The Divided Brain (2019) - full transcript

[WHOOSH]

[MUSIC PLAYING]

[THEME MUSIC]

>> How do we
experience the world?

How do we make sense of it,
measure it, construct it,

and understand our
position in it?

A controversial scientist,
Iain McGilchrist,

has developed a radical
theory about how

our brain interprets the world.

>> Iain McGilchrist, he's a
psychiatrist and author of "The

Master and His Emissary--



The Divided Brain and the
Making of the Western World,"

about the various implications
of the differences

between the two
hemispheres in the brain.

Let's start there.

Like what?

>> Two hemispheres have styles--

takes, if you
like-- on the world.

They see things differently.

They prioritize
different things.

There are different values.

The left hemisphere's goal is to
enable us to manipulate things.

Whereas, the goal of
the right hemisphere

is to relate to things and
understand them as a whole.

Two ways of thinking
that are both needed,



but are fundamentally at
the same time incompatible.

>> McGilchrist claims that the
left hemisphere of the brain is

gradually colonizing our
experience of the world with

potentially disastrous
implications.

>> The way of thinking
which is reductive,

mechanistic has taken us over.

We behave like people who
had right hemisphere damage.

>> Do we pay a price for being
too left hemisphere-centered?

>> We may pay the
ultimate price,

who treats the world as a
simple resource to be exploited.

It's made us
enormously powerful.

It's enabled us
to become wealthy.

But it's also meant
that we've lost means

to understand the world.

>> His revolutionary theory has
attracted prominent supporters

worldwide, comparing
him to Freud and Darwin.

>> I think "The Master and
His Emissary" was possibly,

one of the most
important books I read.

>> The idea that there is a
distinction between those two

perspectives seems,
to me, correct.

And I see it all the
time in my own field

of clinical psychology.

>> I kind of had one
revelation after another.

I mean, it just explains an
incredible number of things

that I've always been
slightly positive about.

>> But scientists
think he's a heretic.

>> It's a fantastic book.

It's a fantastic book
that I don't believe in.

>> The brain is as
mechanical as clockwork.

A famous English
physicist said that.

Let's just get over that.

>> Now McGilchrist
is on the road.

Invited to speak about his
view of the brain and society.

Could the problems
of the modern world

be influenced by an
imbalance in the human brain?

And what does that
imply about our future?

For Iain McGilchrist,
the problem

is not only bad politics or
a warped economic system.

The problem is inside
our modern brain.

[WAVES]

>> The landscape speaks
very strongly to people.

Some people find it a
little bit overwhelming.

I suspect it's what
the people call

one of their Celtic
thin places, where

the world beyond the
immediate seems very apparent.

There is something very
special about the whole place.

There's a strong energy there
from the wildness of nature.

You feel it.

>> It was here that McGilchrist
developed his groundbreaking

theory.

>> My dad was a doctor and tried
to avoid becoming a doctor.

His first degree
was in economics.

And I rather repeated
the pattern in this.

I didn't even begin to
be trained in medicine

until was 28.

[NON-ENGLISH SINGING]

>> McGilchrist took an indirect
path to reach medicine.

As a young man, he
taught literature

at Oxford University.

>> After I got my degree, I
got a fellowship at All Souls

College, which enabled me
to do, really, more or less,

anything I liked
intellectually for seven years.

And into that time, I
then ended up really

thinking more about
the mind-body problem.

When we read a poem or we
listen to a piece of music,

it can bring tears to your eyes.

It can quicken your pulse.

It can raise your
blood pressure.

In other words, it has enormous
effects on you physiologically.

I felt that we were
doing something

destructive to literature.

People in the past
had taken trouble

to create something that was
unique, embodied, and implicit.

And we came along
and made it general

and abstract and explicit.

And making a poem explicit is
a bit like explaining a joke.

It just makes it fall flat.

A work of art is
an embodied being

that has an encounter with
you as an embodied being.

It's not a bunch of
thought that just has

an encounter with your brain.

The base of the problem was
the mind-body relationship.

That we were looking
at literature in much

too disembodied a way.

I thought no.

I need somehow to
tackle this problem.

That was what impelled
me to do medicine.

>> McGilchrist spent the next
14 years training in neurology

and psychiatry.

It was a journey that took
him to the renowned Maudsley

Hospital in London.

>> So this was built just around
the time of the First World

War.

This was one of the many places
to which I owe a huge debt.

Because I was seeing an
extremely broad cross-section

of patients.

Conditions such
as schizophrenia,

severe personality
disorders, and head injuries.

This is an amazing
painting by William Kurelek

called "The Maze."

What's interesting is
the very human anguish

of this person with his illness.

What one is seeing is a change
in the whole way in which one

experiences the world due to
something out of the ordinary

in brain functioning.

Here at the Maudsley
Hospital, I had access

to patients for whom the world
has become utterly changed.

Particularly
interesting to me were

people with either
tumors or strokes.

Because there, you can
localize where the damage is.

You can see it in a scan.

And you can then see what
happens to that patient.

Good science starts from a
really intriguing question.

Why is the brain divided?

You know, I never heard that
asked in any of my training.

It's really what I've been
thinking about all my life.

About these two
different ways in which

we seem to inhabit the world.

And that was the beginning of a
20-year long process in which I

tried to apply myself
to the question of what

the differences between these
two hemispheres really were.

>> Everything we
human beings ever do,

no matter how ordinary it
seems, has a complex beginning

in our brains.

Finding out how the
brain does this work

is a study that has fascinated
scientists for centuries.

>> The brain is, of course, an
enormously complex structure.

In fact, it's kind of
redundantly complex.

We have two cerebral
hemispheres.

But it becomes a
fascinating question

to know whether the two
cerebral hemispheres can

operate separately.

>> In the '60s and '70s
in California at Caltech,

there was some incredibly
important and fascinating work.

And what they were
trying to do was

to improve the quality
of life for people

with intractable epilepsy.

Now these people might
have almost continuous

epileptic seizures.

Which meant that
they couldn't really

carry on any kind
of normal life.

>> The original idea was based
on the notion that if you

isolated a seizure to one
half the brain so it could not

spread to the other half
brain, when a seizure occurred,

you would prevent a
generalized convulsion.

