Splitting Headache!

It was 2006 and and I was wearing my carefully practised faintly ironic smile, that I reserved for workshops on psychology, invariably conducted by a bunch of extremely chirpy and 'intrinsically motivated' psychologists. At the moment, they were busy explaining to us, how merely interlacing our fingers would unravel our entire pattern of thinking...of course, they had the celebrated split brain hypothesis (or their version of it) to support this sententious pronouncement.

So, if my right thumb emerged on top, I was a coldly logical and rational person, likely to excel in the pure sciences (a dominant left brain); conversely, if it were my left thumb, I was an imaginative, creative and emotionally inclined person and, of course, likely to excel in the arts (a dominant right brain). And this claimed to be a class of second year psychology! Popular debate, self help books, even articles on management are replete with references to this rather romantic conception of specialization or 'lateralization' of brain function.

What is the 'split brain hypothesis'? The idea can be traced to the 'split brain experiments' by the Nobel prize winning neurologist, Roger Sperry. These experiments involved epileptic patients, who had (as a part of their treatment) had their corpus callosum (the thick band connecting the left and the right hemispheres of the brain) surgically removed...(hence the usage of the term 'split brain'). Consequently, in these 'split brain patients', neither hemisphere of the brain had access to what the other hemisphere already 'knew'. It is in these experiments that evidence of lateralization or the specialization of each cerebral hemisphere in certain functions was first found.

When an object (a fork) was placed in the left visual field of the 'split brain patient'( ie when his "right brain" was operating without help from the left), he was unable to name the object. When, however, he was asked to pick up the same object, he was able to do so with his left hand. On the other hand, when the object was placed in his right visual field ("left brain" operating without help from the right), the patient could name the object, but was unable to pick it up with his right hand. These results pointed to a certain degree of specialization: at a rudimentary level, of the right brain in controlling motor activity and of the left brain in controlling language. Similar experiments supported the notion that the left brain tends to organize through logical categories and the right brain tends to resort to mental imagery and spatial perception. For instance, when a split brain patient was asked to associate a cake kept on a plate with a picture, his left brain associated it with the picture of a fork and a spoon (logical connection by function), while his right brain associated it with the picture of a hat!(similarity in appearance)

However, subsequent research involving brain scanning techniques has revealed that the difference in the functioning of the two cerebral hemispheres lies in their processing style ie rather than specializing in particular processes, the two cerebral hemispheres use different techniques for performing the same process. While, the left hemisphere focuses on and processes by detail, the right hemisphere focuses on the larger picture. This is typically why the left hemisphere is found to be relatively specialized in verbal and analytical reasoning (detailed, step by step analysis), while the right hemisphere is found to be more adept at spatial perception or the figurative usage of speech (necessary, for instance, in understanding jokes and proverbs).

In every individual, both the hemispheres of the brain contribute to every mental activity. In every individual, for every mental activity, it is necessary that the left hemisphere work in its unique processing style, just as it is necessary that the right hemisphere apply its processing style. The exclusive control of one hemisphere over certain activities like logical or creative thinking is, therefore, a myth, with each activity requiring the complementary functioning of both the hemispheres.

Returning to the chirpy and 'intrinsically motivated' psychologists, it is my sincere hope, that their cherished notion of the logical-rational 'left brain dominant person' and the creative-imaginative 'right brain dominant person' will only continue to find resonance in pop psychology.

The startling conclusion of a recent survey published in the highly reputed journal- ??? We Investigate Anything:

Since the advent of Orkut, there has been a remarkable proliferation of bedrooms where good old Mess reigns supreme (as evidenced by the responses to the question, "In my bedroom you will find.....". The researchers admit, that this may perhaps be justifiable on the grounds that access to a socially approved medium for the expression of repressed impulses has given rise to the increased candour in reporting on the condition of one's bedroom. A student at the Institute for Changing Social Realities concurs and adds, that the findings are revelatory of the need to"come to terms with the storm and stress in our lives and to...well.........connect!" Prominent behavioural scientists have highlighted an interesting aspect of the controversy, in asserting, that it is the pressure to conform, that leads an ever increasing army of youngsters to adhere to the norm of considering Mess to be the defining feature of their bedrooms. This can also be explained in terms of the "self-ideal discrepancy", they continue, meaning, that respondents base their responses not on how messy they are, but on how messy they want to be.....There were a few dissenting voices that pleaded, that the responses were instead based on the fact that their rooms were infact messy. However an expert from the Centre for Lateral Thinking dismissed these, maintaining, that the results are symptomatic of a deeper malaise- the failure of our society to systematically cultivate a love for unstructured, ambiguous stimuli in each child.

The researchers, however, aver that, they are happy that their work has sparked off a lively and informed debate on a crucial issue and conclude their analysis with the comment, "Are the findings of this investigation true? The answer to this is more complex than a simple 'Yes' or 'No'..."

