Very helpful to reflect on how our brains sort the information we take in and the importance of what we choose to put our attention to. Well said Leah! Thank you!
OMG...I am geeking out at the simple fact that I am not the only person who has read and continues to read McGilchrist!
I finished Master and His Emissary a while ago and am now in Volume 1 of The Matter with Things. I think his work will eventually be seen as seminal to understanding how we see the world.
I can see in the comments how the previous and fallacious right/left brain myths are presumed instead of the difference that McGilchrist is specifically detailing. But I'm not sure if it's possible to really get it without reading his work which makes it difficult to debate that there is something different going on. (Also wondering how often AI is producing arguments for people. It tends to do that when we ask it big questions.
I also keep seeing the world and our analysis of it creeping leftwards as I come to more understand the difference through reading his work. It feels like being in The Matrix and spotting the code behind the perception.
Lol, I am so not surprised to discover you’re a reader of Iain McGilchrist. Are you going to write on him? (Or have you already and I missed it?) To be clear, my understanding of his work is from bingeing for about 4-5 months on YouTube videos of him (I think I said that in my first essay on him; this was my third). I share your belief about the legacy he is leaving and your comparison with the Matrix—that feeling of spotting the code—is spot on. He’s says he hears from people frequently who tell him his work has changed how they see the world. So powerfully illuminating and helpful.
Thanks for the comment. It’s great to find another McGilchrist fan! (And gotta say: your thought about AI occurred to me as well.😏) 🙏🏻
I'm sure I'll end up writing more as I read Matter with Things as I'm only 100 pages into Volume 1 and already having overwhelming thoughts and connections pop-up to numerous ideas. :)
Just read it—SO GOOD!! You explain McGilchrist's research and findings much more coherently than I have. And your examples of today's left brain world are perfect and perfectly explained. Bravo! I look forward to the day you write on The Matter With Things.
Excellent analysis. I'm linking it in a piece I'm almost reading to publish on polarization as a nearly unsolvable problem in our current political environment.
I'm troubled by how this framework pathologizes analytical thinking while valorizing paradox-acceptance, using neuroscience as rhetorical cover for what amounts to a philosophical preference disguised as brain science.
The underlying neuroscience is far more contested than the article suggests. A 2013 University of Utah study scanning over 1,000 people found no evidence that individuals have stronger neural networks on one side of the brain or the other. The researchers concluded that the notion of people being left-brained or right-brained is more a figure of speech than an anatomically accurate description. While certain functions may activate one hemisphere more than others, most tasks—especially complex ones—engage both hemispheres working in sync through the corpus callosum, which constantly shares information between the two sides. Current neuroscientific evidence does not support brain lateralization beyond highly specialized functions like motor control, vision, and language extending to complex behaviors and personality traits.
McGilchrist's specific theory has faced significant criticism from neuroscientists. Michael Spezio conducted a semantic meta-analysis of McGilchrist's work against the Neurosynth database and found his concepts of hemispheric "mode" have no bridge laws linking them to actual neural measures, with none of the findings offering support for his broad assertions. Critic Raymond Tallis noted that McGilchrist's 140-page critique of empirical science in his own work amounts to sawing off the branch he's sitting on—condemning the very neuroscientific research upon which his conclusions depend. Even sympathetic reviewers acknowledged McGilchrist himself admits his thesis can be seen as metaphor rather than established neuroscience.
The claim that both hemispheres work together is not validating a "balanced brain" model—it's rejecting the premise that these cognitive styles are localized to different hemispheres at all. As neurologist Constance Katsafanas explains, while certain functions are more dominant on one side, the idea that we are ruled by one hemisphere over the other is a myth, with both sides in constant communication performing even the simplest tasks. The article's framework treats "left brain" and "right brain" as if they're distinct agents with opposing agendas, when in reality, analytical and holistic processing aren't segregated in the brain in this way.
More fundamentally, treating contradictory claims as "both true" isn't wisdom; it's avoiding the hard work of analysis. Your paired examples aren't actually paradoxes—they're competing claims requiring adjudication through evidence and moral reasoning. For instance:
"Pretti had a right to wear a gun AND he had heightened responsibility to avoid confrontations" - These aren't equally weighted truths; one is a legal right, the other a prudential consideration. A rigorous analysis would determine which principle takes priority in this context. It is entirely reasonable to agree that he had a legal right to carry but that right does not absolve him of the responsibility to comply with carry training and avoid confrontations. Carrying a weapon makes it MORE imperative that the holder deliberately avoid presenting the appearance of threat to others, not LESS.
