TWO BRAINS /TWO VIEWS
If there is one thing that is consistent in the presentations of patients with anxiety it is the fact that the brains of these patients appear to be at odds with themselves. They have not one view but two. In truth it must be said that the brain consistently has two views on everything. This ‘doubleness’ has been remarked upon by many but particularly Oliver Sacks who talks about ‘a certain doubleness in me’ with equal interest in both disease and the people who have them. This interest in the humanity behind the illness characterised his attitude to his work and undoubtedly represented the uniqueness of his neurological perspective.
This brain inconsistency has been a constant source of speculation in those interested in brain function. Much of this speculation relates to why we apparently have two halves of a brain in our skull which appear to be essential duplications of one functioning brain. In other words we appear to function as if we have two brains in our skull. The question that arises naturally from this is why should this be the case?
If we do have two brains in our heads then it stands to reason that we might have two different views on things depending on which brain we decide to use. This sort of thinking ‘came to a head’ so to speak in the 1960s and 1970s when it was decided that the left hemisphere was responsible for mathematical skills logic and critical thinking and the right brain was responsible for artistic endeavour, creativity and emotionality. The left brain was traditionally seen as the dominant brain that reflected masculinity and general superiority whereas the right reflected female emotion and intuition social acumen and general inferiority. In fact traditionally the right brain was considered dominant in women, savages, children, criminals and the insane. It may be the case that some men still hold this view.
Since those heady days of last century neuro-science appears to have moved on in this one, although in truth perhaps not quite as far as some of us would have liked or have imagined.
We are now reliably informed that the above brain characterisations are entirely mythical. Functional MRIs have illustrated that there appears not to be a gender related bias towards one side of the brain or the other in men or women. It seems that the evidence suggests rather than having major hemisphere differentially biased activity we actually use most of both our brain hemispheres most of the time. In the contemporary era the old idea that we only use a small percentage of our brains has definitively been abandoned. Interconnectivity of the brain in terms of reacting in concert involving both hemispheres appears to be how we now think the brain functions.
As much however as we would like to believe that brain lateralisation is a myth unfortunately much lingering doubt remains. When many neuroscientific findings are reported in the literature differential functions in opposing hemispheres of the brain consistently come up. To deny this appears to be a social agnosia of its own kind. Iain McGilchrist a British psychiatrist is probably the best-known advocate for the differential functioning theory related to the two hemispheres. His analysis of the research into the subject has been probably unsurpassed and is available in the two significant tomes that he has published on the subject. Dr McGilchrist believes that the right and left brains or hemispheres are differentiated not in what they do, necessarily, always acknowledging the fact that language appears to be generally dominant in the left hemisphere, but more to the point in how exactly they do it. He believes that the left brain focusses narrowly on subject matter and subsequently is more explicit. It therefore has difficulty with understanding context and nuance. The right brain is focussed more widely and being broader in its outlook looks towards and empathises with the complexities of context and implicitness in human life. The left brain is more goal focussed and driven while the right is more attentive in its involvement with relatedness significance and meaning. McGilchrist is very keen to debunk the theory of gender related hemisphere bias believing that we all have the ability to utilise any part of the brain that is available to us. Neuroscientific findings at this stage appears to support that view.
If nevertheless the hemispheric distinction is valid it provides us with a ready-made reason for believing that this is the primary basis of the two points of view that we all seem to have. We choose or alternate between the assertive view of the left hemisphere or the apprehensive and vigilant view of the right.
Perhaps however left and right hemisphere theories are too simplistic and may be metaphors for the basic brain behaviour that is observable by us all. We do appear to have two points of often very confounding and confused views on life. This produces conflict and the result is anxiety.
So perhaps we could speculate that we have two major systems in the brain that produce these different behavioural tendencies in the people we meet. The systems are different in how they function and we either go with a default bias or we decide on which parts of the brain we wish to choose to invest in. Studies on brain plasticity have for some time now indicated this as a realistic and material possibility.
