jcp@osiris.UUCP (Jody Patilla) (01/01/70)
> >There is one fact that should be noted - the consistent use > >of only the left hand for all purposes is actually rarer than > >people here might think. > This is probably true, but I think could be more easily attributed to > environmental factors (let's face it, we're living in a rightie's world) > than developmental/genetic ones. The fact that there ARE consistent "total" > righties indicates that there's a lot less pressure on them to use their left > hands than there is on lefties to use their right. There have been studies which show that left-handed people are more flexible and quicker to adapt to change, and that the brain-function divisions are less well-defined for lefties. That is, the left-brain/ right-brain business actually doens't apply very well to left-handers, who tend to distribute functions more widely over different parts of the brain. I don't know if lefties are born this way or if we get that way as a result of coping with a right-handed world. -- jcpatilla "The bland leadeth the bland and they both shall fall into the kitsch."
wmartin@brl-tgr.ARPA (Will Martin ) (08/16/85)
In article <1149@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: >My older brother was (is?) left handed until the wonderful Catholic >school he attended forced (yes, FORCED) him to use his right hand. > >The result, not diagnosed until many years later, was a condition, I >believe, referred to as "acordial disrythmia" (I think). He has suffered >from a great deal of emotional problems, confusion, etc. Several clinicians >have pointed their fingers to the attempt to switch his "handedness". I have heard of this practice before -- Considering the litigious nature of our society, I would expect that there have been lawsuits against the school systems or organizations that so damaged these children. Does anyone have any info on the number and disposition of such lawsuits? Will
bwm@ccice1.UUCP (Bradford W. Miller) (08/22/85)
In article <761@brl-tgr.ARPA> wmartin@brl-bmd.UUCP writes: >In article <1149@teddy.UUCP> rdp@teddy.UUCP (Richard D. Pierce) writes: >>My older brother was (is?) left handed until the wonderful Catholic >>school he attended forced (yes, FORCED) him to use his right hand. More from those wonderful folks who brought us the dark ages..... -- ..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice1!bwm
tewok@gymble.UUCP (Wayne Morrison) (08/23/85)
Another way that left-handedness is an advantage is in sword fighting. Since most of the world is right-handed, it is uncommon for a right- hander to come up against a lefty. This gives those of us of the south-pawed persuasion an extra advantage when it comes to "killing" our opponents. Right-handed swordsmen are usually, from my experience, somewhat confused since the sword swings aren't coming from where they are expecting them and their swings are going where they aren't accustomed to putting them. It must have been even more of a benefit when people were fighting to really kill. Wayne Morrison
tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) (08/23/85)
Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I have a 15 year old who bats left and eats right. He has trouble batting righty, but does everything else from the right just fine, except produce clear legible handwriting. We never encouraged the use of either hand. His 14 year old sister is a lefty in everything, but can do well from the right also. Their 8 year old brother is a righty. Don't know yet how he will bat from the left. When I was in the first grade, the kid next to me was a lefty and the teachers would hound him about using his right hand. I still remember the poor kid crying while he tried to write with his right hand. Even then I felt it was wrong to force him to change. I also remember the poor kid starting to stutter and drool whenever they would get on his case. In my opinion, noone should be forced to change handedness. If they are going to do it, it has to be on their own without outside pressure. I have known people who have done this on their own just to prove to themselves it could be done, but, they were older (over 18). So, mothers, don't let your son grow up to be a cowboy. (Oh, that's another subject.) Let your kids use whatever limb they wish. T. C. Wheeler
carl@aoa.UUCP (Carl Witthoft) (08/27/85)
In article <208@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I have a 15 year old >who bats left and eats right. He has trouble batting righty, but >does everything else from the right just fine, except produce >clear legible handwriting. We never encouraged the use of either >hand. This followup maybe oughta be in sports only, but.. There are plenty of good switch hitters (eg Pete Rose). If you look at the hand position, you'll notice that a lefty hitter has the same setup as a righty rifle shooter or a righty pool player. Also, and more important, a righty hitting lefty (or vice versa) has his strong arm leading the swing, which always helps. Darwin's Dad (Carl Witthoft) ...!{decvax,linus,ima,ihnp4}!bbncca!aoa!carl @ Adaptive Optics Assoc., 54 Cambridgepark Dr. Cambridge, MA 02140 617-864-0201 "Put me in, Coach. I'm ready to play today. Look at me! I can be centerfield."
