-brain phenotype of greater ‘‘left-brained’’ or greater ‘‘right-brained’’ network strength across individuals” (Nielsen et al., 2013). They further summarize the research by saying that only small structural asymmetries are present in most individuals. The ‘whole’ brain, or the left brain versus right brain dominance, is a myth, and so are lateralization differences between the sexes.127
The theoretical score: -5. Because the theory has been refuted, yet its proponents still try to make the impression that it is true science.
■ Empirical findings
What is the level of evidence?
Neuroscientific findings have now firmly refuted the concept of a global brain difference, global hemispheric brain dominance, or that one hemisphere is favored over another (e.g. Nielsen et al, 2013)
126 John T. Bruer (1999) The Myth of the First Three Years. (p. 35)
127 You can download and consult the article for free from Plos one (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/ article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275 )
Specializations in our brain occur in either distributed neural networks or local neural networks, mostly situated in lobes and their substructures. For example, we can distinguish between the temporal lobe (e.g. sound perception, smell, learning, language), the parietal lobe (integrating information from different senses, spatial orientation, number representation…), or the frontal lobe (decision-making, planning, problem solving, thinking …). Each lobe consists of several substructures. For example, the frontal lobe consists of many substructures such as the prefrontal cortex, the orbitofrontal cortex, the motor and premotor cortex, etc. More importantly however, most complex skills, such as making calculations or word recognition, are the result of coordinated action between specialized neural networks in different parts of the brain.
So, now that we know that the theoretical foundations of the four-quadrant brain and the alleged dominance or preference are wrong, we should in fact stop any further investigation into the reliability or the validity of the questionnaire. Many people ignore the fact that one can build a questionnaire with seemingly good psychometric properties even if the theory behind it is dead wrong or the constructs are ill-defined. But I hypothesized that I would find the same sloppy research as in the theorizing, so I put my efforts in evaluating the questionnaire too..
The HBDI claims its questionnaire is valid and reliable. After all, Victor Bunderson has a PhD in psychology. This should lend him credibility even though he also believes in other myths: learning styles.128 Let’s have a look.
The first obvious problem is the lack of academic peer-reviewed publications about the validity and reliability of the HBDI questionnaire. But wait a minute, what about the “extensive data” that, according to the HBDI website, prove that the questionnaire is valid. These data are nowhere to be found in the peer-reviewed databases. At best there is a list of references to all kinds of dissertations that have (blindly) used the HBDI. Indeed, they used it without first assessing its reliability and validity. That’s the level of doctoral research sometimes. My search for peer-reviewed articles129 provided the following information:
● APA PsycNET: “HBDI AND Peer-Reviewed Journals only - did not match any documents.”
● APA PsycNET: Herrmann and Peer-Reviewed Journals resulted in one match in the Journal of Psychological Type, a magazine dedicated to… typologies such as Jungian typology. We should disregard it, as it is not a validation study on psychometric reliability and validity. Nor is comparing two bad tests very useful.
● ProQuest (ABI/INFORM Global): “Your search for ti(HBDI) found 0 results.” (note: ti = title)
● ProQuest (ABI/INFORM Global): using HBDI ‘anywhere’ & ‘peer-reviewed only,’ 16 matches with the Herrmann HBDI were found. None of these articles deal with validation studies. Most articles merely mention the existence of the instrument, some have used the instrument (e.g. Clayton & Kimbrell, 2007; Van Oordt et al., 2014130)
● EBSCO (Business Source Elite): using HBDI and ‘anywhere,’ limited to ‘academic journals’ gives two matches. The Rowe et al. (1992) paper merely assumes HBDI indeed “assesses which quadrant of the brain is most active.” The Deshpande & Baxis (2011)
128 In a document found on the website of his EduMetrics Institute we can read: “The GELC model for education, elaborated by Dr. C. Victor Bunderson, uses computers and technology to deliver a highly-customized lesson to each individual, based on that person’s learning preferences and learning style.”
129 Search conducted on October 21, 2015.
130 These are published in the non-psychological magazines Managerial Finance and Meditari Accountancy Research (MEDAR), respectively.
paper mentions use of the HBDI and a high “acceptance of their thinking preferences as well as avoidances” by the managers. The Forer effect, of course.