It wouldn't spread
throughout the brain.

The patient wouldn't lose
generalized consciousness

and you would have helped.

>> Today Michael Gazzaniga is
a world-renowned neuroscientist

and vineyard owner.

In the 1960s, he was a
grad student participating

in radical brain experiments.

>> By sectioning this structure,
as can be seen in this half

brain section, called the corpus
callosum and it has over 2

million nerve fibers.

And they richly interconnect
the two halves of the brain.

What they did was, with
some trepidation initially,

to divide this corpus
callosum, the main pathway

by which the two
hemispheres communicate.

And what they found after the
operation was that the seizures

largely stopped.

The other thing was it
was possible by setting

it up carefully
controlled experiments

to find out what the
reactions of the left

and the right hemisphere
were independently.

>> Each side of the brain
controls the opposite side

of the body.

So the left hemisphere
controls the right side

of the body and the right
hemisphere communicates

with the left.

>> The patient
looks at a screen.

Just imagine fixating on a dot.

And over here, we flash
a picture of an apple.

So if it's in the
right visual field.

That goes to your left brain.

Left brain's got
language and speech.

Patient said that's an apple.

This time, you put the apple
over in the left visual field.

That now goes to the
right disconnected brain.

And you say to the
patient, what did you see?

And the patient says,
I didn't see anything.

>> Something on the left.

I know what it is.

I can't say it.

I want to, but I can't.

I know what it is.

>> What's it have to do with?

>> I can't tell
you that, either.

>> They found that the left arm
and the right arm seem to be

contradicting one another.

So if somebody would select
a dress with her right arm,

then the left arm would take it
back, and put it on the shelf,

and take out another one.

>> Frustrated.

>> The experiments proved
that we have two brains

in our heads.

Not just one.

But they do not see
the world the same way.

>> When I started
to do psychiatry,

nothing much was said about
what the mass of the right

hemisphere did.

My training was that
the left hemisphere

was very important for
understanding and language

and for speaking language.

But that really, what went
on in the right hemisphere

was not that significant.

Michael Gazzaniga had said
that the right hemisphere

of the human brain had
about as much intelligence

as a chimpanzee.

And so that wasn't encouraging.

>> Well, I used
to give a lecture.

The left hemisphere, don't
leave home without it.

And that summarized
the importance

I saw to the special
modules, we call now systems,

in the left hemisphere.

That's where the heavy
duty lifting comes

for our complex cognitive life.

>> But in this experiment
with a split brain patient,

while the right hemisphere
is trying to make the cube,

the left hemisphere's
hand keeps interfering.

Because it doesn't
know what it's doing.

Yet, the right
hemisphere on its own

solves the problem in seconds.

>> All of those who were
involved in the team came

to the conclusion that each
hemisphere had, if you like,

like a different way of
looking at the world.

>> You separate the
two hemispheres,

you've got mine left,
you got mine right.

It's what grabbed
everybody's interest.

Everybody can understand that.

And so the left talks
and is analytical

and the right is creative
and pulls stuff together.

And boom.

It was an industry.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

>> Thanks to pop psychology,
the right and left hemispheres

became cartoon characters.

It was no longer
considered serious science.

>> The left does language and
reason and the right does airy,

fairy pictures of image.

And that turned out
not to be right.

Because what people
found was that over time,

it was obvious that
each hemisphere

engages in everything.

So each hemisphere--
right and left--

is involved in reason and
in language and in emotion.

But in crucially different ways.

>> Although the pop culture
understanding of the left

and right hemisphere
was eventually rejected,

a central question
still remained.

>> Why does the brain have
two centers of consciousness,

each capable of maintaining
consciousness on its own

involved in everything,
but in a different way?

But it was only when I came to
look at the animal literature

that just, the penny dropped.

Professor Gunturkun.

>> Hey, Iain.

>> How nice of you to see me.

>> Absolutely.

Fantastic.

How are you, Iain?

>> Lovely to meet you.

>> Absolutely.

Same with me.

>> I apologize for delays.

>> No problem at all.

This university is a maze.

>> Just completely lost.

>> It's an absolute maze.

>> Dr. Onur Gunturkun is a
leading researcher in the field

of animal neurology.

He focuses on how birds use
each half of their brain.

>> These are the animals
with the eye rings.

>> Using the Velcro, you
can cover one eye at a time.

>> Exactly.

Exactly.

So there is a little
cap that we have.

And then the animal just sees
with its left or right eye.

Because, as you know, the
optic nerves cross completely.

>> Yes.

>> So everything the right
eye sees goes to the left

hemisphere and vise versa.

>> Gunturkun devised a test
where pigeons were trained

to recognize human beings
in vacation photos.

Each time the birds
recognized there

was a person in a picture,
they were rewarded.

>> After a while, they start to
understand there are pictures

with humans and there are
pictures without humans.

>> But then the birds were
given a harder challenge.

>> Now we can start
to alter the pictures.

We cut out the head, we cut out
the arm, we cut out the trunk,

and spread it
across the picture.

It is like a slaughtering scene.

We take the pictures
and chop them

in smaller and smaller
and smaller pieces.

The left hemisphere says, OK.

I see a head.

I see eyes.

I see a nose.

That's a human.

I'm packing on it.

The right hemisphere now says,
this is no human anymore.

The right hemisphere
requires the correct position

of the human body to
recognize the human.

So that means both hemispheres
are doing an excellent job.

Both hemispheres contribute.

And both hemispheres can
decide human or non-human,

but they do it with different
cognitive strategies.

When pigeons are
up to find food,

they have to discriminate
grain from pebbles.

So that one hemisphere
is really concentrating

on the tiny little
details of the food,

while the other one is
glancing into the environment.

And is on quick alert if an
aerial predator is coming.

>> This is fundamental
to survival.

And that was the moment
at which I realized

this is profoundly
important to all beings that

have to solve the conundrum
of how to eat and stay alive.

>> McGilchrist realized
that in human beings,

these two different kinds of
attention played out in much

more complex ways.

>> You won't find a neurologist
anywhere in the world who will

dispute that there is different
kinds of attention paid

by the left and
right hemisphere.

Then, very clearly,
each hemisphere

must find a different world.

