Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Is It True That Left-Handed People Are Smarter Than Right-Handed People?: Scientific American

Expand Messages
  • Matthew George
    Left-handedness is also statistically associated with abnormalities in development; not all lefties have such problems, but people with those problems are far
    Message 1 of 21 , Sep 1, 2013
      Left-handedness is also statistically associated with abnormalities in
      development; not all lefties have such problems, but people with those
      problems are far more likely to be lefties.

      It's thought that the signals which guide development can be disrupted by
      stress or illness on the part of the fetus; alternatively, some have
      suggested that messing up one developmental step throws those that follow
      it out of whack. Whatever the reason, this means that being left-handed is
      associated with much higher rates of health problems, and probably subtly
      or overtly impaired cognition. It's entirely possible for the process
      which determines which side is favored to be altered without affecting or
      disrupting anything else, but that isn't the way it always happens, and
      that changes the overall statistical associations.

      I suspect that if you looked only at people who didn't have additional
      problems, you wouldn't find any different between left-handers and
      right-handers.

      Matt "IQ unknown" G.
    • R A Brown
      On 01/09/2013 23:24, Matthew George wrote: [snip] ... What about those people who are truly ambidextrous? I recall from long, long years ago when I was at
      Message 2 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
        On 01/09/2013 23:24, Matthew George wrote:
        [snip]
        >
        > I suspect that if you looked only at people who didn't
        > have additional problems, you wouldn't find any different
        > between left-handers and right-handers.

        What about those people who are truly ambidextrous? I
        recall from long, long years ago when I was at school that
        some of the classrooms had blackboards that stretched the
        whole length of the wall. One such room was the domain of
        the Head of Classics; he would begin writing on the board
        with his left hand and then, about midway along, change the
        chalk to his right hand and continue writing.

        But I thought it had been established on this list many,
        many moons ago that the typical conlanger was left-handed,
        gay, Catholic, Lithuanian and sported a goatee beard :)

        Alas, I conform to only one of those epithets ;)

        --
        Ray
        ==================================
        http://www.carolandray.plus.com
        ==================================
        "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
        for individual beings and events."
        [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
      • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
        ... Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further, let me warn that all such statistical surveys have all failed to take into account the amount of
        Message 3 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
          On 2 September 2013 00:24, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:

          > Left-handedness is also statistically associated with abnormalities in
          > development; not all lefties have such problems, but people with those
          > problems are far more likely to be lefties.
          >
          >
          Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further, let me warn that all
          such statistical surveys have all failed to take into account the amount of
          stress and down right abuse that lefties have to go through every day. As a
          leftie myself, I can tell you that even in our Western society, the stigma
          against left-handedness is still very strong, and abuse is still very real.
          It doesn't have to be overt like punishing children who "dare" to want to
          write with their left hand (something that actually still happens nowadays)
          to still happen. Left-handed children are more likely to be bullied than
          right-handed children for instance. Associated with the daily stress of a
          world that strongly right-lateralised as ours, it's little wonder that
          left-handed people will experience problems.


          > It's thought that the signals which guide development can be disrupted by
          > stress or illness on the part of the fetus; alternatively, some have
          > suggested that messing up one developmental step throws those that follow
          > it out of whack. Whatever the reason, this means that being left-handed is
          > associated with much higher rates of health problems, and probably subtly
          > or overtly impaired cognition.


          Nonsense. There has never been a single study that managed to separate
          possible effects of development inside the foetus from possible effects of
          development after birth. All the studies I've read on those have failed on
          that point. And why shouldn't they? It's difficult to make unbiased studies
          when the world we live in is so biased already.


          > It's entirely possible for the process
          > which determines which side is favored to be altered without affecting or
          > disrupting anything else, but that isn't the way it always happens, and
          > that changes the overall statistical associations.
          >
          >
          Nope. There's just no evidence of that. All the issues that have ever been
          noticed can be easily explained by influences of the environment *after
          birth*. Why do people always try so hard to minimise the influence of the
          environment, and try to pin issues lefties have to their own development?
          Could it be because otherwise they would have to face the uncomfortable
          idea that our society is still negatively treating left-handed people, and
          this has a strong influence on their well-being? Doesn't that sound like
          blaming the victim to you?


          > I suspect that if you looked only at people who didn't have additional
          > problems, you wouldn't find any different between left-handers and
          > right-handers.
          >
          >
          Not sure about that. I did notice as I was studying that the higher level I
          studied, the higher the proportion of left-handed people. When I studied in
          the ESPCI (a Grande École, and one of the most elite "universities" of
          France), I did notice that the proportion of left-handed people in my
          promotion was much higher than average (about 20 people out of a promotion
          of 72, i.e. about 27% rather than the average 15%). Not sure if it's
          meaningful though (anecdote is not data), nor what the cause would be.


          > Matt "IQ unknown" G.
          >

          According to the latest test I took (a few years ago), I'm at MENSA level.
          Not that I think it's meaningful in the least...

