On 12 Nov 96 at 8:05, Michael Erickson wrote:
>
> Hello Don and all
>
> After reading your post (I thought it was excellent by the way) I couldn't
> help but think once again that "God gave us both sides of the brain, for a
> reason". This is something I've been saying after observing the need for
> both, left-brain, proceedural, rational thinking (which I personally don't
> do very well) and the right-brain, conceptual, whatever type of thinking.
>
> Being personally stuck on the right side of the brain allows me to see
> systemic things much more easily than those around me, but my clumsyness
> in the rational/reductionist area makes it hard to communicate or prove
> what I see (especially to the hard core left brain oriented folk).
I hope this doesn't offend anyone...but a few points. First, my
understanding that the left/right brain stuff is a great metaphor it
has little basis in neurological fact, in the sense of it being a
given. I don't know the newer research which will be helpful in
exploring the issue. (scans, etc).
As far as I know this is one of those oft quoted, ill understood
myths.
Second, (and the real point) it seems to me that the expression
"personally stuck on the right side..." is a personally limiting
statement, bolstered by what at least sounds like scientific fact.
Akin to saying...I am short, or I am tall, or I am smart, or I am
stupid, or I am an INJT (ok..so the type's not right). This kind of
labelling is often used to explain our limits, not to help us
overcome them, and I think this applies to any labelling system at
any level, particularly those that have a scientific ring to them.
> I refer to the right/left brain orientation so heavily, because it seems
> to greatly effect how people hear (or read) communicate and understand any
> given set of ideas. I personally am working towards some sort of balanced
> use of both orientations, because as your post demonstrates, we can't
> emphasize one to the detriment of the other.
I would be more comfortable with statements that did not rest on
pseudo-science or questionable science that give it false legitimacy.
Why do we not say: I prefer to read material that is logically
structured, or I prefer t learn by reading illustrative stories.
This seems far less limiting.
Robert Bacal, Bacal & Associates, rbacal@escape.ca
Join us at our Resource Centre at
http://www.winnipeg.freenet.mb.ca/~dbt359
Phone: (204) 888-9290
--Learning-org -- An Internet Dialog on Learning Organizations For info: <rkarash@karash.com> -or- <http://world.std.com/~lo/>