"Trump is responsible for harms AND Biden is responsible for harms" - This requires weighing actual harms and examining proportionality, not treating them as symmetrical merely because both are claims someone could make. The Chief Executive is charged with enforcing our laws, including our immigration laws, a duty which Biden failed to uphold and Trump has mostly attempted to uphold. Those are fundamentally different cases, like the difference between a surgeon who claims payment without actually performing the surgery paid for, and leaves the patient with a an infected open wound, versus a surgeon who performs the difficult surgery and there are some minor complications during the procedure. Those two scenarios are not alike.
As someone who thinks deontologically, I believe some principles deserve certainty after rigorous analysis. The implication that arriving at firm moral conclusions is evidence of "left brain usurpation" mischaracterizes careful reasoning as a cognitive defect. In formal logic and philosophy, a genuine paradox (a self-contradiction) indicates either an error in reasoning or a problem with the framework—not enlightenment. The idea that accepting contradictions as simultaneously true is the "higher" mode of thinking inverts basic epistemology.
The framework as presented here also oddly places anger and analytical thinking together, as if certainty itself were an emotional failing. But certainty can be the proper outcome of extensive analysis. Righteous anger might be the appropriate response to genuine injustice, determined through careful evaluation of facts and principles—not a symptom of cognitive imbalance. By framing acceptance of contradiction as the "Master" mode that should govern "Emissary" logic, you've created a hierarchy that delegitimizes the very cognitive tools needed to distinguish truth from falsehood and motivate reaction to wrongdoing.
Finally, there's something concerning about using this framework to approach a situation involving real harms to real people. When we treat "both sides have valid points" as the endpoint rather than the starting point of analysis, we risk moral paralysis. The Minneapolis ICE situation involves questions about constitutional rights, use of force, government authority, the legal (and moral) limits of modes of "protest" that deliberately push the boundaries (and sometimes cross them, either deliberately or accidentally) regarding obstruction, endangering themselves, law enforcement, and innocent bystanders, that demand resolution through principled reasoning—not acceptance of paradox. Nuance should help us make better judgments, not suspend judgment altogether.
Steven, thank you for taking the time to detail your disagreements with my essay. I found your response very interesting and I agree with quite a few of your points—which leads me to think maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my writing and/or perhaps you read something into what I said that I didn’t intend (for example, I didn’t say, and don’t believe I implied, that people are right- or left-brained; in fact, in previous essays I note that Dr. McG wholly rejects that framing). In any case, I don’t want to go point for point in responding, and the criticisms you bring from other neuroscientists aren't something I’m in any position to address, though I recall hearing (or reading?) Dr. McGilchrist respond to Tallis’ critique...I don’t remember where or what he said specifically, so I’ll have to see if I can find it.
I do want to acknowledge that Dr. McGilchrist does often speak to the fact he is using a metaphor (the master and his emissary) but one of his points is that metaphor is a powerful way to illuminate truth that the scientific method misses, because not all truth is subject to scientific measure. That said, his tomes of published work do much to establish the actual science of brain hemisphere differences and he makes the point often that both hemispheres are involved in everything we do but are distinct in how they engage, how they attend to what we’re doing. I can see how my essay makes them sound like they are functioning as separate entities in opposing directions; I’d like to correct that in a future essay, so thank you for bringing that up. And I most definitely don’t want to leave the impression that I perceive analytical thinking as pathological—yikes. I’ve always thought of it as one of my strengths. Since I’m not trying to throw out the baby with the bath water I’ll need to address that, too. Again, thank you.