What would those two
worlds look like?

>> McGilchrist observed that the
left hemisphere gives a narrow,

sharply-focused
attention to detail.

Without understanding
the larger context.

It sees objects in relation
to their usefulness.

It's in charge of
the right hand, which

has the power to
manipulate things

such as tools and technology.

But it can't make
human connections.

It doesn't understand
relationships, humor,

tone of voice.

Things and people are not
unique and individual.

But groups that it
can organize, sort,

and file in a system of
rules and linear connections.

On its own, it has no
sense of the whole.

Even people are
seen as body parts.

The world of the left
hemisphere is lifeless.

It shatters the world
into an assortment of bits

without meaning.

The right hemisphere,
by contrast,

sees the broad
view of the world.

It is the master of the brain.

It perceives an
interconnected world.

It understands
relationships, body language,

facial expression,
and implicit meaning.

The right hemisphere
engages with life,

understands movement,
story, and metaphor.

It forces how humanity fits
into the whole of creation.

The divided brain
gives us two types

of attention, two ways of
engaging with the world.

It has made us the most
powerful species on Earth.

But the left hemisphere's
narrow kind of attention

reminded McGilchrist of
something else, our world.

[TRAIN TRACKS]

>> I began thinking
about how in public life,

everything has become more
regulated, more rule-bound,

more explicit.

For the last 100 years, a way
of thinking which is reductive,

mechanistic has taken us over.

It's enabled us to manipulate
the world, to grab resources,

to become wealthy.

But it's also meant that
we've lost the means

to feel satisfaction
and fulfillment

through our place in the world.

And we created
outside ourselves,

a world which, very much,
looked like the interior world

of the left hemisphere.

Rigid lines of things
that were rolled out

mechanically and
were non-unique.

Bureaucracy is in its element.

It depends on qualities which
the left hemisphere provide--

organized ability, anonymity,
standardization, uniformity,

abstraction, and so on.

Systems designed to
maximize utility,

there will be a loss
of cohesion socially

because the left
hemisphere needs control.

And there's a lack of
trust and a lot of paranoia

that we need for CCTV and
monitoring of all kinds.

[TYPING]

The left hemisphere is
the quick and dirty one.

Because it has to make action.

It likes things to
be black and white.

What do you mean there's half
or ambiguity or metaphor?

I want to know the facts.

It's like this or it's that.

People think, well, the
left hemisphere is surely,

the basis for our intelligence.

It's the one that does
all that analysis.

But actually, this
is not the case.

There's a lot of evidence
that the really critical one

from a point of
view of intelligence

is the right hemisphere.

Another important difference--
a very important one--

is that between fixity
and flow, so things

in the left
hemisphere are fixed.

Whereas in the right
hemisphere, flow

is what it sees and understands.

Now, that is very profound.

That actually changes the
whole nature of what life is.

Nothing is just isolated.

It is always part of a flow.

Things can only be
understood in context.

When you take them
out, they change.

When you grab them and put them
in the spotlight of attention

and make them explicit,
they change their nature.

Jokes, for example.

Sex, for example.

Religion, for example.

[APPLAUSE]

>> Thank you very much, Iain.

What I want to ask
you is, how do you

guard this idea as it unfolds
in the next few years?

>> Well, that's a
very good question.

And I'm--

>> There's something, I
think, very counterintuitive,

a little bizarre, a little-- it
evokes incredulity in people.

And when I first heard
it, I thought that, that

sounds really strange.

Iain's saying things that
other people haven't seen.

The fundamental
thing he's saying

is the philosophical
notion that what matters

is not what the
brain hemispheres do,

but how they do it.

There are times when we're
very focused, very explicit

and there are times
when we're more

nuanced and implicit
and contextual.

You do begin to notice
it in certain places.

So the, sort of, creeping
bureaucratization

that you sense, the
fragmentation of knowledge,

the over-reliance
on quantification,

the obsession with
evidence-based policy.

And the desire for data--

the, sort of, fetishization
of data, really.

And the losing touch with
broader patterns of judgment

and taste and discernment.

>> Many of my McGilchrist's
insights into the brain

hemispheres have come from
patients who have had strokes.

[MUSIC - JURG KESSELRING]

>> Jurg Kesselring is
a great neurologist.

He's a clinician, but
also, a philosopher

and a great musician,
as it happens.

[APPLAUSE]

>> You see how hard life
is in the mountains?

>> It is very hard.

I see that.

>> You want to do something
serious and then the laughing

winds.

>> Come and blow everything.

>> [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH].

>> Something you
must go to and--

[LAUGHING]

Also, therapy's everywhere.

And over here--

>> [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH].

[LAUGHING]

>> [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]

>> It's been fascinating
going around and seeing some

of the patients
that you have here.

And I remember you telling
me about some cases.

You mentioned--

>> One I remember well,
there was a gentleman who is

a writer.

He's writing travel books.

And one night, he woke up
and felt an arm next to him.

And then he thought,
well, who could that be?

Because my wife
said she will stay

in Basel and another place.

So it cannot be her.

And then he turned on the
light and saw this arm

and threw it out of
the bed and followed it

because it was his arm.

And then he realized
lying on the ground

that something must be wrong.

And he went by his own
car-- with his own car

into the hospital.

>> This patient relies
on her left hemisphere.

She's been asked to spread
sauce over the entire pizza.

>> [NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]

>> What is the
definition of neglect?

That people behave as if one
part of their outer space

would not exist.

This part of her surroundings
does not exist for her.

>> Now we change
the perspective.

>> We turn it.

But I don't have any here.

>> You wanted it here?

>> Huh?

>> And here?

>> And she's surprised there
was no tomato sauce anymore.

>> For people and animals,
the effect of losing the right

hemisphere is the same.

>> The left hemisphere on its
own is deeply deluded, in fact,

and is unaware of its deficit.

It doesn't have insight.

And it doesn't realize
what it is it's missing.

>> Hi, Mr. Cohen.

Hi, Miriam.

>> Hi, doctor, how are you?

>> I'm good.

>> Six months ago, Miriam Cohen
collapsed from an aneurysm.

>> Look at my eyes.

And I'm gonna put
some fingers up

and you tell me how many
fingers you see now.

Don't look over there.

