Brain lateralisation: why bring it up?

[moggie]

In another thread, we talked briefly about misuse of the concept of left-right brain function lateralisation, which pop psychology tends to boil down to "left=analytical, right=intuitive". This is often invoked by opponents of science, as in the example I quoted written by an astrologer:

Purposefully crashing something into the moon just to watch what happens is akin to a schoolboy cutting up a live frog to see what makes it jump. It is an example of the domination of the left-brained rational scientific approach over the intuitive.

This is fairly typical. I've often seen pieces which praise "right-brain creativity", written by proponents of the paranormal. What puzzles me about this is what purpose this "neuromyth" (thanks, LB) serves in this context. If you want to say "science over-emphasises rational thought and neglects intuition", or a blunt "intuition and faith are better at arriving at the truth than analytical thinking", what exactly is added by mentioning brain hemispheres?

In his book Bad Science, Ben Goldacre briefly mentions research which suggests that people tend to rate an explanation of a psychological phenomenon more highly if it uses neurological terms - even when it's not really an explanation at all, but simply a restatement of the phenomenon. If you want people to believe you know what you're talking about, throw in sciencey terms like "parietal lobes" and "hippocampus". So if you want to explain why science rejects your conclusions, perhaps casting neurological aspersions on how scientists use their brains will do the trick. Or is something else at work here?

[LeftishBrit]

1. I think that some of it is that people regard it as evidence that logic and creativity are enemies

and it's better to be creative than logical.

It's of course a bit of an irony that the very same people who oppose materialistic, scientific-medical explanations for phenomena are using a materialistic, scientific-medical explanation to justify their own views!

But many people who are not ideological opponents of science are influenced by these neuromyths. Part of it is that they regard it as evidence that anyone, with the right exercises, can become clever and creative. These views are particularly common in management circles, where people are often looking for quick and simplistic solutions to problems.

[Orrex]

3. Creationists use a similar tactic

They rail against the inherent flaws of radiocarbon dating, but then they'll use radiocarbon dating to "prove" that humans and dinosaurs coexisted, for instance.

Your whole post is right on the money, as far as I'm concerned. The notion that creativity is better than logic is widespread in our quick-fix culture, as you note re: management circles.

Science is also at a disadvantage because its more specialized fields require advanced training to understand them, pushing them of reach of the average schlub like me and also opening them up to false equivalencies between organized religion and the scientific establishment. But "creative" or "intuitive" thinking, couched in carefully chosen terminology, is more readily accessible and invariably sounds quite reasonable.

This is how Creationists "win" public debates with proponents of evolution. The scientist will invariably destroy whatever argument the Creationist brings to the discussion, but the Creationist will win the approval of the audience, thereby walking away with a roomful of converts who think that the scientist is a mean-spirited egghead.

[salvorhardin]

4. Exactly

It's a special pseudo-scientific form of anti-intellectualism.

[TZ]

2. These are the same folk who insist that most people

only use 10% of their brain..Isn't that whats supposed to be so special about Indigo children they use that so called "unused"portion of the brain? Its myth upon myth upon myth.
Also, that left right brain bullshit often is used to justify as you implied Moggie that boys are more scientific than girls...

[Evoman]

5. Another question: why do they think science isn't creative?

Why do they think their bullshit woo is so fucking creative? How can you say that if you've never done science. Are you telling me the guy that came up with PCR wasn't really fucking creative?

Honestly, I think it's a way for these people to feel better about themselves. It's a mistake to think that you can't be both highly logical/rational AND creative. But when you only have one of those two things, it obviously makes sense you would elevate one and create a false dichotomy.

[onager]

6. You took the words out of my (right?) brain...

Especially when so much of art is just science in prettier clothes.

Music is firmly based in math and the science of generating frequencies which always behave the same way...IOW, they have repeatability, one of those science-y thingamajigs.

I know, big "duh." And at this point, the Cweative Brain Gestapo would probably start shouting about child prodigies or famous musicians who can't read music. Or primitive musicians.

But even all those know when they hit the wrong number of beats or a sour note. They're still applying the same principles, even if they do it intuitively. (With both sides of the brain.)

Artists, painters and sculptors also have to know an alarming amount of sciencish stuff about proportion, perspective, light, etc. etc.

Sorry for being Master Of The Obvious (again) but I was really thinking about this last night. I watched the 2006 movie Goya's Ghosts. One of Francisco Goya's many talents was engravings. The movie has a sequence that walks (quickly!) thru the process of creating and producing engravings in the 18th century.

That artistic process depended on a lot of technical/scientific know-how, including The Original Devil's Tool, the printing press.

Final Grump: the critics hated Goya's Ghosts. Fuck them. This movie has everything: the Inquisition, Natalie Portman playing 3 roles, Napoleon, King Carlos IV of Spain played by RANDY QUAID, Javier Bardem as a lecherous greedy Catholic Inquisitor who later morphs into a Secular Inquisitor. And movie re-enactments of those horrifying scenes Goya put into Disasters of War.

Director Milos Forman said he used the Inquisition as a metaphor for 2 systems he had lived under in Czechoslovakia: Nazism and Stalinist Communism.

As a bonus, he throws in a hint at another regime. Napoleon assures his troops that when they invade Spain, "the people will throw flowers at your feet and greet you as liberators!" To steal an Al Franken line, he left out one critical modifier before "flowers"--"exploding."