Left brain, right brain

Brain and behaviour research is increasingly being incorporated into political and policy debate in Britain. It is forcing both left and right to re-examine old assumptions

by Matthew Taylor / September 23, 2009 / Leave a comment

As a schoolboy socialist in a 1970s grammar school, the first political arguments I had were about human nature. My idea of the good society rested on a view of people as collaborative and benign, qualities hidden by the depredations of “the system.”

Working-class Tory mates mocked my naivety. To them we were self-interested. Some succeeded by their efforts, others failed or cheated and would change only if incentivised or compelled.

Yet for most of the 20 years that I have been involved in politics—as a Labour party activist, think-tank director and government adviser under Tony Blair—debates about human nature have been restricted to criminality and other social pathologies, as if only bad people failed to conform to the behavioural model of modern economics. I have never fully bought the idea that people are merely self-interested, rational actors. But during my time in Downing Street, whether we were addressing business regulation or competition in the NHS, the model of Homo economicus seemed to serve well enough: offer people choice and they will act in their own interest and in so doing will make the system work better for everyone. It is not a complete view of human action but it was a useful shortcut, and it had become the prevailing view of most policymakers in the US and Britain.

Today, human nature is back. Political debate is questioning again what shapes and motivates us, who we are as social animals and what we could be. Lying behind this is not just a faltering neoliberal project, but also 30 years of research on human behaviour and the neurological processes that shape it. It can be politically unsettling: some findings seems to undermine important assumptions on both right and left. But while David Cameron has claimed aspects of behavioural economics and neuroscience for his modernising project, these insights can inspire progressives on both sides of politics, producing a new synthesis more nuanced and more solidly based than previous attempts to move beyond left and right.

In truth, virtually no one who studies the brain or behaviour, or philosophises about the mind, accepts the idea of a disembodied rational self inside our heads making all our decisions on the basis of self-interest. But whatever its problems, its advocates could until recently argue that it was the best available model. Their assumptions underpinned the free-market philosophy that brought decades of growth. But, as we…

YOU’VE HIT THE LIMIT

You have now reached your limit of 3 free articles in the last 30 days.
But don’t worry! You can get another 7 articles absolutely free, simply by entering your email address in the box below.

When you register we’ll also send you a free e-book—Writing with punch—which includes some of the finest writing from our archive of 22 years. And we’ll also send you a weekly newsletter with the best new ideas in politics and philosophy of culture, which you can of course unsubscribe from at any time

Prospect may process your personal information for our legitimate business purposes, to provide you with our newsletter, subscription offers and other relevant information.

Click to learn more about these interests and how we use your data. You will be able to object to this processing on the next page and in all our communications.

4790171345d737111de2d94.60505599

Go to comments

European election results: the death knell for Britain’s two-party system?

Peter Kellner / May 28, 2019

Ten years from now the political landscape could look radically different

Boris Johnson’s Brexit will end in disaster. Let’s hope the disaster is his, not the country’s

Jonathan Lis / July 25, 2019

The new prime minister's first day in office confirms his loose attachment to reality