Look at me.

Now?

>> Since then, she's been
relying primarily on her left

hemisphere.

>> Now?

>> It was a fortunate thing for
me that he just happened to be

working.

>> That's very strong.

>> Because-- and I
thanked him later on.

I said to him, if you weren't
there, I wouldn't be here.

>> One, two, three.

>> Yeah.

>> She had quite a
severe case of neglect.

At the beginning, she
was the same patient

who wouldn't know her own head.

Neglect's an interesting thing.

People who have
strokes, particularly

in the right parietal
area, the patients

will not have an awareness of
the left side of their world.

>> I would start my writing
not on the left hand side,

I would start it in
the middle of the page.

It's not that I couldn't see it.

I could see it, but
my brain wouldn't

register that it was there.

>> Open.

>> Miriam's stroke left her
with a skewed sense of reality.

>> She hallucinated.

She's an accountant.

So she would see
numbers everywhere.

>> She also was adamant that
there was a woman sharing her

room.

>> She was there.

You never saw her.

I said why are you in my room?

This is not your room.

This is my room.

>> These are not
people who are mad.

These delusions are
mostly due to problems

in the right hemisphere.

>> So if anyone talks about
the right side of the brain

and the left side of the brain,
that is my goal in life to find

a good balance between these
two ways of looking at the world

and acting upon the world.

But I'm convinced,
of course, that many

of us with the two hemispheres
functioning beautifully

have neglect for great
parts of the world.

>> Well, one of the primary
features of the left hemisphere

is that you often find this
enormous capacity for denial,

this capacity to just ignore
things and keep them shut out.

I think what Iain's
trying to say

is that there's a
certain disconnection

from the natural world
gradually happening.

We're living in
cities much more.

We are distracted much more.

We have more claims
on our attention.

The problem is when a completely
urban life shuts you off

from the ecological resources
that sustain the life you have.

They're all hidden from us.

I mean, our electricity,
our gas, our water,

our food sources, we don't
know where they're coming from.

So there's a kind of
delusion, really, at the heart

of modern urban life.

This sort of implicit
understanding

that we're a part of nature is
no longer a default position.

People broadly accept climate
change as a global phenomenon,

that humans are causing
it, that it's very serious,

that we can and should
do something quickly,

and that if we don't, there'll
be very serious effects.

But we live as if that
knowledge was not there.

We've got to look at it from
the perspective of science

and perspective of technology,
from law, from culture,

from democracy, from
behavior, from money.

And to do that requires a form
of perception and understanding

that isn't going to come
from the left hemisphere that

wants to slice and dice
and execute quickly.

>> To make quick decisions,
the left hemisphere relies

on abstractions, categories,
and models of the world.

>> Economists have been
amongst the most frequent

of my correspondents, saying
you describe precisely the world

in which I operate.

>> The tendency to
get fixed with models,

almost to fetishize them, has
led us astray in many ways,

historically.

Versions of instrumental
rationality,

reductive reasoning that we
associate with the left brain.

>> Yes.

>> Taking finance through boom
bust cycles where people have

failed to see what's
plainly obvious in front

of their noses, that we're in
potential bubbles and so forth.

The financial
system was supposed

to have been based
on certain models

and assumptions of 8% returns.

It was supposed to
have given people

the ability to lead a certain
decency of a future life.

>> The closing numbers on the
markets today, at one point,

the market fell--

>> We're down by between
3% and 4.5%, generally,

across this market.

[INTERPOSING VOICES]

>> Now we're down--

>> 21%

>> 43%

>> --over in Frankfurt
is down by 9%.

>> Yes, we can certainly think
of the crisis, in some measure,

as being traceable to an
excessive reliance on certain

forms of modeling, on algorithms
which was used to price

mortgage-backed securities
and the subprime portions,

most significantly.

>> Everyone thought, yeah, well,
I'm such a brilliant at this

market.

It keeps going up--

until it doesn't, until
one day you wake up

and people are jumping
out of windows.

We see traders celebrating
with 1,000-pound bottles

of champagne.

And on the other side
of that exact trade,

there are people
committing suicide.

That clarifies the mind.

When you suddenly
think, hang on,

this is not just an
electronic platform

which spikes on a chart.

There's a global,
real consequence

to any action that is
done in any market.

I think it's so
fundamentally wrong.

At 2 o'clock in the morning, I
woke up and I said to my wife,

I'm not doing this.

I cannot do this.

We're serving a system
that we cannot control.

You're not cleverer
than the market.

It's the market that's clever.

>> When mortgage holders in
Orange County, California,

start defaulting
on their mortgages,

and then all of a sudden, the
whole nation of Iceland goes

bust.

So this level of
intense correlation

is something we need
to be deeply aware of

and try to come up with some
new, more sustainable paradigms

of how we do finance.

>> Economics detached
from a robust,

resourceful picture of human
well-being is very dangerous.

That's what we're living with
in large parts of the globe.

We seem to take it as
absolutely self-evident

that unlimited
material growth is

the best thing we can hope for.

And I think the biggest
single task is thinking again

through that question
of growth and why

it's so obvious a target
and why some kinds of growth

are, of course,
privileged over the notion

of the growth of real human
well-being and understanding.

>> We've become terrifically
clever at technical matters.

But technical matters are
only interesting if they

can be there in the service
of a long-term vision.

>> If our society acts as if the
left hemisphere is in control,

how would the right
hemisphere view the world?

One scientist reveals her
first-hand experience.

>> Jill Bolte Taylor is a
neuroanatomist and someone

who's also experienced a stroke.

>> But on the morning
of December 10, 1996,

I woke up to discover that I
had a brain disorder of my own.

A blood vessel exploded in
the left half of my brain.

And in the course
of four hours, I

watched my brain completely
deteriorate in its ability

to process all information.

Then I realized, oh my
gosh, I'm having a stroke.

I'm having a stroke.

And then the next thing my
brain says to me is, wow,

this is so cool.

[LAUGHTER]

This is so cool.

How many brain scientists
have the opportunity

to study their own brain
from the inside out?

Dr. McGilchrist.

>> Hey.

>> What an honor.

Thank you.

>> Real good to see you.

>> I'll give you a little tour.

>> Thank you very much.