The Tip of the Iceberg

People love being mysterious. And they love to talk about their being mysterious. “I’m extremely moody” or “No one knows the real me” are a couple of affirmations that make up the fabric of the cozy cocoon called ‘identity’. Legions of self styled ‘thinkers’ have expended astonishing amounts of energy in approaching that conundrum: Who am I? Am I an aggregation of all my characteristics, or something more? Am I really distinct from what I do? Am I this…Am I that…and of course, the far more fundamental “Am I?”

So, who are we? Do we get to decide? Does it matter who we think we are? No it does not and yes, it does. It does not, as what we think about ourselves changes nothing about us (let’s for a moment ignore the purported benefits of ‘positive self evaluations’). Yes it does, as, in the ultimate analysis, all external factors being what they are, we can choose to think what we want to about ourselves, by selectively attending to some of these external factors, while discounting others. ‘Symbolic self awareness’ is the term used to denote our ability to think about our thoughts; it is in fact, in a sense, an intricate web of defenses designed to maintain a consistent, non threatening ‘version’ of reality, to serve as an armor for our inviolable ‘identities’. Consciousness is, after all, the tip of the iceberg, with the overarching need to maintain ‘consistency’ in our pictures of ourselves (and of others). The edifice of consciousness is constructed through an elaborate pattern of distortions and deceptions. Positive self evaluations are, in a sense, deceptions…and deceptions are not necessarily bad; they are coping mechanisms.

So, when a ‘mysterious’ person convinces others (and herself) that no one knows the real her, she does not have to try to be anything at all and any aspects of her ‘being’ that have the potential to appear unpleasant to anyone should be of little concern to her, as “that’s not the real her”

People guard their identities zealously and selectively perceive information that reaffirms their self images. I often feel, that the surest way to ‘motivate’ a person to perform a task is to link the outcome to her self image; her ‘identity’. Of course, in some cases, this activates another common defense: shifting the basis of our identities or changing the source of self worth. So, if Math remains your bête noire, you can always shift over from the “no-wait-I-can-do-this” camp to join the ranks of the “I’m-not-cut-out-for-this-stupid-subject” section.

Deception is not necessarily bad, but it can, at times, be exceedingly pernicious. An acknowledgement of the failings of our cognitive faculty should induce us to exercise caution in making decisions and judgments by carefully evaluating information from the environment and astutely studying our own reactions to it (trying to find out why we do what we do). And then again, there are ways to justify yourself without having to undergo this rigorous exercise: Perhaps you’re just extremely moody!

Friends of the FOE

Every intelligent, well-informed, law-abiding citizen knows Foe. He is revered by most, found unassailable by many, as He springs on them Hydra-like and even understood by a few. For the uninitiated, Foe is Freedom of Expression...and ironically Foe will prove to be my most valuable friend in critically analysing Foe, as any objection to my portrayal of Foe would effectively impinge on my Foe!!! So, as I was saying, Foe has many friends... I distinctly remember one from a well known college in Pune, who cheerfully sported a shirt that said (with an air of silent contemplation)..."Reality is but a Rorschach ink blot" And the face of the owner seemed to beam in the self evident correctness of the assertion and held a look of gentle sympathy and understanding for those, who had not attained the wisdom to spot this self evident correctness. (Although, how anything can be correct, whether self evidently or otherwise, when reality is an ink blot, was a question that used to baffle me a lot) During the three years that I spent in that well known college in Pune, a highly recurrent theme (even more recurrent than global warming) was "accepting that one's opinion is as correct as that of the other" This and similar statements were bundled together and tossed at unsuspecting victims, since these, apparently, embodied...the Freedom of Expression (FOE). If having an opinion has, as its inextricable component, accepting that the opposite is equally true, why have an opinion...or why call it an opinion, in the first place? Something like 'general consensus' would be a more apt description.
Does respecting Foe mean accepting, that we are all equally right? Even a moment's thought, after having shaken off their messianic zeal, would convince most Friends of the Foe, that this, in fact, is not true. Respecting the Foe does not mean believing that the other is right, but respecting his right to believe he is right! Could anything be more self evident?
Today, Foe is revered to the extent, that most of us cannot sleep soundly, if we have not uttered the sentence, "Of course, that's just my opinion...you are right too" about 22 times in a day. Is THAT freedom? If so, whose freedom is being safeguarded here?
"Self appointed guardians of Morality" have been facing relentless waves of opprobrium, even from the high school kid, who has never ventured beyond the Bombay Times. It's perhaps time, we subjected their equally overzealous counterparts,the "Self appointed guardians of the Freedom of Expression", to the same degree of scrutiny. They will, of course, have to respect our freedom to indulge in such an exercise!