While interesting I urge everyone to treat reports of neuroimaging studies here as anecdotes rather than data. This article seems to meander between generally a

While interesting I urge everyone to treat reports of neuroimaging studies here as anecdotes rather than data. This article seems to meander between generally accepted statements about brain networks, standard management 'self-help' stuff and inferences that the research couldn't possibly have supported [1]. [1] An example is "... different areas of the brain were dominant — those involved in social and emotional thinking. And the more adept strategic thinkers in the group displayed much higher levels of activity in these areas" -- What does dominant mean? How did they identify the adept strategic thinkers? It's then followed by "The potential conclusion is that people who are good at strategy are better at sensing or feeling their way through strategies, rather than relying only on logic and being rational …" -- Which is laughable and insupportable by the earlier statement. NB: I did neuroimaging studies for my PhD and it's a tool like any other. It can be wielded skilfully and with care (leading to amazing advances) or be completely abused (leading to quackery). Without going through the experimental design it's difficult to ascertain whether the researchers were actually measuring what they thought they were measuring. In addition to this, I've noticed that academics sometimes make claims in press-releases/news that are not supported by the actual research and not even mentioned in the peer-reviewed work.