Psuedo-science & pigeon holes LO11037

Michael Erickson (sysengr@atc.boeing.com)
Fri, 15 Nov 1996 09:29:23 -0800 (PST)

Hello all and Robert Bacal

A few days ago I posted a comment about right/left brain orientation,
noting that one can come to radically different conclusions about any
given set of information depending on their orientation.

On Wed, 13 Nov 1996 rbacal@escape.ca wrote:
> I hope this doesn't offend anyone...but a few points. First, my
> understanding that the left/right brain stuff is a great metaphor it
> has little basis in neurological fact, in the sense of it being a
> given. I don't know the newer research which will be helpful in
> exploring the issue. (scans, etc).
>
> As far as I know this is one of those oft quoted, ill understood
> myths.
---snip---

First, I'd like to say that this response is a great illustration of what
I was talking about. I was speaking of the challenges I face on a daily
basis-trying to communicate. And rather than get the gist of my idea,
that people have differences that need to be accounted for, I get the
details of my idea analyzed-and the main point overlooked entirely.

Second point:
While on the one hand, yes one could attack the scientific
validity of the right/left brain analogy and be fairly accurate. It is a
generalization, and all analogies eventually break down. On the
other hand we can't ignore that SOMETHING is going on here.

[Visualize Michael Erickson's Drawing in this Spot...]

My empirical knowledge of the subject comes from working 3 years as a
nursing assistant in nursing homes where a lot of stroke patients reside.
Watching a stroke happen right before your eyes isn't something you
forget easily. Watching the personality changes and the effects on
skills, language, etc. in a stroke patient-paticularly when they go from
being highly logical, systematic thinkers to babbling emotional basket
cases (and you'd be a "basket case" too if you suddenly realized you are
no longer "all there").

So many times I worked with people who could no longer speak, but could
swear like a sailor. In the nursing literature I found articles
explaining that the the "speach center" is one thing, located in one part
of the brain, and the "expression" controller (for lack of better
terminology) was located somewhere else. Patients who swore, often were
very nice people. The things they said, while hard to hear, often did
not mean "you lousy !@#!!" like it sounded, but rather" I gotta go real
bad, can you help me?".

Brain functionality centers are at work here. It may be that the
locations of brain functional centers may be highly individual, so using
the specific term "right or left" may not be valid, but there is a
separation of function, and the thinking that goes on is effected by
that separation.

Also, I found this out on the web just this morning.

James Burke (author of connections) when asked what did he believe
was the most important invention in history, (he thinks it's the alphabet).

Quote: "The second thing is there's a very interesting Dutch scholor who
suggests that because the alphabet is the Western alphabet -- A to Z is
read from left to right -- it hits the right eye first as you scan the
page. And therefore it's proceesed by the left part of the brain. And
that --the part that's good at sequential analysis -- means that Western
alphabet users move rapidly towards what we call logic, and therefore
what we call reductionism, and therefore waht we call, if you like,
philosopy. And that being the entire basis of Western science, it's an
approach to the world that is radically different from... societies that
didn't use the alphabet." James Burke <http://www.discovery.com/
DCO/doc/1012/world/connections/connections111096/burkesplace.html>

OK--- so maybe James Burke doesn't represent Hard science, and may
actually only be the entertainer working in the popular (and dispised)
media. Point taken. Also, I realize that my personal experience can
hardly represent a defendable scientific body of knowledge, but as the
saying goes, "if it happens, it must be possible". Something is going on
here, we need to be aware of it and work with it.

Third point -- "Pigeon holing":
> "personally stuck on the right side..." is a personally limiting
> statement, bolstered by what at least sounds like scientific fact.
> Akin to saying...I am short, or I am tall, or I am smart, or I am
> stupid, or I am an INJT (ok..so the type's not right). This kind of
> labelling is often used to explain our limits, not to help us
> overcome them, and I think this applies to any labelling system at
> any level, particularly those that have a scientific ring to them.
>
> Example label: I am clinically depressed and have a neuro-transmitter
> imbalance...sets up a mind set of...heck it's biology..what can I do
> about it. Like...heck, I am left brained, so what can I do about my
> behaviour.

This is another "true" statement-as far as it goes, but it overlooks one
thing... If we don't recognize that there are differences in human
beings (like in-focus our eyes on and admit it exists), we risk making
the assumption that we are all the same, or that no "challenges" exist -
so we don't take the time to consider other possibilities.

> I would be more comfortable with statements that did not rest on
> pseudo-science or questionable science that give it false legitimacy.
> Why do we not say: I prefer to read material that is logically
> structured, or I prefer to learn by reading illustrative stories.

So what analogy would you like? This subject is "fuzzy" enough to
require some sort of metaphor. The highly technical terminology that is
technically correct leaves most of us either confused, frustrated or
irritated with the agravations of wading through it all. (Imagine
talking to your wife or kids using that sort of terminology -- they're
not stupid people, they just need you to cut to the chase and say what
you mean simply).

Also, since a lot of us in the LO discussions are exploring the
"spiritual dimension" of humanity - a thing we know exists but does not
fit in any of the recognized sciences, how can we discuss or explore if
we require ourselves to only look through the lense of hard science?

"Not only is the universe stranger than we imaging, it is stranger than
we CAN imagine". (or something like that)

One of the ideas I've picked up in the LO discussions has been that we DO
come from different ways of thinking, and from different cultures, and we
DO need to make the effort to see things through the "other guys eyes".
So we aren't likely to "hear it" in the terms most comfortable for us in
every case. I certainly don't have an easy time when some of these
discussions get thickly para-digmatic... but I plod on and figure it out.

I am oriented more toward the generalist view, some of my learning comes
best when I see how it fits together in a bigger view (yes sometimes story
telling works-and sometimes not). I learn from experience and from
linking ideas together. I tend to talk from that viewpoint-because that
is ME. No, I don't intend this to be a self limiting thing, I obviously
am also challenging what I view as my personal limits-but no amount of
challenging will change the fact that I'm as tall as I actually am,
(unless I cut my legs off-in which case I'll become shorter) or that I'm
left handed naturally, or that I need to wear glasses. Current reality
must be recognized and worked with, not glossed over because it may be a
self limiting discussion.

The left brain/right brain discussion is an effort to find some
terminology to discuss the current reality. If you don't like the
metaphor, come up with a different one-I'm listening.

Pigeon holes (like the Meyers Briggs test-where I test out to be ENFP) may
not be the end all, or the be all in strict scientific terms (more left
brain logic), but these sorts of tests or categorizations permit us to
discuss our differences, strengths, weaknesses and help us make decisions
about how we are going to proceed. They are useful as long as we
recognize that they are an analogy-and analogies break down.

Something is going on here. In our efforts to understand and become a
learning organization (virtual or in our home organizations) we need to
realize and use to advantage the different natural orientations people
have, and recognize that they don't all hear it the same way.

Sorry this got so long, and I hope Robert Bacal won't take this as a
personal attack, because it's not. I value his viewpoint-after all,
isn't dialogue rather that discussion (or concussion/percussion) what we
are working toward.

Later...
Michael Erickson
sysengr@atc.boeing.com

-- 

Michael Erickson <sysengr@atc.boeing.com>

Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>