          On 2 September 2013 09:12, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:

          > What about those people who are truly ambidextrous? I
          > recall from long, long years ago when I was at school that
          > some of the classrooms had blackboards that stretched the
          > whole length of the wall. One such room was the domain of
          > the Head of Classics; he would begin writing on the board
          > with his left hand and then, about midway along, change the
          > chalk to his right hand and continue writing.
          >
          >
          Yeah, like those "studies" of the past that proved beyond doubt that
          homosexuality was a disease, the studies around left-handedness tend to
          forget the existence of ambidextrous people of all kinds. Not only truly
          ambidextrous people like the prof you describe, but also people with
          different laterality depending on the activity. The most common case is
          people doing everything with their left hand but writing (typical in
          societies where writing with your left hand is "corrected"), but other
          cases exist: my younger sister, for instance, is left-handed for writing,
          but right-handed in sports and other activities, something that always
          surprised her teachers :). I've always wondered if she learned to write
          with her left hand purely because she saw me do it that way (for the
          record, both my parents are right-handed), but what's strange in this case
          is that there's never been any coercion whatsoever, which is usually needed
          to get people to learn to write with their non-dominant hand.


          > But I thought it had been established on this list many,
          > many moons ago that the typical conlanger was left-handed,
          > gay, Catholic, Lithuanian and sported a goatee beard :)
          >
          > Alas, I conform to only one of those epithets ;)
          >
          >
          I didn't remember about the Catholic thing. Otherwise, for years I've
          conformed to three of those epithets. Nowadays only to two of them :P.
          --
          Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

          http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
          http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
        • Sam Stutter
          Exactly what I was thinking. (Leftie, never-did-an-IQ-test but did do one of the replacements for the IQ test, right footed, right handed for sports except
          Message 4 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
            Exactly what I was thinking.

            (Leftie, never-did-an-IQ-test but did do one of the replacements for the IQ test, right footed, right handed for sports except those which involve weapons of any kind, right-handed when punching, left handed when getting dressed, etc, etc). De-facto left handed due to right-side being the one which gets epileptic all the time.

            Anyway, I suspect there's a degree of confirmation bias here. We all know that da Vinci was left handed and left handedness occurs in 10% of people. We remember cleverness and left handedness together because they're both noticeable qualities, whereas we don't remember right handedness or being dumb :-P

            I recall the urban myth among British (and probably other countries') emergency services. It is widely believed that your average citizen tends to go a bit crazy when there's a full moon, meaning that the police, ambulance and fire services are extra busy.

            A scientific study was carried out which revealed that there was no spike in activity during full moons. Policemen, etc had simply recalled that, on busy nights, they had looked up at the sky and seen a full moon. They had forgotten all those times they had looked up and not seen a full moon and when they weren't busy they hadn't looked at the sky. Furthermore, something resembling a full moon can be seen in the sky for at least 4 days every lunar month.

            The same is probably true for left-right clever-dumb dichotomy. It's perhaps noticeable that the moon thing and left-handedness are 1/8 and 1/10 respectively. The brain notices patterns which simply aren't there.

            The same is true for the right-left brain analytic-artistic dichotomy. They all appeal to a long-standing western tradition of "polar opposites" like male-female, good-evil, summer-winter, etc, which all appeared because the ancient Greeks were sometimes a little lazy in their thinking.

            Also, hasn't the IQ test been debunked? I also think I recall the "emotional intelligence" and "kinaesthetic/visual/audio learning styles" were also declared to be nonsense. What matters is not some latent quality of intelligence, but how you deploy your available brain power and in what sphere of intelligence. There is so little we actually understand about the brain we must always be wary of people who say they have some universal truth about all human brains.

            On 2 Sep 2013, at 08:25, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <tsela.cg@...> wrote:

