A good critique of McGilchrist's work ran through comments at http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/02/24/split-brain-split-views-debating-iain-mcgilchrist/#comment-8980 , which was precipitated by this mixed review of McGilchrist's master work, The Master and His Emissary: http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/02/21/divided-brain-divided-world/ . Dr. Jarrett weighed in at some point in appreciation of the mixed initial review, as I recall.

My own feelings somewhat parallel your own, Benjamin; I've articulated some of them at a long-winded post at http://www.reachtheright.com/2012/03/07/the-political-brain-1/ . The short version is that people outside hemispheric studies of various kinds- and I include many neurologists, psychologists, and other scientists in that count- are handling coarsely an important aspect of human psychology. There are therapeutic approaches based on hemispheric implications already that have great efficacy; further, there are many ideas present in McGilchrist's and other's work that bear the most careful consideration. Ultimately, there is a crux to the matter: that the choice was made evolutionarily, long before we were even a species, to divide brains into laterally-aligned clumps of modules, connected in a highly unintuitive way. Rationales for the continuing advantages of that choice, ancient and modern, are essential to unearth, yet the common approach by many scientists is to complain about crowdsourced speculations and deride the very subject of a great deal of good research.

More Posts