I would question the use of the term 'dominant' in these arguments. Do we say the pons is dominant in the tasks that it performs? No, it is specialized, just as the left or right hemisphere can be shown to specialize in one set of tasks versus another.
I was a heavy book reader as a kid, and screens have replaced paper as the medium. Until I go blind, it will be my preferred method for acquiring knowledge. I can't imagine going through life without reading.
I read with my left brain, and write with my left hand. Would I be doing less harm if I switched sides?
Yeah, I'm with you ... I was kind of struggling to find the best way to summarize complicated information from ridiculously big books. I was worried with "specialized" people would think that I don't realize both hemispheres are involved in everything we do. But "dominant" isn't the best word either. I thought "dominant" capture the fact that the hemisphere inhibit each other too.
Read away! Books are my preferred method of acquiring knowledge too (one should just be prudent in picking the books, garbage in garbage out). With non-fiction, I like the combination of listening to an audiobook then reviewing a print version to highlight etc. Fiction is better in print (or e-book), allows one to dissociate into the story more. But there are other good ways of acquiring knowledge.
The concern is "excessive" reading, i.e. when reading takes too much time away from socializing, exercise, being outside etc etc. And when reading replaces socializing/communication, i.e. when people conduct their social lives over text message and social media instead of hanging out in person.
Guessing the last part is a joke (hard to tell over writing, because I can't see your face or hear your tone! Hence the more "autistic" experience!) but left handers often have atypical lateralization anyway!
If you love books, then you should check out McGilchrist's work!
Yet the cerebrum has plasticity. If part of it is damaged, another part compensates. I once read a story of a girl who had such terrible seizures, the surgeons decided to remove one hemisphere. She appeared to be much better. And normal. No one would guess she had half of her brain removed.
Conversely, damage to other parts, like the pons or cerebellum, are said to have little plasticity (or redundancy). There is so much that neurologists don't know...
At lunchtime, I enjoyed being in the school library during winter, while preferring to explore the woods when it was warmer. The weather influenced what I wanted to do, and I never gave it a second thought. I was in elementary school in the 70s, and compared to today, we had more freedom! I grew up in rural Quebec and loved nature. The anglophone school I went to had no fence on its boundary. Come lunchtime, I'd run across the football field, and be in the woods with paths heading in different directions. These were mysteries to be solved. Nowadays, pupils are forbidden from leaving the school grounds. (By the time I finished high school, restrictive types of rules were being introduced - and a chain link fence had gone up.)
It's also true to say I spent a lot of time doing mundane stuff in the library. I rarely had homework because I completed it during lunch. I hated having homework to do after returning home, so I used the library. I seemed to be the only one who did this as a matter of routine. I was never hungry at lunchtime, so that wasn't an issue, although it was an issue for my mother.
Did these activities damage my social skills? Probably! Not eating lunch is seen as unhealthy, not socializing as unhealthy, etc. But those were my choices. Choices I was allowed to make. So if most children spend their lunchtimes eating, talking and hanging out, that is their preference. I had the discipline to do my homework instead of reading whatever book I was curious about, and they had the discipline to do their homework while they were at home. (Back then, we weren't buried in homework, which is the impression I'm getting from reading about it.)
I don't do live texting, but text is how I socialize. At the age of 49 I was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder and schizoid personality disorder. Suffice to say people like me aren't interested in face-to-face communication. I'm uncomfortable being in the physical presence of another person. I'm at ease when I'm alone. When I do face-to-face communication, it's a stream of consciousness. I can't express myself or convey meaning in the way I can through text.
When we read about younger generations preferring texting over face-to-face socialization, it is natural to be concerned. Are more people becoming schizoid by choice? Is something wrong with social media, our society?
I joked that the Covid lockdowns were a 'schizoid renaissance', but the effects were devastating for most people's mental health. To my knowledge, around 1% of the population have SPD. Reports that increasing numbers of people prefer to be alone, or remain single, may be cause for alarm. Same goes for unprecedented number of girls wanting to become men.
But we don't know if these changes are harmful per se. There are choices made that are voluntary, which I believe are healthy, and choices made to adapt. My 'life achievement/outcome' is very low because of the choices I made. I failed to adapt to the society I live in. I'm one of Mitt Romney's useless eaters. If I had made more compromises, I'd be more functional at the expense of contentment - as I perceive it.
Society is changing, for better or worse, and we have to adapt. Everyone who isn't 'normal' is expected to adapt, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, the older generations are dismayed with the adaptations that are taking place. Yes, we're alarmed, but isn't it the same old story? Misfits vs functional normies.