>> So this is, uh-- well,
this is my main space.

I do the stained glass brains.

And this is my cosmic brain.

This is actually right
hemisphere, left hemisphere.

>> OK.

>> It's a piece called
"Neural Processing."

And I've just started
limestone carving.

>> Oh, yeah.

>> And then I did
a little brain.

>> Right.

>> And they're just going
to get bigger and bigger.

I have all kinds.

>> That sounds great.

>> Big ones, little
ones, real ones.

I just think the
brain is totally cool.

>> Mm-hmm.

Oh, right.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

>> And then right here is an
arteriovenous malformation,

which was where mine
was when it blew.

[SIREN SOUNDING]

[EMERGENCY RADIO CHATTER]

On the morning of the stroke,
I ended up in the hospital.

And I wake up later
that afternoon,

and everybody else is freaking
out because I'm drooling

and I'm paralyzed.

I didn't have language
for five weeks.

I had a completely silent
mind, no language whatsoever.

Yeah, my mom was my best friend.

And of course, she ended
up rearing me twice.

I wasn't that woman
I had been anymore.

She died.

The woman I had been died
that day, no question.

No question.

I didn't have her friends.

I didn't have her knowledge.

I didn't have anything
in common with her,

other than I was going
to be in this body.

Mom would take me to the store.

People are rushing to
buy all these products,

bombarding the sensory systems.

Too much stimulation.

I always say to people who
have lost the left brain

and they're open to the big
picture right hemisphere,

they can read people
like nobody can.

Truthtelling, the relationship
between tone of voice

and facial expression and
body expression, these people

should be hired by police
departments and anybody who

really needs a
good lie detection.

Because it's obvious.

>> What can it be like?

Can you try and
give us some idea

of what it's like to think
and to know you're thinking

but not to have words?

Is that very frustrating?

>> There's zero frustration.

I think the frustration
comes from the left brain not

being able to express itself.

>> Yeah.

>> I didn't have that.

>> You didn't really feel that.

>> I felt none of that.

It was wonderful.

And the state of
blissfulness feels like awe.

My experience became the
energy in the space between us.

>> Right

>> It wasn't about me and you.

It was about the
experience of all of us.

>> Right.

>> I think you and I have
a whole lot in common.

I think the difference
is significant, though.

But I think that's
because I'm experiential.

I agree with you completely
that our society has completely

shifted and skewed to the left.

And with that, comes the left
hemisphere value structure.

Yeah, I agree with
you completely.

>> It's too simple to
be able to just say what

she's experiencing is
the activity of the right

hemisphere.

I think it's more
complex than that.

But one cannot deny is that
that is her experience.

And you know, she's
done fantastic work

on the basis of it.

>> Strokes are one way to learn
about the right hemisphere.

But there is a time of life
when we are all experts.

>> So, hey!

They don't need microphones.

>> [LAUGHS]

Hi, guys.

Yeah!

>> Colwyn Trevarthen, and
he's done important research

on childhood development in
terms of their hemispheric

activity.

Tell me more about what happens
in terms of hemisphere shift

in the way in which we
bring up our children.

>> There's a complementarity.

>> Absolutely.

>> They work together.

>> Yes.

>> But there are periods when
one hemisphere is growing more

rapidly and taking more
responsibility for controlling

behavior.

And in the first
couple of years,

the right hemisphere is
definitely more active.

>> Yeah, yeah.

>> And enjoying imitation and
games right from immediately

after birth.

>> Yes.

>> Babies have a great
interest in sharing rituals,

little peculiar things like
nursery songs and clever,

clappy, handy action games.

>> [LAUGHS]

>> Children make music and dance
long before they can speak.

They communicate through body
language, music, and rhythm.

>> Musicality is
the innate need,

the urge for human beings
to move in expressive ways.

And it can be dance.

It can be music.

It can be poetry.

It can be anything.

And that's what art is, art
is the cultivation of play.

>> Hello.

>> Do you like this place?

>> It's our nursery.

>> What's the most
fun thing about it?

Right.

Right.

>> Well, there's been a
revolution in psychology.

It's now clear that everything
is embodied in movement,

movement and time have
been neglected by people

concentrating on information.

The difference between
that and formal schooling

is that formal schooling
assumes that they

have a lot of knowledge
to learn and they have

to be taught by skilled adults.

>> Yes.

[BELL RINGING]

>> As children get older,
their left hemisphere matures.

It starts showing its talent
for spoken and written language.

The school curriculum
moves away from areas where

the right hemisphere excels.

>> There is a kind of
westernization or, as he would

put it, a left hemispherization
of the way we approach

the world, the development
of a kind of technical

problem-solving attitude to our
lives, certainly in education.

Almost everybody
on the planet now

goes to the same kind of school.

And your life trajectory is
determined by how good you

are at that kind of learning.

The more embodied the subjects
of the school curriculum--

physical education,
drama-- the lower

down the hierarchy
of esteem it is,

you can drop them as
early as you like.

They get less time
in the curriculum.

So this imbalance is
absolutely institutional.

It's in the bone marrow
of our educational system.

>> Look around, and many of
the models we habitually use

in education, many of the
models that often the government

promotes in education are
mechanistic, narrowing,

and dull.

They buy into all the
problems that we see.

[INDISTINCT CHATTER]

>> So this is a person
who's giving off light.

And do all people give off
light or just this person?

>> It's like, like this--

>> It's like the personality.

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah, yeah, yeah.

So some people--

We need people to think
rigorously, to be literate,

to be able to use models,
to be careful and articulate

and lucid.

My concern is that, far
from asking too much,

we ask too little
of our children.

Far too often education is
about ingesting information,

not about learning how to think
independently and critically

and on many different
levels at once.

[INDISTINCT CHATTER]

>> In universities, the left
hemisphere's way of thinking

becomes even more dominant.

As students specialize
in narrow fields,

theories and categories
become important.

>> It's sad because also the
humanities, at some level,

have been corrupted.

When one reads a
piece of literature,

it's not experienced
in terms of what can it

teach us about the universal
experience of being

a human being.

Rather, it's how can it
be seen in the context

of some narrow vision
of identity politics.

In the Academy, there's a lot
of fuss over trigger words

and everyone warring
over language.

