Further to “Why materialist neuroscience must necessarily remain a pseudo-discipline,” from the aptly named blog Neurobollocks blog (“Debunking pseudo-neuroscience so you won’t have to”):
Neuroleadership – lots of old-fashioned psychology, very little neuroscience
If one was feeling magnanimous, the field of neuroleadership could be described as an emerging discipline with lofty ambitions, but one that has yet to really define its remit and fully understand its limitations. A more cynical evaluator could characterise it as a gosh-darn whizzo wheeze to re-package some tired old concepts from 1980s organisational psychology textbooks and make them all shiny and new by sticking ‘neuro’ on the front and having lots of pictures of CGI brains in your presentations. Regular readers will know that a surfeit of magnanimity is not something I tend to suffer from.
It’s hard to get too splenetic about neuroleadership. It may be bullshit, but it’s not clinics ripping off parents with therapies that don’t work or people doing unnecessary SPECT scans on kids. Ultimately, it’s one set of business people selling some bollocks to another set; all they’re really doing is wasting their own time and effort.
Maybe it’s kind of like palm reading at parties. As long as you don’t really believe what you hear, it is safe.
One way you can tell that something is not a science or has exhausted its potential as a science is that it does not tell you anything more than common sense would.
See also: Further evidence that mindless neuroscience is not hot
Darwinist neuroscience in trouble?: Even facial expressions are not that informative, never mind brain scans
Hat tip: Brains on Purpose