JONGSON PARK

As I think about this more, when we think about the right brain and left brain are we really talking about gender, feminine vs masculine – not so much creative vs logical, intuitive vs conceptual or holistic vs individualistic. And these are just properties separated into masculine and feminine characteristics. I’m not talking about biological sex, a male can be feminine and a female can be masculine, each characteristic, personality, cognitive function along a spectrum. Everyone would be somewhere along the spectrum of dichotomies, to degrees and certain extents, not binary 1s and 0s. And it could be even true that people’s dichotomies can change or flip in different scenarios – they might use one cognitive function when it comes to work scenarios and another cognitive function when it comes to family situations.

It’s an interesting exploration, the distinction between feminine and masculine as a metaphor between the right and left brain. I recently heard a talk about the qualities of leadership or I suppose leadership from either a point of “challenge” or from the approach of “caring”. Discussing the book “Radical Candor” by Kim Scott. The discussion describes “challenge” as a masculine quality and “caring” as a feminine quality, or maybe more illustrative a “father energy” versus a “mother energy”. The point was that leadership with only “challenge” makes the team feel like the leader doesn’t care about them. While leadership with only “caring” doesn’t challenge growth and progress.

But if I break this down a bit more, unpack and distill it away from a discussion about leadership. We can re-contextualize this as a discussion about gender. Because the main distinction isn’t even about “care” or “challenge”. We can see how maybe one side is more nurturing and supportive and the other side is more competitive and results-oriented. And we can see how we need both to balance each other out.

We can recall teachers, coaches, parents, bosses or even peers that had one more dominant side than the other. If they were too accepting and nurturing then they made it seem like everything we did was fantastic, didn’t really care about how we faired or couldn’t trust their barometer for what was actually “good” – or we didn’t feel an urgency of growth or challenge. Or if they were too critical and results-oriented, then nothing was good enough, an overbearing sense of judgment and criticism and we didn’t feel like they cared about us.

The closer we can get to bringing both into our consciousness, being able to access both realms in our own psychology or at least be more open to accepting, embracing and acknowledging our opposite view-set or seeking out, bringing in, interacting with, relating to more counter-balances in our lives, we’ll have a great expansion of how we understand ourselves and each other. We need both within ourselves, we need both within each other to be more wholly human.

A brain scientist gave a Ted talk about her experience of having a stroke in the left side of her brain, she’d lost her ability to read a phone number and speak but then functioning primarily from the right hemisphere she experienced an acute sense of connectivity, flow and awareness.
https://www.ted.com/talks/jill_bolte_taylor_my_stroke_of_insight

It might be a myth or an unsubstantiated claim that there are differences between the left and right hemispheres of the brain. Whether a team of researchers have proven there isn’t much evidence to support one side is more creative and the other side more logical or one side more intuitive versus conceptual. But without even considering how mental capacities are affected when a brain injury happens to one side of the brain. Whether it’s true or unproven, I think at the very least the visual concept works well as a metaphor.

I think it makes sense how the brain would manage different cognitive functions, how we relate to ourselves, how we relate to the space around us. To have separate processes for interperting us as individuals and another process that is connects us to people, energy, emotions and awareness. And it makes sense to me that if these are two halves of a brain, why people would be different in these two ways and what appears to be a 50/50 split – how we see the world, how we interpret and interact with each other.

As we as individuals try to reconcile the two hemispheres within our own psychologies and cognitive function, processes that seem to be contradictory and at odds with each other. The negative thoughts, critical self-doubt, discouragement, anxiety, self-sabotage, attacks, defensiveness. Doesn’t this complex conflict within an individual seem representative of the population to a greater whole. How much more then is the conflict between groups of individuals – families, friends, communities, populations. But the key isn’t for one side to win, for one side to dominate the other – the key is for both sides to work together to have more compassion and empathy, understanding, an appreciation and gratitude that we are individuals and we are the collective. But this also happens at an individual scale – that is, we need empathy, understanding, appreciation, gratitude and awareness for ourselves.

Maybe another way to look at our thought and decision-making process. Our relationship between our “inner” world and our “outer” world. How we perceive and make judgments and decisions. And then how we choose to interact with the world, internalize or externalize.

My inner world is real — vs. — The outer world is real

My thoughts inform and guide me — vs. — The outer world informs and guides me

I make decisions based on my own perceptions about myself — vs. — I make my decision based on other people’s perceptions

My interaction with the world is related through my thoughts — vs. — My interaction with the world is related through my actions

For many conceptuals, the intuitive is too unknown and unbelievable. It is too uncertain and unprovable to take seriously or even consider. Start talking about abstract things and they’ll get bored or disengage from the conversation. There isn’t much curiosity to know or seek the unknown. The ambiguity of it not knowing for certain if it’s right or wrong is daunting and wasted energy.

Conceptuals want to have an outlined plan, and know specifically what to do next. They want the process in place before taking next steps. They’re confidence is in what’s been proven, what’s already been done, what can be shown. Conceptual thinking can take on a linear pattern – steps A, B, C, D.

Their effort or energy isn’t put into discovering or seeking new systems, processes or patterns. Their energy and focus might be spent on doing well what’s already been proven, maybe through habits, routines, productivity, perfectionism or ambition. Competition, in a structured environment it’s quite simple, maybe instinctual to now compare individuals performances through the structured process. In an intuitive process, there is no “right” or “wrong” answer, quite ambiguous to make it a competition.