Talk:Handedness/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Section "Social stigma and repression of left-handedness" Needs Revision

The section "Social stigma and repression of left-handedness" has begun accumulating off-topic and dubious matter, and needs to be revised by somebody with the time and interest to improve it. Specifically:

• Left-handed people live in a world dominated by right-handed people and many tools and procedures are designed to facilitate use by right-handed people, often without even realising difficulties placed on the left-handed.

The opening sentence of the section has nothing to do with social stigma or repression, but with discrimination or neglect in the design of implements and procedures. That's a very important issue, which used to be discussed in either this article or the one on left-handedness, and has apparently been deleted in the course of the merger of the two, or through some of the very aggressive editing that's taken place since then; and it should be addressed in a separate section; but it doesn't belong under social stigma and repression.

• Until very recently in Taiwan, left-handed people were strongly encouraged to switch to being right-handed, or at least switch to writing with the right hand. . . .

If this is intended as an example of more widespread repression, then there needs to be a more general statement for it to illustrate. The case of Taiwan, as described here, is not very different from that in many other countries, and I see no reason to single it out.

The statement also seems to imply that it is possible for left-handed people to become right-handed, which is not the case.

• [Entire discussion of handwriting]

Problems of left-handed people in connection with handwriting are, again, not a matter of social stigma or repression, but do deserve coverage. They used to have it in this article, but much of it was undocumented and dubious, and the section was deleted instead of being improved. Now the same undocumented and dubious claims are being reasserted.

Smudging results, not from the direction of the script, but from the position of the writing hand. If the hand stays below the line on which it is writing, it cannot smudge the preceding lines. Right-handed people tend naturally to write from below the line, but that is difficult, with European scripts, for left-handers; and it requires training from a knowledgeable teacher. Left-handers using those scripts therefore often teach themselves to write from above the line, which causes them to smudge the previous lines.

I have seen only a few people writing in Hebrew or Arabic, but in every case the (right-handed) writer held his hand below the line (with the pen, at least in the case of Hebrew, at right angles to the line, and nearly perpendicular to the paper), and had no problem with smudging.

Directionality in writing systems has nothing to do with handedness, or all writing would run in the same direction. It's purely a matter of convention. It certainly may affect the ease or difficulty with which a left-handed person may use a given system, since any system will inevitably have evolved to suit right-handed writers; but handedness has effectively nothing to do with a society's choice of direction for its writing system, since the overwhelming majority of writers in every known society are, and always have been, right-handed.

By the way, I note that Samanthav321 has carefully replaced all instances of the term "left-handers" with "left-handed people". I'm a lefty myself, and while I appreciate the gesture, I find nothing disparaging in the term "left-hander". In baseball, for instance, it's neutral at worst, and may imply especial talent. It's not worth going back and undoing all those changes, but I would discourage them for the future. Jdcrutch (talk) 21:08, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it's worth mentioning in this section also that in some cultures, in Turkey for example, 100% of the population is "right-handed" despite each individual's natural or early predisposition. (Sorry, I don't currently have a reference source; a friend who visited there told me.) HankW512 (talk) 17:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Didn't the president of Turkey say a few years ago that Turkey had no homosexuals? Maybe it was another country in that region. At any rate, suppression of left-handed writing, eating, etc., does not change a person's handedness: it merely forces him or her to use the right hand for activities that would naturally be performed with the left. If the anecdote were supported by documentation, it would certainly be evidence of social stigma and repression of left-handedness; but without documentation it's just a story.

Jdcrutch (talk) 18:40, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Dexterity

I notice that somebody has replaced all instances of "dexterous" in the article with "skillful". Do we have to be so grimly literal? I'm left-handed, and "dexterous" bothers me not a bit. If we spoke Latin, it might, or if somebody said, "You're very right-handed with your left hand," that might strike me as a bit of a knock, but, honestly. Can't words have more than one meaning anymore? I'm far more concerned about dangerous band saws and the unavailability of left-handed shop shears than I am about what words people use for nimbleness of hand. Jdcrutch (talk) 23:17, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Presidents, Presidential Candidates and Handedness

Completely removed this sentence because it was completely wrong: "After Clinton's term, his left-handed Vice President Al Gore lost to right-handed George W. Bush, who four years later prevailed over John Kerry and John Edwards, both left-handed."

Kerry, Gore and Edwards are all right-handed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:8780:323:4C27:DC91:F751:3958 (talk) 14:40, 13 October 2013 (UTC)

For some reason, there is section exclusively on US Presidents on a article that discusses a universal human charasteristic. I suggest removing that section and creating a see also-link to the article mentioned in that section. Wikikrax (talk) 08:49, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

This section is quite inappropriate to a scientifically slanted article. I agree that it should be deleted. Furthermore, it can't possibly be of interest to any but Americans, and how many of them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Impregnable (talk • contribs) 00:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There were no objections, so I removed the section and moved the link to the end of the article. Wikikrax (talk) 14:31, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Logic flaw?

