The Triune Brain and Why Stories Matter

 It is with great trepidation that I journey into the realm of cognitive neuroscience to explain something about stories. But, without some basic understanding of the brain, it is difficult to fully understand why stories are so important. Cognitive neuroscience is not my field of expertise. So, I will begin with some caveats lest I mislead anyone. 

First, cognitive science is a rapidly evolving field so what is generally a consensus at one time may not be at another. Second, like in any field of science, there is disagreement among the scientists. So, while what I am going to say is generally true, there will be experts who disagree with it. Third, I am over simplifying in order to make what I say comprehensible. Scientific papers which attempt to be fair and correct are far beyond the scope of what the average reader can understand.  And finally, I am going to anchor what I say in a quote from Wikipedia on the Triune Brain which you can look up for yourself. Don't feel obligated to read it, if you do not want to. I will pull out the important parts after the quote and in future posts.

"The triune brain is a model of the evolution of the vertebrate forebrain and behavior, proposed by the American physician and neuroscientist Paul D. MacLean. MacLean originally formulated his model in the 1960s and propounded it at length in his 1990 book The Triune Brain in Evolution. The triune brain consists of the reptilian complex, the paleomammalian complex (limbic system), and the neomammalian complex (neocortex), viewed each as independently conscious, and as structures sequentially added to the forebrain in the course of evolution. However, this hypothesis has been subject to criticism, and is no longer espoused by the majority of comparative neuroscientists in the post-2000 era." Wikipedia

Triune brain theory asserts that the over the course of evolution we have developed three brains. We have two eyes, cows have four stomachs, so it is not beyond comprehension that we have multiple brains. Further, each brain evolved to provide functionality not provided by the previous brain. The first brain is referred to, in layman's terms, as the reptilian brain (see reptilian complex above).   The second brain is often referred to as the mammalian brain (see paleo-mammalian above) and is also referred to as the limbic system. The third brain is most commonly known as the neocortex (see neomammalian above). Although the three brains work together somewhat, each has its own consciousness.

To be fair and honor my caveats, I thought I would offer this  link Refutation of Triune Brain Theory which explains how advances in brain theory have called a lot of MacLean's ideas into question.

However, for our purposes, I will limit discussion to the limbic system vs. the neocortex. Jordan Peterson, in his book entitled Maps of Meaning, asserts that these two brains provide two different interpretations of the world. (Note: this agrees with MacLean's assertion that each brain has its own consciousness.)According to Peterson, the world of the neocortex is the world of things, and is understood through science. The world of the limbic system is the world of values, and is understood through narratives. In the world of the neocortex we ask what a thing is. In the world of the limbic system we ask what does it mean and what should we do. We often speak of conscious thought as being the realm of the neocortex while nonconscious thought is the realm of the limbic system.

The vast majority of your thought occurs in the limbic portion of your brain. When the instructor in your exercise class tells you to remember to breathe, they are simply making you aware of a process that happens automatically 99+% of the time. If you have ever been driving when your mind was somewhere else and suddenly became conscious that you are driving and don't know where you are, you have shifted control from the non-conscious limbic system to the conscious neocortex. If you ever went to bed planning to dream about being on an island paradise with your favorite celebrity sweetheart, but instead dreamed about getting locked out of your house, naked, five minutes before an important meeting of your Home Owners Association, then your limbic system got the upper hand.

I could go on forever exploring this dichotomy and there are plenty of books that do that. However, I just want to cut to the chase and say that the vast majority of your life is ruled by your limbic system and your limbic system is ruled by narratives, or, in layman's terms, stories. Science may help you understand what a thing is and how it interacts with other things, but stories help you understand what it means and what to do. Sadly, many people believe that science has eliminated the need for stories, when, in reality, is has greatly increased the need.

