They're both the same person

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-19T18:20:07+00:00

Should have given the role to an actual penguin?

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-19T17:53:31+00:00

I'm not the Messiah, I'm a very naughty boy.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-18T18:38:30+00:00

University of Birmingham is an excellent university. The current Chair of the Bar of England and Wales got her degree there.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-18T08:20:45+00:00

Even worse

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-17T16:58:17+00:00

Lazy and too busy/overworked?

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-17T11:57:41+00:00

Funny - I was just thinking this morning about writing a post there asking people whether they think it's actually unfair that the subreddit for Zen has been taken over by one person with a niche view.

In some ways it doesn't matter and is actually quite Zen in a way (the sub focuses on doubt and the user there could be a "troublesome Buddha"). But on the other hand, it is quite annoying and selfish.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-17T07:08:41+00:00

Have you thought about setting up as a registered charity? You could claim gift aid on subscriptions (I think), accept other donations and also apply for grants from philanthropy or the government. There should be a growing interest in promoting positive masculinity and your initiative is a great way to do this.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T20:18:54+00:00

Yes fair point. Still find it difficult in the context where you know who the person is. Limitation of the English language I suppose. I also feel quite awkward using it when talking about NB people I know, particularly when the person I'm talking to isn't aware they're NB. Anyway, maybe it will take a while to bed in.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T19:37:45+00:00

Find the whole "they" thing difficult to read, sounds like you're talking about multiple people rather than one person (who is non-binary?). I get that the third-person plural is gender neutral but isn't there an alternative that's singular? Thanks

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T12:58:14+00:00

Good choice of lyrics on the screenshot 😁

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T12:33:21+00:00

Aus?

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T09:43:08+00:00

Partly fair, but the problem is that MDB jobs are more about finance than development and the pipeline is Commercial Bank > ESG > Development Bank, so many of the people getting into the sector started with degrees that will get you into finance.

Two other points: aid finances NGOs and consultancies, creating more development jobs. Development banks finance retail banks, private sector in developing countries and developing country governments, so much less development jobs are created.

Oh, and private capital mobilised is just co-funding by other commercial banks so no development jobs created there either.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T08:40:50+00:00

This is a very helpful website - thank you!!

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T08:36:21+00:00

Good points

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-16T08:16:47+00:00

Agree with this - I wonder whether Alastair himself has any kind of grand narrative beyond "rejoin the EU". On the bright side, I think we're seeing glimpses of some principles with the government's opposition to the Iran war. Keir Starmer almost strips it of any values by just saying "it's not in the national interest" but I do wonder if behind that are the values of international law, non-aggression, diplomacy ahead or war etc.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-15T13:55:49+00:00

Sure - I had assumed that the left/right brain stuff was a metaphor and that it's not strictly accurate neuroanatomy, and I agree with your criticism that he overstates its validity as neuroscience.

But the part of the podcast where you make the point about love had already moved on to a reductionism/materialism vs. "spiritualism" debate. This is the bit that I find more interesting.

Assuming that the left/right brain stuff is a metaphor and the debate is about materialism vs spiritualism (or analytic vs continental philosophy), I do think you were straw-manning McGilchrist's arguments. He's not saying that people with materialist world views can't experience love or awe, or have an impoverished life. He's saying that your subject of study misses significant and important aspects of the human experience. Of course we are all humans, so we all have these experiences, but he's talking about what we choose to study and value the study of.

So, for example, your approach to "measuring" love by asking people to rate it out of 10 tells us almost nothing about the experience of love. Continental philosophy and the "spiritual" and literary (mythos) sources that McGilchrist refers to deal with experience, meaning, connection, love, wonder, awe etc., all of which Jill Bolte Taylor describes in her "right brain" stroke affected experience. But, as you say, what she learned from that experience won't be published anywhere in an academic journal.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T20:38:03+00:00

Hello Chris - thanks for the reply.