            > On 2 September 2013 00:24, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:
            >
            >> Left-handedness is also statistically associated with abnormalities in
            >> development; not all lefties have such problems, but people with those
            >> problems are far more likely to be lefties.
            > Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further, let me warn that all
            > such statistical surveys have all failed to take into account the amount of
            > stress and down right abuse that lefties have to go through every day. As a
            > leftie myself, I can tell you that even in our Western society, the stigma
            > against left-handedness is still very strong, and abuse is still very real.
            > It doesn't have to be overt like punishing children who "dare" to want to
            > write with their left hand (something that actually still happens nowadays)
            > to still happen. Left-handed children are more likely to be bullied than
            > right-handed children for instance. Associated with the daily stress of a
            > world that strongly right-lateralised as ours, it's little wonder that
            > left-handed people will experience problems.
            >
            >
            >> It's thought that the signals which guide development can be disrupted by
            >> stress or illness on the part of the fetus; alternatively, some have
            >> suggested that messing up one developmental step throws those that follow
            >> it out of whack. Whatever the reason, this means that being left-handed is
            >> associated with much higher rates of health problems, and probably subtly
            >> or overtly impaired cognition.
            >
            >
            > Nonsense. There has never been a single study that managed to separate
            > possible effects of development inside the foetus from possible effects of
            > development after birth. All the studies I've read on those have failed on
            > that point. And why shouldn't they? It's difficult to make unbiased studies
            > when the world we live in is so biased already.
            >
            >
            >> It's entirely possible for the process
            >> which determines which side is favored to be altered without affecting or
            >> disrupting anything else, but that isn't the way it always happens, and
            >> that changes the overall statistical associations.
            > Nope. There's just no evidence of that. All the issues that have ever been
            > noticed can be easily explained by influences of the environment *after
            > birth*. Why do people always try so hard to minimise the influence of the
            > environment, and try to pin issues lefties have to their own development?
            > Could it be because otherwise they would have to face the uncomfortable
            > idea that our society is still negatively treating left-handed people, and
            > this has a strong influence on their well-being? Doesn't that sound like
            > blaming the victim to you?
            >
            >
            >> I suspect that if you looked only at people who didn't have additional
            >> problems, you wouldn't find any different between left-handers and
            >> right-handers.
            > Not sure about that. I did notice as I was studying that the higher level I
            > studied, the higher the proportion of left-handed people. When I studied in
            > the ESPCI (a Grande École, and one of the most elite "universities" of
            > France), I did notice that the proportion of left-handed people in my
            > promotion was much higher than average (about 20 people out of a promotion
            > of 72, i.e. about 27% rather than the average 15%). Not sure if it's
            > meaningful though (anecdote is not data), nor what the cause would be.
            >
            >
            >> Matt "IQ unknown" G.
            >
            > According to the latest test I took (a few years ago), I'm at MENSA level.
            > Not that I think it's meaningful in the least...
            >
            > On 2 September 2013 09:12, R A Brown <ray@...> wrote:
            >
            >> What about those people who are truly ambidextrous? I
            >> recall from long, long years ago when I was at school that
            >> some of the classrooms had blackboards that stretched the
            >> whole length of the wall. One such room was the domain of
            >> the Head of Classics; he would begin writing on the board
            >> with his left hand and then, about midway along, change the
            >> chalk to his right hand and continue writing.
            > Yeah, like those "studies" of the past that proved beyond doubt that
            > homosexuality was a disease, the studies around left-handedness tend to
            > forget the existence of ambidextrous people of all kinds. Not only truly
            > ambidextrous people like the prof you describe, but also people with
            > different laterality depending on the activity. The most common case is
            > people doing everything with their left hand but writing (typical in
            > societies where writing with your left hand is "corrected"), but other
            > cases exist: my younger sister, for instance, is left-handed for writing,
            > but right-handed in sports and other activities, something that always
            > surprised her teachers :). I've always wondered if she learned to write
            > with her left hand purely because she saw me do it that way (for the
            > record, both my parents are right-handed), but what's strange in this case
            > is that there's never been any coercion whatsoever, which is usually needed
            > to get people to learn to write with their non-dominant hand.
            >
            >
            >> But I thought it had been established on this list many,
            >> many moons ago that the typical conlanger was left-handed,
            >> gay, Catholic, Lithuanian and sported a goatee beard :)
            >>
            >> Alas, I conform to only one of those epithets ;)
            > I didn't remember about the Catholic thing. Otherwise, for years I've
            > conformed to three of those epithets. Nowadays only to two of them :P.
            > --
            > Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
            >
            > http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
            > http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
          • Wesley Parish
            About the only thing I could relate to this is a certain ambiguity in certain activities at an early age, eg, in some activities my left hand was the stronger
            Message 5 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
              About the only thing I could relate to this is a certain ambiguity in certain activities at an early age, eg,
              in some activities my left hand was the stronger one; there was also an experiment I performed on
              myself after my TBI in 1988 - recalling Cousteau's comment - "You've got two hands - use them!" - I
              attempted to teach myself to use my left hand in writing as freely as my right. It has had an interesting
              effect - sometimes I'll become aware of my left side as the dominant one - but that does not last long.

              I would not mind continuing the relateralization experiment, if I could be guaranteed proper
              neuropsychological accessment of states before, during and after, but this is New Zealand I am living
              in, and Karl Popper was distinctly unimpressed with the research tradition in New Zealand universities
              during his stay between 1937 and 1945 ...

              Wesley Parish

              Quoting Sam Stutter <samjjs89@...>:

              > Exactly what I was thinking.
              >
              > (Leftie, never-did-an-IQ-test but did do one of the replacements for the
              > IQ test, right footed, right handed for sports except those which
              > involve weapons of any kind, right-handed when punching, left handed
              > when getting dressed, etc, etc). De-facto left handed due to right-side
              > being the one which gets epileptic all the time.
              >
              > Anyway, I suspect there's a degree of confirmation bias here. We all
              > know that da Vinci was left handed and left handedness occurs in 10% of
              > people. We remember cleverness and left handedness together because
              > they're both noticeable qualities, whereas we don't remember right
              > handedness or being dumb :-P
              >
              > I recall the urban myth among British (and probably other countries')
              > emergency services. It is widely believed that your average citizen
              > tends to go a bit crazy when there's a full moon, meaning that the
              > police, ambulance and fire services are extra busy.
              >
              > A scientific study was carried out which revealed that there was no
              > spike in activity during full moons. Policemen, etc had simply recalled
              > that, on busy nights, they had looked up at the sky and seen a full
              > moon. They had forgotten all those times they had looked up and not seen
              > a full moon and when they weren't busy they hadn't looked at the sky.
              > Furthermore, something resembling a full moon can be seen in the sky for
              > at least 4 days every lunar month.
              >
              > The same is probably true for left-right clever-dumb dichotomy. It's
              > perhaps noticeable that the moon thing and left-handedness are 1/8 and
              > 1/10 respectively. The brain notices patterns which simply aren't
              > there.
              >
              > The same is true for the right-left brain analytic-artistic dichotomy.
              > They all appeal to a long-standing western tradition of "polar
              > opposites" like male-female, good-evil, summer-winter, etc, which all
              > appeared because the ancient Greeks were sometimes a little lazy in
              > their thinking.
              >
              > Also, hasn't the IQ test been debunked? I also think I recall the
              > "emotional intelligence" and "kinaesthetic/visual/audio learning styles"
              > were also declared to be nonsense. What matters is not some latent
              > quality of intelligence, but how you deploy your available brain power
              > and in what sphere of intelligence. There is so little we actually
              > understand about the brain we must always be wary of people who say they
              > have some universal truth about all human brains.
              >
              > On 2 Sep 2013, at 08:25, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
              > <tsela.cg@...> wrote:
              >
              > > On 2 September 2013 00:24, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:
              > >
              > >> Left-handedness is also statistically associated with abnormalities
              > in
              > >> development; not all lefties have such problems, but people with
              > those
              > >> problems are far more likely to be lefties.
              > > Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further, let me warn that
              > all
              > > such statistical surveys have all failed to take into account the
              > amount of
              > > stress and down right abuse that lefties have to go through every day.
              > As a
              > > leftie myself, I can tell you that even in our Western society, the
              > stigma
              > > against left-handedness is still very strong, and abuse is still very
              > real.
              > > It doesn't have to be overt like punishing children who "dare" to want
              > to
              > > write with their left hand (something that actually still happens
              > nowadays)
              > > to still happen. Left-handed children are more likely to be bullied
              > than
              > > right-handed children for instance. Associated with the daily stress
              > of a
              > > world that strongly right-lateralised as ours, it's little wonder
              > that
              > > left-handed people will experience problems.
              > >
              > >
              > >> It's thought that the signals which guide development can be
              > disrupted by
              > >> stress or illness on the part of the fetus; alternatively, some have
              > >> suggested that messing up one developmental step throws those that
              > follow
              > >> it out of whack. Whatever the reason, this means that being
              > left-handed is
              > >> associated with much higher rates of health problems, and probably
              > subtly
              > >> or overtly impaired cognition.
              > >
              > >
              > > Nonsense. There has never been a single study that managed to
              > separate
              > > possible effects of development inside the foetus from possible
              > effects of
              > > development after birth. All the studies I've read on those have
              > failed on
              > > that point. And why shouldn't they? It's difficult to make unbiased
              > studies
              > > when the world we live in is so biased already.
              > >
              > >
              > >> It's entirely possible for the process
              > >> which determines which side is favored to be altered without
              > affecting or
              > >> disrupting anything else, but that isn't the way it always happens,
              > and
              > >> that changes the overall statistical associations.
              > > Nope. There's just no evidence of that. All the issues that have ever
              > been
              > > noticed can be easily explained by influences of the environment
              > *after
              > > birth*. Why do people always try so hard to minimise the influence of
              > the
              > > environment, and try to pin issues lefties have to their own
              > development?
              > > Could it be because otherwise they would have to face the
              > uncomfortable
              > > idea that our society is still negatively treating left-handed people,
              > and
              > > this has a strong influence on their well-being? Doesn't that sound
              > like
              > > blaming the victim to you?
              > >
              > >
              > >> I suspect that if you looked only at people who didn't have
              > additional
              > >> problems, you wouldn't find any different between left-handers and
              > >> right-handers.
              > > Not sure about that. I did notice as I was studying that the higher
              > level I
              > > studied, the higher the proportion of left-handed people. When I
              > studied in
              > > the ESPCI (a Grande École, and one of the most elite "universities"
              > of
              > > France), I did notice that the proportion of left-handed people in my
              > > promotion was much higher than average (about 20 people out of a
              > promotion
              > > of 72, i.e. about 27% rather than the average 15%). Not sure if it's
              > > meaningful though (anecdote is not data), nor what the cause would
              > be.
              > >
              > >
              > >> Matt "IQ unknown" G.
              > >
              > > According to the latest test I took (a few years ago), I'm at MENSA
              > level.
              > > Not that I think it's meaningful in the least...
              > >
              > > On 2 September 2013 09:12, R A Brown <ray@...>
              > wrote:
              > >
              > >> What about those people who are truly ambidextrous? I
              > >> recall from long, long years ago when I was at school that
              > >> some of the classrooms had blackboards that stretched the
              > >> whole length of the wall. One such room was the domain of
              > >> the Head of Classics; he would begin writing on the board
              > >> with his left hand and then, about midway along, change the
              > >> chalk to his right hand and continue writing.
              > > Yeah, like those "studies" of the past that proved beyond doubt that
              > > homosexuality was a disease, the studies around left-handedness tend
              > to
              > > forget the existence of ambidextrous people of all kinds. Not only
              > truly
              > > ambidextrous people like the prof you describe, but also people with
              > > different laterality depending on the activity. The most common case
              > is
              > > people doing everything with their left hand but writing (typical in
              > > societies where writing with your left hand is "corrected"), but
              > other
              > > cases exist: my younger sister, for instance, is left-handed for
              > writing,
              > > but right-handed in sports and other activities, something that
              > always
              > > surprised her teachers :). I've always wondered if she learned to
              > write
              > > with her left hand purely because she saw me do it that way (for the
              > > record, both my parents are right-handed), but what's strange in this
              > case
              > > is that there's never been any coercion whatsoever, which is usually
              > needed
              > > to get people to learn to write with their non-dominant hand.
              > >
              > >
              > >> But I thought it had been established on this list many,
              > >> many moons ago that the typical conlanger was left-handed,
              > >> gay, Catholic, Lithuanian and sported a goatee beard :)
              > >>
              > >> Alas, I conform to only one of those epithets ;)
              > > I didn't remember about the Catholic thing. Otherwise, for years I've
              > > conformed to three of those epithets. Nowadays only to two of them
              > :P.
              > > --
              > > Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
              > >
              > > http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
              > > http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
              >
            • R A Brown
              ... Yes, it is nonsense, isn t it? That s why I added the humorous typical conlanger bit at the end of my email. [snip] ... I suspect this is so also.
              Message 6 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
                On 02/09/2013 08:25, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets wrote:

                >>
                > Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further,

                Yes, it is nonsense, isn't it? That's why I added the
                humorous "typical conlanger" bit at the end of my email.

                [snip]

                >> I suspect that if you looked only at people who didn't
                >> have additional problems, you wouldn't find any
                >> different between left-handers and right-handers.

                I suspect this is so also.

                [snip]

                > On 2 September 2013 09:12, R A Brown wrote:
                >
                >> What about those people who are truly ambidextrous?

                [snip]

                > Yeah, like those "studies" of the past that proved beyond
                > doubt that homosexuality was a disease, the studies
                > around left-handedness tend to forget the existence of
                > ambidextrous people of all kinds. Not only truly
                > ambidextrous people like the prof you describe, but also
                > people with different laterality depending on the
                > activity.

                Yep - I've met some of the latter during my time. The idea
                that all humankind can be neatly divided into left-handers &
                right-handers simply ain't true. Humans are an odder bunch
                that that ;)

                [snip]

                >> But I thought it had been established on this list
                >> many, many moons ago that the typical conlanger was
                >> left-handed, gay, Catholic, Lithuanian and sported a
                >> goatee beard :)
                >>
                >> Alas, I conform to only one of those epithets ;)
                >>
                > I didn't remember about the Catholic thing. Otherwise,
                > for years I've conformed to three of those epithets.
                > Nowadays only to two of them :P.

                IIRC the 'Catholic' bit got there partly because of JRRT and
                because there were (presumably still are) quite a few
                Catholics among those who actively post to the list. Also
                IIRC Fr Schleyer, the inventor of Volapük had something to
                do with it. Coincidentally the inventor of the earliest
                mixed-type conlang was that of the French Jesuit
                priest, Philippe Labbé, published in 1663:
                http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Outis/index.html

                *But, let me stress, I am sure this is all _coincidental_*;
                One could, for example, starting with Zamenhof make out just
                as a good (or bad) a case for Jewishness. Personally, I
                don't think religious commitment or otherwise has anything
                to do with conlanging.

                The 'gay' bit IIRC came in because quite a few of the active
                posters to the list were open about their homosexuality.
                Though, once again, I don't think a person's sexual
                orientation has anything to do with conlanging.

                I have never understood how the Lithuanian got in there!

                The 'left-handed' and 'goatee beard' things go back into the
                mists of time - nearly 20 years ago when I was dial-up once
                a day to access conlang! Presumably it was something to do
                with those posting at the time (tho I fit into neither
                group), but I don't recall exactly.

                I echo Christophe's sentiment with which this email started;
                let's not let this nonsense spread further.

                --
                Ray
                ==================================
                http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                ==================================
                "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
                for individual beings and events."
                [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
              • Roger Mills
                Just a little side-note:  years ago (still in grade school) I discovered that I could write backwards in script with my left hand, and it was quite legible
                Message 7 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
                  Just a little side-note:  years ago (still in grade school) I discovered that I could write backwards in script with my left hand, and it was quite legible (though I needed to use a mirror to read it, bah)-- much moreso than writing backwards with my right hand. I thought that a little odd...... Haven't tried it in years, however-- well, I  just did, and it looked like a drunken chicken had walked across the page.........
                • C. Brickner
                  ... IIRC the Catholic bit got there partly because of JRRT and because there were (presumably still are) quite a few Catholics among those who actively post
                  Message 8 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
                    > I didn't remember about the Catholic thing. Otherwise,
                    > for years I've conformed to three of those epithets.
                    > Nowadays only to two of them :P.

