It's as if there is the imagining that parts are separate from the whole. This includes oneself. Objects are perceived as separate and somewhat alien from each other. Focus on parts instead of parts in relation to the whole without even realizing it.
I had a long conversation once with someone who was somewhat of an expert on Shakespeare. We were discussing Romeo and Juliet. He knew the meanings of the language used very well, much more so than me. He understood the symbolism of the usage of certain words and phrases which was educational to me. I learned things I did not know. I wasn't and still am not by any means well versed in Shakespeare. When I asked him what he thought of the overall symbolic meaning of the whole play I received a blank stare. "It's a love story", he said. I told him that I was not as familiar with all of the details as he was and I had probably mistakenly seen it as Romeo and Juliet representing divided consciousness and in the acceptance of death that division resulted in unity of consciousness. I received another blank stare. "Well I don't know", he said. Then I talked about King Lear and how I thought similar symbolism was used about acceptance of death and how overcoming the fear of death resulted in a change in consciousness. Another blank stare, "I'll have to give that some thought." A week or so later we talked again and he said, "I think you may be on to something."
This guy knows a whole lot more than I will ever know about Shakespeare's plays but he had focused so much on the parts that he didn't give much thought to the whole. He thought the focus on the parts was looking at the inner but it really wasn't. It was sort of like him using a microscope and focusing it here and there but never using binoculars.
Maybe this is a not so good of an example. It popped into my head when reading what you wrote.
I think this is a perfect example, people get so caught up in the minutia that they lose track of the whole.
Another example is when they put levee banks in to control flooding. Time and time again you see that after they put the levee banks in the flooding (particularly downstream) is significantly worse than it was prior to the installation of the levee bank. They're so concerned with 'fixing' one problem that they cause more significant problems in the future. Of course, you also have other development that changes water flows, so when they claim that the situation is 'unprecedented' you can't actually compare how this flood has acted to previous floods because the entire hydrological situation is different.
Reminds me of something I saw in my university days - an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.
This is a perfect illustration of what McGilchrist is saying here. Which is why a molecular biologist can have all sorts of knowledge about neurochemicals and interactions with other molecules but doesn't stand back from that detail to comprehend what it all means. And we certainly don't want to be turning to such an individual for the last word on public health policy.
What makes this example especially fascinating is that it concerns an individual working in the humanities. Usually when we think of left brain dominance it's scientists that pop to mind: so caught up in their deeply canalized microfields that they've entirely lost site of the big picture. Your example demonstrates that this trap is a more general pitfall of scholarly work. Obsessive attention to detail sidelines the right brain regardless of field.
It's interesting that you use the metaphor of myopia because it's an eye disease that's becoming more common today because we stare at a screen in front of us all day instead of looking at the whole world around us.
I didn't realise people were becoming more myopic due to screens - but I can appreciate how that might be happening - probably learned neurological development - if you know more please let me know. Certainly as a metaphor, the lack of noticing the peripheral, is what I'm seeing all around.
Another thought: All of us lean left brained. Some more than others. I think this is a result of enculturation that focuses on left brain perception. The right side isn't just neglected. In some ways it is supressed. This left dominance is isomorphic to all systems contained within a culture. One can be a genius, gifted with talents, be expert in any field and have that all occurr within a left dominant paradigm.
Tommy, the rock opera by the Who tries to communicate this concept symbolically. Tommy is born fatherless. His Uncle (culture) tinkers with him, abuses him and something shuts off. He is told to shut it off. Even in this half conscious state Tommy is an expert at what he does. He's a pinball wizard. He knows how to play the game. The left dominance game.
Tommy eventually heals, transforms, and comes to understand a larger reality.
Escaping from the consensus realm of left brain dominance is probably all that can effect real change. Problems created by left brain dominance can not be solved by 'solutions' from within left brain dominance.
Good points, and I didn't know about the Who rock opera (I mean I wasn't into them and never followed them) so that's really interesting. And yes, it takes a whole brain approach to escape left-hemisphere created problems.
Isn't that an example of myopic thinking? Those procedures are 30 years old, so we do not have data to support the lifetime benefit calculation.
I have a personal experience with a wise optician whose advice I ignored for the last years of therapy to my detriment. I have a slight myopia that I deal with by wearing opposite to corrective glasses for my computer work. My eyesight is almost fine and I drive without glasses. I had corrective glasses for a while and experience worsening progression of my myopia. I'm happy to have discovered the idea of using +0,5 glasses to simulate looking far.
Funny anecdote: The first shop I went to to buy such glasses refused to service me, when I revealed this was my personal choice. I just went to another shop and gave the numbers without revealing the story. Glasses used at the office are also at little risk of being damaged compared to ones that you would use daily and outside. They are also much less cumbersome outside sporting environment.
Tons of good stuff on how ass backwards these "scientists"and "doctors" are.
Oh and when it comes to being purely left brained, it reminds me of the story in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink. Most of them thought the artifact was real. Checked all the boxes. Linear thinking. One guy had a weird feeling about it. Something automatic in him didn't jive with the data. Turns out they artificially weathered the artifact and his subconscious noticed that it was too ordered aging... But it was very subtle!
I'm interested to know Allan how you know you are biased toward the left hemisphere at least 2:1?
😉 checking…
It's as if there is the imagining that parts are separate from the whole. This includes oneself. Objects are perceived as separate and somewhat alien from each other. Focus on parts instead of parts in relation to the whole without even realizing it.
