[zoogeny]

I get confused who is complaining about who. It reminds me of the two Spiderman meme where each are pointing at each other [1].

Most recently, I was watching an interview with Iain McGilchrist. His thesis in "The Master and His Emissary" is that our society has veered too far towards the intellectual. According to his thesis, scientific concerns are dominating our decision making processes. The ills in society are caused by the exclusion of "right brain" or intuitive thinking in modern governance and in the general culture of modern society.

I don't really have an opinion on who is right or wrong. I can't really say if scientists lack sufficient knowledge about humanities subjects or visa versa. But it does feel like each side is pointing the finger at the other side.

It doesn't even matter what side you support, e.g. if you think McGilchrist is a crank or an apologist for a particular kind of reactionary element that is taking over populist rhetoric. There can be no movement towards a middle-ground when both sides insist that they are the ones being misunderstood and oppressed.

1. https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/spider-man-pointing-at-spider...

[nradov]

It would generally be fine if scientific concerns dominated decision making processes in most domains. The problem is that decision makers often decide based on their own preconceptions and biases, then justify those decisions after the fact with a thin veneer of cherry-picked "science". Then they use logical fallacies to demonize their opponents as "anti-science".

(This is a general comment about problematic decision making and is not a political attack on any individual person or party. I have observed similar patterns across the political spectrum.)

The one area where scientific concerns must never be allowed to dominate is in fundamental freedoms and human rights. Those cannot be analyzed scientifically in any productive way.

[zoogeny]

I think my choice of words "scientific concerns" was poor. And to steel-man McGilchrist's position is difficult since he writes voluminous books that I honestly don't have the patience to read in their entirety. So I kind of have to piece together his ideas from the 3 or 4 podcasts I've seen him on. I also don't entirely agree with his framing.

As I understand it, his principle complaint is that analytical thinking has become the default mechanism for decision making. For example, if we were to have a discussion on whether people should live in cities or suburbs/rural areas, some people would immediately go to quantities and metrics. Maybe questions about carbon footprints or the cost of transportation or the ability to distribute food. In fact, given the demographic of HN, the vast majority here would probably think that was the correct approach. McGilchrist argues that is the result of indoctrination.

As a counter example, consider yourself feeling hungry and looking in the fridge to decide what to eat. You are unlikely to make that decision primarily based on some kind of analytical process involving calories or costs. You might take those into account (e.g. by avoiding eating cake for breakfast or something) but you would also use your intuition and preference. The same is true when you choose where to vacation, or what music to listen to, or who to marry.

Yet applying the same kind of preference to most other societal decisions is frowned upon these days. We are taught to think critically, to follow the data, to use logic as our primary means. We are trained to silence the non-analytic parts of our decision making process as if allowing them to influence our decisions is almost evil. We are taught to be objective and to break down complex questions into smaller pieces that we can quantify.

This leads to a mismatch between the kind of decision making process that is natural in most areas of life and the decision making processes we champion in modern education and policy making. If you are to believe him, half of our brain is dedicated to an intuitive decision making process - so we are advocating for throwing out half of our wisdom. In his view, if an entire half of our brain is dedicated to that kind of reasoning then we should consider that it has sufficient usefulness that we ought not to completely ignore it or work so hard to suppress it.

Again, I'm poorly steel-manning his position and I don't entirely agree with him. But there is something to be said about his position and its effects. It is hard not to see the general trend to use science to answer all questions, even those that you point out ought to remain free from its dominance.

[kqr]

This is interesting. I have discovered my own variant of this in analysing some documents for a client. My initial instinct was to approach it quantitatively, but a friend suggested looking into how these things are done qualitatively in social science.

I'm still learning it and it's interesting but I can't shake the feeling that the process almost seems designed to day-dream up patterns and connections between things where there are none. On the other hand, any more quantitative approach seems like it would only be useful to confirm my pre-existing beliefs, and not significantly innovate on them.

Perhaps we need a bit of both.