The last part is a joke. Would a girl who had her right hemisphere removed be less empathetic than the average woman? We are socialized to be this or that, depending on circumstances, and which hemisphere of our brain is called upon to meet those requirements is besides the point. Why there isn't a 50/50 split between handedness may be an interesting question, but perhaps the answer is of no significance. Some facts are merely trivia.
I listened to McGilchrist do an interview and I found myself disagreeing with his perspective. I forgot the topic, so I'll have to look it up and revisit it in light of what you wrote. Sorry for being this verbose :(
I'm feeling somewhat melancholic this morning and this conversation reminded me of a poem I wrote years ago (2018?) for an ex-boyfriend who struggled with social anxiety and schizoid personality (formatting lost, but w/e):
I mean, that makes sense, it was written for someone who said he was in love with me, not for you. But my ex didn't like it either. Which made sense to me, since it was written in frustration that nothing I said or did seemed to break through to him, and he was looking at the world through a distorted lens (I might have been too, but a different distortion).
You said he was schizoid, so I can only imagine he was in a relationship because he was lonely. He would be facing a conflict that I don't experience. Just as I would've had to leave my comfort zone to function in the job market, he entered a relationship to address his loneliness.
As someone diagnosed with SPD, I don't relate to your ex either. Yet there is someone I follow on Youtube who has SPD and reported feeling loneliness, as well as being in a relationship.
Ugh, I'm sorry, I typed out a reply to this, but then accidentally closed the window and lost it ... this is the second go at it, probably not as good as the first ...
I realize the importance of neuroplasticity, and that brains can compensate in all sorts of miraculous ways for injuries and mishaps. I fell *off* a staircase when I was one and landed headfirst (right hemisphere) on a cement floor. I still have a bump.
Iain McGilchrist provides substantial evidence for his left/right hemisphere theory in his books, but also acknowledges that they might only be a metaphor ... and if that's the case I find it to be a useful metaphor. The "characters" of the left and right hemispheres help me describe many trends I've observed. But I've noticed issues in McGilchrist's work too (e.g. he claims autism is a disorder of left hemisphere dominance, but most savant skills associated with autism lateralize more to the right hemisphere).
The importance of neuroplasticity is something I was trying to get at with this essay. Cells that fire together, wire together. If we use the parts of our brain that are for reading (and writing) in excess, those parts will strengthen. If we neglect to use the parts that are for socializing (etc), those parts will weaken. Many highly social people I know admitted they experienced unusual social anxiety the first few times hanging out with friends / larger groups after Covid lockdowns.
I also saw the "schizoid renaissance" you describe, early in the pandemic. I saw a lot of social media posts from "introverts" mocking "extroverts" (etc). The people who already spent most of their time indoors and alone seemingly revelling in the fact that everyone else would have to temporarily live life as they do. There was a cruel streak to it that I found very disturbing. I'm objectively a "misfit", but I've been in friend groups and on sports teams with those you might call "normies" as well as spending time and befriending other misfits. And from what I've noticed, if there's a *versus* (a battle?) between normies and misfits, it is the misfits who desire it, not the normies. In my creative writing graduate program, I was shocked at how many people trash talked athletes, including a professor I TA-ed for who told me to neglect a group of boys in her class because they were on the rugby team (I refused). I don't believe I've *ever* heard such vitriolic comments about artists/writers/academics/bookish-types from any of the jocks I've played sports with (at least in adulthood). The final episodes of "Malcolm in the Middle" illustrate what I'm trying to get at here quite well.
Normal is a myth, "normie" is meaningless. Everyone is different, everyone is a little strange. You just have to get closer to them to see it.
Yes, people are adapting to the unhealthy, twisted culture we / our ancestors have created. No doubt. But it's not really true that "misfits" are expected to adapt when "normies" don't have to. Everyone is adapting. Our modern world, Western civilization, has been disproportionately impacted, designed, driven by the weirdos, the outliers, the misfits, and the neurodivergent. Think about it. Did computers, smart phones, or any of the social media platforms arise from the creative minds of "normies"? Most of our most influential literature, film, art, and philosophy has come from the oddballs. Our science moved forward by the strange-thinking. I see neurodiversity activists attribute their difficulties to living in a world "not designed for them." Oh, but the issue is that if the culture is disproportionately driven and designed by outliers, by *individuals*, then it won't be designed for *anyone*, broadly speaking. And it isn't.
The United States in particular is a country of outliers and misfits. Robert Sapolsky said it beautifully in "Behave":
"And who were the immigrants? Those in the settled world who were cranks, malcontents, restless, heretical, black sheep, hyperactive, hypomanic, misanthropic, itchy, unconventional, yearning to be rich, yearning to be out of their damn boring repressive little hamlet, yearning. Couple that with the second reason - for the majority of its colonial and independent history, America has had a moving frontier luring those whose extreme prickly optimism made merely booking passage to the New World insufficiently novel - and you've got America the individualistic."