Logical vs. Narrative Reasoning

I bitch a lot about the decline of education in America after having spent nearly 30 years as an academic. However, there are some bright spots to which I fail to give appropriate attention. The brightest spot for me was the free time I had to explore ideas most of which ended up having some very practical (I realize that this term is highly relative) value. I have endless curiosity and having free time to explore that curiosity was really the best way I could spend my time. I have a motivational poster on my office wall with a quote from Dorothy Parker which says, "The cure for boredom is curiosity. There is no cure for curiosity". I spend my time keeping boredom at bay by following my endless curiosity. And, in the process, I have discovered many, many wonderful things that most people do not seem to be at all aware of. I often say that there are twelve things that you need to know in order to make sense out of the world although I have never bothered to write them down.

One of these discoveries was that people have two parallel modes of reasoning that we will refer to as Logical vs Narrative Reasoning. It comes from the field of Cognitive Science which is a sub-discipline in Psychology. And it is one of those twelve ideas.

I first stumbled on to it a couple of decades ago when I was doing some research on the role of stories in computer ethics. In the meantime, it has come to the foreground most notably in a popular press book entitled The Science of Storytelling by Will Storr published in 2020. Storr is a journalist rather than a scientist, but he presents an easily accessible summation of research that has evolved over decades. I will summarize Storr's book in a future post. But, in preparation for that, I need to provide some bite sized bits of information as a foundation. The focus of this post, as the title suggests, is to briefly explain the differences between these two modes of reasoning.

Here we have a table comparing Logical vs. Narrative Reasoning. Below I will expand on the differences. For the sake of simplicity you can think of Logical Reasoning as what is employed in science and mathematics, while narrative reasoning is employed in stories.

Logical Reasoning versus Narrative Reasoning
Logical	Narrative
General	Specific
Objectively Verifiable	Verifiable via Inter-subjective Experience
Difficult to Grasp	Easy to Grasp
Single Conclusion	Multiple Conclusions
Context Independent	Context Dependent
Abstract	Concrete

 General vs. Specific: Logical reasoning is based on generalities abstracted from the material and social worlds. For example, it is the case that Gold melts at 1,948°F. It is not the case that it melts at a lower temperature if a lover betrays it or its friends talk about it behind its back. Narrative reasoning is based on specific circumstances. A particular character in a particular situation did a particular thing. 

Verification: Logical reasoning can be verified objectively. For example, a scientific experiment should be repeatable with the same result by any disinterested party. Narrative reasoning is verified by inter-subjective experience. You and I read the same story and it should agree with our understandings of how people behave in a certain circumstance. 

Effort to Grasp: A scientific argument may be difficult to grasp due to its level of abstraction or the necessity of vast background information. A narrative argument (or story) is usually much easier to understand, at least superficially. Character A did something to character B and character B did something back to character A.

Conclusions: A logical argument should lead to a single conclusion. If it rains, the sidewalk will be wet. It rained. Therefore the sidewalk will be wet. A narrative argument may lead to multiple conclusions. Was Huckleberry Finn a moral person? You could spend your life trying to answer that definitively. In fact, a story that led every reader to the same conclusion would not be a very interesting story.

Context: A logical argument is context independent. As a general argument it does not vary based on circumstances. The sun sets in the west for everyone. It is not the case that the sun sets in the east for twelve year olds, old people  and cats. A narrative argument is context dependent. Bob might see Jane in one light if he meets her at a bar where she winks at him and in a very different light if he meets her at a party where she pretends to ignore him.

Level of Abstraction: Due to the generality of a logical argument it is validly presented at a level of abstraction which overlooks specific details. If you sell a stock at a price more than what you paid for it, you will make money. This is true for all stocks and all people. It is not the case that it will only be true for good people. However, a narrative argument is rendered in a concrete and specific circumstance. It is not true that all runaway boys who take a raft down the Mississippi river will get rich. But, in the specific and concrete circumstances of the story about Huck Finn, it makes sense. 

This dichotomy will appear in more circumstances that you can possibly imagine. And, in future posts, I will explore it further. But, for our immediate purposes, understanding this dichotomy is central to understanding good storytelling.