Left or Right

[lisa]

  mr T. said:

  Quote

Nobody is ambidextrous?

 

People who regard themselves as ambidextrous have brain damage and are not born that way (like lefthanders or righthanders). According to this article are ambidextrous people 1) the result of the converting of a left-hander (a functional brain damage); or (2) the result of perinatal cerebral damage in the dominant cerebral hemisphere.

After all the things that have been said about lefthanders in "studies" I'm not taking just one article about ambidextrous people being brain damaged too serious. Maybe I'm very ignorant in my common sence but to me it seems illogical that people that are better in something than the majory (i.e. being able to use both hands well rather that just one) are brain damaged.

 

So many things have been claimed about handedness, a lot with studies backing it up only to be disproven later that I've become quite skeptical about it.

 

Just recently there was a study about lefthanded women dying younger from cancer or circulatory diseases.

Study done by a team from University Medical Centre Utrecht.

 

quote from the email I got from anythingleft-handed.co.uk:

  Quote

Though this study was of only 252 deaths in total (right and left-handed) over a 13 year period and would seem far too small to elicit any sound evidence, the team have reported that when left-handed women were compared with the other women and the data were “adjusted for a number of potentially confounding factors” which are neither detailed nor explained in the reporting, lefties had a 40% higher risk of dying from any cause, a 70% higher risk of dying from cancer and a 30% higher risk of dying from diseases of the circulatory system.

 

To me it seems that with 10% being lefthanded they have compared 25 lefthanded with 25 righthanded women. And they had their pick of 225 righthanded women.

 

I'm not saying that this ambidextrous study was done this badly, just that I find it rather curious that scientists are spending time on these sort of things when there are still so many serious illnesses without a cure.

[QM2]

 

Speaking as a psychologist and neuroscientist, I would like to clarify that ambidextrous people are _not_ brain-damaged! The article you posted is not from any typical journal I am aware of; it takes complex evidence, misinterprets it, distorts research findings, and spits out oversimplified and misguided conclusions.

 

What we understand so far about ambidextrous people, is that they have a greater degree of cross-hemisphere communication and greater activity in the corpus collossum than right handers (and than some, though not all left-handers). As a result, their brains look different, when studied via neuroimaging, than standard brains. But this difference does not imply brain damage. The brains of cab drivers look different from the brains of non-cab rivers for instance, the brains of artists look different from the brains of scientists, etc. I don't mean to sound adamant or aggressive about this, but this topic is actually something in which I have direct research experience.

 

QM2

 

 

  mr T. said:

  Quote

Nobody is ambidextrous?

 

People who regard themselves as ambidextrous have brain damage and are not born that way (like lefthanders or righthanders). According to this article are ambidextrous people 1) the result of the converting of a left-hander (a functional brain damage); or (2) the result of perinatal cerebral damage in the dominant cerebral hemisphere.

 

[BrianTung]

  lisa said:

  mr T. said:

People who regard themselves as ambidextrous have brain damage and are not born that way (like lefthanders or righthanders). According to this article are ambidextrous people 1) the result of the converting of a left-hander (a functional brain damage); or (2) the result of perinatal cerebral damage in the dominant cerebral hemisphere.

After all the things that have been said about lefthanders in "studies" I'm not taking just one article about ambidextrous people being brain damaged too serious. Maybe I'm very ignorant in my common sence but to me it seems illogical that people that are better in something than the majory (i.e. being able to use both hands well rather that just one) are brain damaged.

 

So many things have been claimed about handedness, a lot with studies backing it up only to be disproven later that I've become quite skeptical about it.

 

That's a very reasonable attitude; however, being equally adept with either hand doesn't necessarily mean that one is better with both hands than a dominant-handed person is with their one dominant hand. The skills might just be evened out, so that you can do more with either hand than a dominant-handed person can do with their off hand, but less than they can do with their dominant hand. We often hear about compensatory skills (for instance, a person who is blinded in an accident acquires an almost preternatural sense of hearing), so it wouldn't be surprising if a person who was originally, say, right-handed but had some brain damage in that part of their brain would develop compensatory skills for what was previously their off hand.

 

Although, to be honest, if they consider conversion of handedness to be "functional" brain damage, one has to wonder what isn't brain damage. Maybe learning is also brain damage--after all, it's a change in the way your brain is wired (any experience does that), and some learning is certainly damaging to you. I note that the article is not from a medical journal (at least not directly from one), based on its URL, so it might very well be inaccurate in reporting the conclusions of the original paper (assuming there was one).