Consider the reply you received from one of the PITT authors in regard to gifted children. Those people have narrow definitions of success and how to achieve it.
I once fell down the stairs, bouncing on my head from stair to stair. I don't have a bump, but at least I remember it. Then there was the time my parents heard a crash, and when they entered the room, saw me sitting on the floor surrounded by glass from a mirror that had fallen over. Did it strike me in the head? I don't remember that incident.
I don't know if Iain McGilchrist is the author of left/right hemisphere dominance; it's not a recent theory. I became aware of it when handedness was discussed. Apparently, we also have eye and foot dominance.
Here's a metaphor. Suppose everyone was born with grey eyes. As we live and learn, our eyes change colour depending on which hemisphere becomes dominant. Lets say brown for the left hemisphere and blue for the right. People who used both sides of their brain equally would retain grey eyes. Would such knowledge be useful? Would too many brown-eyed people be cause for worry? Would grey eyes be viewed as a sign of stability and balance? Would blue eyes be favoured over brown eyes regardless?
I'm failing to see the significance of brain dominance. The issue to me is what is required of the individual in society, and the consequences of that.
IMO the description of left versus right brain is not neutral. I perceive the right brain as having more positive attributes. Some folks may be biased the other way. Is it necessary to use this framing?
You bring up normies vs misfits in peer competition and I'm guilty of buying into those stereotypes. Jocks aren't supposed to be interested in intellectual pursuits. So when the gym teacher proved to be good at chess, I was stunned. (I forgot that he had been our substitute science teacher years earlier).
I didn't observe as stark a contrast between misfits and normies in our school of around 300(?) students. One of my classmates stuck with "the hockey thing" as he put it, and would become a somewhat notable NHL player. The 'divide' as such, was between the academically gifted, and those who would enter the trades. I was clueless as to which group I belonged, in terms of career. In terms of grades, I was in the group expected to go to CEGEP and university.
I could go on and on about my experiences in school. There were so few girls in our class that it seemed they didn't exist. Without their influence our class was one of the worst in terms of causing mischief. Nevertheless, I was deemed off limits to bullies by the so-called jocks. I was just too scrawny to be picked on, even for them.
So now I live in Nova Scotia, a province of misfits. I was informed of this by an architecture student, who ran a business with her husband, producing cemetery headstones. So the term is new to me, and only the latest. Before that I was Simon in "Lord of the Flies" and then Shrek.
The Covid lockdowns were our revenge. The popular crowd suffered and we thrived. Extroverts were drained of their energy. Good - now they know how we feel in public. I didn't experience the humiliation depicted in movies, so I don't hold a grudge. But I'm biased towards misfits or whichever term is trending.
I'm looking at it from the standpoint of normies vs misfits in a generational sense. We adapt when we come of age, and less so when we grow old. The older generation always frowns on the choices of the young. Boomers were spoiled, GenXers are running the world responsibly, and Zoomers are going to destroy it all. Who else but a GenXer would say that? I frown on all this griping.
I have an issue with Robert Sapolsky with regard to determinism.
Why should culture be designed for the masses? Covid revealed that most people are a flock of sheep. They believe themselves to be individuals until they are put to the test. Then it becomes clear they are desperate to be part of their social circles. They'll do anything to maintain their good standing. Only misfits and people with unacceptable views said no. The message I took is to move away from the collective and reaffirm the sanctity of the individual. A culture of the few, or a culture of one, if need be.
When most of the innovating is done by misfits, are misfits to blame? Why don't the masses do a proportional share?
Instead they react. Eventually they'll react with violence, and use their sheer numbers to force what they perceive as perverted to comply.
As a misfit, I don't want activists stirring up trouble.
Iain McGilchrist did not originate the idea that the left and right hemisphere's perceive the world differently or that specific functions lateralize more to one hemisphere over the other. That's old news. He rejects much of the older popular understanding of the differences though (e.g. "creativity" is *not* in the right hemisphere) and is explicit that both hemispheres are involved in every task. He also wasn't the first to point out that the West has been imbalanced toward the left hemisphere. Leonard Shlain beat him to it by a decade (The Alphabet vs The Goddess). McGilchrist's take on it is unique to him, however (e.g. he rejects Shlain's conviction that the left hemisphere is "masculine" and the right "feminine", correctly, I believe). As I said before, I find the metaphor at least to be useful in discussing a cognitive imbalance I also see (and so do others who don't rely on the left/right hemisphere thing, as I point out here).