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/27/85)
In article <208@pyuxii.UUCP> tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes: >Just thought I would throw in my 2 cents. I have a 15 year old >who bats left and eats right. He has trouble batting righty, but >does everything else from the right just fine, except produce >clear legible handwriting. There is one fact that should be noted - the consistent use of only the left hand for all purposes is actually rarer than people here might think. In Sandra F. Witelson's article The brain connection :The Corpus Callosum is larger in Left-Handers (Science,1985,Aug.16,vol.229,no.4714,p.665-668) , she states that in her study of the brains of 42 subjects "from 25 to 65 years at death .... ....27 showed consistent right-hand prefernce and 15 showed mixed-hand preference, the later group showing various combinations of right- and left-hand preferences. Consistent left-hand prefernce is rare, and no consistent left-handers were availabe in this sample." (M.Annett,1967 (Q.J.Exp.Psychol.,vol.19,p.327-343) In Annets classification, --consistent right-handers have only right- and no left-hand preferences: -- consistent left-handers have only left- and no right-hand preferences; -- mixed henders have any other combination, regardless of hand for writing. In large samples, the distributions of consistent right-,mixed-, and consistent left-handers is approximately 66,30, and 4 percent respectively.(Annett,p.343;Witelson,p.667).) (This article by Witelson is quite a good one on the structure of the brain halves connections and handedness.) >We never encouraged the use of either >hand. His 14 year old sister is a lefty in everything, but can >do well from the right also. Their 8 year old brother is a >righty. Don't know yet how he will bat from the left. > >T. C. Wheeler ------------------------------------------------------------------ Pamela M. Pincha-Wagener (bcsaic!pamp) (usual disclaimer) -----------------------------------------------------------------
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/27/85)
>>>My older brother was (is?) left handed until the wonderful Catholic >>>school he attended forced (yes, FORCED) him to use his right hand. > >More from those wonderful folks who brought us the dark ages..... >-- >..[cbrma, ccivax, ccicpg, rayssd, ritcv, rlgvax, rochester]!ccice5!ccice1!bwm PLEASE!!!Don't blame the Catholic Church for the Dark ages! It DID NOT Cause the Dark Ages! (Perpetuated it a bit maybe...but it did not start it! The COLLAPSE of the ROMAN EMPIRE did that.) The Church was the few institutions that was able to retain a bit of the knowledge through that time period of what had been known before.(Note I did not say ALL of the knowledge,NOR an unbiased viewpoint. It was just better than nothing.) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ P.M.Pincha-Wagener (bscaic!pamp) (usual disclaimer) ------------------------------------------------------------------------
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (08/28/85)
In article <274@gymble.UUCP> tewok@gymble.UUCP (Wayne Morrison) writes: >Another way that left-handedness is an advantage is in sword fighting. >Right-handed swordsmen are usually, from my experience, >somewhat confused since the sword swings aren't coming from where they >are expecting them and their swings are going where they aren't accustomed >to putting them. Being a fencer myself, you are right facing a left-handed swordsman can be a problem. But not as much as you might think. A good swordman (right-handed,that is) learns FAST how to counter a left-handed attack! (This is much easier in current fencing circles since the fighting is limited to a narrow strip. This is a BIG disatvantage to the lefties since they can be crowded to the edge of the strip with their vunerable areas open. Personally I enjoy fighting lefties - they don't think I'll anticipate their style!) The fencers that are REALLY hard to fight are the ambidexterous ones! ----------------------------------------------------------------------- P.M.Pincha-Wagener (bcsaic!pamp) (usual disclaimer) -----------------------------------------------------------------------
lizv@tektools.UUCP (Liz Vaughan) (08/30/85)
>There is one fact that should be noted - the consistent use >of only the left hand for all purposes is actually rarer than >people here might think. This is probably true, but I think could be more easily attributed to environmental factors (let's face it, we're living in a rightie's world) than developmental/genetic ones. The fact that there ARE consistent "total" righties indicates that there's a lot less pressure on them to use their left hands than there is on lefties to use their right. Liz Vaughan {allegra,decvax,ihnp4,ucbvax} tektronix!tektools!lizv
tewok@gymble.UUCP (Wayne Morrison) (09/02/85)
In article <247@bcsaic.UUCP> pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) writes: > >Being a fencer myself, you are right facing a left-handed swordsman >can be a problem. But not as much as you might think. A good swordman >(right-handed,that is) learns FAST how to counter a left-handed attack! >(This is much easier in current fencing circles since the fighting >is limited to a narrow strip. This is a BIG disatvantage to the lefties >since they can be crowded to the edge of the strip with their vunerable >areas open. Personally I enjoy fighting lefties - they don't think I'll >anticipate their style!) The fencers that are REALLY hard to fight are >the ambidexterous ones! > P.M.Pincha-Wagener > (bcsaic!pamp) I have never done any fencing. All of my experience has been with weapons like broadswords, axes, clubs, and spears. I was talking from this type of viewpoint. I have found that most right-handers aren't able to easily cope with a left-handed opponent. It might be true, and apparently is by reading your article, that fencing is the opposite. Maybe sometime I'll get involved in fencing and find that my bonus is now detrimental. Two major differences between fencing and broad-sword fighting are that there usually isn't a strict area limitation and shields are standard equipment. I hope I don't sound like I'm arguing, that isn't something I am interested in doing. If you are interested in discussing it more (again, discussing not arguing), feel free to send me mail. (Maybe we could start a new newsgroup: net.swords :-) -- "I love the feel of plastic. It makes me hot!" - T.J. Tarou Wayne Morrison (301)454-7690 tewok@gymble.ARPA seismo!umcp-cs!tewok
gam@amdahl.UUCP (G A Moffett) (09/03/85)
A recent article in "Science News" points out that left-handers
and the abidextrous have a physiological difference in their
brains from right-handers.