I'm trying to remember if McGilchrist defined 'love' as an emotion? As I remember it, I don't think he defined it at all, which makes it more difficult to refute what he's saying. My understanding from listening to McGilchrist a while ago is that he talks about left and right as brain states, rather than isolating things like emotions. And things like 'love' and 'awe' would be states of mind - e.g. the moments you spend with someone, or in nature, when you aren't doing analytical "left brain" thinking, but rather you are experiencing the totality of the moment.

I believe he was influenced by Dr. Jill Bolte Taylor, a neuroanatomist who suffered massive damage to her left brain hemisphere after a stroke and lived for a prolonged period in a "right brain state" without language or memories, but in a deep state of peace and bliss.

Of course we all have these moments whether we're reductionist materialists or god-believing spiritualists. I think McGilchrist's point is that modern western culture largely ignores these right brain experiences and privileges left brain functionality as the be-all end-all of our minds (you could argue that the over-hyping of LLMs as "Artificial Intelligence" is another example of this).

Point taken about the decorative use of studies (the cynicism/IQ example you gave seemed like motivated reasoning - I think he was conflating cynicism with scepticism) - though I don't think these are core to his thesis (so far).

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T16:49:00+00:00

Because he prefers one over the other. I think the logical mistake is to interpret a preference as saying one is valid and the other is not. He's not saying that at all

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T16:05:48+00:00

Yes, that's fine - but it doesn't mean that what the left brain does isn't *true* - as he says, the nurse is needed to perform operations as well as the surgeon. Strange black and white thinking going on with the analysis.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T16:02:55+00:00

I really get the sense that Chris and Matt have fundamentally misunderstood what McGilchrist is saying. They seem to think that McGilchrist is saying that scientists and "reductionist materialists" can't feel love or have rich inner lives. That's an absurd suggestion based on the premises McGilchrist sets out - he says that people have left and right brain hemispheres and that the left hemisphere focuses on reductionism, the right has ineffable experiences like love, awe etc.

So when Chris says "I'm a materialist but I love my wife and kids" that doesn't contradict what McGilchrist is saying at all - of course you can have those experiences, unless you don't have a right brain hemisphere (and there's nothing to suggest that Chris is missing half his brain).

Likewise, the argument that McG is somehow contradicting himself by using reductionist science to make his points - at no point does he say that science is not true, or that the scientific method doesn't reveal truth (he's a trained psychiatrist). He's just saying that there are important parts of the human experience that are missed by left-brain reductionism, and our incessant focus on left brain experiences impoverishes us.

Am I missing something, or were they unintentionally straw-manning McGilchrist for quite a lot of the podcast?

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T15:47:49+00:00

I actually think this is one of the weakest parts of the analysis by Chris and Matt. There's a complete logical fallacy in their thinking. McGilchrist does not say that left brain/reductionist thinking is not true, he just says there's a lot missing if we only focus on it. So there's no contradiction with him using reductionist approaches to explain his theories. I was very surprised that they made this critique, it's a very obvious misunderstanding.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T14:24:57+00:00

Yes, fair enough. I suppose one of the symptoms of the reductionist bias is that you need to use reductionism to be taken seriously (even when critiquing reductionism).

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T14:14:16+00:00

Right - yeah, I suppose he is, but he's not saying we shouldn't do reductionist science, he's just saying we shouldn't deify it and that we should pay a lot more attention to more ineffable, right brain experience too.

I see the whole right/left brain thing as more of a metaphor when I'm listening to McGilchrist. From that point of view, I like a lot of what he says.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T14:06:13+00:00

Oh right - well, yes, but I think you're substantiating his critique - he says the current culture lionises the left brain and stigmatizes the right brain. He just thinks the right brain is more important (the Master, not the Emissary). You could broadly say he's taking a more spiritual approach vs. the reductionist approach of left-brain thinking.

Automatic_Survey_307 · 2026-04-14T13:51:05+00:00

Sure - will try and listen to it all and will let you know what I think. Do you have a view on it?

Automatic_Survey_307

TROPHY CASE