>> What certainly would not
happen is that things would be

calm.

Because the left hemisphere
is quite emotional.

And one emotion that lateralizes
particularly clearly is anger.

And it lateralizes to
the left, to discourse

in public would become marked
by anger and aggression.

[YELLING]

>> Boo!

Boo!

>> Decency!

Decency!

Decency!

Decency!

Decency!

>> I think it is a in certainly
Western society to try

and solve problems by regulation
rather than by culture.

[CHANTING]

>> The questions that are around
free speech in universities

and offense and all
these questions.

[CHANTING]

>> The trouble is that when
you start legislating about it

and try to control it,
you produce higher levels,

not lower levels of
anxiety, deeper division.

And you park the
fundamental question,

which is how do you evolve
a culture in which people

speak with one another
patiently and respectfully?

You can't legislate
that into existence.

>> The monologue of
the claimers who say,

world is like this and only
like this, this reductionism,

that is a real
danger for our world.

And we have to cultivate the
dialogue again and dialogue

with different people,
different cultures, and not just

claiming I'm the
knowledge I have--

I know everything.

>> But in the world of the arts,
students rely more on the right

hemisphere to convey
multilayered and implicit

meaning.

>> My darling, I know
what's keeping you here.

You must get a grip on yourself.

You're a little
intoxicated right now.

You need to clear your head.

>> Be my friend.

Let me go.

>> Has it gone that far?

>> It's as if she's
calling me to her side.

Don't you see?

This could be the making of me.

>> In the brain, memorized
lines are worked on by the left

hemisphere.

>> Sane, magnificent,
wonderful man!

>> But how they are expressed,
the tone and gestures,

is the preserve of
the right hemisphere.

>> I've never been in love.

I've never experienced
that young love, blissful,

dreamlike, romantic,
all-embracing love,

the only love that can
bring about true happiness.

>> What did we talk
about yesterday?

We talked about the fact
that like lots of men,

he wants permission.

>> To leave.

>> To leave.

Iain, can you explain the left
and right side of the brain?

>> Um, there are versions of
the world in which we are all

living.

We're not aware of it
because we're bringing them

together all the time.

But in one, the world in which
I believe we've got trapped

is the idea of a world
of things which are

knowable and precise and clear.

But this isn't at
all how the world is.

According to the right
hemisphere, everything,

everything is connected
to everything else.

It's all about
the relationships.

Something completely
electrifying

was happening in
this room, which

I could feel very
strongly, which

emerges from the implicit.

But all art is like this,
that the power of it

lies in the bits that
are not explicit.

>> What I find reassuring
is that it's not necessarily

knowable.

>> Actually, it's
necessarily not knowable.

[CLASSICAL MUSIC]

The reason we have theatre,
poetry, we have music,

we have religious ritual, all
these things are ways of taking

us beyond the everyday language
that we're pinned down by.

And it's breaking out of that.

And only things like really
powerfully performed art,

you know, these things
can take us there.

[CLASSICAL MUSIC]

[KNOCKING]

[LAUGHTER]

>> Doctor!

Doctor!

>> Hello.

>> Are you the brain specialist?

>> No, I am not the
brain specialist.

No, no, I am not.

Yes!

Yes, I am!

[LAUGHTER]

>> My brain hurts.

[LAUGHTER]

>> Of course, this museum
contains the skeleton

of a very, very large man,
taller even than you, John.

And--

>> How tall was he?

>> He's thought to have been
the tallest man who ever lived.

But here we've got an
interesting specimen.

>> Ah.

>> This is Charles
Babbage's brain.

>> No, the computer guy?

>> The computer guy, the guy
who is credited with inventing

the first computing machine.

It was thought interesting
to find out what

a genius' brain looked like.

The answer is a
little disappointing.

It's rather like mine and yours.

>> [LAUGHS]

>> John, I mean, I never thought
in my wildest dreams that

I'd be sitting in a room in
London surrounded by brains

talking to you.

Who knew?

But tell me, how
did this come about?

>> You won't believe it.

A Monty Python meeting.

>> Right.

>> Seriously.

We had a lunch in an
Italian restaurant in Soho.

And at the end, Terry
Gilliam suddenly

started going on
about your book.

>> Right.

>> And I think he's such a fool.

>> [LAUGHS]

>> Most of my education was all
to do with the left hemisphere.

You know?

>> Yes.

>> I got into Cambridge on
science, then I did law.

And that's how I
was taught to think.

It's been from this very
logical, cold-blooded way

of thinking into something
that is hugely more intuitive.

And this obviously came
because I discovered

by accident at Cambridge
that I could write

stuff that made people laugh.

[LAUGHTER]

I began to see that the process
that I used when I was writing

stuff like this was quite
different from the process

that I used if I was trying
to understand a legal case.

They seem quite different
ways of operating.

I think sometimes
you have something

that is so completely silly
that it's almost meaningless.

I can think of things
in Monty Python jokes

that you simply are
unable to explain.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

[LAUGHTER]

[THUD]

And since then, I've been very
much more intuitive and very

much this sort of logical
linguistic in my approach

to life and much
happier as a result.

Well, this is sort of an
"Alas, Poor Yorick" moment.

This head has clearly
seen better days.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Humor is a wonderful tool
for eliminating idiocy.

>> Yes, I think that's exactly
why you restore our sanity.

>> Well, because--

>> You take the mickey
of this kind of thinking.

>> Yes, and it's a sense
of proportion, as you say.

Because a sense of humor
is a sense of proportion.

Well, I've been studying
the DNA ideas for some time.

And I've come to
certain conclusions

based on all the
research I've done.

For example, this
gene just here,

this is the gene that determines
whether you prefer raspberries

or strawberries.

>> Ah, yes.

>> You know?

>> Indeed.

>> Now this gene here
is terribly interesting.

If you have that
gene, then you're

likely to enjoy
Nicolas Cage films.

>> Huh, right.

>> So that's another
mystery here.

And this one here, which
is very strong for you,

is someone who spent 20
years writing a book.

>> I wish I didn't
have that gene.

Because--

>> Because you could
get on with your life.

>> I could get on
with a life, yes.

[LAUGHING]

Can we do something
about it, please?