My reading of your objections about “both true” and paradox leads me to think you heard me making an argument I wasn’t trying to make. I agree the example sets of contradictory claims are not paradoxes, which is why I called them claims, not paradoxes. My endpoint was not that all claims are equal and no conclusions can be drawn because both sides have truth. I was specifically steering clear of “adjudicat[ing] through evidence and moral reasoning” the claims of each side, and instead addressing the polarizing mindset that underlies most political debates these days, which reduces to “my side stands up for morality, justice, and truth and your side warps them all!” I most definitely have a perspective on events in MN based on the facts I know and on my framework for moral reasoning. But the point of the essay was to consider the differences in the ways our brain hemispheres attend to information (loosely: narrowing in or expanding out) and where that leads. In pointing out that both sides have truth I was highlighting the reality that people who come to different conclusions might have information we don’t, or they might be organizing shared facts according to a framework that weighs moral concerns differently than our own. That isn’t the same thing as saying we shouldn’t come to any judgment.
Since this is getting long I’ll limit myself to one final point of agreement—your last line. I’m 1000% in favor of nuance. Clearly I have some re-analysis of my essay to do if you came away thinking I was advocating for suspending all judgment. I do think the master and emissary metaphor is profoundly useful for understanding how our modes of attention shape the way we perceive and engage with reality. My hope was to highlight the value of holding our judgments loosely enough that our minds stay open to nuance and that our hearts stay open to those people who don’t share our views. I’m a little disappointed I came across as advocating for having no views at all. Back to the writing pad, I guess.
I appreciate Leah's extreme thoughtfulness and place myself very close to her on the political spectrum. I think that she errs in applying McGilchrist's framework too assiduously to this political mess. I am able to see the good and the bad on each side of this local political war. Even though I am inclined to align with ICE, I have no problem seeing that the ICE agents who killed Pretti are likely guilty of manslaughter. This is no murder requiring an intent to kill prior to the engagement in the middle of the street. I have no problem holding Frey, Ellison, and Walz morally responsible for throwing flammable material on an already stoked fire. I am so glad that the mature Tom Homan has stepped in with partial credit from Trump.
Thanks for your comment, George. I’m unclear what you mean by “too assiduously.” Are you saying that seeing the ICE controversy from both sides isn’t hard, so this is a superfluous application of his left/right hemisphere framework? I’d be interested to understand more clearly. But in any case, thanks for reading.
Very helpful to reflect on how our brains sort the information we take in and the importance of what we choose to put our attention to. Well said Leah! Thank you!
OMG...I am geeking out at the simple fact that I am not the only person who has read and continues to read McGilchrist!
I finished Master and His Emissary a while ago and am now in Volume 1 of The Matter with Things. I think his work will eventually be seen as seminal to understanding how we see the world.
I can see in the comments how the previous and fallacious right/left brain myths are presumed instead of the difference that McGilchrist is specifically detailing. But I'm not sure if it's possible to really get it without reading his work which makes it difficult to debate that there is something different going on. (Also wondering how often AI is producing arguments for people. It tends to do that when we ask it big questions.
I also keep seeing the world and our analysis of it creeping leftwards as I come to more understand the difference through reading his work. It feels like being in The Matrix and spotting the code behind the perception.
Awesome work Leah!
Lol, I am so not surprised to discover you’re a reader of Iain McGilchrist. Are you going to write on him? (Or have you already and I missed it?) To be clear, my understanding of his work is from bingeing for about 4-5 months on YouTube videos of him (I think I said that in my first essay on him; this was my third). I share your belief about the legacy he is leaving and your comparison with the Matrix—that feeling of spotting the code—is spot on. He’s says he hears from people frequently who tell him his work has changed how they see the world. So powerfully illuminating and helpful.
Thanks for the comment. It’s great to find another McGilchrist fan! (And gotta say: your thought about AI occurred to me as well.😏) 🙏🏻
I'm sure I'll end up writing more as I read Matter with Things as I'm only 100 pages into Volume 1 and already having overwhelming thoughts and connections pop-up to numerous ideas. :)
Yeah, I wrote something back in May of 2024 after reading Master and His Emissary.
https://open.substack.com/pub/tommyt23/p/busting-then-correcting-the-left?utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=web
Just read it—SO GOOD!! You explain McGilchrist's research and findings much more coherently than I have. And your examples of today's left brain world are perfect and perfectly explained. Bravo! I look forward to the day you write on The Matter With Things.
Excellent analysis. I'm linking it in a piece I'm almost reading to publish on polarization as a nearly unsolvable problem in our current political environment.
Dick Minnis
removingthecataract.substack.com
Great to hear! Thank you, Dick!
