Login to account Create an account  


  • 4 Vote(s) - 4.5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The Tyranny of the Left
#1
...of the left-brain, that is.

In recent years, I have been amazed at the resurgence of what I thought was an outdated psychological theory, that of left-brain vs right-brain.  The idea being that the left-brain is rigid, analytical, logical, and the right-brain is artsy, imaginative, flighty.  It seems like over-simplified 1970s pop-psychology.

Well, modern functional MRI technology and neuroscience is revealing some startling truth to this model.  It turns out, we are far more 'split in two' that is commonly accepted.  The idea of a single, unified personality within an individual human doesn't actually seem to be supported by modern science.

I'm basing most of this on research done by Scottish neuroscientist Iain McGilchrist, documented in his recent epic book "The Matter With Things". Really, the thing is literally epic -- two volumes, 1500 pages, almost 200 pages of which are bibliography. Thousands of citations to exacting neuroscience research. In it, he makes the case that the left-brain and the right-brain each operate mostly independently, seeing the world in vastly different ways. One reviewer summarized:

Quote:The Two Hemispheres of the Brain.

The prism through which McGilchrist explains his ideas is that of the difference between the two sides of the brain. As in his previous and widely acclaimed book, The Master and his Emissary,[2] he demonstrates how the two halves perform in distinct though complementary ways. For example, ‘from the left hemisphere’s point of view, imagination […] is a species of lying, from the right hemisphere’s point of view, it is […] necessary for access to the truth’ (p. 767).

McGilchrist’s thesis is that the left hemisphere has come to dominate in our society; he maintains for instance that ‘the left hemisphere [is] being used largely for paying narrow-beam, sharply focussed attention to the world, for the purpose of manipulation’ (p. 21). It is also the hemisphere ‘devoted to re-presentation’ (p. 105), hence our attachment to maps and models of reality. The right hemisphere, by contrast, is characterised by ‘paying open, sustained, vigilant attention to the world, in order to understand and relate to the bigger picture’ (p. 21). It is, therefore, he argues, ‘a more important guide and a more reliable one to the nature of reality’ (p.134).
https://besharamagazine.org/newsandviews...gs-review/

Wikipedia gives this generally-accepted map:

[Image: McGilchrist-2-Hemispsheres.jpg]

The book looks extensively at the (rather gruesome) cases of full-hemisphere debilitating strokes and psychiatric hemispherectomy -- where an entire half of the brain is removed, presumably to "treat" a stubborn condition (thankfully something that is no longer widely practiced). One would think that such a radical change in the brain would completely disrupt consciousness, leaving only a vegetable, and it certainly causes great changes, but what is so surprising is that often an entire functional personality remains. The way that person views and interacts with the world changes in measurable ways.

This implies that we are all "of two minds", the left and the right brains embodying them, and that they "see the world" in fundamentally different ways. And functional MRI tests indicate that, rather than our overall personalities emerging as a cooperative synthesis of the two hemispheres, they in fact act to inhibit each other far more they act in unified accord. I think we've all seen people who's instinct is to ruthlessly suppress "the illogical", or those "pie in the sky" types who seem to disregard anything that can be measured. Well, there's science supporting the idea that, to some extent, that's all of us.

The book goes further, theorizing that this fundamental insight in neuroscience has ramifications that affect sociology. The LA Review of Books summarizes:

Quote:McGilchrist’s chief argument is that, over the last three and a half centuries, we have developed a worldview that draws almost entirely on the propensities of the LH side of the brain, ignoring for the most part the contribution of the RH side. This means that our apprehension of the world focuses largely on the particular, with a view to controlling and manipulating it. It is driven by a search for certainty, which is achieved by a kind of “divide and rule” strategy, favoring the fragmentary and all that can be measured and analyzed, while ignoring or deeming “subjective” all that which cannot be subjected to this regime.
https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/beyo...th-things/

There's evolutionary foundation for this. A hunter gatherer, potential prey, needs to be able to respond directly and immediately. It needs a useful model of how to act and respond, that can be applied instantly. There's not time to speculate or imagine. The left-brain excels at this kind of thinking, to the point where its models are its reality. If it cannot be measured and used, in some way, it doesn't exist. This is contrasted with the right hemisphere, which is constantly making models, discarding them, and moving outside their bounds. The right hemisphere has a very different sense of time, where everything is flow and change. The concept of a 'snapshot' is a left-hemisphere construct.