I had a long conversation once with someone who was somewhat of an expert on Shakespeare. We were discussing Romeo and Juliet. He knew the meanings of the language used very well, much more so than me. He understood the symbolism of the usage of certain words and phrases which was educational to me. I learned things I did not know. I wasn't and still am not by any means well versed in Shakespeare. When I asked him what he thought of the overall symbolic meaning of the whole play I received a blank stare. "It's a love story", he said. I told him that I was not as familiar with all of the details as he was and I had probably mistakenly seen it as Romeo and Juliet representing divided consciousness and in the acceptance of death that division resulted in unity of consciousness. I received another blank stare. "Well I don't know", he said. Then I talked about King Lear and how I thought similar symbolism was used about acceptance of death and how overcoming the fear of death resulted in a change in consciousness. Another blank stare, "I'll have to give that some thought." A week or so later we talked again and he said, "I think you may be on to something."
This guy knows a whole lot more than I will ever know about Shakespeare's plays but he had focused so much on the parts that he didn't give much thought to the whole. He thought the focus on the parts was looking at the inner but it really wasn't. It was sort of like him using a microscope and focusing it here and there but never using binoculars.
Maybe this is a not so good of an example. It popped into my head when reading what you wrote.
I think this is a perfect example, people get so caught up in the minutia that they lose track of the whole.
Another example is when they put levee banks in to control flooding. Time and time again you see that after they put the levee banks in the flooding (particularly downstream) is significantly worse than it was prior to the installation of the levee bank. They're so concerned with 'fixing' one problem that they cause more significant problems in the future. Of course, you also have other development that changes water flows, so when they claim that the situation is 'unprecedented' you can't actually compare how this flood has acted to previous floods because the entire hydrological situation is different.
Reminds me of something I saw in my university days - an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing.
I love this... "an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing."
"an expert is someone who knows more and more about less and less until they know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing."
Pithy and accurate.
This is a perfect illustration of what McGilchrist is saying here. Which is why a molecular biologist can have all sorts of knowledge about neurochemicals and interactions with other molecules but doesn't stand back from that detail to comprehend what it all means. And we certainly don't want to be turning to such an individual for the last word on public health policy.
What makes this example especially fascinating is that it concerns an individual working in the humanities. Usually when we think of left brain dominance it's scientists that pop to mind: so caught up in their deeply canalized microfields that they've entirely lost site of the big picture. Your example demonstrates that this trap is a more general pitfall of scholarly work. Obsessive attention to detail sidelines the right brain regardless of field.
It's interesting that you use the metaphor of myopia because it's an eye disease that's becoming more common today because we stare at a screen in front of us all day instead of looking at the whole world around us.
I didn't realise people were becoming more myopic due to screens - but I can appreciate how that might be happening - probably learned neurological development - if you know more please let me know. Certainly as a metaphor, the lack of noticing the peripheral, is what I'm seeing all around.
Another thought: All of us lean left brained. Some more than others. I think this is a result of enculturation that focuses on left brain perception. The right side isn't just neglected. In some ways it is supressed. This left dominance is isomorphic to all systems contained within a culture. One can be a genius, gifted with talents, be expert in any field and have that all occurr within a left dominant paradigm.
Tommy, the rock opera by the Who tries to communicate this concept symbolically. Tommy is born fatherless. His Uncle (culture) tinkers with him, abuses him and something shuts off. He is told to shut it off. Even in this half conscious state Tommy is an expert at what he does. He's a pinball wizard. He knows how to play the game. The left dominance game.
Tommy eventually heals, transforms, and comes to understand a larger reality.
Escaping from the consensus realm of left brain dominance is probably all that can effect real change. Problems created by left brain dominance can not be solved by 'solutions' from within left brain dominance.
Good points, and I didn't know about the Who rock opera (I mean I wasn't into them and never followed them) so that's really interesting. And yes, it takes a whole brain approach to escape left-hemisphere created problems.
This Ted talk gives a good introduction to the current mypopia problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrTzBzETdls
Thanks Philipp. Gota get away from the screens more often!
Isn't that an example of myopic thinking? Those procedures are 30 years old, so we do not have data to support the lifetime benefit calculation.
I have a personal experience with a wise optician whose advice I ignored for the last years of therapy to my detriment. I have a slight myopia that I deal with by wearing opposite to corrective glasses for my computer work. My eyesight is almost fine and I drive without glasses. I had corrective glasses for a while and experience worsening progression of my myopia. I'm happy to have discovered the idea of using +0,5 glasses to simulate looking far.
Funny anecdote: The first shop I went to to buy such glasses refused to service me, when I revealed this was my personal choice. I just went to another shop and gave the numbers without revealing the story. Glasses used at the office are also at little risk of being damaged compared to ones that you would use daily and outside. They are also much less cumbersome outside sporting environment.
I've written up some thoughts on political insights me might be able to gain from McGilchrist, which you might be interested to read:
https://barsoom.substack.com/p/left-and-right-brains-and-politics
Specialization leads to groups bragging about having the answer to everything.
In medicine, the virologists and geneticists took over like a hammer and everything looks like a nail.
They'll never cure cancer or other diseases, because the virologists and geneticists have "the solution".
Http://viroliegy.com
Tons of good stuff on how ass backwards these "scientists"and "doctors" are.
Oh and when it comes to being purely left brained, it reminds me of the story in Malcolm Gladwell's book, Blink. Most of them thought the artifact was real. Checked all the boxes. Linear thinking. One guy had a weird feeling about it. Something automatic in him didn't jive with the data. Turns out they artificially weathered the artifact and his subconscious noticed that it was too ordered aging... But it was very subtle!