The region that connects the two sides of the brain is the
corpus callosum. In left-handers and the ambidextrous, this
region is ~11% larger than that of right-handers'.
It has not been made clear yet *why* the difference in size, but
if it is because of more connections between the two hemispheres
it might be a physiological reason for why lefties and ambis
show more of a sharing of brain function thoughout the hemispheres,
and why lefties are more ambidextrous than righties.
--
Gordon A. Moffett ...!{ihnp4,cbosgd,hplabs}!amdahl!gamdiegob@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) (09/04/85)
> > PLEASE!!!Don't blame the Catholic Church for the Dark ages! It DID NOT > Cause the Dark Ages! (Perpetuated it a bit maybe...but it did not > start it! The COLLAPSE of the ROMAN EMPIRE did that.) The Church was > the few institutions that was able to retain a bit of the knowledge > through that time period of what had been known before. (Note I did > not say ALL of the knowledge, NOR an unbiased viewpoint. It was just > better than nothing.) I was pleased to see that something with a greater social bearing fell out of the current discussion. (I am sympathetic toward suffering lefties and agree that greater consideration needs to be lent to the design of commonplace mechanical devices. However, the problems of handwriting cannot be easily addressed; the majority -- a large one in this case -- have already established a pattern (left to right reading) that precludes simple solutions.) Pam's (I think that's right) comment in response to the accusation of the Church touches on something that has affected all of us. That is: to what extent did the Church contribute to the dimness of the "Dark" ages. While a great deal of the fact about that long and mysterious time will never be known, it is without doubt true that Church leaders and clerics consciously controlled and manipulated access to the available information. That this had a marked effect on the shape and tone of society, on the interchange of ideas, and on the common attitudes toward learning in the west is also indisputable. Now my speculation is that the early Church was filled with religious radicals and that such people tend to produce societies that are less flexible, more doctrinaire, and in general prone to lesser social and technoligical advancement. This concept is drawn from the known experiences of Galileo and Copernicus (albeit at a later period). While notable inquisitive minds were at work -- both clerical and lay -- throughout the middle ages, there was a definite discouragement of research into philosophies, arts, and sciences of other cultures. Since a great deal of the mathematics, medical science, and other learning of the "ancients" was recorded in the Middle East when the Roman Empire's borders were at their greatest extent, this information was excluded from western teaching for many, many years. In similar ways, the Church excluded teaching of any information contradictory to its accepted interpretation of Biblical readings. (Not too unlike the "Evolution vs. Creation" arguments of some today.) Motive? Power, of course. From the persecuted minority to the persecuting majority in only a few hundred years. Incredible, but true. Today, they would write a book. And by allying the Church with the feudal nobility (read: today's nobility as well), the clergy became supporters of the status quo. Which included preventing the masses of European people from gaining access to the knowledge (Why couldn't Johnny read then?). Consider also, that for most of the period from A. D. 300 or so until the founding of secular schools (I think around 1000 A. D.) that all of the educated people in Europe were in the clergy and had taken a vow of celibacy. The effect was that the gene pool of the intellectuals was constantly being culled. So I wonder just how innocent the Church was of the darkness of the age during which it flourished in significance as it has in no other. Comments?
pamp@bcsaic.UUCP (pam pincha) (09/06/85)
In article <3919@cca.UUCP> diegob@cca.UUCP (Diego Gonzalez) writes: >> >> PLEASE!!!Don't blame the Catholic Church for the Dark ages! It DID NOT >> Cause the Dark Ages! (Perpetuated it a bit maybe...but it did not >> start it! The COLLAPSE of the ROMAN EMPIRE did that.) The Church was >> the few institutions that was able to retain a bit of the knowledge >> through that time period of what had been known before. (Note I did >> not say ALL of the knowledge, NOR an unbiased viewpoint. It was just >> better than nothing.) > >"someting that affects us all.." That is: to what extent did the Church >contribute to the dimness of the "Dark" ages. > While I am interested in this particular subject, and agree it is worth some discussion, I'm not sure this is the right place to do so. All I wanted to point out was that the Church DIDN'T start the Middle Ages. Now ,as to where's the best place to discuss this -- any suggestions? Pam Pincha-Wagener
smkindersley@water.UUCP (sumo kindersley) (09/08/85)
> > So I wonder just how innocent the Church was of the darkness of the > age during which it flourished in significance as it has in no other. > Comments? you are in the wrong newsgroup.