We have far more control over our brain function emotion and behaviour than we have ever thought possible. An example of this is in ADHD where the effects of stimulants is to increase the dopamine action, availability and function in the pre-frontal cortex. This then controls the emotional system and the basal ganglia leading to greatly increased emotional control and attentiveness. McGilchrist makes the relevant point that the role of the pre-frontal cortex is largely inhibitory producing space between the person and the object at hand something necessary for perspective and reasoned feeling and thought. The significant point here is that large aspects of pre-frontal cortex activity are in fact amenable to conscious control. This means that with psycho-therapeutic training and practice the prefrontal cortex itself can be stimulated to perform the functions afforded by stimulant medication.
Returning to our main thesis however, the two conflictual brain systems may be categorised as an Explicit Brain System as opposed to an Implicit Brain System. The Oxford dictionary definitions of the two are as follows:
Explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
Implicit - suggested though not directly expressed.
In this categorisation the explicit brain is definite, confident and perceives everything in the black and white terms it applies to itself. It is idealistic, romantic and happy to fixate on fantasy. At the same time as being a believer in rationality it engages irrationality in thought and belief. It often can exhibit shallowness, fickleness and sociopathy all the time espousing virtue and morality. It is the brain of paradox
The implicit brain on the other hand is far more pragmatic and concrete. It confines itself largely to reality even when emotional and therefore more readily engages in practical action It is more social, complex and has more meaningful relationships. For the implicit brain, meaning is seen as a realistic and pragmatic matter.
From the perspective of us all we could speculate that we have these two systems in the brain that by anatomical and systemic evolutionary development aided by coincidence find themselves as part of our one self. They of necessity have to work together while often having contradictory views, When these contradictions become too acute and painful we often experience anxiety. Anxiety is the pain of living; the intrinsic end-result of a confused brain. We defend ourselves against this often seemingly unbearable pain as best we can.
This we call being human.
If there is one thing that is consistent in the presentations of patients with anxiety it is the fact that the brains of these patients appear to be at odds with themselves. They have not one view but two. In truth it must be said that the brain consistently has two views on everything. This ‘doubleness’ has been remarked upon by many but particularly Oliver Sacks who talks about ‘a certain doubleness in me’ with equal interest in both disease and the people who have them. This interest in the humanity behind the illness characterised his attitude to his work and undoubtedly represented the uniqueness of his neurological perspective.
This brain inconsistency has been a constant source of speculation in those interested in brain function. Much of this speculation relates to why we apparently have two halves of a brain in our skull which appear to be essential duplications of one functioning brain. In other words we appear to function as if we have two brains in our skull. The question that arises naturally from this is why should this be the case?
If we do have two brains in our heads then it stands to reason that we might have two different views on things depending on which brain we decide to use. This sort of thinking ‘came to a head’ so to speak in the 1960s and 1970s when it was decided that the left hemisphere was responsible for mathematical skills logic and critical thinking and the right brain was responsible for artistic endeavour, creativity and emotionality. The left brain was traditionally seen as the dominant brain that reflected masculinity and general superiority whereas the right reflected female emotion and intuition social acumen and general inferiority. In fact traditionally the right brain was considered dominant in women, savages, children, criminals and the insane. It may be the case that some men still hold this view.
Since those heady days of last century neuro-science appears to have moved on in this one, although in truth perhaps not quite as far as some of us would have liked or have imagined.
We are now reliably informed that the above brain characterisations are entirely mythical. Functional MRIs have illustrated that there appears not to be a gender related bias towards one side of the brain or the other in men or women. It seems that the evidence suggests rather than having major hemisphere differentially biased activity we actually use most of both our brain hemispheres most of the time. In the contemporary era the old idea that we only use a small percentage of our brains has definitively been abandoned. Interconnectivity of the brain in terms of reacting in concert involving both hemispheres appears to be how we now think the brain functions.
