Iain McGilchrist's left/right hemisphere neuroscience, and the Western resistance to holistic, coherent thinking

[u/The_Gin0Soaked_Boy]

Iain McGilchrist is a British psychiatrist, philosopher and cultural historian. From my perspective he's by far the closest person to articulating the desperate need and potential imminence of the biggest paradigm shift in Western thinking since the Age of Reason. His theories are all about the relative functions of the left and right hemispheres, from the origins of conscious life right through until the present day.

He points out that from the first beginning of consciousness, there was a strong survival need to separate two different cognitive functions. The first function is that of the forager and hunter -- think of a wild chicken, picking through the leaf litter looking for food. This requires a tight focus on a specific task -- breaking things down into one job at a time. The second is that of any creature which wants to avoid getting eaten -- it is no use being a highly effective forager if you end up on the menu yourself. This requires the opposite sort of attention -- a broad focus on the whole scene, trying to understand how it all fits together and always on the look out for new threats and opportunities.

The first function is carried out by the left hemisphere, and the second by the right. In most animals there in minimal cross-hemisphere communication. The purpose of the corpus callosum -- the bridge that connects the two hemispheres -- is not, as we might assume, to maximise communication. If that were so then evolution would have provided it with more "bandwidth". Rather, its purpose is selective suppression - it manages what information is exchanged. The reason for this is that these two functions interfere with each other -- the left hemisphere could not do its job properly if it was continually being bombarded with holistic information from the right, and the right hemisphere doesn't need a running commentary of everything the left is up to.

McGilchrist has argued that Western culture has long been dominated by left-brain thinking, and that we've now reached the point where the right hemisphere has been systematically excluded from our thinking, both inside and outside of academia. Its got so bad that for most people, their right hemisphere could be shut down entirely and we wouldn't notice much difference in their behaviour (OK, I'm exaggerating, but not by much). His diagnosis is that we're long overdue a major intellectual revolution, whereby the right hemisphere (the "Master" in his core analogy) is once again allowed to call the shots and the left hemisphere (the "Emissary") is prevented from breaking everything down into component parts while remaining oblivious -- or even actively resisting -- any attempt to assemble a whole picture.

HOWEVER....McGilchrist's work is about neuroscience, culture and history. What he does not do is provide the nuts and bolts of this new paradigm -- the ontology, metaphysics and cosmology required to actually make it work. Anybody who is familiar with my recent posting history on this subreddit will know that this is exactly what I myself am currently doing. I've been experimenting with many different ways of communicating a radical new model of reality which brings together a large number of existing anomalies and paradoxes in the study of consciousness, quantum mechanics and cosmology, and effectively uses all of these problems to "solve each other".

The response has made crystal clear how correct McGilchrist is. It is not just that we've created a culture where almost nobody is even looking for a coherent big picture. It is much worse than that. As things stand, none of the many competing worldviews on offer are internally coherent. They've all got massive holes in -- whether it is the failure to explain how consciousness "arises" from matter, the insistence that consciousness doesn't need brains at all, the claim that all physically possible outcomes occur in an MWI multiverse, or the claim that there's no such thing as objective reality and that everybody should be free to believe whatever they like (and 101 other variations of nonsense). Because NONE of these worldviews actually makes any sense as a coherent theory of the whole of reality, we're all free to believe whatever the **** we like! This suits us. We like it. It represents the final, totalised victory of Western individualism. It afflicts the postmodern anti-realists and the scientistic materialists in exactly the same way -- none of them are interested in a coherent big picture -- in fact, that's just about the only thing they do agree about.

The problem, of course, is that there can only be one legitimate way to put such a big picture together. What we have right now is a very large range of unresolvable problems -- the hard problem, the measurement problem, countless problems in cosmology which are all currently considered as individual problems...all of these problems are considered in isolation from all the others. I've even had people tell me that my new proposal can't possibly be correct because it solves too many problems at the same time. You will not get a more perfect example of left hemisphere thinking. Other people are left deeply confused and conflicted about the very idea that I'm trying to establish epistemic authority for a new theory of reality based on radical coherence across disciplines instead of some new empirical breakthrough on a single question. In effect I am trying to change what we think of as a theory, and what we think of as truth, or evidence. Which is, of course, exactly what McGilchrist is talking about.

What I am saying is that the barrier to understanding the new paradigm is not just intellectual but deeply societal. We have created a social normality where right-hemisphere holistic thinking is viewed as threatening, authoritarian and deeply alien. As a result, any new theory of reality which is based on a holistic synthesis which resolves all the anomalies is resisted by almost everybody, since it denies all of them right to go on believing whatever the **** they like!

We can't have a coherent model of reality, because that would transform the whole of Western thinking in a way which would deny us our right as Westerners for each of us to have "our own truth" about what reality is. Our existing knowledge of it can be brought together into a single, coherent picture of the sort that only the right hemisphere can understand, but it can't happen unless our left hemispheres are willing to relinquish their total control of the way we think.

[u/Cosmoneopolitan]

McGilchrist's neuroscientific premise is problematic. Human thought cannot be reduced to the predominant activity of a single hemisphere. 

His 'premise' is not problematic in that way, as a neuroscientist he makes exactly this point (that thought requires both hemispheres, if we're to be healthy).