 

  Quote

Just recently there was a study about lefthanded women dying younger from cancer or circulatory diseases.

Study done by a team from University Medical Centre Utrecht. (article quotation snipped for brevity)

To me it seems that with 10% being lefthanded they have compared 25 lefthanded with 25 righthanded women. And they had their pick of 225 righthanded women.

 

I don't think it's clear to me that they did that--I think one would have to go back to the original study to check.

 

Generally speaking, general media articles (such as newspapers or especially most Web sites) that describe studies do an atrocious job of reporting the methodology of the study (which is understandable, because most people are bored to tears by methodology). So the fact that an article doesn't describe the methodology says (I think) more about the article than about the study. There are some pretty well-performed studies demonstrating correlations between handedness and various disorders. That doesn't mean that handedness helps to determine these things--only that there is a statistically higher likelihood of having certain disorders if one is left-handed.

 

  Quote

I'm not saying that this ambidextrous study was done this badly, just that I find it rather curious that scientists are spending time on these sort of things when there are still so many serious illnesses without a cure.

 

Although a lot of money should be (and is) spent on research directed specifically toward finding cures to the many diseases that plague us, it is reasonable that some money be spent on research that is at least partly speculative. You simply don't know for sure where the next cure will come from. That's not to say that there aren't garbage studies (believe me, I've read them), but this one doesn't smell like one of them. After all, handedness is known to be partially genetically determined, and identifying an association between the genetics of handedness and the genetics of various disorders sounds like useful knowledge to go after. It doesn't sound quite like a fishing expedition.

 

Incidentally, I don't work in the medical fields and have no affiliation with any of these studies, though I do work in math/science/engineering (I'm a computer networks researcher).

 

Oh yes, the thread topic: I'm right-handed. I'm also left-footed, and left-eyed. My sister, on the other hand, is left-handed, right-footed, and right-eyed. Go figure.

Edited May 22, 2007 by BrianTung

[caligatia]

I'm ambidextrous. My right-hand writing isn't quite as nice as my left-hand writing, but that's because I prefer my left for writing. I do a lot of other things right-handed, though. And for sports or crafts (like sewing) I frequently switch off dominant hands just to keep one from getting too tired.

[mr T.]

  Quote

I'm not saying that this ambidextrous study was done this badly, just that I find it rather curious that scientists are spending time on these sort of things when there are still so many serious illnesses without a cure.

 

I don't find this curious at all. This because most things are designed for the majority of people (and this means for righthanders of course). If we talk about fountain pens (and that's what's this forum about), it's not really different. The majority of pens on the market are designed for use by the same majority of people. It seems that about 10-15% of the population is left handed, but the amount of pens on the market designed for lefthanders is much smaller. It also seems that left handed people do suffer more injuries and accidents because of this (but not every scholar agrees). I know for example of an insurance company that insures people in the medical profession. This company offers hand insurance for people like surgeons. However, the risks are, according to this insurance company, higher for lefthanders. That's why they pay left handed surgeons 25% less when they have certain fingers damaged. So, it could be very interesting to know more about the mechanisms of left handedness and why there is such a thing as ambidexterity (or not). It could in the end lead to better and safer products. Maybe it could also lead to the 'ultimate' fountain pen for left handed people or ambidextrous people.

[Shangas]

My ambidextrious friend was an albino, I reckon, but that's not a mental problem.

[PenNewbie]

I write and use a fork, toothbrush etc. with my left hand but everything else I use my right hand, arm or leg. I suppose my writing could be better if I was right handed but it is quite legible and even nice looking when I want it to. All in all avergae I suppose. Though if I really want to write something nice, I use a calligraphy pen. (I never practice calligraphy, but even if you write slowly and emphasize letters with it, it will still look really nice.

[Titivillus]

  BillTheEditor said:

Nobody is ambidextrous?

 

Good question.

 

I find that I write well with my right and slightly below passable with my left :ltcapd: But at the same time I have an annoying habit of switching hand when playing tennis as well as ping pong & when I played racketball I'd try to switch. So I guess I'm situationally ambidextrous

 

K

 

[EventHorizon]

  James Pickering said:

  BillTheEditor said:

Nobody is ambidextrous?

That is an interesting question, Bill -- I have not encountered anyone who could write proficiently with either hand (I have met a few individuals who were forced to write with their "un-natural" hand temporarily due to injury).

 

I am severly right handed and my wife is left handed but can swing a golf club and bowl right handed. In grade school they did have her forced into using her right hand but it didn't "stick". She can still write right handed but not as quick.

