“First off, perhaps this she (the turning girl) is a bit of an over simplification of concepts, but what it does do, is generate interest. It is a tool for getting people thinking and you cannot beat that. Not everyone is highly motivated to read the academic versions of brain theory, so this sort of thing, be it pop or not, shows a truly amazing thing that may spark someone to go into mind studies or any number of positive things.”

If something is part of the unproven and in some cases (like Nick appears to be suggesting in this case) discredited section of psychological theory, surely it cannot be a useful thing to teach someone? It can never (in my personal opinion) be a good idea to spread ignorance, and that is precisely what Nick seems to be suggesting this is, merely ignorance. Although I don’t know whether he is correct (outside my specialization I’m afraid), he does seem to be in the position to know what he is talking about.

Teaching something as truth just because it hasn’t been fully disproved (as you seem to be suggesting with: “Also, when it comes to the brain, there is so much we do not know. Theories come into vogue, shift, change, and evolve”, forgive me if I misinterpreted this) seems like a strange approach to the science of psychology/neurology.