What your daughter wrote is seriously impressive. I've lately been reading The Master and His Emissary, The Matter With Things, and The Divided Brain and the Search for Meaning by Ian McGilchrist, which describe the two very different worlds created by the Left and Right hemispheres of the brain -- and your daughter has somehow developed a similar understanding.

McGilchrist is a scientist, among other things, and his writings are based upon decades of research. I believe the framework he has developed is an important one and that it can help to shape a healthier and more human world.

A few snippets:

The left hemisphere is not in touch with the world. It is demonstrably self-deceiving, and confabulates - makes up a story, when it cannot understand something, and tells it with conviction. Michael Gazzaniga first demonstrated this in split-brain patients. Subsequent research shows that, unlike the right hemisphere, which tends toward self-doubt, it takes a distinctly flattering view of its own capabilities. The Divided Brain and the Search for Meaning, p. 31

It [the left hemisphere] is not reasonable. It is angry when challenged, dismisses evidence it doesn't like or can't understand, and is unreasonably sure of its own rightness. It is not good at understanding the world. Its attention is narrow, its vision myopic, and it can't see how the parts fit together. It is good for only one thing - manipulating the world. Its world is a representation, a virtual world, only. It neglects the incarnate nature of human beings, reducing them to the equivalent of brains in a vat. It reduces the living to the mechanical. It prioritises the procedure, without a grasp of its meaning or purpose. And it requires certainty where none can be found. ibid, pp. 31- 32

The left hemisphere tells us that the quest for meaning is meaningless, because it is not equipped to deal in meaning or understanding, but manipulating and processing. ibid, p. 33

Meaning emerges from engagement with the world, not from abstract contemplation of it. ibid, p. 36

The hemispheres have different answers to the fundamental question 'what is knowledge?' -- The Master and His Emissary, p. 135 (Chapter 4)

. . . the main point of hemisphere difference (is) division versus cohesion. Ibid, p. 140

. . . context [the right hemisphere's domain] implies change and process. ibid, p. 141

The left hemisphere is not impressed by empathy: its concern is with maximising gain for itself, and its driving value is utility. ibid, p. 145

Altruism is a necessary consequence of empathy: we feel others' feeling, engage in their being. ibid, p. 146

It is mutuality, not reciprocity; fellow-feeling, not calculation, which is both the motive and the reward for successful co-operation. And the outcome, in utilitarian terms, is not the important point: it is the process, the relationship, that matters. ibid, p.147 [comma replaced with semicolon above for readability]

And in case anyone should think that empathy necessarily means being soft on others, those right-sided regions include the right caudate, an area known to be involved in altruistic punishment of defection. ibid, p. 147

Things are not whatever we care to make them. There is a something that exists apart from our own minds, and our attempt to apprehend whatever it is needs to be true to, faithful to, that whatever-it-is-that-exists and at the same time true to ourselves in making that apprehension. No single truth does not mean no truth. ibid, p. 150

. . . the right hemisphere is more in touch with reality, and the left hemisphere more concerned with the internal consistency of whatever virtual model of the world it happens to be working with at the time. The Matter With Things, p. 104

In the absence of the left hemisphere, things come alive. Ibid, p. 160

We need the union of division and union, of multiplicity and unity; the left hemisphere needs ultimately to act as servant to the right hemisphere master, since, unbridled, the left hemisphere is capable of destroying the world. ibid, pp. 1281-1282