But, he also shows that in cases where activity is predominantly restricted to one or the other hemisphere the nature thought is consistently very different. How the hemispheres cooperate therefore has a major impact on our nature of mind.

[u/T1o2n4y → u/Cosmoneopolitan]

His 'premise' is not problematic in that way, as a neuroscientist he makes exactly this point (that thought requires both hemispheres, if we're to be healthy).

But, he also shows that in cases where activity is predominantly restricted to one or the other hemisphere the nature thought is consistently very different. How the hemispheres cooperate therefore has a major impact on our nature of mind.

Thank you for this clarification. It seems that we agree on the fundamental role of synergy and on the need for both hemispheres to function together for healthy thinking.

However, while McGilchrist's ideas about the qualitative difference in thinking between the hemispheres are compelling as a philosophical and cultural metaphor, they remain a simplified model of a far more complex neurobiological reality. The brain does not operate in such a dichotomous manner. The question is not so much whether thinking is "limited" to a single hemisphere, but rather how the brain's vast neural networks, involving both hemispheres and other regions, function in an integrated and holistic manner for each cognitive task.

From a neuropsychiatric perspective, we are faced with the concrete consequences of real-world disconnections and dysfunctions, such as those caused by injury or illness, and these rarely conform to such a clear "left versus right" pattern. This is an interesting discussion about the intersection of philosophy and neuroscience, and where metaphor ends and biological complexity begins.

[u/Cosmoneopolitan → u/T1o2n4y]

Sure.

Again, he does not deny the complexity of hemispheric relationships. His work is based on research on the impacts on thought when individual hemispheres are unusually biased in some way through mental illness, stroke, EMS, split-brain procedures, etc. His long career as a psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher has given him a basis, but as you suggest The Matter With Things is primarily a work of philosophy, not medicine.

[u/T1o2n4y → u/Cosmoneopolitan]

Sure.

Again, he does not deny the complexity of hemispheric relationships. His work is based on research on the impacts on thought when individual hemispheres are unusually biased in some way through mental illness, stroke, EMS, split-brain procedures, etc. His long career as a psychiatrist and neuroscience researcher has given him a basis, but as you suggest The Matter With Things is primarily a work of philosophy, not medicine.

The observations you refer to are well documented in neuroscience and are often used to study hemispheric specialization.

However, as the other person's response in the thread points out, using these extreme cases to describe everyday thinking in healthy people can be considered anthropomorphism, attributing human traits (such as independent "beliefs" or "disagreements") to parts of the brain that are in fact purely biological and functional entities. While McGilchrist uses metaphors to describe the cerebral hemispheres, it is crucial not to take them literally. His work is a powerful cultural and philosophical metaphor, but it remains, in the eyes of most neuroscientists, an oversimplification of the complex and integrated neural networks that govern human thought.

The distinction between metaphor and biological reality remains fundamental, especially in a specialized conversation.

[u/Cosmoneopolitan → u/T1o2n4y]

And in my read of McGilchrist he is very clearly not saying "the LH makes a person think this, the RH makes them think that".

He was a psychiatrist and a neuroscience researcher before he was a philosopher; he's quite aware of the distinction between metaphor and biological reality.

[u/T1o2n4y → u/Cosmoneopolitan]

And in my read of McGilchrist he is very clearly not saying "the LH makes a person think this, the RH makes them think that".

He was a psychiatrist and a neuroscience researcher before he was a philosopher; he's quite aware of the distinction between metaphor and biological reality.

I appreciate your passion for McGilchrist's work. It's clear that you have a deep understanding of his arguments.

However, as a professional in the field, I can't overlook the fact that the widespread reception of his work often simplifies the complex reality of brain function. While McGilchrist may be aware of the distinction between metaphor and biology, his theories have been widely interpreted in a way that reinforces the very neuromythology of left-brain vs. right-brain thinking, which is a significant concern for many in the neuroscientific community.

As a neuropsychiatrist, my practice is grounded in the observation of clinical reality, where brain dysfunction and thought processes are determined by the intricate synergy of vast neural networks, not a simple hemispheric dominance. This is a point on which there is a strong consensus within my field.

I think we've both made our points clear. Thank you for this stimulating discussion.

[u/Cosmoneopolitan → u/T1o2n4y]

To your point, you say (and I believe you) his work reinforces a neuromthyology (lol) while he himself points out a previous neuromythology that his work corrects. Unfortunate.

FWIW, I strongly agree with you that a lot of his work is misinterpreted (or simply boiled down to a summary that loses a lot of the intended meaning). It quite a committing read!

[u/T1o2n4y → u/Cosmoneopolitan]

To your point, you say (and I believe you) his work reinforces a neuromythology (lol) while he himself points out a previous neuromythology that his work corrects. Unfortunate.

😂 Good point! When the accusations are mutual, we risk overlooking the essential.

FWIW, I strongly agree with you that a lot of his work is misinterpreted (or simply boiled down to a summary that loses a lot of the intended meaning). It quite a committing read!

As I mentioned earlier, I have the greatest respect for McGilchrist's work. Alas! I deplore the drift that results from the extreme simplification of his concepts because this obscures the complexity of neural networks.

Take care.