In his second appearance on The Great Simplification, psychiatrist, neuroscientist and philosopher Iain McGilchrist talks with Nate Hagens about how his research on the two hemispheres can be applied to everyday life. Hagens recalls that in their previous discussion they explored McGilchrist’s theory: the left hemisphere takes an analytical, narrow, categorical approach to thinking, while the right sees the whole, the context and the relationships.
In this conversation, McGilchrist offers a diagnosis of modern civilization and proposes a change in how we see the world rather than lists of solutions. When Hagens asks what diagnosis he would give civilization as a patient, McGilchrist replies that he would see an anxious, depressed, overstimulated and dissatisfied person, trapped in an image of themselves and the world that is much poorer than reality. He explains that our culture depends too heavily on left-hemisphere thinking and becomes narcissistic, not necessarily out of innate arrogance, but because it loses the broader, relational picture of life. He clarifies that he is not talking about a sum of individual diagnoses, but a holistic reading of society.
McGilchrist uses the analogy of psychotherapy: a therapist may see early on what a patient needs, but the patient does not hear it until they reach their own moment of insight. The same applies to civilization: people ask for easy solutions, but the major problems are complex systems, not mechanisms with a simple relationship between cause and effect. What is needed, he says, is a shift in perspective, as in the duck–rabbit image, where the same shape suddenly takes on a different meaning.
He invokes the distinction between “what” we do and “how” we do it: the right hemisphere is interested in the manner, intention and spirit of an action. McGilchrist refers to Max Scheler’s pyramid of values, with power at the base, the values of life—generosity, magnanimity and courage—above it, then beauty, goodness and truth, and spiritual or sacred values at the top. The modern cynical narrative, he says, inverts this pyramid: it assumes that the sacred and moral values were invented to control the many, and that ultimately only power matters. He believes the opposite. He insists that humanity needs more wisdom rather than more power, because power without wisdom can only destroy us and the world.
Attention, according to McGilchrist, is a moral act: the way we direct our consciousness determines what we see and what we exclude. Capitalist culture and technology, especially social media and artificial intelligence, capture attention to gain money and power. This changes our values and ethics, not just our habits. McGilchrist suggests asking ourselves: “What does my usual way of thinking prevent me from seeing?” and “What did other civilizations see that we no longer see?”
In the discussion of the relationship between power and life, McGilchrist notes that civilizations that collapsed shared certain traits: material or territorial overexpansion and the removal of people from communities of a manageable size. When decisions become abstract and theoretical, the left hemisphere dominates. He says this change can be traced in the art of Greece and Rome. He does not see it simply as a virus spreading from person to person, but as the overall vision of a society and its leaders, which shapes everyone’s lives.
McGilchrist identifies three ways to respond. The first, which most people consider the most important, is major governmental and intergovernmental initiatives; however, he says, these have often enriched powerful groups without bringing meaningful change. The second involves small pockets, like mitochondria, that are already cultivating different forms of education, social connection and agriculture. The third, and in his view the only one that must happen, is inner change: beginning to examine our values, letting go of what causes harm and turning toward goodness, truth and beauty. He reminds us that every movement, however large it becomes, begins with a small seed.
Responding to Hagens’s question about whether a Zen attitude leads to passivity, McGilchrist explains that always being productive can be counterproductive and that calm is not resignation. Fallow periods, he says, are creative: when the left hemisphere’s narrow spotlight is switched off, the right can make broader connections. He refers to the distinction between ignorance and “not-knowing”: not knowing the answer to the meaning of life can be wiser than a simplistic formulation. Truth, he says, is asymptotic; it cannot be secured, but we continually approach it.
McGilchrist considers science valuable and essential, but points out that it cannot answer everything. Love, beauty, awe, music and friendship are real without being measurable in a laboratory; measuring hormones is not measuring love. These things are not irrational, but supra-rational. He also rejects the idea that everyone has their own truth: the absence of a single formulation does not mean there is no truth, just as different performances of a piece of music can be more or less faithful.
McGilchrist criticizes the idea of the “sovereign individual” when it is understood as isolated selfishness. The self, he says, should not be abolished, but should lose its selfishness and recognize its relational nature, like the jewels in Indra’s net that reflect all the others. For long-term social structures, he believes small groups, roughly the size described by Dunbar, allow trust and accountability. He adds that closeness to the land and the natural cycle is not only beneficial to us, but restores a relationship that works in both directions.
Despite the seriousness of his diagnosis, McGilchrist finds reasons for hope: predictions about the future are uncertain, people mobilize when things get difficult, and young people are more open to the language of the sacred and the divine. He believes the universe has direction, relationality and creativity, and that life accelerates responsiveness to values, purpose and meaning. He sees this not as a human invention, but as something we discover. He closes by saying that anyone who sees this shift in perspective can no longer see things any other way, and Hagens thanks him as a thinker who distills vital questions about the future.
Comments