#29
Post
by 52FM » Wed Aug 24, 2005 12:56 pm
Ok – here are my thoughts on handedness and “braindedness” (Copyright pending by Ithildriel):
In my limited research on this lately, I learned there is controversy surrounding the whole left/right hand/brain business. (Controversy in science? Get out of town!) While the left brain does control the right side and vice-versa, this does not imply for example that left handed people tend to be more artistic.
In fact, I always thought it was more prevalent that left handed people tended to be better at logic. In the 70’s and 80’s at least, I always noted a disproportionate number of left handed programmers at work. (By the way, I’m left handed, though I do “learned” things right handed, like playing guitar, batting, throwing. Yet I play tennis left handed. Don’t ask me why, but if I had to bet, I would have pegged Congruous to be left handed and Ith to be right handed.)
But whatever the connection – there is a logical side of the brain and an emotional (or artistic) one. I agree that one is usually dominant – but I am now considering Ith’s propositions, which I am restating, expounding on, and labeling for sake of convenience here:
1. People can usually use either side to varying extent. It is rare for someone to be wholly left or right in reality.
2. In practice, one can find a comfort zone in one or the other, usually through positive reinforcement (and/or negative reinforcement of the opposite side).
3. Events/environment may trigger a temporary shift from the usually dominant side to the other.
4. Those shifts are likely to be relatively short (in the 20 year example with four cycles – it is unlikely they would be five years each).
5. It is NOT the brain moving back and forth; it is the subject at some level of consciousness making it happen.
Now I will add one of my own:
6. Relative to numbers 2, 3 and 5, the subject may actually be repressing the less dominant side (at some level of consciousness) rather than settling in on the dominant. So events may not trigger a shift to the other side, but make it impossible for the subject to continue that repression.
We can think of this using other sciences. Physics primarily. Chemistry might work also, but I don’t know much about it. (Besides, I think guys only major in Chemistry to meet intelligent women.) Anyway, think of a closed system with a blockage preventing a natural flow of some liquid. Ultimately, the pressure will build up and then the liquid will probably push through at a rate faster than it would have had it been allowed to flow. So we have to question why the block is there – is it there accidentally or was it placed there to prevent that flow for some reason? Can it be removed, circumvented without effect to the system or final result, or allowed to flow without impact to the final result? Relating to this case study, those answers are yet to be determined.
"Willoughby. Next stop is Willoughby."
I think that it works the other way too 