 

[prowoodcraftsman]

I kick with my left foot and write with my right hand. Does that count as ambidextrous? Just kidding...

[tfwall]

I write and do most tasks with my right hand. However, I shoot left handed. Not really sure why...

[Sirvinya]

I'm right handed. My Dad and brother are also right handed. My Mum is left handed.

Edited July 9, 2007 by Sirvinya

[arbatrmwc]

It's not so strange that there have been a greater proportion of left-handed people responding to the poll - I would imagine left-handed people would be more likely to vote, since as a minority, they are more conscious of the issue. Interesting learning about life from the perspectives of the left-handed!

[arbatrmwc]

  anniemac said:

I wonder if the results of the poll are skewed slightly by the fact that if you're lefthanded you're more likely to notice the poll and actually give a flying fig what people think about you and your writing habits? A righty might not pay it a second thought, but if most lefties are like me they will jump at the chance to talk about their "specialness"! Righties won't.

Therefore more of us sign up, but the ratios do not truly reflect the handedness of the membership. Though deep down I like the idea of us being a growing force in at least one little world!

Just a thought.

And I'm still looking for lefthanded dessert forks.

 

I didn't see your response before typing mine - I said the same thing! I suppose our brain waves must be in phase ...

[Titivillus]

  arbatrmwc said:

  anniemac said:

I wonder if the results of the poll are skewed slightly by the fact that if you're lefthanded you're more likely to notice the poll and actually give a flying fig what people think about you and your writing habits? A righty might not pay it a second thought, but if most lefties are like me they will jump at the chance to talk about their "specialness"! Righties won't.

Therefore more of us sign up, but the ratios do not truly reflect the handedness of the membership. Though deep down I like the idea of us being a growing force in at least one little world!

Just a thought.

And I'm still looking for lefthanded dessert forks.

 

I didn't see your response before typing mine - I said the same thing! I suppose our brain waves must be in phase ...

 

I'm not sure that the population can be extracted from the people on the FPN site and then a smaller subset of the people who posted to this poll. I would bet that it might as shown before indicate that there is a greater prevelence of left handers who use FPs. But that might be obscured by the sample size as a sub-sub-sub set of the population

 

 

Interesting none the less.

 

K

 

[fenrisfox]

  FLZapped said:

  BillTheEditor said:

Nobody is ambidextrous?

Well, almost......

 

I'm pretty sure I was born left handed (My oldest son is a lefty), but as soon as my mom thought I should learn to write, she stuck a piece of chalk in my right hand......

 

So, I write and throw right-handed.

 

I pour liquids and I brush my teeth with a left-hand preference.

 

*shrug*

 

-Bruce

 

 

My Grandpa was like that - he writes and throws overhand using his right hand, since he was "broken" in school.

 

However, he does many other things - as well as throwing underhand - with his left hand.

 

Some things, he seems to do with either one.

 

So, is he semi-ambidextrous? :roflmho:

[telltime]

South paw here...

 

Is there still hope to get proper line variations out of a flex nib for a lefty? Any instruction book that someone can recommend?

[finalidid]

I'm borderline ambidextrous, and consider myself therefore doubly gifted, first to be a lefty and second to have improved upon that exalted state.

 

I was "born" left-handed, in the sense that I simply chose that hand most often for subtle tasks. But also right-footed, for in soccer I initially preferred to take set pieces that way. My left foot is a very close second to my right foot, sometimes even more adept, making me very useful in soccer. My right hand is not far off my left hand, though the discrepancy between the hands is greater than that between the feet. And I had to "teach" my right hand to catch up. So I consider myself functionally ambidextrous in soccer and most sports. I would hold a tennis racket in my left hand, am utterly undecided about a hockey stick, can bat either way in baseball, and can throw equally accurately with both but would put the glove on my right because my left is stronger (as in, "power" not "accuracy") so would presumably have a greater range. I hate golf so I'd probably put the club in the car and drive to the beach if you offered it to me to see which hand I would want to swing with.

 

My writing is LEGIBLE but extremely poor with my right hand. I can do the reverse-script thing (or, of course, the forward normal thing) with my left hand.