Really, this is very difficult to summarize, as McGilchrist spends chapters going into detail. I found Book 1 to be a almost comprehensive review of modern neuroscience, bridging the 30-year gap from when I last studied it in detail in the 90s.

So, the results of this viewpoint are astounding. Once familiar with the paradigm, it become quite apparent when you see those who insist "there is no truth beyond science", or "the universe is immeasurable", exactly what parts of the apparatus of cognition they're giving dominance to. And I think McGilchrist is right -- society is suffering a disease of the tyranny of the left-brain:

Quote:McGilchrist concludes The Matter with Things with an epilogue which is nothing less than a cri de coeur. ‘We have unmade the world’, he writes, ‘This is entirely new in the history of humanity and it is impossible to exaggerate its significance’ (p. 1310). He continues:

We would appear to be engaged in committing suicide, intellectual and moral – if not indeed literal; excluding whole aspects of reality, resulting in a version of the world that ‘computes’ as far as the left hemisphere is concerned, but is grossly impoverished and lacking in meaning. One that is, in sum, more fit for a computer than a human being. (pp. 1314–5)

Thoughts? Ideas? Thank you.

The Matter With Things: Our Brains, Our Delusions, and the Unmaking of the World
"I cannot give you what you deny yourself. Look for solutions from within." - Kai Opaka
Reply
#2
That was interesting but not really surprising. I wonder if that too can somehow account for the differences between men and women to some degree. I say that in the sense of how some studies have shown that the corpus callosum in females might be a little thicker.

We also have intuitively always separated the left from the right, even the words themselves suggest differences.

My thirteen year old granddaughter is autistic and completely trapped in the left hemishere. There is real panic and anxiety when she cant control or understand something.
I have had conversations with her explaining how the left and right hemispheres differ and why one is regarded as feminine and the other masculine.
Reply
#3
(10-05-2024, 02:09 AM)midicon Wrote: That was interesting but not really surprising. I wonder if that too can somehow account for the differences between men and women to some degree. I say that in the sense of how some studies have shown that the corpus callosum in females might be a little thicker.

We also have intuitively always separated the left from the right, even the words themselves suggest differences.

My thirteen year old granddaughter is autistic and completely trapped in the left hemishere. There is real panic and anxiety when she cant control or understand something.
I have had conversations with her explaining how the left and right hemispheres differ and why one is regarded as feminine and the other masculine.


I never connected the idea of brain physiology being substantially different between the sexes.  Each brain may be tuned to the physiological differences between sexes, but in function each seems quite analogous and almost eerily similar.  I always thought that sex is not much of a determinant of mental function, since humans share most every known weakness in normal brain functions.  Perhaps brains are a homogenous organ.  Not in function, but in physiology.

It makes me question if the left/right organization of mental processing is really related to sex. 

Not disagreeing with you, just noting that's new to me. 
(And I recognize that there is a difference between brain and 'mind'... another wrinkle in my understanding.)

And since I'm not ego driven, I can freely admit I could be wrong.
Reply
#4
(10-05-2024, 03:05 AM)Maxmars Wrote: I never connected the idea of brain physiology being substantially different between the sexes.  Each brain may be tuned to the physiological differences between sexes, but in function each seems quite analogous and almost eerily similar.  I always thought that sex is not much of a determinant of mental function, since humans share most every known weakness in normal brain functions.  Perhaps brains are a homogenous organ.  Not in function, but in physiology.

It makes me question if the left/right organization of mental processing is really related to sex. 

Not disagreeing with you, just noting that's new to me. 
(And I recognize that there is a difference between brain and 'mind'... another wrinkle in my understanding.)

And since I'm not ego driven, I can freely admit I could be wrong.

I'm not ego driven either Max. I don't mind being wrong at all. It means that I've learned something.

I've merely suggested the corpus callosum being thicker (if it is) might infer a difference in the relationship between the two halves. Bearing in mind that there are differences in functionality between said halves.

I saw a study suggesting that an explanation for the thicker corpus callosum in women might be due to the smaller brain size. I'm not sure why that would be though.
Reply
#5
(10-05-2024, 04:57 AM)midicon Wrote: ...

I saw a study suggesting that an explanation for the thicker corpus callosum in women might be due to the smaller brain size. I'm not sure why that would be though.

