Half the Brain - Lost in Evolution?

By Eng. Nishantha Kamaladasa

At times people are at a loss in understanding the reasons behind certain ridiculous decisions taken at the highest levels. This article attempts to give an answer.
There are two ways to understand a problem; looking at it and looking beyond it.
First approach is to divide it in to smaller parts while looking at it; focus on each constituent part of the problem and try to address each one separately. You are now inside the problem bisecting it and closely observing the internal dynamics.
Other approach is to take the problem as a whole and see the relationship it has with the rest of the surroundings, by looking beyond it and try to address issues related to those external links that contributes to the problem, taking that whole picture in to account. You are now looking at the problem at a distance but capturing every link that relates to it, studying the external dynamics.
In the first one you make an effort to capture the problem through analysis and in second through synthesis.
Two methods lead us to two entirely different solutions.
This can be better explained by giving an example.
Assume that we like to address the excessive consumption of alcohol in Sri Lanka. If we adopt the first method, we find that there are few causes we could identify as contributing to the problem by looking at alcohol.
Illicit liquor available freely
Too many legal liquor outlets as well
Liquor advertisements
Liquor in films
Liquor in public functions creating a bad example
Those people who look at the problem of alcohol, propose solutions such as reducing the number of legal outlets, banning advertisement of liquor, banning scenes that show alcohol drinking in films and tele-dramas, raid illicit liquor selling outlets and punish those responsible for making and selling illicit liquor, prohibit using alcohol in public functions, etc.
Those are perceived as the only available means to fight this menace.
Results are that people use it on sly and they get an additional kick as a result. Prices of illicit liquor go up. People get liquor that is adulterated.
In the open everything seems to be fine but underneath it stinks.
If we adopt the second method, we find that there are certain factors external to alcohol that promotes alcohol consumption; i.e. if we decide to look beyond alcohol.
Less opportunities to spend the free time
Less events in life
Less entertainment
Lower social values that makes people consume uncontrollably
Lower assumption of social responsibilities that drives people to taverns on a regular basis
Once you perceive the problem through the second method the remedy demands total solutions, not mere banning of liquor and advertisement and hence is much more difficult. You need to organize social events where people can express themselves, the people need to be involved in social responsibilities, they need to be educated, they need to be provided with better entertainment, etc and etc.
Those are perceived as activities that take out the necessity of drinking alcohol at least among those who are not addicted. Addicted people have to be treated at rehabilitation centres and in parallel exposed to a more sober social community fully engaged in useful activities, already mentioned.
On the surface the activities suggested seems to have no direct connection with alcohol use, but underneath it will negate the necessity of excessive consumption of alcohol.
The first method uses more of the left side of our brain while the second method uses more of our right brain.
Why we see many people using their left brain to look at a problem and not using the right brain to look beyond the problem, needs to be understood.
Too many are used to look at the inside of alcohol issue ignoring the surrounding context, not only because they have been trained to do that in schools and other educational institutes, which direct them to conceive it in that way. It is also because they feel that it is more logical to solve the problem by looking at the content.
It is also direct, easy to understand and can explain without effort. Not only that, even the effort of implementing the solution is also simple. In most cases single or few institutions can take care.
The second method requires some creative effort; it is not easy to transform the same in to action as the sphere of influence is too broad and as such it requires the coordinated effort of multiple institutions.
People not only like to do things in the way they are trained but also like to take simple uncomplicated direct action that they could explain to the society which is also visible to the average eye.
Though the actions of the first kind are convincing often the results are not.
Actions of the first kind normally lead to further problems complicating the situation, which then demands stronger action. This becomes a never ending cycle.
This is what had happened with the government’s most advertised action “Mathata Thitha”. It had taken snake by tail and now finding it difficult to handle.
We will take another example; problem of rural poverty.
If you use the first method you conclude probably that following as the causes for rural poverty as you will be looking at the rural society and rural economy.
Ever increasing input prices
Ever decreasing output prices
Early marriages
Excessive consumption of alcohol
Insufficient resources and funds
Hence you will give a fertilizer subsidy, certified price for paddy, promote “Mathata Thitha” again, etc.
But we all know that this formula, which is as old as our democracy, has not worked well.
If you look at the problem using the second method you will look beyond the rural society and economy.
In such an approach you find that the problem is because of
Less development in cities and less opportunities for migration to cities
Less access to cities
Land tenure that does not facilitate market economy to take over but keeps the people attached to the land (small plots scattered in the village owned by one person). External investment cannot creep in from outside.
Less demand for the products they produce in the outside market
Poor mindset that keeps people at subsistence level, compared to the people in cities
People who have access to cities are better off because that provides the vital “opportunity”. In fact most countries have reduced rural poverty by developing cities. When the rest of the economy is developed there will be people to pay for products that are produced in villages. As many would have already left the villages for city jobs there will be a higher demand for labor in the villages and their wages will rise as a result. People, who remain in the village, will have larger extent of land and hence would be able to productively use it by deploying machines and offer the outputs to the cities profitably.
Unfortunately for Sri Lanka many of its educated professionals, politicians included, look at the problems and don’t look beyond those.
They have powerful left brains, which are very logical, focus on content and analyze deeply by bisecting the subject. However they rarely used their right brains capable of grasping the context using intuition, which can capture the total picture (subject plus the externalities) with all its intricacies, by looking beyond the subject.
So the story continues. We tend to stagnate, in spite of all the good intentions, while other countries pass us in the road to development.
(Eng. Nishantha Kamaladasa is the author of seven management books- all in Sinhala- including a book titled “Wismitha Molaya”, meaning Amazing Brain that deals with the functioning of the brain. His email is nishanthakamaladasa@yahoo.com)