> Have you ever been told that you are more of a left-brain or right-brained thinker? Maybe you’ve heard someone use those terms to account for being more inclined towards science and math than art and literature (or vice versa). Growing up, I often felt conflicted about which side of my brain was “dominant,” because I couldn’t choose between my love for the STEM disciplines and the arts. Research has shown, however, that I needn’t have worried— the left-brain right-brain dichotomy is a myth.
I have often wondered whether the eigenvector of political orientation being low-dimensional (e.g. left-right, conventional-independent) is somehow related to bicameralism (i.e. which side has executive function). It seems like the struggle between left and right we see in the world around us mirrors a struggle within ourselves. The fact that right and left modes of thought are reflected in political arenas, social dynamics and intellectual occupations across human cultures is too universal to be coincidence. There is something qualitatively familiar between left- and right-mindedness that transcends social programming and I suspect may be rooted in neurophysiology.
I don't really see a lot of people ignoring their left sides out there or unable to recognize faces of friends and loved ones.
However, absolutely any idea or theory that ends with ". . . And this is why we can't do anything about climate change or political polarization" can usually get a non-fiction writer published these days, and this guy fits the bill.
For some actually interesting research on human brains, even if from over 20 years ago, see https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.1.74 – most right-handed people activate left hemisphere brain regions during language processing, but approximately 7.5% of them activate right hemisphere brain regions instead. Their brains (or at least this aspect of them) are "swapped" compared to the majority of the population.
I find that fascinating as an example of genuine biological neurodiversity, with no known clinical significance. There is a lot of talk of "neurodiversity" nowadays, but it is neurodiversity assumed to exist based on observable differences in people's behaviour or the assignment of a clinical diagnosis – and not everyone with certain behavioural traits gets the diagnosis, since the process of diagnosis is heavily influenced by social and cultural factos – and in most cases with no identifiable neurobiological difference in any particular individual. All the people in this study were "neurotypical" – they had no known diagnosis of any psychiatric or neurodevelopmental disorder – and yet 7.5% of them were actually neurodiverse in this particular way, and I imagine if you looked for other forms of biological neurodiversity too and added them all up, you might reach the conclusion that "neurotypical" people don't really exist and at the biological level everyone is neurodiverse.
Neuroscientist? He's just a psychiatrist. The video also mentions his "revolutionary theory" and that's just ... wrong. He writes a huge book based mostly on pioneering work by Roger Sperry and Michael Gazzaniga and fills it with nice-sounding nonsense that makes the backs of neuroscientists shudder, and that qualifies as a "revolutionary theory"?
Comparisons to Freud and Darwin? When the only original contribution of his was to oversimplify scientific work done by others and wax poetic about how it explains everything? Spoiler: it doesn't.
McGilchrist is nothing more than a pseudoscience influencer.
"When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. 'That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3' can be shortened to '1 + 1 is 2, not 3."
"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."
Honest question: if an anti-vaxxer said that to you, how would you react?
I don't feel threatened by McGilchrist and I don't feel threatened by TikTok influencers. I mostly feel annoyed that people generally aren't interested in solid science but love sensational pseudoscience like the Law of Attraction and Geometric Unity.
People use "revolutionary theories" as marketing tools. It's the reason why cults like NXIVM are able to attract so many followers. They have a leading figure with revolutionary theories and poor fools swarm to them like moths to flames.
McGilchrist isn't a cult leader, of course. He's just exploiting the same tools that cult leaders do in order to make a profit. And in so doing he's undermining actual science, which is the main reason why I am annoyed.
There's a bunch of science on hemispheric lateralization and it's fascinating. Divided Brains: The Biology and Behavior of Brain Asymmetries is a very interesting exploration of the subject. Michael Gazzaniga's autobiography Tales from Both Sides of the Brain: A Life in Neuroscience is another worthwhile read.
There's no need to pretend that our hemispheres explain virtually everything about society, culture, and history. The real story isn't as sensational, but at least it's intellectually honest.
What if we implemented a system where explanations of things were consistently judged against each other so as to develop a set of the best explanations representing the most complete real time description of reality? Maybe we can call it science?
What if that system had only touched on an infinitesimally small amount of data in an infinite universe over hundreds of years and that system changed constantly to adjust to new discoveries so said system, wasn't totally reliable as a source of truth unless one didn't really understand how that system worked and hubristically treated it as a big daddy who has the answers to the universe, when it really doesn't, instead of a process of constantly evolving understanding?
https://plebeianscience.wordpress.com/2017/05/24/debunking-t...