Perhaps it's as straight forward as skull 'total volume' .. but I bet that's overly simplistic.  I've never really dug into this before. I had heard that there is considerable variation between people in exactly how the brain "sits" in the brain pan, some have use more room, others are not so jam packed - and all that without significantly impacting mental function.  But I'm really only recounting what I may be misremembering.
Reply
#6
(10-05-2024, 05:05 AM)Maxmars Wrote: Perhaps it's as straight forward as skull 'total volume' .. but I bet that's overly simplistic.  I've never really dug into this before. I had heard that there is considerable variation between people in exactly how the brain "sits" in the brain pan, some have use more room, others are not so jam packed - and all that without significantly impacting mental function.  But I'm really only recounting what I may be misremembering.

My point is, that if there is a thicker corpus callosum and more connectivity between the halves then that might explain the difference between men and women. Not in an overt way but as a general bias that humans have picked up on and recognised over time.
I won't belabour this though. It's just something I've considered in the past and this thread reminded me.

Regards midicon
Reply
#7
(10-05-2024, 02:09 AM)midicon Wrote: That was interesting but not really surprising. I wonder if that too can somehow account for the differences between men and women to some degree. I say that in the sense of how some studies have shown that the corpus callosum in females might be a little thicker.

We also have intuitively always separated the left from the right, even the words themselves suggest differences.

My thirteen year old granddaughter is autistic and completely trapped in the left hemishere. There is real panic and anxiety when she cant control or understand something.
I have had conversations with her explaining how the left and right hemispheres differ and why one is regarded as feminine and the other masculine.

I've seen those studies -- if I remember correctly, there was a fairly big deal made about them a few years ago, and then some retraction made when it turns out the results weren't as advertised.

People really want to think they've figured out something about the difference between men and women! Oh, if only. I'm doubt there's an fMRI machine that magical. Wink

I'm sorry to hear about your granddaughter. She sort of sounds like a wonderful person. Sometimes I think those who don't feel uncomfortable and trapped in this world are the broken ones.
"I cannot give you what you deny yourself. Look for solutions from within." - Kai Opaka
Reply
#8
Hi, Ultra

I once asked a fellow on ATS 'if Descartes had been a woman would she have said 'I am therefore I think'?

He replied, 'If Descartes had been a woman, she would have said thank God I'm not a man!

Jung once described the Anima as being  fickle, capricious, moody and bitchy! I always wanted to use those words in a poem!
Reply
#9
(10-05-2024, 12:16 PM)midicon Wrote: Hi, Ultra

I once asked a fellow on ATS 'if Descartes had been a woman would she have said 'I am therefore I think'?

He replied, 'If Descartes had been a woman, she would have said thank God I'm not a man!

Jung once described the Anima as being  fickle, capricious, moody and bitchy! I always wanted to use those words in a poem!

oh my goodness theres a whole paper on it https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/ijps/...3234/26670 hahaha the universe provides, fertile maya indeed!

so about the density of neurons and brain differences theres lots of factors like how foldy the brain is an how dense the neurons are but one thing i found interesting was when they measured how far the little traily bits on the neurons went, how localized the connections were, in the neural net or connectome as they call it. the right hemisphere turns out to have a measurably more spread out connectome, the neurons draw information from a spatially wider range than the left hemisphere.  This makes intuitive sense to me, as the left hemisphere excels at tasks that quickly respond to definitive similar things, whereas the right hemisphere is better at drawing together seemingly unconnected signals into new models and ideas.

oh and for those who like videos here is mcgilchrist giving a summary at cambridge along with his accent and beard you have to go to youtube to view it for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuQ4Hi7YdgU
"I cannot give you what you deny yourself. Look for solutions from within." - Kai Opaka
Reply
#10
(10-05-2024, 01:16 PM)UltraBudgie Wrote: oh my goodness theres a whole paper on it https://pubs.lib.umn.edu/index.php/ijps/...3234/26670 hahaha the universe provides, fertile maya indeed!

so about the density of neurons and brain differences theres lots of factors like how foldy the brain is an how dense the neurons are but one thing i found interesting was when they measured how far the little traily bits on the neurons went, how localized the connections were, in the neural net or connectome as they call it. the right hemisphere turns out to have a measurably more spread out connectome, the neurons draw information from a spatially wider range than the left hemisphere.  This makes intuitive sense to me, as the left hemisphere excels at tasks that quickly respond to definitive similar things, whereas the right hemisphere is better at drawing together seemingly unconnected signals into new models and ideas.

oh and for those who like videos here is mcgilchrist giving a summary at cambridge along with his accent and beard you have to go to youtube to view it for some reason https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AuQ4Hi7YdgU

I didn't know that paper existed! I was just making a clever quip sort of but making a point.

It does make intuitive sense and I think it's reflected all around us.

I'll give the video a watch. Thank you.
Reply