The Shichida Method: What The Evidence Says

We ask our mums about the shichida method and if it works. Here are their thoughts:

Flashcard-based “right brain” programmes are marketed heavily to Singapore parents of babies and toddlers. It helps to separate what they involve from what they claim.

The core premise doesn’t hold. The idea that a child has a trainable “right brain” that can be developed separately is a neuromyth. Imaging research has looked for hemispheric preference in individuals directly. One study examined 1,011 people aged 7 to 29. It didn’t find it. Ordinary activity uses both hemispheres together, constantly.

And some of what gets claimed goes further. Where a programme is described as developing photographic memory, speed reading in infants, or extrasensory perception, those aren’t modest overstatements. They’re claims with no scientific support at all.

High-speed flashcards

The method, showing cards very rapidly to an infant, traces back to programmes promoted since the 1960s. They’ve been around long enough to have been studied, and they haven’t been shown to produce durable, measurable advantages in controlled research.

What a baby is doing during a flashcard session is looking at a series of images while an adult gives them close attention. That attention is valuable. It’s also available for free, in conversation, at any point in the day, and in a form where the child responds instead of watching.

Is it harmful?

Generally not, in itself. Most sessions are cheerful and short and children often enjoy them. A few things to weigh:

Cost. These are typically multi-year commitments at significant expense, and the case for them rests on a mechanism that isn’t real.
Displacement. An hour of programme is an hour not spent in free play or unstructured interaction, both of which have better evidence behind them.
Expectation. Parents who have paid for accelerated development sometimes bring that expectation into how they respond to an ordinary child, and that’s the part that can do damage over the years.

What the evidence supports

Responsive back-and-forth interaction: the child does something, you respond, they respond again. Among the best-established drivers of early development.
Talking to them constantly, in volume and variety. The strongest predictor of language outcomes.
Reading together daily, with the child interrupting and turning pages.
Unstructured play, especially with other children.
Sleep, which consolidates learning and is the first casualty of a full schedule.
A secure, predictable relationship with at least one adult, the strongest protective factor in the entire field.

None of this is purchasable, so none of it is advertised.

If you’re considering enrolling anyway

Sit in on a normal class, not a demonstration arranged for prospective parents.
Watch the children. Engaged and enjoying it, or compliant and glazed?
Ask for independent published evidence: not testimonials, not internal data, not dramatic anecdotes about individual children.
Ask what qualification the person teaching your child holds, as distinct from the method’s pedigree.
Get the total cost across the full recommended programme, not the monthly figure.
Treat “the window is closing” as sales language. It’s aimed at a fear, not a fact. The brain remains highly plastic well beyond early childhood.
If your child enjoys it, that’s a legitimate reason to go. Buy it for that, and not for the neuroscience.

Frequently asked questions

Does the Shichida method work?

The premise doesn’t hold up. The idea of a separately trainable “right brain” is a neuromyth. Imaging research looking directly for hemispheric preference in individuals hasn’t found it. Flashcard programmes of this type have been promoted since the 1960s without demonstrating durable measurable advantages in controlled study.

Can flashcards give a baby a photographic memory?

No. Eidetic memory of the kind advertised is extremely rare and has never been shown to be teachable. Claims about photographic memory, infant speed reading or extrasensory perception have no scientific support.

Is it harmful to send my child?

Generally not in itself. Sessions are usually short and cheerful. The costs to weigh are financial, the displacement of free play and unstructured interaction which have better evidence behind them, and the expectation a parent may bring afterwards into how they respond to an ordinary child.

What helps a baby’s development?

Responsive back-and-forth interaction, a lot of talking, daily reading together, unstructured play with other children, enough sleep, and a secure predictable relationship with at least one adult. All of it free, and all of it better evidenced than any programme.

What should I ask before enrolling?

To observe a normal class, not a demonstration; for independent published evidence, not testimonials; what qualification the specific teacher holds; and the total cost across the whole recommended programme. Treat “the window is closing” as a sales line. The brain stays highly plastic well past early childhood.

What to take away

There’s no separately trainable right brain. Imaging looked for it and didn’t find it.

Flashcard programmes have had sixty years to demonstrate lasting gains and haven’t. Claims about photographic memory or extrasensory perception have no support whatsoever.

If your child enjoys the class, that’s reason enough to go. Just don’t pay for the neuroscience, and watch what the hour displaces.