3 ms·

>That "left brain/right brain" business is the stupidest, most egregious display of a lack of understanding of basic neuroscience. This is the first thing that

by chao- 14y ago

>That "left brain/right brain" business is the stupidest, most egregious display of a lack of understanding of basic neuroscience. This is the first thing that I wanted to say, and I'm glad to see it already represented in this thread. The only myths that get to me as much as perpetuation of the Left- vs. Right-brained business are statements that assume a zero-sum model of economics/trade, or statements that imply a 1:1 mapping of specific genes to specific functions/physical traits. It's a more academic version of "So are you a dog person, or a cat person? Oh you're X? That means, you like to Y and and hate it when people Z!" Getting past that and allowing the neuromyth as a metaphor for "creative" versus "process-oriented", there are still all sorts of issues that I take with that sort of one-dimensional categorization being placed on a person.

bitwize 14y ago
It's a more academic version of "So are you a dog person, or a cat person? Oh you're X? That means, you like to Y and and hate it when people Z!" Another thing: generations. "Generation X does this-and-such while the Millennials are like so..." Go fuck yourself. I and most of the people I know from either "generation" are like neither of those things.
twelvechairs 14y ago
To add a little perspective as to how this whole 'left-right brain' myth has been perpetuated - a lot of it has come to popular consciousness (and particularly that of artists) through the (learn to draw) book "drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwards (1979). Its actually a fantastic book for its purpose. It remains today a classic book still widely used - better than even most more recent books on the same topic. Whilst its use of the 'left-right' thing is obviously fundamentally flawed scientifically, in the book it is more or less a model presented to the reader in describing how to 'think' to aid in drawing - which mental processes to turn on/off, focus on or ignore. This more practical side of the book has proved very helpful and effective to its readers and is the real achievement which has led to the book's enduring success. The success of this has however led to the propagation of the 'left-right' thing which the book does basically claim is a scientific basis for everything described. My only point in saying this is that there's complexity to stories like this - ideas can be helpful even if the scientific base they pretend to be based on is incorrect.

by chao- 14y ago

bitwize 14y ago

It's a more academic version of "So are you a dog person, or a cat person? Oh you're X? That means, you like to Y and and hate it when people Z!" Another thing: generations. "Generation X does this-and-such while the Millennials are like so..." Go fuck yourself. I and most of the people I know from either "generation" are like neither of those things.

twelvechairs 14y ago

To add a little perspective as to how this whole 'left-right brain' myth has been perpetuated - a lot of it has come to popular consciousness (and particularly that of artists) through the (learn to draw) book "drawing on the right side of the brain" by Betty Edwards (1979). Its actually a fantastic book for its purpose. It remains today a classic book still widely used - better than even most more recent books on the same topic. Whilst its use of the 'left-right' thing is obviously fundamentally flawed scientifically, in the book it is more or less a model presented to the reader in describing how to 'think' to aid in drawing - which mental processes to turn on/off, focus on or ignore. This more practical side of the book has proved very helpful and effective to its readers and is the real achievement which has led to the book's enduring success. The success of this has however led to the propagation of the 'left-right' thing which the book does basically claim is a scientific basis for everything described. My only point in saying this is that there's complexity to stories like this - ideas can be helpful even if the scientific base they pretend to be based on is incorrect.