                    IIRC the 'Catholic' bit got there partly because of JRRT and
                    because there were (presumably still are) quite a few
                    Catholics among those who actively post to the list. Also
                    IIRC Fr Schleyer, the inventor of Volapük had something to
                    do with it. Coincidentally the inventor of the earliest
                    mixed-type conlang was that of the French Jesuit
                    priest, Philippe Labbé, published in 1663:
                    http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Outis/index.html
                    ________________________________________________

                    And let's not forget St. Hildegard! :-)

                    Charlie
                  • R A Brown
                    ... OOPS!! That s a sin of omission, if ever there was one :( Mea maxima culpa! (Send penance off-line) -- Ray ==================================
                    Message 9 of 21 , Sep 2, 2013
                      On 02/09/2013 16:19, C. Brickner wrote:
                      >> I didn't remember about the Catholic thing. Otherwise,
                      >> for years I've conformed to three of those epithets.
                      >> Nowadays only to two of them :P.
                      >
                      > IIRC the 'Catholic' bit got there partly because of JRRT
                      > and because there were (presumably still are) quite a
                      > few Catholics among those who actively post to the list.
                      > Also IIRC Fr Schleyer, the inventor of Volapük had
                      > something to do with it. Coincidentally the inventor of
                      > the earliest mixed-type conlang was that of the French
                      > Jesuit priest, Philippe Labbé, published in 1663:
                      > http://www.carolandray.plus.com/Outis/index.html
                      > ________________________________________________
                      >
                      > And let's not forget St. Hildegard! :-)

                      OOPS!!

                      That's a sin of omission, if ever there was one :(

                      Mea maxima culpa!

                      (Send penance off-line)

                      --
                      Ray
                      ==================================
                      http://www.carolandray.plus.com
                      ==================================
                      "language … began with half-musical unanalysed expressions
                      for individual beings and events."
                      [Otto Jespersen, Progress in Language, 1895]
                    • Matthew George
                      On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                      Message 10 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                        On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
                        tsela.cg@...> wrote:

                        > Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further


                        It's a very robust finding, highly replicated. If you can't deal with the
                        facts of reality, don't try to muddy the waters for those who wish to.

                        >

                        > Nope. There's just no evidence of that. All the issues that have ever been
                        > noticed can be easily explained by influences of the environment *after
                        > birth*.


                        That is an outright lie.

                        Matt G.
                      • Padraic Brown
                        ... I just tried that as well — much more legible than my right handed script. Though I have to admit to not quite being able to sort out where to start (or
                        Message 11 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                          Roger Mills wrote:
                          > Just a little side-note:  years ago (still in grade school) I
                          > discovered that I could write backwards in script with my left
                          > hand, and it was quite legible (though I needed to use a mirror
                          > to read it, bah)-- much moreso than writing backwards with my
                          > right hand. I thought that a little odd...... Haven't tried it
                          > in years, however-- well, I  just did, and it looked like a
                          > drunken chicken had walked across the page.........
                          I just tried that as well — much more legible than my right handed script. Though I have to admit to not
                          quite being able to sort out where to start (or stop!) writing my small As and Os... I feel like getting lost
                          at Dupont Circle and not quite knowing where to get off!

                          For Ray and Charlie:

                          Yes indeed about St. Hildegard, though I don't know about her being left or right handed. Maybe our dear
                          Sally knows. Quite the Hildegard expert her.

                          And as for the Catholic bit, Ray, I never heard that before your message in this thread. I'd always known
                          it as gay, bearded, left handed and Lithuanian. I do believe there must have been a rather large contingent
                          of Lithuanian conlagners on the list at the time. Perhaps as many as one. Maybe even an astonishing pair

                          of them!

                          As for the original post:

                          Even in the World, many philosophers recognise different kinds or domains of intelligence. Two common
                          threads being native and acquired, so basically common sense vs. book learning. To my knowledge, no
                          one connects handedness with intelligence. I am not certain what the relative percentages of left v. right
                          handedness are among Men — could be quite different from *here*. I know Daine are predominantly
                          left handed (and for that matter, their whole anatomy is levo-oriented in general, though some sets of twins are
                          mirror oriented, one levo-, one dextro-).


                          As for any real or imagined correlations between handedness and other health issues, I am sure that the
                          state of medicine and general "science" in the World can not allow any kind of definitive yea or nay.


                          Padraic
                        • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                          ... No, sorry, you re the one muddying the waters by spreading such charlatanism around. There are no such findings that stand up to any kind of actual
                          Message 12 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                            On 3 September 2013 19:29, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:

                            > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
                            > tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                            >
                            > > Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further
                            >
                            >
                            > It's a very robust finding, highly replicated. If you can't deal with the
                            > facts of reality, don't try to muddy the waters for those who wish to.
                            >
                            >
                            No, sorry, you're the one muddying the waters by spreading such
                            charlatanism around. There are no such findings that stand up to any kind
                            of actual scrutiny. You're disappointing me for believing otherwise.