 

I'm a little surprised at the notion that left-handedness (or ANY handedness, for that matter) is still being considered a "problem" or an "anomaly." We have humans with green hair walking this planet and yet such an obviously genetic, innocuous situation is considered worthy of further "scientific study" in order to determine its "detriments and benefits"? What the heck! Sounds like some SERIOUSLY hung-up scientists. The court case in "To Kill a Mockingbird" hinges on the defendant's left-handedness, come to think of it. I find it hard to believe that any handedness issue would correlate with risk of death outside of operation of seriously dangerous heavy machinery. A simple neurological status -- identical to that which determines whether people prefer dancing over singing, or banana or bread pudding -- is all that handedness is. Nobody's studying whether or not bread-pudding eaters die early, are they?

 

Scissors are the biggest problem. The Wikipedia article does not make clear, one important point. It is not JUST that right-handed scissors used in the left hand are both uncomfortable (if they are unsymmetrical due to a contoured grip designed for righties) and that they obscure the sight-line of the cut. These points are both true. But, more important, scissors are actually not functional in the wrong hand because of the cross of the blades. One must learn to PULL with his thumb while PUSHING with his fingers, to adequately use any pair of scissors in the hand it is not designed for.

 

This is because the natural action would be the opposite, with the base of the thumb mildly PUSHING toward the fulcrum, while the fingers PULL. These pushes and pulls are independent of the up-down motion of the blades, which is the vast majority of the action in the device. They operate transverse to the main blade's travel.

 

 

Take a pair of scissors. Open them wide out, and lay them flat on a table in front of you. If they're right-handed, you'll see that the top blade is the one which points to the right. Flip them over. The top one still points to the right. Now go get a pair of left-handed scissors and do the same. The top blade points to the left. Note that flipping the scissors over does not change the topology -- top blade still points the same way, bottom blade still points the other way. It's a common misconception that a leftie's scissor problems could be alleviated simply by flipping the scissors over, except for the contoured grips which would hamper using fingers in the thumb hole. This misconception misunderstands, that flipping over scissors does nothing to rearrange their topology. Top still points right.

 

For this reason, some primary school teachers mistakenly understand that a lefty could use righty scissors with merely a flip. (It doesn't seem to cross these genius teachers' minds, that if this were the case, then roughly half the righties in the class would get their scissors wrong each time they picked them up!) I have met MANY young teachers who, therefore, have assumed that lefties aren't simply mirror-images of righties, but also mildly discombobulated -- "well, he couldn't work a doorknob because he lacks some of the motor skills of his right-handed peers" or "I'm going to have to help him walk across the street because he's the left-handed one." No no no. Lefties are equally as skilled (or unskilled) in equivalent measure, same luck of the draw, but with a mirror-image version of a righty's skills. Except for with scissors. To hear people talk about it, it's some kind of handicap like Down's syndrome or a missing leg. Geez. It's just a damn DEVICE, these scissors. We can GET a mirror image one if we WANT to.

 

Just try to cut with the wrong scissors. Put your right-handed scissors in your left hand, try to cut with them, and see that your natural action (pulling with the curled fingers and pushing with the thumb) works at the fulcrum to slightly LEVER THE BLADES APART. They pass one another like ships in the night. They aren't pressed INTO one another, as would happen were the proper hand used. Thus, lefties using right-handed scissors find that the blades leave a gap. You can cross them all the way to "closed" position, but they still won't be close enough to one another to cut mere paper.

 

Pull with the thumb (the opposite of your normal human tendency) and you can use the wrong scissors. Or just swap hands, like I've done most of my life. Seems to me I'm the MORE adept one, not so dependent on my only dominant side. Hmm. Maybe righties need to watch it around heavy machinery ...

Edited July 22, 2007 by finalidid

[Ghost Plane]

I must be your evil twin. My writing is slightly better with my right [mostly due to years of teachers snatching the implement and sticking it in my right hand], but I kick the soccer ball with my left, used to mess up catching at ball games because I couldn't decide which hand if it was coming right at me, etc.

[Pengrump]

I was taught to eat and to write with my right hand. I do everything else with my left hand. When I was first taught to use forks and spoons, my elders kept putting the implements in my right hand. I responded by picking up the food in my left hand and shoving it in my mouth. So they held my left hand when I was eating to force me to use my right hand.

 

At school I was taught to write with my right hand. I always had horrible grades in penmanship. A physical education teacher suggested that my poor handwriting and my even worse coordination may have had their roots in my being switched over from left to right hand at an early age. My mother claimed this was absolutely absurd, as she was a left-hander who wrote with her right hand and had absolutely lovely, legible handwriting. The physical education teacher suggested I try to "regress" to when I learned right-handedness and undo the process by learning to eat and write with my left hand. But I had no support for that from my family and did not attempt it.