[LAUGHS]

>> If our society is relying
too much on the left hemisphere,

how have past civilizations
perceived their world?

[MUSIC PLAYING]

>> When we began to look at the
main movements in the history

of ideas, a person emerged
which was quite extraordinary

and so much more interesting
than I could possibly have

imagined.

What I could see was that
three times in the West,

there had been a period of
flourishing of a civilization--

Athens in the 6th century BC,
the beginning of the empire

in Rome, then once again
in the early Renaissance--

and that this civilization,
in each three cases,

showed a marvelous balance
of right hemisphere

and left hemisphere
modes of thinking.

But in each case, it
ended up with a movement

further and further towards
that of the left hemisphere,

after which the
civilization collapsed.

>> In ancient Greece and Rome,
statues and paintings portrayed

individuals, people
with character.

But as the Roman
Empire declined,

subjects often faced
forward without emotion.

Individual character
gave way to expressions

of power and status.

>> So one of the things
that distinguishes the right

hemisphere is the
concept of depth.

It's a very important one,
philosophically speaking.

And one can think in
quite concrete terms

of depth in space, depth in
time, and depth of emotion.

Here we've got a
crucifixion scene

in the middle of
the 14th century.

There is no depth
to this picture.

There is no landscape
that's situated

in the natural world and nothing
to situate it historically.

And it's not a
criticism of it to say

that it doesn't have such
depth or any relationship

to the world around.

>> But during the
Renaissance, art changes,

suggesting a shift in the mind.

>> When we come forward here to
this "Adoration of the Kings"

in 1500, the building work here
obeys the laws of perspective

and at the same time gives us a
sense of temporal perspective,

that this event is taking place
at some point in the past,

hence the ruin.

You will only get
that perspective

from the right hemisphere
take on the world.

It's a mistake to think of
the arts or the sciences

as being one hemisphere
or the other.

A Renaissance man was somebody
who was learned and experienced

in many aspects of knowledge.

What you see is this broad
perspective on life in which

science and art came together.

They weren't separate, as
they so often are today.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

>> If you go from hemisphere
to cultural history,

it will feel incongruous
and like a non sequitur.

It won't feel like
it makes sense.

But remember,
hemisphere is really

shorthand for a way
of seeing the world.

And what he's arguing is that
of these two broad patterns

of perception, two broad
ways of viewing the world,

historically, you see them in
a kind of battle for supremacy.

>> One of the most daring
maneuvers of the left

hemisphere is the
Industrial Revolution.

We began a full-scale
onslaught on the natural world,

that we were the masters and
we could control and exploit

mere material, as we saw the
natural world as something

there for us to utilize.

We saw machines.

We saw a landscape
that was increasingly

molded by our efforts to slice
through it with railway lines,

to carve tunnels, to
put our stamp on nature.

>> The Industrial Revolution
also changed how artists saw

the world.

In the early 20th century,
modern art frequently

portrayed the world in terms of
fragments, cubes, and geometric

shapes.

>> Artists always think that
they can escape painting

in the spirit of the age.

But their very rebellion
betrays the culture out

of which they came.

Art doesn't come
out of thin air.

It comes out of a culture.

I think there's something
different about the world

that we have entered
in the last 100 years.

What we find is
that various kinds

of ways of looking at the
world that occur to people who

have damage in the
right hemisphere

start to become fashionable.

This is absolutely fascinating.

As we come forward
into the 20th century,

it reflected outwards
onto the world aspects

of the left
hemisphere with cities

that were laid out on grids
which were full of structures

that were rectilinear, the left
hemisphere way of thinking,

of being able to use things.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

>> McGilchrist's theory of the
brain and Western civilization

attracts attention from
all over the world.

Some leading scientists welcome
his controversial theory.

>> So the distinctions that Iain
is playing with between these

two modes of knowing, modes of
experiencing that he associates

with the two hemispheres,
that distinction makes a lot

of sense to me.

And I think it's extremely
important in the modern world.

>> There aren't that many
academics who can span,

who have that broad span that
can go from very authoritative

analysis of scientific data
through to the big picture

and even on into spirituality.

>> But among others in
the scientific community,

there is serious resistance
to the link between the brain

and society.

>> You talk about this division
as if it has a purpose.

But that's not how things work.

It exists as a consequence.

>> It's just your theory
that there isn't a purpose.

You don't know that
there's no purpose.

It's an assumption of science
that there is no purpose.

>> This book is taking a
selected set of neuroscience

findings and trying to
relate them to the clinical

psychiatric experience, telling
a story that tries to mesh

those two things.

I'm not comfortable with
that just because I'm

one of the guys committed
to actually finding out what

these patients are,
how they behave.

And I don't have the
freedom to just go off

on a larger metaphor.

I think here's how
you think about it.

The brain is as
mechanical as clockwork,

a famous English
physicist said that.

Let's just get over that.

That's the way it is.

>> So we life scientists,
we read the papers,

come up with a working
hypothesis that is one step

ahead of what we know,
but not two steps.

Two steps are punished.

So I think there
are two options.

One option is in
30 years, it could

be the Bible of neuroscientists
or it could be forgotten.

I think there is
nothing in between.

>> Stepping away
from this debate,

McGilchrist seeks a
different kind of evidence.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

Scientists have argued
that the human brain has

been the same machine
throughout history

and that every major
civilization was

built by people with
the same kind of brain

and the same
perception of reality.

But McGilchrist believes
that the brain shapes

and is shaped by human culture.

And how do other
cultures view the world?

It is a question that is
studied at Harvard University.

>> A lot of psychologists have
the strong intuition that what

they study is something deep.

It's something
about human nature.

It's something fundamental
to how human brains operate.

When neuroscientists
measure the brain,

they think they're
seeing a piece that's

constructed by human
genes that's human nature.

But actually, our
brains are heavily

influenced by the environments.

And our environments are
heavily culturally constructed,

our social relationships,
the physical environments

we operate in.

96% of psychological studies
are done with Westerners.

And most of those are actually
American undergraduates,

just because of the
bulk of psychology

being done in the US.

So this really gives us a biased
picture of human psychology.

And we don't know to what
degree those things extend

to other members of the species.