                            >
                            > That is an outright lie.
                            >
                            >
                            Stop trying to defend your prejudice.

                            I will not accept being called a liar on this list. This thread is now
                            poisoned by nonsense and I will not participate in it any more. Unless I
                            get an apology, don't expect me to ever reply to one of your posts or try
                            to correct your mistakes again.
                            --
                            Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

                            http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                            http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
                          • Matthew George
                            On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                            Message 13 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                              On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
                              tsela.cg@...> wrote:

                              > Unless I get an apology, don't expect me to ever reply to one of your
                              > posts or try
                              > to correct your mistakes again.
                              >

                              I'll hold you to that. Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets swears never to again
                              respond to my posts, everyone! Remember!

                              To sum up: left-handedness is known to be statistically associated with
                              early neurological insult and developmental abnormality. Association isn't
                              transitive, and it's perfectly possible to be otherwise completely healthy
                              and normal while being left-handed. Because of trauma to the nervous system
                              increasing the chance that a person's dominant side will be reversed,
                              however, some of the well-known health and longevity associations with
                              being left-handed are best explained by problems with physiology rather
                              than as the consequences of unapt design and social stigma. Therefore, it
                              is entirely likely that overall left-handers can be expected to perform
                              less well on tests of cognitive performance than right-handers; excluding
                              cases of neurological insult would probably eliminate this effect, in the
                              same way that not including people with Down's Syndrome in an attempt to
                              see if epicanthic folds had any statistical effect on intelligence would.

                              Matt G.
                            • Andrew Schade
                              O Keefe just a lurker, but it seems that this thread has gone beyond a civil discussion of intellectual topics so it probably needs to just stop, before
                              Message 14 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                                O'Keefe just a lurker, but it seems that this thread has gone beyond a
                                civil discussion of intellectual topics so it probably needs to just stop,
                                before tempers rise much more.
                                On Sep 3, 2013 7:00 PM, "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" <tsela.cg@...>
                                wrote:

                                > On 3 September 2013 19:29, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:
                                >
                                > > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
                                > > tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                                > >
                                > > > Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further
                                > >
                                > >
                                > > It's a very robust finding, highly replicated. If you can't deal with
                                > the
                                > > facts of reality, don't try to muddy the waters for those who wish to.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > No, sorry, you're the one muddying the waters by spreading such
                                > charlatanism around. There are no such findings that stand up to any kind
                                > of actual scrutiny. You're disappointing me for believing otherwise.
                                >
                                >
                                > >
                                > > That is an outright lie.
                                > >
                                > >
                                > Stop trying to defend your prejudice.
                                >
                                > I will not accept being called a liar on this list. This thread is now
                                > poisoned by nonsense and I will not participate in it any more. Unless I
                                > get an apology, don't expect me to ever reply to one of your posts or try
                                > to correct your mistakes again.
                                > --
                                > Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
                                >
                                > http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                                > http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
                                >
                              • Andrew Schade
                                Darned autocorrect on my phone.. I meant to start that with I m
                                Message 15 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                                  Darned autocorrect on my phone.. I meant to start that with "I'm"
                                  On Sep 3, 2013 7:36 PM, "Andrew Schade" <schade.andrew.l@...> wrote:

                                  > O'Keefe just a lurker, but it seems that this thread has gone beyond a
                                  > civil discussion of intellectual topics so it probably needs to just stop,
                                  > before tempers rise much more.
                                  > On Sep 3, 2013 7:00 PM, "Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets" <
                                  > tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  >> On 3 September 2013 19:29, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:
                                  >>
                                  >> > On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 3:25 AM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
                                  >> > tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                                  >> >
                                  >> > > Okay, before this nonsense gets spread even further
                                  >> >
                                  >> >
                                  >> > It's a very robust finding, highly replicated. If you can't deal with
                                  >> the
                                  >> > facts of reality, don't try to muddy the waters for those who wish to.
                                  >> >
                                  >> >
                                  >> No, sorry, you're the one muddying the waters by spreading such
                                  >> charlatanism around. There are no such findings that stand up to any kind
                                  >> of actual scrutiny. You're disappointing me for believing otherwise.
                                  >>
                                  >>
                                  >> >
                                  >> > That is an outright lie.
                                  >> >
                                  >> >
                                  >> Stop trying to defend your prejudice.
                                  >>
                                  >> I will not accept being called a liar on this list. This thread is now
                                  >> poisoned by nonsense and I will not participate in it any more. Unless I
                                  >> get an apology, don't expect me to ever reply to one of your posts or try
                                  >> to correct your mistakes again.
                                  >> --
                                  >> Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.
                                  >>
                                  >> http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                                  >> http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
                                  >>
                                  >
                                • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                                  ... I never swore anything. I just said not to expect it. Doesn t stop me from doing it *if I want to*. If you cannot understand such a simple distinction, no
                                  Message 16 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                                    On 4 September 2013 00:20, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:

                                    > On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:59 PM, Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets <
                                    > tsela.cg@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > > Unless I get an apology, don't expect me to ever reply to one of your
                                    > > posts or try
                                    > > to correct your mistakes again.
                                    > >
                                    >
                                    > I'll hold you to that. Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets swears never to again
                                    > respond to my posts, everyone! Remember!
                                    >
                                    >
                                    I never swore anything. I just said not to expect it. Doesn't stop me from
                                    doing it *if I want to*. If you cannot understand such a simple
                                    distinction, no wonder you believe all the nonsense you're spouting.