I'm troubled by how this framework pathologizes analytical thinking while valorizing paradox-acceptance, using neuroscience as rhetorical cover for what amounts to a philosophical preference disguised as brain science.
The underlying neuroscience is far more contested than the article suggests. A 2013 University of Utah study scanning over 1,000 people found no evidence that individuals have stronger neural networks on one side of the brain or the other. The researchers concluded that the notion of people being left-brained or right-brained is more a figure of speech than an anatomically accurate description. While certain functions may activate one hemisphere more than others, most tasks—especially complex ones—engage both hemispheres working in sync through the corpus callosum, which constantly shares information between the two sides. Current neuroscientific evidence does not support brain lateralization beyond highly specialized functions like motor control, vision, and language extending to complex behaviors and personality traits.
McGilchrist's specific theory has faced significant criticism from neuroscientists. Michael Spezio conducted a semantic meta-analysis of McGilchrist's work against the Neurosynth database and found his concepts of hemispheric "mode" have no bridge laws linking them to actual neural measures, with none of the findings offering support for his broad assertions. Critic Raymond Tallis noted that McGilchrist's 140-page critique of empirical science in his own work amounts to sawing off the branch he's sitting on—condemning the very neuroscientific research upon which his conclusions depend. Even sympathetic reviewers acknowledged McGilchrist himself admits his thesis can be seen as metaphor rather than established neuroscience.
The claim that both hemispheres work together is not validating a "balanced brain" model—it's rejecting the premise that these cognitive styles are localized to different hemispheres at all. As neurologist Constance Katsafanas explains, while certain functions are more dominant on one side, the idea that we are ruled by one hemisphere over the other is a myth, with both sides in constant communication performing even the simplest tasks. The article's framework treats "left brain" and "right brain" as if they're distinct agents with opposing agendas, when in reality, analytical and holistic processing aren't segregated in the brain in this way.
More fundamentally, treating contradictory claims as "both true" isn't wisdom; it's avoiding the hard work of analysis. Your paired examples aren't actually paradoxes—they're competing claims requiring adjudication through evidence and moral reasoning. For instance:
"Pretti had a right to wear a gun AND he had heightened responsibility to avoid confrontations" - These aren't equally weighted truths; one is a legal right, the other a prudential consideration. A rigorous analysis would determine which principle takes priority in this context. It is entirely reasonable to agree that he had a legal right to carry but that right does not absolve him of the responsibility to comply with carry training and avoid confrontations. Carrying a weapon makes it MORE imperative that the holder deliberately avoid presenting the appearance of threat to others, not LESS.
"Trump is responsible for harms AND Biden is responsible for harms" - This requires weighing actual harms and examining proportionality, not treating them as symmetrical merely because both are claims someone could make. The Chief Executive is charged with enforcing our laws, including our immigration laws, a duty which Biden failed to uphold and Trump has mostly attempted to uphold. Those are fundamentally different cases, like the difference between a surgeon who claims payment without actually performing the surgery paid for, and leaves the patient with a an infected open wound, versus a surgeon who performs the difficult surgery and there are some minor complications during the procedure. Those two scenarios are not alike.
As someone who thinks deontologically, I believe some principles deserve certainty after rigorous analysis. The implication that arriving at firm moral conclusions is evidence of "left brain usurpation" mischaracterizes careful reasoning as a cognitive defect. In formal logic and philosophy, a genuine paradox (a self-contradiction) indicates either an error in reasoning or a problem with the framework—not enlightenment. The idea that accepting contradictions as simultaneously true is the "higher" mode of thinking inverts basic epistemology.
The framework as presented here also oddly places anger and analytical thinking together, as if certainty itself were an emotional failing. But certainty can be the proper outcome of extensive analysis. Righteous anger might be the appropriate response to genuine injustice, determined through careful evaluation of facts and principles—not a symptom of cognitive imbalance. By framing acceptance of contradiction as the "Master" mode that should govern "Emissary" logic, you've created a hierarchy that delegitimizes the very cognitive tools needed to distinguish truth from falsehood and motivate reaction to wrongdoing.