As much however as we would like to believe that brain lateralisation is a myth unfortunately much lingering doubt remains. When many neuroscientific findings are reported in the literature differential functions in opposing hemispheres of the brain consistently come up. To deny this appears to be a social agnosia of its own kind. Iain McGilchrist a British psychiatrist is probably the best-known advocate for the differential functioning theory related to the two hemispheres. His analysis of the research into the subject has been probably unsurpassed and is available in the two significant tomes that he has published on the subject. Dr McGilchrist believes that the right and left brains or hemispheres are differentiated not in what they do, necessarily, always acknowledging the fact that language appears to be generally dominant in the left hemisphere, but more to the point in how exactly they do it. He believes that the left brain focusses narrowly on subject matter and subsequently is more explicit. It therefore has difficulty with understanding context and nuance. The right brain is focussed more widely and being broader in its outlook looks towards and empathises with the complexities of context and implicitness in human life. The left brain is more goal focussed and driven while the right is more attentive in its involvement with relatedness significance and meaning. McGilchrist is very keen to debunk the theory of gender related hemisphere bias believing that we all have the ability to utilise any part of the brain that is available to us. Neuroscientific findings at this stage appears to support that view.
If nevertheless the hemispheric distinction is valid it provides us with a ready-made reason for believing that this is the primary basis of the two points of view that we all seem to have. We choose or alternate between the assertive view of the left hemisphere or the apprehensive and vigilant view of the right.
Perhaps however left and right hemisphere theories are too simplistic and may be metaphors for the basic brain behaviour that is observable by us all. We do appear to have two points of often very confounding and confused views on life. This produces conflict and the result is anxiety.
So perhaps we could speculate that we have two major systems in the brain that produce these different behavioural tendencies in the people we meet. The systems are different in how they function and we either go with a default bias or we decide on which parts of the brain we wish to choose to invest in. Studies on brain plasticity have for some time now indicated this as a realistic and material possibility.
We have far more control over our brain function emotion and behaviour than we have ever thought possible. An example of this is in ADHD where the effects of stimulants is to increase the dopamine action, availability and function in the pre-frontal cortex. This then controls the emotional system and the basal ganglia leading to greatly increased emotional control and attentiveness. McGilchrist makes the relevant point that the role of the pre-frontal cortex is largely inhibitory producing space between the person and the object at hand something necessary for perspective and reasoned feeling and thought. The significant point here is that large aspects of pre-frontal cortex activity are in fact amenable to conscious control. This means that with psycho-therapeutic training and practice the prefrontal cortex itself can be stimulated to perform the functions afforded by stimulant medication.
Returning to our main thesis however, the two conflictual brain systems may be categorised as an Explicit Brain System as opposed to an Implicit Brain System. The Oxford dictionary definitions of the two are as follows:
Explicit - stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt.
Implicit - suggested though not directly expressed.
In this categorisation the explicit brain is definite, confident and perceives everything in the black and white terms it applies to itself. It is idealistic, romantic and happy to fixate on fantasy. At the same time as being a believer in rationality it engages irrationality in thought and belief. It often can exhibit shallowness, fickleness and sociopathy all the time espousing virtue and morality. It is the brain of paradox
The implicit brain on the other hand is far more pragmatic and concrete. It confines itself largely to reality even when emotional and therefore more readily engages in practical action It is more social, complex and has more meaningful relationships. For the implicit brain, meaning is seen as a realistic and pragmatic matter.
From the perspective of us all we could speculate that we have these two systems in the brain that by anatomical and systemic evolutionary development aided by coincidence find themselves as part of our one self. They of necessity have to work together while often having contradictory views, When these contradictions become too acute and painful we often experience anxiety. Anxiety is the pain of living; the intrinsic end-result of a confused brain. We defend ourselves against this often seemingly unbearable pain as best we can.
This we call being human.