                                    > To sum up: left-handedness is known to be statistically associated with
                                    > early neurological insult and developmental abnormality. Association isn't
                                    > transitive, and it's perfectly possible to be otherwise completely healthy
                                    > and normal while being left-handed. Because of trauma to the nervous system
                                    > increasing the chance that a person's dominant side will be reversed,
                                    > however, some of the well-known health and longevity associations with
                                    > being left-handed are best explained by problems with physiology rather
                                    > than as the consequences of unapt design and social stigma. Therefore, it
                                    > is entirely likely that overall left-handers can be expected to perform
                                    > less well on tests of cognitive performance than right-handers; excluding
                                    > cases of neurological insult would probably eliminate this effect, in the
                                    > same way that not including people with Down's Syndrome in an attempt to
                                    > see if epicanthic folds had any statistical effect on intelligence would.
                                    >
                                    >
                                    All of this can be summarised with one word: rubbish. There is absolutely
                                    no evidence that neural trauma can lead to changes in laterality
                                    preferentially from right to left, and the effects of social stigma have
                                    been seriously underestimated by researchers. I know no single study that
                                    correctly tried to account for the effects of social stigma and design
                                    preferentially made for right-handed people. None. In each and every one of
                                    them, those are just handwaved. Well sorry, but handwaves are not good
                                    science. Just because nobody can bring themselves to believe that nurture
                                    effects can be so strong, and that prejudice can have such an influence on
                                    people's development doesn't mean it doesn't happen. And as long as nobody
                                    seriously tries to look into those effects, the research on this subject
                                    will simply be unbelievable.

                                    I can't believe I'm having to have this conversation! What is this, the
                                    50's? Are left-handed people the new homosexuals? Do I have to point out
                                    the mass of "research" that showed incontrovertibly that homosexuality was
                                    a disease associated with all kinds of development issues, until
                                    researchers started to let go of their prejudice and realised that all that
                                    research was pure nonsense? Yes, all that peer-reviewed, statistically
                                    significant research? What's the difference here? No, let me answer that
                                    for you: none. There's no difference. All that body of research can be
                                    thrown away, just like the body of research that showed without a doubt
                                    that gays should be put in institutions was thrown away. It's that simple.
                                    And I will keep saying that, until the prejudice is gone.
                                    --
                                    Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

                                    http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                                    http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
                                  • Matthew George
                                    A simple internet search - not even delving into journals of medicine or neurology - quickly demonstrates that you don t have the slightest idea what you re
                                    Message 17 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                                      A simple internet search - not even delving into journals of medicine or
                                      neurology - quickly demonstrates that you don't have the slightest idea
                                      what you're talking about. And you didn't even have the integrity to keep
                                      to your promise not to respond to me ever again. Tsk tsk.

                                      If you want to make the case that left-handed people are just as bright and
                                      healthy as right-handed ones, your personal behavior is hardly helping.

                                      We now return to the topic of constructed languages.

                                      Matt G.
                                    • Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets
                                      ... Because *you* are the world s expert on these issues, right? Rather than a sad victim of confirmation bias. ... Where did I promise anything? Point out
                                      Message 18 of 21 , Sep 3, 2013
                                        On 4 September 2013 01:05, Matthew George <matt.msg@...> wrote:

                                        > A simple internet search - not even delving into journals of medicine or
                                        > neurology - quickly demonstrates that you don't have the slightest idea
                                        > what you're talking about.


                                        Because *you* are the world's expert on these issues, right? Rather than a
                                        sad victim of confirmation bias.


                                        > And you didn't even have the integrity to keep
                                        > to your promise not to respond to me ever again. Tsk tsk.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        Where did I promise anything? Point out where I said: "I promise to never
                                        respond to you again". You won't find it. If I don't say "I promise", then
                                        I don't promise anything. It's reading comprehension 101.


                                        > If you want to make the case that left-handed people are just as bright and
                                        > healthy as right-handed ones, your personal behavior is hardly helping.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        Yeah, please resort to ad hominems, that really helps your case. this is
                                        really over the line here. You don't know me. You don't know what I do. And
                                        you certainly have no idea how bright and healthy I am (probably more than
                                        you'll ever be, in both cases). So don't start here, as you'll lose for
                                        sure.


                                        > We now return to the topic of constructed languages.
                                        >
                                        >
                                        Please do, not that you've ever had anything worthy to say on that subject.
                                        --
                                        Christophe Grandsire-Koevoets.

                                        http://christophoronomicon.blogspot.com/
                                        http://www.christophoronomicon.nl/
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.