Share with friends

Comments

Roy Niles
September 25, 2009 at 23:00
Excellent article. It tends to confirm that altruism is a strategy rather than a genetically acquired trait. A strategy that can be learned and therefor teachable. A trait amenable to deliberate change of its enabling circumstances
DONALD_SCOTT
September 26, 2009 at 07:48
Altruism makes us happy. Being happy makes us altruistic. Chicken and egg.... which first? 'I have never fully bought the idea that people are merely self-interested, rational actors'..... nice idea but where's the evidence? Sure when there's no need to 'fight or flight' as documented by Hans Selye's contribution to the evolutionary debate, the maybe individuals can sit back and chill, but when the heat's on.... different story. Unless you've got stability and a secure financial and emotional basis to your life don't you think this kind of article is just a little superficial? Roy Nile's comment; 'A strategy that can be learned and therefor teachable.' belies the assumption that a person wants to learn in the first place, which is the nub of the politics of behavior.
Alan Stoddart
September 27, 2009 at 12:39
You should stay in more...and watch the Simpsons....who can teach us everything we need to know about human behaviour and motivation....as Lisa learnt there is no such thing as altruism because doing a good thing brings us pleasure even if it costs us money....so we benefit from our good actions.
Alex Crockett
October 2, 2009 at 23:54
This is a dangerous debate if not taken along the right lines. Science and the philosophy of science are not quite as straightforward as applying models that suit economists defending this or that policy they want to defend. There is an enormous scepticism within the area of the philosophy of mind that is itself unsure how to approach the question of the nature of the mind; do we approach the mind as a whole (and how) or is reducing the mind to the brain and taking all the evidence collectively but not together seem right? Most of the common sense notions we have about people, when extrapolated from data would seem to be supported. However, taken as a body of evidence about something quite as uncertain and as complex as 'the human condition' and how that applies to politics is something else altogether. There are also philosophical issues like the (naturalistic fallacy), of arguing from how things seem to work in nature to how they 'ought' to work in society. The issue of left/right brain theories are doubly riddled with problems, what does it mean for example, within the language of cognitive neuroscience to be a leftist or rightist which were terms given during early French parliament to denote political position based on where people sat. Quite contrary to left/right brain divisions, some theorists look at politicised people are from a personality trait framework that is not down to a left brain right brain division or anything quite so simple. I think it would be too easy and very unethical to start straddling theories that the experts themselves don't agree on to suit policy because it sounds better (scientific), which in essence seems to be the mistake of applying 'selfish gene' concepts to economics in the fist place without embarking on a full analysis of the complexity. My advice before embracing any synthesis that has quite such dangerous implications such as policy making and political theory, read a few editions of The Cognitive Neurosciences Ed. Gazzaniga with a pinch of theory from a political point of view that is tepid about anything approximating historicism and make your own conclusions....you'll end up somewhere in the middle, possibly a liberal democrat I think.
Tom Christensen
October 7, 2009 at 13:33
Benjamin Libet. Re his research. There is an update. Cognitive subroutines get established early on for many routine cognitive operations, e.g. sentence structure, walking, opening doors, etc. Once these are in place, the trigger for their execution will start the subroutine. Where prefrontal lobe, executive function has developed, the SELF/agent, now has the job of not always instigating action, but interrupting the subroutine. So we have NOT decided to act, to pick up the glass, its just a "relflex" prior to conscious awareness, like a swatting at an annoying pest...which we could interrupt if we so chose.
Tom Christensen
October 7, 2009 at 13:37
A lot would be revealed re social dynamics if the notion of Levels of Development were included in your analysis. People are not the same all thru their life, and people are not all at the same levels on all lines of measurement. I especially recommend the work of Dr. Don Beck, who has used Dr. Clare Graves model for guiding S. Africa out of apartheid, mitigating immigrant violence in The Netherlands, providing new possibilities in the West bank the last two years, and many other situations. www.spiraldynamics.net
Richard
October 10, 2009 at 18:11
"I have never fully bought the idea that people are merely self-interested, rational actors" - the above statement crushes the foundations of the argument before they are built. It's clear you will interpret data in line with your above disposition. This doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong, it just means it's not an open analysis. It's unlikely we have a "nature". We are an illusion created by many, shifting, conflicting subconscious forces. Also, is it even reasonable to treat male and female as one and the same? There is no mention of what is surely one of the strongest forces (def in males) - sex drive. It must surely inform a huge amount of what men do. Perhaps even altruism? Is there a part of altruism that is entailed by a man's desire to make himself more attractive to females? Who knows. In addition, our nature will change as we change our environment, and as sustainability moves up the list. In the end it's most likely there is no truth.
R Johnson
September 1, 2011 at 11:18
I think there are pros and cons to this argument. First, Matthew Taylor and his ilk should beware of using false extrapolations from so-called science on which to base policy decisions. The 'brains not adapted from stone age' argument is - and I notice he hasn't referenced it here - just a trite simplification of sociobiological contentions and is often trotted out as if it is true, and used to justify all kinds of current behaviour. But it isn't. Second, neurological and neurobiological and neuropsychological research is still in its infancy and subject to a great deal of controversy (and misunderstanding). Trying to apply such theories to politics seems rather in danger of missing the actual realities of life by disappearing into a murky world of neuron-connections. Why not just ask people instead of trying to derive policy implications from incomplete research projects that were not designed to have policy outcomes in the first place? ASK PEOPLE. That's the way to get them involved, committed and engaged: by giving them a stake in the design of the policy in the first place.
R Johnson
September 1, 2011 at 11:20
I might also point out that even the headline of this piece ' left brain, right brain' which I note Matthew Taylor in fact DOESN"T use in his article, is based on some kind of simplification of brain research which is also highly disputed. We don't simply have 'left' and 'right' brains that function differently, although this again is used - wrongly - to apply to all kinds of other areas from management and human resource theory to policy etc.