>> Henrich and his
colleagues decided to take

their psychology tests
to the rest of the world,

people in Tahiti and the Amazon.

One of the tests features
an optical illusion.

Which line is longer?

They are both the same.

>> Westerners have
the biggest illusion.

And hunter gatherers don't
actually see the illusion.

So they accurately
see the two lines.

We live in a world
of right angles,

so our brains get really
good at converting

that presence of right
angles in our environment

and using that to create
a spatial understanding

in our brains.

But in the world of
hunter gatherers,

there might not be
any right angles.

So their brains are
calibrated more accurately.

So it's a basic difference
across human societies

as our minds adapt to the
culturally constructed world

that we live in.

>> [SPEAKING CHINESE]

>> At Queen's
University in Canada,

research is being done on
how Asian and Western minds

perceive the world differently.

>> I grew up in China.

I spent first 20
some years there.

It was not hard for me to
get interested in culture

because my own background.

People think
differently, depending

on their cultural background.

Compared to North
Americans, East Asians

are more sensitive
to the context.

They attend more to the context.

When we show people the pictures
of panda, monkey, banana,

Chinese actually are more likely
to put monkey and the banana

together because
monkeys like banana.

So they focus on
that relationship.

[SPEAKING CHINESE]

Next, [INAUDIBLE]
is more linear?

>> I would say it's the
dragonfly and the bee.

>> Why?

>> Because they're
both flying insects.

>> OK.

In traditional Chinese
and Japanese paintings,

you do see less focus on
the individual person.

You barely see the face.

You see the overall scenes.

You see mountains.

You see trees, flowers.

The person actually
is minimized.

>> People get very uncomfortable
with the idea that culture

produces biological differences.

Because normally
in our minds, we

separate biology and culture.

So it certainly gives
you an appreciation

the degree to which
things you take

to be just how the world
works or how people are

is not the case.

It's a peculiarity of this
certain cultural trajectory

that you happened
to be born into.

>> Some cultures with a more
balanced way of seeing reality

may live within Western society.

>> We know this as
[NON-ENGLISH SPEECH]..

Probably the best
translation would be

"an inlet into the mountains."

The way we look at the world
inside the Blackfoot mind,

what you would see
is a panoramic view.

>> Yeah.

>> How do we fit in
into this whole picture?

And kind of drawing
on some of the work

you've done, hey, that's very--

that's very right sided,
right brain thinking,

looking at this big
picture how we fit in.

>> Yes.

>> But at the same time,
nothing is ever at a standstill.

That's what we refer
to as that flux.

>> Everything is related--

physicists say this--
to everything else.

And is that also in the
wisdom and the culture

of First Nation people?

>> If you hear Native prayers,
they will talk about "all

my relations."

So when they're talking
about all my relations,

they're not talking
about human relations,

they're talking
about these trees.

They're talking about the water.

>> Yes.

>> They're talking about the
rocks, those birds out there.

All those animals,
they're all my relations.

>> Yes, yes.

>> See?

>> Yes.

>> And that's where we fit
ourselves into that relational

network.

>> Does that suggest,
as it does to me,

that rocks and lakes and streams
and waterfalls have a life.

They're not just sort of things.

>> They're all animate.

>> Yes.

>> In our way of thinking,
in fact, in Blackfoot,

there is no word for inanimate.

So that's the reason why our
elders always come out and say,

this is my church.

>> Yes.

Yeah.

>> I am the environment.

>> Yes.

>> I am the environment.

>> This is me.

>> Yeah.

This is me.

>> That's actually wonderful.

>> If there are these competing
forms of perception and there

are mechanisms culturally that
make them compete and play out

and make one usurp the other,
and I think he argued that

pretty coherently, then
we should act on it.

You know, we should figure
out what to do about it.

>> The question is whether we
as persons have agency and are

capable to do something and
whether we can translate that

into society.

>> Here's the area where you
had the bleeding in the brain.

There's no more blood there.

And we'll check the aneurysm
to make sure nothing's coming

back.

>> OK.

There's been a big change.

I believe that you have
to want to get better.

It's very important
that in your mind

you have to say I'm
gonna get back there

to where I was before.

I want to do everything
I was doing before

and I'm going to do it no
matter what I need to do.

>> This is my
neuroplastic attitude.

We are not just the victims
of our flattened world

and the dogmas that
some people put upon us.

But we can do something else.

And our patients are the best
teachers in this respect.

That in spite of deficits,
we can change something.

And this is what we want to do.

>> Like you, I appreciate
that humanity is enormously

resourceful.

And there must have
been times in history

when we could not have foreseen
what was coming in terms

of a shift in the ideas.

And we need that shift now.

>> Maybe it's asking too much
of Iain's work to say just solve

the problem for us, you know?

What he can do is point towards
the direction of the solution.

If we can get better
at seeing things

more holistically, more
specifically, more in context,

if we can get better at
systematically resisting

attempts to turn
things into algorithm,

to always measure,
to always quantify,

if we can get better and
more robust at doing that,

the world will begin to
steer towards a better place.

>> We need to take advantage
of other systems of knowledge.

We need to have a balance.

If we do that, we will have--

we will be around as a
species for a long time.

>> Well, then let us hope.

Let us hope.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

>> I want my ideas to be
picked up by other people

and internalized so that they
use them as a driver to look

at the world in a different way.

Things that were
anciently known,

they were embodied
in myths, in drama,

in poetry, the way
of thinking that

was kept for the
kind of knowledge

that logic can't reach, our way
of thinking, feeling and being.

Einstein said the rational
mind is a faithful servant,

but the intuitive mind
is a precious gift.

And we live in a world
which honors the servant

but has forgotten the gift.

We do need a paradigm shift.

Because it's not about
little things here and there.

It's about the whole way we
conceive what a human being is,

what the world is, and what
our relationship with it is.

Love is a pure attention to
the existence of the other.

It's such a simple
thing, but it's so deep.

And I found it applies to
many, many things in life.

Really what we're
on this planet to do

is to give attention
to that other.

It can be other
people, but it can also

be what until very recently
was the other that we were all

surrounded by all
the time, which

was the natural world,
which is our home, which

is this completely amazing,
beautiful, staggeringly

expressive gift.

[MUSIC PLAYING]