Yes, the normies vs misfits things is mostly a Hollywood fiction made up by borderline misanthropic screenwriters. Perhaps it applies to some elite WASP-y areas of the United States, or cities like New York, but those would be the exceptions, not the rule. Why would you enjoy "revenge" against the "popular" crowd (i.e. their suffering)? They don't enjoy it when the "misfits" suffer. Their only crime against the "misfits" might be that they live their lives without explicitly trying to including the "misfits (perhaps because of the animosity seen here?). There's that cruelty.
Robert Sapolsky is right about some things and wrong about others (e.g. the free will stuff). Because he's a human.
Maybe most people are "sheep", many are conflict-avoidant and trusting, yes. But the hardcore enforcers of masks, lockdowns, vaccines etc in my extended social circle were all people who would self-identify with the "misfit" label, not the "normie" one. Meanwhile, many of the people I know who avoided wearing masks, broke lockdown, and were skeptical of vaccines were friendly people with moderate-big social networks. A lot of the criticism of these things was spread by word of mouth, not online (we all knew we'd get yelled at and censored if we said anything online, so we told our friends about Vitamin D and why masking was stupid in person), Joe Rogan was one of the big critics, he's one of the most popular podcasters in the world, an affable guy with a healthy marriage and kids. Don't kid yourself, the "misfit" vs "normie" dichotomy does not apply here.
Most "activists" would consider themselves "misfits". That's why they are activist-ing for change.
Most of your other questions don't really make sense.
I revisited the interview with Iian McGilchrist noted earlier, and it refreshed my memory as to why I disagree with him. This is the link if you're interested:
What he's saying may be scientifically valid, or what the current theory is, but these explanations are trivial at best and divisive at worst. He is positing the right hemisphere as 'superior' to the left, such that the left side should be subservient. And that it was in fact subservient for most of our evolution. We will have to disagree on the merit of his point of view.
Why did I enjoy the suffering of normies, aka non-schizoids? They got to experience a world outside of their sociable comfort zone. They got a taste of what non-gregarious folks experience on a regular basis. I believe this is called schadenfreude, and it happens in a variety of contexts.
I agree that normies vs. misfits is exaggerated. It's not what I experienced in school or in adult life. But for a single incident that upset another person, I didn't see normies insult someone for being a nerd, or being bad at sports. Or vice versa. It is you who reported instances of misfits insulting normies. I'm taking your word for it, since that is your experience.
The Covid lockdowns revealed a divide that we knew existed, due to historical precedent. Calling it a divide between misfits and normies is optional. From my perspective, the reason I refused the vax is because I lived alone. I wasn't seeking approval from my peers or from society itself. I looked at the facts and decided I didn't need the vax.
Those are my reasons. Obviously, there are other reasons for not going along with the herd. There are testimonials from within the medical freedom community that posited their belief in god for their refusal, and for keeping them sane. I accept their point of view. I don't accept the assertion that atheists were pro-lockdown, since I am an atheist.
We call them sheep, they call us anti-vaxxers. How is that different from nerds vs. jocks, MGTOW vs feminists, conservatives vs liberals, facts vs feels, left-brained vs right-brained? If we were all misfits we wouldn't be divided. There wouldn't be a concept of 'the norm'.
There are way too many rabbit holes for me to go into. I have used the internet to go to many different communities. Communities that rarely communicate with each other. We're just scratching the surface, and I don't want to impose on your time.
If I were to stop following current events, that would reduce the amount of time I spend reading articles and listening to interviews. I feel I have a duty to keep up with current events, yet wonder if I might be better off if I didn't.
You know, it seems to me that the ideal situation is to read a good book and then have an ice bath and climb a small mountain and then read again... what do you think?
(on a secondary note, I think people read indoors too much, and our vitamin d levels have been plummeting since doing so).
Did you know that the ancients read aloud only? And if they saw you reading privately, they’d be like “hey what is this scoundrel up to” lol
Haha, yes, everything in moderation! Reading outside would be a lot better than reading indoors, especially in nature. I used to love reading in trees as a kid.
I'm not sure if I knew that about the ancients, but it makes a lot of sense! One of the reasons I love audiobooks is that my husband and I can listen to them together, and talk about them while we listen (pausing the book, of course).
I would question the use of the term 'dominant' in these arguments. Do we say the pons is dominant in the tasks that it performs? No, it is specialized, just as the left or right hemisphere can be shown to specialize in one set of tasks versus another.
I was a heavy book reader as a kid, and screens have replaced paper as the medium. Until I go blind, it will be my preferred method for acquiring knowledge. I can't imagine going through life without reading.
I read with my left brain, and write with my left hand. Would I be doing less harm if I switched sides?