The ‘extensive data’ turned out to be a ‘total absence’ of peer-reviewed validation studies. Needless to say, I found absolutely no evidence in peer-reviewed papers about the strong claims such as ‘more agile thinking,’ ‘better sales,’ ‘being faster or more focused,’ etc. Strong claims, but a total lack of evidence. So again, we might as well stop here, given that we have a problematic theory and a lack of independent peer-reviewed articles.
To assess the psychometric properties of the HBDI questionnaire, we must rely on the internal HBDI papers and assume that no data were fabricated (fabricating data is a practice that even some scientists do, as we have found out in recent years131) and that they really conducted the research. Considering their fabrications regarding the existence of a quadrant brain, I find it very hard to believe them.
The first document I will discuss is the 1989 paper by Victor Bunderson (in fact a kind of summary of a book they published). Strikingly, the document doesn’t deliver any kind of evidence for the neat separation of the brain into four quadrants. At the end of the paper, Bunderson even suggests there is a need to conduct this research. Indeed, the only way to prove the four-quadrant structure would be to conduct research using real brain research techniques (e.g. using fMRI or other more recent techniques such as ‘resting state functional connectivity MRI’ or rs-fcMRI). This is typically done in the following manner: neuroscientists calculate average ‘brain images’ of large groups of healthy people. This can provide a rough idea of the functional specification of the neural networks in the brain. Using a questionnaire, as the HBDI does, just cannot offer any proof of where such thinking preferences would be spatially located in the brain.
Even 1989, Bunderson already somehow seemed to know that something was wrong, as he referred to the constructs in a ‘metaphorical’ sense (p. 6):
“The constructs measured by the HBDI are summarized metaphorically in reference to Ned Herrmann’s insightful image of the rotated triune brain, seen from the back of the head, with emphasis on the dual cerebral and limbic hemispheres. Figure A-1 is a redrawing of Figure 3-12.”
A D
B C
Figure III.11: figure adapted from the 1989 Bunderson document (p. 6).
131 One of the recent cases was that of Dutch social psychologist Diederik Stapel (over 50 papers retracted), but there have been many others such as Hisashi Moriguchi, William McBride, Andrew Wakefield, etc.
The report contains a text that seems to acknowledge the problematic and oversimplified division of our brain:
“Figure A- 1 suggests geographic location of function. Thus, it is perhaps the source of some criticism.” (Bunderson, 1989, p. 6)
Perhaps? Some criticism? As I mentioned in the theoretical section, the academic literature tells us something entirely different, so ‘some’ should be replaced by ‘overwhelming’ and ‘fundamental.’ I know I am repeating myself, but the current status of empirical research findings is negative in regards to (1) the alleged ‘four quadrants’ consisting of the hemispheres and ‘half of the limbic system,’ and (2) the triune brain by Maclean. Joseph Ledoux clearly relegated MacLean’s triune brain to the dustbin (The Emotional Brain, p. 92-103), and pointed out that reptiles do have a limbic system and even a very small ‘kind of’ neocortex.
In the 1989 Bunderson ‘validation paper,’ we also witness the author’s following effort to protect himself against criticism:
“The HBDI was not validated for use in clinical or diagnostic testing, nor in medical or psychological classification. It was not validated for use in admissions testing prior to educational or training programs nor for placement at different levels within these programs.
(Using a test score as a condition for admission is an application distinctly different from the use of the HBDI to assemble optimal seminar groups.) It was not validated for use in selection testing for employment, for professional and occupational licensure and certification, nor for making a decision about a person that is beyond the control of that person.” (p. 3)
So basically, where can it be of use? The long list of situations where the HBDI shouldn’t be used starkly contrasts the claims found on the Herrmann websites.
The stats and the psychometrics
At the very least, could the HBDI questionnaire demonstrate some minimum psychometric requirements? What do you think? Bunderson states:
“Since the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument is designed to measure preferences, and is not a test of knowledge, content validity is not an important issue here.” (1989, p. 4)
Not important? Let’s analyze that. To assess whether a test or questionnaire is valid and reliable, a great deal of tedious work must be done. Below I have inserted a table to compare the academic standards with the actual practice reported by Bunderson: