Talk:The Master and His Emissary

Guardian review due Jan 2010

Have made a start on the article at least. Should be a review in The Guardian in early January 2010 by the philosopher Mary Midgley. Esowteric+Talk 19:22, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Inclusion in Lateralization of brain function

I have tried to include the book as further reading in Lateralization of brain function. However, I was reverted as one of the editors watching the article considers the book to be poppsych/fringe material and that it does not have a place in that article (re. WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE).

See Talk:Lateralization of brain function#The Master and His Emissary. Esowteric+Talk 11:39, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is Julian Jaynes?

There are entries about Julian Jaynes and his book The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind (1976) and they deserve to be mentioned.91.92.179.172 (talk) 17:29, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Jonah Lehrer review of The Master and His Emissary in Bookforum Apr/May 2010 [1]

"Like Jaynes, McGilchrist interprets human history as an unresolved quarrel between the left and right hemispheres..distinct hemispheric talents lead McGilchrist to invert Jaynes's hypothesis. While Jaynes argued that the Greek gods were invented to explain the breakdown of the bicameral mind — our hemispheres were finally able to listen to each other— McGilchrist argues the opposite"distinct hemispheric talents lead McGilchrist to invert Jaynes's hypothesis. While Jaynes argued that the Greek gods were invented to explain the breakdown of the bicameral mind—our hemispheres were finally able to listen to each other—McGilchrist argues the opposite"91.92.179.172 (talk) 21:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Advert?

Hi 91.92.179.172, you tagged The Master and His Emissary as an advert without giving any reasons. Looking at WP:NOTSOAPBOX, I don't think that any of the items listed apply, though I'm open to discussion. In the lede, the article does say "a detailed and extensively documented" scientific study — however, I have provided two references to support this claim.

Your input here would be appreciated. Thanks, Esowteric+Talk 18:17, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

No context and no criticism but plenty of superlatives. Honestly I am puzzled why not a single review mentions Jaynes. There is a section 'Similar ideas' in Bicameralism (psychology).91.92.179.172 (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks. Actually, the Economist review is pretty critical, as I've indicated. I was hoping that one of the "biggies" like Science, Nature or Scientific American would review the book. Have added the Julian Jaynes book in further reading and note that you've added wikilinks to See also. I don't have the book as yet, so I'm reliant on reviews mentioning folk like Jaynes, and they haven't been forthcoming. Sorry. Esowteric+Talk 09:42, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It's only in draft form, but having taken on-board what you say, I've created a "Background context" section before "Book summary". There's a link to the main article (lateralization of brain function) and I've tried to fit in a few key names, including Julian Jaynes.Thanks again. Esowteric+Talk 10:37, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Good work. Came here to say the same thing, only to see you've added it. I too, was wondering, "where's Jaynes?" A few more issues below. Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

big fan of this book, but yes this article is clearly written to sell it. we can be more neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:F:919:0:0:0:7 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Brief observations

Links in quotes are generally disapproved for various reasons, so if there's a way to quote the topics/authors outside the quotes in some way that would be great. In the background context section, it says "and Jaynes argued that" which is not needed, or can be reworded for clarity as it breaks up the flow of the paragraph. In the conclusions section, you begin with "Finally, McGilchrist draws his conclusions" which duplicates the section heading. Perhaps there is a way to reword the intro for that section? Viriditas (talk) 20:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

The 'synopsis'

The synopis is composed almost entirely of the author's thoughts on the subject given at various events / interviews. It is not a summary of the contents of the book, with citations to the book. This seems to present a major problem, and I wonder if this sort of material (greatly pared down; it is also terribly overlong) might be better off in the author's own article, in a section dealing with this aspect of his research. Jprw (talk) 17:49, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your mammoth and speedy task, Jprw. Much appreciated. The book is a hefty 608 pages with so many detailed notes and a great many subtle nuances that the author is at pains to explain, that it's not easy to do the work justice with even a lengthy synopsis. But if you want to go ahead, then be bold. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 18:09, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Either that or seek an editor who is expert in this field? I am not. I just figured that this guy deserved an article about his book ... and only later discovered how mammoth the task was. :) Esowteric+Talk 18:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi there Esowteric. I don't have the book so cannot write a synopsis myself, but as a general rule WP states that a synopsis "should be between 400 and 700 words (about 600 words), but should not exceed 900 words unless there is a specific reason such as being complicated" from here. In the present case, given the books evident length and complexity, perhaps about 1500 words would be about right. Also, the link above might also serve as a useful guide for restructuring the article, which seems to contain quite a lot of information, but perhaps rather haphazardly. By the way, there is absolutely no doubt that the book deserves an article; in fact there may be too many reviews to work through / select as being the most representative, etc. Anyway I will have a go at continuing to restructure, but the problems with the synopsis look as though they will for the time being remain. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 18:54, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Jprw. I really have too many other things on to be able to tackle the article, and the main difficulty I would face in the synopsis is what to leave in and what to take out. Others want to see the likes of Jaynes in the article, for example; and if he's in, then to balance things up, who else do we have to mention? And who do we leave out? Only an expert in the field may be able to answer that. And the more that is cut out of the synopsis, the greater the weight and imbalance of the reception section .... Regards, Esowteric+Talk 19:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The "gatekeeper" at Lateralization of brain function wouldn't even let me mention the book in "his" article until we had some more heavyweight reviews. :) Esowteric+Talk 19:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Have added an "expert needed" template to the page. Category:Psychology articles needing expert attention. Esowteric+Talk 19:30, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Hi again Esowteric. Given the complexity of the book you seem to be fully justified in putting up an "expert needed" template. In the meantime, I think we can also be guided by this, which presents a skeleton of what a WP article on a non-fiction book should look like, with our job being to put flesh on that skeleton. At the moment, the synopsis seems to need most attention: it is almost entirely composed of commentaries based on the author's thoughts given at various events/interviews and is not a summary of the contents of the book. I'm also not sure that the Midgely ref should be in there, but in an intro / background section. There are only two refs in the article which refer to the book itself (4 and 10; I have also converted these to Harv refs and added a related bibliography, for the sake of consistency) which looks like a serious imbalance; someone needs to get into the book and use it as the basis of a well-referenced synopsis. I suggest that if you have the book, you simply delete the synopsis as is (let's be WP:BOLD) and put a rough sketch of the book in its place, based only on the book itself, and using harv refs (just in case, see here for a breakdown of how to use these refs). The “Further study” section also seems to be terribly bloated and difficult to navigate and I will also in the meantime have a go at restructuring it and paring it down. Cheers, Jprw (talk) 07:47, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks for your time and effort, Jprw. If an expert comes to sort out the article, I'd suggest that since such a vast quantity of material has been removed from the article, it may be worth their while checking through an earlier edit, in case any of the material removed is of value in the article. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 09:39, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Just by way of example, "McGilchrist dismisses what he sees as some popular misconceptions about lateralization of brain function, such as one hemisphere handling reason and the other language (etc), stating that such processing involves both sides of the brain." has been removed, and in my opinion this is an essential point, as McGilchrist is at pains to show that this is not just another "pop psychology" book about a discounted theory based on the earlier study of split brain patients. That's why we really need expert input.

Agreed, the downside of the article was that it was bloated and not in accordance with guidelines and policy; the upside is that it gave the reader a good idea of what to expect. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 09:53, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Something along the lines of the following (which was in "Conclusions") is also essential, though I take your point that it should be a synopsis of the book, not derived from other sources, in this case an interview: "Summing up his ideas on the two brain hemispheres at an RSA lecture, McGilchrist said: "The world of the left hemisphere, dependent on denotative language and abstraction, yields clarity and the power to manipulate things that are known, fixed, static, isolated, decontextualized, explicit, general in nature, but ultimately lifeless. The right hemisphere, by contrast, yields a world of individual, changing, evolving, interconnected, implicit, incarnate, living beings within the context of the lived world, but in the nature of things never fully graspable, never perfectly known, and to this world it exists in a certain relationship. The knowledge that is mediated by the left hemisphere is, however, in a closed system. It has the advantage of perfection, but the perfection is bought ultimately at the price of emptiness." Regards, Esowteric+Talk 10:23, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that after Part 2, there is a section "Conclusion: The Master Betrayed". This is why in the "synopsis", I had a section labelled "Conclusions". It is as important as Part I and II, imo. Esowteric+Talk 10:41, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Synopsis needs something

I see a lot of discussion about the synopsis above, but it sounds like it applies a previous version. The current version is somewhat lacking. Mosts glaringly, it doesn't explain what the title refers to, which seems somewhat key to giving an idea of what the book is actually about. My understanding, from talking to a friend, is that the two terms in the title refer to the respective roles of the two hemispheres, but I haven't read the book. JKeck (talk) 22:24, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks. I've copied explanatory text from the lede into the introduction to the synopsis, and slightly modified it. Regards, Esowteric + Talk + Breadcrumbs 09:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)