Yeah, I'm with you ... I was kind of struggling to find the best way to summarize complicated information from ridiculously big books. I was worried with "specialized" people would think that I don't realize both hemispheres are involved in everything we do. But "dominant" isn't the best word either. I thought "dominant" capture the fact that the hemisphere inhibit each other too.
Read away! Books are my preferred method of acquiring knowledge too (one should just be prudent in picking the books, garbage in garbage out). With non-fiction, I like the combination of listening to an audiobook then reviewing a print version to highlight etc. Fiction is better in print (or e-book), allows one to dissociate into the story more. But there are other good ways of acquiring knowledge.
The concern is "excessive" reading, i.e. when reading takes too much time away from socializing, exercise, being outside etc etc. And when reading replaces socializing/communication, i.e. when people conduct their social lives over text message and social media instead of hanging out in person.
Guessing the last part is a joke (hard to tell over writing, because I can't see your face or hear your tone! Hence the more "autistic" experience!) but left handers often have atypical lateralization anyway!
If you love books, then you should check out McGilchrist's work!
Yet the cerebrum has plasticity. If part of it is damaged, another part compensates. I once read a story of a girl who had such terrible seizures, the surgeons decided to remove one hemisphere. She appeared to be much better. And normal. No one would guess she had half of her brain removed.
Conversely, damage to other parts, like the pons or cerebellum, are said to have little plasticity (or redundancy). There is so much that neurologists don't know...
At lunchtime, I enjoyed being in the school library during winter, while preferring to explore the woods when it was warmer. The weather influenced what I wanted to do, and I never gave it a second thought. I was in elementary school in the 70s, and compared to today, we had more freedom! I grew up in rural Quebec and loved nature. The anglophone school I went to had no fence on its boundary. Come lunchtime, I'd run across the football field, and be in the woods with paths heading in different directions. These were mysteries to be solved. Nowadays, pupils are forbidden from leaving the school grounds. (By the time I finished high school, restrictive types of rules were being introduced - and a chain link fence had gone up.)
It's also true to say I spent a lot of time doing mundane stuff in the library. I rarely had homework because I completed it during lunch. I hated having homework to do after returning home, so I used the library. I seemed to be the only one who did this as a matter of routine. I was never hungry at lunchtime, so that wasn't an issue, although it was an issue for my mother.
Did these activities damage my social skills? Probably! Not eating lunch is seen as unhealthy, not socializing as unhealthy, etc. But those were my choices. Choices I was allowed to make. So if most children spend their lunchtimes eating, talking and hanging out, that is their preference. I had the discipline to do my homework instead of reading whatever book I was curious about, and they had the discipline to do their homework while they were at home. (Back then, we weren't buried in homework, which is the impression I'm getting from reading about it.)
I don't do live texting, but text is how I socialize. At the age of 49 I was diagnosed with social anxiety disorder and schizoid personality disorder. Suffice to say people like me aren't interested in face-to-face communication. I'm uncomfortable being in the physical presence of another person. I'm at ease when I'm alone. When I do face-to-face communication, it's a stream of consciousness. I can't express myself or convey meaning in the way I can through text.
When we read about younger generations preferring texting over face-to-face socialization, it is natural to be concerned. Are more people becoming schizoid by choice? Is something wrong with social media, our society?
I joked that the Covid lockdowns were a 'schizoid renaissance', but the effects were devastating for most people's mental health. To my knowledge, around 1% of the population have SPD. Reports that increasing numbers of people prefer to be alone, or remain single, may be cause for alarm. Same goes for unprecedented number of girls wanting to become men.
But we don't know if these changes are harmful per se. There are choices made that are voluntary, which I believe are healthy, and choices made to adapt. My 'life achievement/outcome' is very low because of the choices I made. I failed to adapt to the society I live in. I'm one of Mitt Romney's useless eaters. If I had made more compromises, I'd be more functional at the expense of contentment - as I perceive it.
Society is changing, for better or worse, and we have to adapt. Everyone who isn't 'normal' is expected to adapt, and now that the shoe is on the other foot, the older generations are dismayed with the adaptations that are taking place. Yes, we're alarmed, but isn't it the same old story? Misfits vs functional normies.
The last part is a joke. Would a girl who had her right hemisphere removed be less empathetic than the average woman? We are socialized to be this or that, depending on circumstances, and which hemisphere of our brain is called upon to meet those requirements is besides the point. Why there isn't a 50/50 split between handedness may be an interesting question, but perhaps the answer is of no significance. Some facts are merely trivia.
I listened to McGilchrist do an interview and I found myself disagreeing with his perspective. I forgot the topic, so I'll have to look it up and revisit it in light of what you wrote. Sorry for being this verbose :(
I'm feeling somewhat melancholic this morning and this conversation reminded me of a poem I wrote years ago (2018?) for an ex-boyfriend who struggled with social anxiety and schizoid personality (formatting lost, but w/e):
I'm not saying you're not lonely
When I say you're not alone
No, we are all infinite
And that's beautiful, that's beautiful
I tell you about the time
I argued Laplace's demon
Could not understand love
Without falling in love
I was accused of poetry
I say, people are asymptotes
And that's beautiful, that's beautiful
When you ask for more
Connection
I accuse you of wanting
To connect to an idea of me
You ask for my empathy
I ask you why you identify as "alone"
I beg you, love, listen
The universe is screaming
Can't you hear the screams?
Was he diagnosed?
I'm sorry, I don't relate to your poem.
I haven't experienced loneliness. I understand it, on an intellectual level.
To be in a relationship is to participate in life. To give up observer status.
I mean, that makes sense, it was written for someone who said he was in love with me, not for you. But my ex didn't like it either. Which made sense to me, since it was written in frustration that nothing I said or did seemed to break through to him, and he was looking at the world through a distorted lens (I might have been too, but a different distortion).
You said he was schizoid, so I can only imagine he was in a relationship because he was lonely. He would be facing a conflict that I don't experience. Just as I would've had to leave my comfort zone to function in the job market, he entered a relationship to address his loneliness.
As someone diagnosed with SPD, I don't relate to your ex either. Yet there is someone I follow on Youtube who has SPD and reported feeling loneliness, as well as being in a relationship.
Ugh, I'm sorry, I typed out a reply to this, but then accidentally closed the window and lost it ... this is the second go at it, probably not as good as the first ...
I realize the importance of neuroplasticity, and that brains can compensate in all sorts of miraculous ways for injuries and mishaps. I fell *off* a staircase when I was one and landed headfirst (right hemisphere) on a cement floor. I still have a bump.
Iain McGilchrist provides substantial evidence for his left/right hemisphere theory in his books, but also acknowledges that they might only be a metaphor ... and if that's the case I find it to be a useful metaphor. The "characters" of the left and right hemispheres help me describe many trends I've observed. But I've noticed issues in McGilchrist's work too (e.g. he claims autism is a disorder of left hemisphere dominance, but most savant skills associated with autism lateralize more to the right hemisphere).
The importance of neuroplasticity is something I was trying to get at with this essay. Cells that fire together, wire together. If we use the parts of our brain that are for reading (and writing) in excess, those parts will strengthen. If we neglect to use the parts that are for socializing (etc), those parts will weaken. Many highly social people I know admitted they experienced unusual social anxiety the first few times hanging out with friends / larger groups after Covid lockdowns.
I also saw the "schizoid renaissance" you describe, early in the pandemic. I saw a lot of social media posts from "introverts" mocking "extroverts" (etc). The people who already spent most of their time indoors and alone seemingly revelling in the fact that everyone else would have to temporarily live life as they do. There was a cruel streak to it that I found very disturbing. I'm objectively a "misfit", but I've been in friend groups and on sports teams with those you might call "normies" as well as spending time and befriending other misfits. And from what I've noticed, if there's a *versus* (a battle?) between normies and misfits, it is the misfits who desire it, not the normies. In my creative writing graduate program, I was shocked at how many people trash talked athletes, including a professor I TA-ed for who told me to neglect a group of boys in her class because they were on the rugby team (I refused). I don't believe I've *ever* heard such vitriolic comments about artists/writers/academics/bookish-types from any of the jocks I've played sports with (at least in adulthood). The final episodes of "Malcolm in the Middle" illustrate what I'm trying to get at here quite well.
Normal is a myth, "normie" is meaningless. Everyone is different, everyone is a little strange. You just have to get closer to them to see it.
Yes, people are adapting to the unhealthy, twisted culture we / our ancestors have created. No doubt. But it's not really true that "misfits" are expected to adapt when "normies" don't have to. Everyone is adapting. Our modern world, Western civilization, has been disproportionately impacted, designed, driven by the weirdos, the outliers, the misfits, and the neurodivergent. Think about it. Did computers, smart phones, or any of the social media platforms arise from the creative minds of "normies"? Most of our most influential literature, film, art, and philosophy has come from the oddballs. Our science moved forward by the strange-thinking. I see neurodiversity activists attribute their difficulties to living in a world "not designed for them." Oh, but the issue is that if the culture is disproportionately driven and designed by outliers, by *individuals*, then it won't be designed for *anyone*, broadly speaking. And it isn't.
The United States in particular is a country of outliers and misfits. Robert Sapolsky said it beautifully in "Behave":
"And who were the immigrants? Those in the settled world who were cranks, malcontents, restless, heretical, black sheep, hyperactive, hypomanic, misanthropic, itchy, unconventional, yearning to be rich, yearning to be out of their damn boring repressive little hamlet, yearning. Couple that with the second reason - for the majority of its colonial and independent history, America has had a moving frontier luring those whose extreme prickly optimism made merely booking passage to the New World insufficiently novel - and you've got America the individualistic."
Consider the reply you received from one of the PITT authors in regard to gifted children. Those people have narrow definitions of success and how to achieve it.
I once fell down the stairs, bouncing on my head from stair to stair. I don't have a bump, but at least I remember it. Then there was the time my parents heard a crash, and when they entered the room, saw me sitting on the floor surrounded by glass from a mirror that had fallen over. Did it strike me in the head? I don't remember that incident.
I don't know if Iain McGilchrist is the author of left/right hemisphere dominance; it's not a recent theory. I became aware of it when handedness was discussed. Apparently, we also have eye and foot dominance.
Here's a metaphor. Suppose everyone was born with grey eyes. As we live and learn, our eyes change colour depending on which hemisphere becomes dominant. Lets say brown for the left hemisphere and blue for the right. People who used both sides of their brain equally would retain grey eyes. Would such knowledge be useful? Would too many brown-eyed people be cause for worry? Would grey eyes be viewed as a sign of stability and balance? Would blue eyes be favoured over brown eyes regardless?
I'm failing to see the significance of brain dominance. The issue to me is what is required of the individual in society, and the consequences of that.
IMO the description of left versus right brain is not neutral. I perceive the right brain as having more positive attributes. Some folks may be biased the other way. Is it necessary to use this framing?
You bring up normies vs misfits in peer competition and I'm guilty of buying into those stereotypes. Jocks aren't supposed to be interested in intellectual pursuits. So when the gym teacher proved to be good at chess, I was stunned. (I forgot that he had been our substitute science teacher years earlier).
I didn't observe as stark a contrast between misfits and normies in our school of around 300(?) students. One of my classmates stuck with "the hockey thing" as he put it, and would become a somewhat notable NHL player. The 'divide' as such, was between the academically gifted, and those who would enter the trades. I was clueless as to which group I belonged, in terms of career. In terms of grades, I was in the group expected to go to CEGEP and university.
I could go on and on about my experiences in school. There were so few girls in our class that it seemed they didn't exist. Without their influence our class was one of the worst in terms of causing mischief. Nevertheless, I was deemed off limits to bullies by the so-called jocks. I was just too scrawny to be picked on, even for them.
So now I live in Nova Scotia, a province of misfits. I was informed of this by an architecture student, who ran a business with her husband, producing cemetery headstones. So the term is new to me, and only the latest. Before that I was Simon in "Lord of the Flies" and then Shrek.
The Covid lockdowns were our revenge. The popular crowd suffered and we thrived. Extroverts were drained of their energy. Good - now they know how we feel in public. I didn't experience the humiliation depicted in movies, so I don't hold a grudge. But I'm biased towards misfits or whichever term is trending.
I'm looking at it from the standpoint of normies vs misfits in a generational sense. We adapt when we come of age, and less so when we grow old. The older generation always frowns on the choices of the young. Boomers were spoiled, GenXers are running the world responsibly, and Zoomers are going to destroy it all. Who else but a GenXer would say that? I frown on all this griping.
I have an issue with Robert Sapolsky with regard to determinism.
Why should culture be designed for the masses? Covid revealed that most people are a flock of sheep. They believe themselves to be individuals until they are put to the test. Then it becomes clear they are desperate to be part of their social circles. They'll do anything to maintain their good standing. Only misfits and people with unacceptable views said no. The message I took is to move away from the collective and reaffirm the sanctity of the individual. A culture of the few, or a culture of one, if need be.
When most of the innovating is done by misfits, are misfits to blame? Why don't the masses do a proportional share?
Instead they react. Eventually they'll react with violence, and use their sheer numbers to force what they perceive as perverted to comply.
As a misfit, I don't want activists stirring up trouble.
Quickly:
Iain McGilchrist did not originate the idea that the left and right hemisphere's perceive the world differently or that specific functions lateralize more to one hemisphere over the other. That's old news. He rejects much of the older popular understanding of the differences though (e.g. "creativity" is *not* in the right hemisphere) and is explicit that both hemispheres are involved in every task. He also wasn't the first to point out that the West has been imbalanced toward the left hemisphere. Leonard Shlain beat him to it by a decade (The Alphabet vs The Goddess). McGilchrist's take on it is unique to him, however (e.g. he rejects Shlain's conviction that the left hemisphere is "masculine" and the right "feminine", correctly, I believe). As I said before, I find the metaphor at least to be useful in discussing a cognitive imbalance I also see (and so do others who don't rely on the left/right hemisphere thing, as I point out here).
Yes, the normies vs misfits things is mostly a Hollywood fiction made up by borderline misanthropic screenwriters. Perhaps it applies to some elite WASP-y areas of the United States, or cities like New York, but those would be the exceptions, not the rule. Why would you enjoy "revenge" against the "popular" crowd (i.e. their suffering)? They don't enjoy it when the "misfits" suffer. Their only crime against the "misfits" might be that they live their lives without explicitly trying to including the "misfits (perhaps because of the animosity seen here?). There's that cruelty.
Robert Sapolsky is right about some things and wrong about others (e.g. the free will stuff). Because he's a human.
Maybe most people are "sheep", many are conflict-avoidant and trusting, yes. But the hardcore enforcers of masks, lockdowns, vaccines etc in my extended social circle were all people who would self-identify with the "misfit" label, not the "normie" one. Meanwhile, many of the people I know who avoided wearing masks, broke lockdown, and were skeptical of vaccines were friendly people with moderate-big social networks. A lot of the criticism of these things was spread by word of mouth, not online (we all knew we'd get yelled at and censored if we said anything online, so we told our friends about Vitamin D and why masking was stupid in person), Joe Rogan was one of the big critics, he's one of the most popular podcasters in the world, an affable guy with a healthy marriage and kids. Don't kid yourself, the "misfit" vs "normie" dichotomy does not apply here.
Most "activists" would consider themselves "misfits". That's why they are activist-ing for change.
Most of your other questions don't really make sense.
We're all misfits here.
I revisited the interview with Iian McGilchrist noted earlier, and it refreshed my memory as to why I disagree with him. This is the link if you're interested:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dogVQDydRGQ
What he's saying may be scientifically valid, or what the current theory is, but these explanations are trivial at best and divisive at worst. He is positing the right hemisphere as 'superior' to the left, such that the left side should be subservient. And that it was in fact subservient for most of our evolution. We will have to disagree on the merit of his point of view.
Why did I enjoy the suffering of normies, aka non-schizoids? They got to experience a world outside of their sociable comfort zone. They got a taste of what non-gregarious folks experience on a regular basis. I believe this is called schadenfreude, and it happens in a variety of contexts.
I agree that normies vs. misfits is exaggerated. It's not what I experienced in school or in adult life. But for a single incident that upset another person, I didn't see normies insult someone for being a nerd, or being bad at sports. Or vice versa. It is you who reported instances of misfits insulting normies. I'm taking your word for it, since that is your experience.
The Covid lockdowns revealed a divide that we knew existed, due to historical precedent. Calling it a divide between misfits and normies is optional. From my perspective, the reason I refused the vax is because I lived alone. I wasn't seeking approval from my peers or from society itself. I looked at the facts and decided I didn't need the vax.
Those are my reasons. Obviously, there are other reasons for not going along with the herd. There are testimonials from within the medical freedom community that posited their belief in god for their refusal, and for keeping them sane. I accept their point of view. I don't accept the assertion that atheists were pro-lockdown, since I am an atheist.
We call them sheep, they call us anti-vaxxers. How is that different from nerds vs. jocks, MGTOW vs feminists, conservatives vs liberals, facts vs feels, left-brained vs right-brained? If we were all misfits we wouldn't be divided. There wouldn't be a concept of 'the norm'.
There are way too many rabbit holes for me to go into. I have used the internet to go to many different communities. Communities that rarely communicate with each other. We're just scratching the surface, and I don't want to impose on your time.
I forgot to add:
If I were to stop following current events, that would reduce the amount of time I spend reading articles and listening to interviews. I feel I have a duty to keep up with current events, yet wonder if I might be better off if I didn't.
Great points in here! Thank you.
You know, it seems to me that the ideal situation is to read a good book and then have an ice bath and climb a small mountain and then read again... what do you think?
(on a secondary note, I think people read indoors too much, and our vitamin d levels have been plummeting since doing so).
Did you know that the ancients read aloud only? And if they saw you reading privately, they’d be like “hey what is this scoundrel up to” lol
Haha, yes, everything in moderation! Reading outside would be a lot better than reading indoors, especially in nature. I used to love reading in trees as a kid.
I'm not sure if I knew that about the ancients, but it makes a lot of sense! One of the reasons I love audiobooks is that my husband and I can listen to them together, and talk about them while we listen (pausing the book, of course).
Yes, brilliant. Audiobooks are fantastic that way, absolutely