Finally, there's something concerning about using this framework to approach a situation involving real harms to real people. When we treat "both sides have valid points" as the endpoint rather than the starting point of analysis, we risk moral paralysis. The Minneapolis ICE situation involves questions about constitutional rights, use of force, government authority, the legal (and moral) limits of modes of "protest" that deliberately push the boundaries (and sometimes cross them, either deliberately or accidentally) regarding obstruction, endangering themselves, law enforcement, and innocent bystanders, that demand resolution through principled reasoning—not acceptance of paradox. Nuance should help us make better judgments, not suspend judgment altogether.
Steven, thank you for taking the time to detail your disagreements with my essay. I found your response very interesting and I agree with quite a few of your points—which leads me to think maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my writing and/or perhaps you read something into what I said that I didn’t intend (for example, I didn’t say, and don’t believe I implied, that people are right- or left-brained; in fact, in previous essays I note that Dr. McG wholly rejects that framing). In any case, I don’t want to go point for point in responding, and the criticisms you bring from other neuroscientists aren't something I’m in any position to address, though I recall hearing (or reading?) Dr. McGilchrist respond to Tallis’ critique...I don’t remember where or what he said specifically, so I’ll have to see if I can find it.
I do want to acknowledge that Dr. McGilchrist does often speak to the fact he is using a metaphor (the master and his emissary) but one of his points is that metaphor is a powerful way to illuminate truth that the scientific method misses, because not all truth is subject to scientific measure. That said, his tomes of published work do much to establish the actual science of brain hemisphere differences and he makes the point often that both hemispheres are involved in everything we do but are distinct in how they engage, how they attend to what we’re doing. I can see how my essay makes them sound like they are functioning as separate entities in opposing directions; I’d like to correct that in a future essay, so thank you for bringing that up. And I most definitely don’t want to leave the impression that I perceive analytical thinking as pathological—yikes. I’ve always thought of it as one of my strengths. Since I’m not trying to throw out the baby with the bath water I’ll need to address that, too. Again, thank you.
My reading of your objections about “both true” and paradox leads me to think you heard me making an argument I wasn’t trying to make. I agree the example sets of contradictory claims are not paradoxes, which is why I called them claims, not paradoxes. My endpoint was not that all claims are equal and no conclusions can be drawn because both sides have truth. I was specifically steering clear of “adjudicat[ing] through evidence and moral reasoning” the claims of each side, and instead addressing the polarizing mindset that underlies most political debates these days, which reduces to “my side stands up for morality, justice, and truth and your side warps them all!” I most definitely have a perspective on events in MN based on the facts I know and on my framework for moral reasoning. But the point of the essay was to consider the differences in the ways our brain hemispheres attend to information (loosely: narrowing in or expanding out) and where that leads. In pointing out that both sides have truth I was highlighting the reality that people who come to different conclusions might have information we don’t, or they might be organizing shared facts according to a framework that weighs moral concerns differently than our own. That isn’t the same thing as saying we shouldn’t come to any judgment.
Since this is getting long I’ll limit myself to one final point of agreement—your last line. I’m 1000% in favor of nuance. Clearly I have some re-analysis of my essay to do if you came away thinking I was advocating for suspending all judgment. I do think the master and emissary metaphor is profoundly useful for understanding how our modes of attention shape the way we perceive and engage with reality. My hope was to highlight the value of holding our judgments loosely enough that our minds stay open to nuance and that our hearts stay open to those people who don’t share our views. I’m a little disappointed I came across as advocating for having no views at all. Back to the writing pad, I guess.
Thanks again for sharing your thoughts.
I appreciate Leah's extreme thoughtfulness and place myself very close to her on the political spectrum. I think that she errs in applying McGilchrist's framework too assiduously to this political mess. I am able to see the good and the bad on each side of this local political war. Even though I am inclined to align with ICE, I have no problem seeing that the ICE agents who killed Pretti are likely guilty of manslaughter. This is no murder requiring an intent to kill prior to the engagement in the middle of the street. I have no problem holding Frey, Ellison, and Walz morally responsible for throwing flammable material on an already stoked fire. I am so glad that the mature Tom Homan has stepped in with partial credit from Trump.
Thanks for your comment, George. I’m unclear what you mean by “too assiduously.” Are you saying that seeing the ICE controversy from both sides isn’t hard, so this is a superfluous application of his left/right hemisphere framework? I’d be interested to understand more clearly. But in any case, thanks for reading.