The article states: "When two left-handers compete against each other, they are both likely to be at the same level of practice as when right-handers play other right-handers." Isn't this a logical flaw? Left handers do not have additional amounts of practice against other left-handers. Only 10% of the population is left-handed so left-handers should also be inexperienced against other left-handed people. When two left-handers compete against each other, they are both likely to be at the same level of practice as when right-handers play left-handers. Alternately, perhaps it's just that the wording of the sentence is poor, and the intended meaning is "When two left-handers compete against each other, both are likely to have the same amount of practice, similar to a situation with two right-handers compete, both are likely to have the same amount of practice." Yet here, the problem is that the amount of practice is not equal, since right-handers would have had 90% of their practice in that type of situation, yet left-handers would have only had 10%. The amount of practice is not the same in comparing left- to right-handers, yet the sentence takes "two left-/right-handers" as its unit of measure. Not sure how to fix but the current statement is unclear. Can I just delete it because it's not useful and confusing? Twocs (talk) 02:35, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sun direction and earth rotational evolutionary pressure

"That given the disadvantage of hunting or facing an opponent against the sun, a tiny effect from Correlis might suade preference to be "right" over hundreds of thousands or millions of years."

Where does this piece of info come from? I'd like to see an explanation of why this makes sense. The sun will be to a left-handers back in the AM, and to the right-handers back in the PM, so it seems like this is total nonsense? 70.79.141.188 (talk) 03:15, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, I don't quite follow the logic of the retort. The original paragraph indicates a thrower facing south so both left and right-handers would have the sun in front of them. Can you please let me know in the retort statement when the sun is to the back of a different handed thrower? Here's my permutation list: both right and left-handers have the same opportunity to face the sun in the AM, and conversely the PM. In the North-South orientation, the sun would always be to the back of the thrower aiming north. Conversely, the south is the opposite. At one of the 45 degree sun angle situations, ie. S-E, both the right-hander and left-hander throwing 90 degrees south would have the sun in their eyes. Northern-direction throwers won't. Sure, the east-west has a small component advantage, but it's negated by equal opportunity hunting before or after noon. I would focus on the direction where there is asymmetry between right and left with respect to the sun.

Focus on the north-south direction. Don't get trapped in the habit of thinking the sun perpendicularly rises east-west to my position conundrum. "High Noon" in places closer to the arctic circle is quite low in the horizon. Specifically, the area above the Tropic of Cancer is of interest. Here, hominids throwing projectiles south would have the sun in their eyes for the entire year.

Also concentrate on the evolutionary mindset over immediate effects. For this concept, it's better to have a mindset of a geologist than an geneticists. We may want the immediate and larger results similar to what one gets with a plane traveling with a tailwind or headwind. Rather, the effect is with crosswinds giving an evolutionary advantage over millions of years. By the theory of evolution, sea creatures didn't evolve legs overnight.

• Jdcrutch's Critque

It is complete nonsense. What the hell does "Correlis" mean? And who the hell uses suade? It's not an English word. Fortunately, somebody seems to have deleted it. Jdcrutch (talk) 23:28, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Coriolis was a mistake. Sorry. http://www.google.com/#q=suade+definition Our languages are constantly evolving. I'm open to edits on language if a more academic style is necessary. I was more focus on conceptual ideas and critiques.

also: "graduations" may seem like an odd word for gradually in the noun tense so pre-empting: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gradation?show=0. Attempting to use in a gradually sense but may be construed as a ceremony.

• WHPratt's comments — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilupper (talk • contribs) 20:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds vaguely like the explanation (not in this article, but probably in another) as to how baseball fields are ideally oriented: so that the fielders have to deal with the setting sun and not the batter. Of course, this assumes that they'll occasionally playing through sunset, but never at dawn. (Of course, this explains the term "southpaw" for a left-handed pitcher. However, I'm not sure that applies to warfare, where an attack may take place at sunrise. WHPratt (talk) 12:38, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

WH Pratt, thanks for reference. Yes, there's a consistent disadvantage for throwers looking southward in the northern hemisphere. Focusing on hunter/gatherer groups, their prey can see them first before they can see them thus increasing the distance that hunters have to engage their potential meal. Northern facing hunters would have an opposite effect.

• So why it works*

There are two main sticking points that most other theories have yet to answer:

1) Why haven't we evolved to be left-handed dominate?

2) Why is the ratio the way it is? If you believe 80-20 or 90-10 ratios by different estimates, why has it not evolved to 70-30 or 60-40 ratios?

This theory attempts to take a physiological approach to how in a natural environment our bodies have adapted, much akin to opposable thumbs or walking upright freeing our arms to do other tasks besides locomotion. Whereas lateralization and genetic theories will stop at letting us know where the parts of the brain or genes control handedness, this physical approach will take the answer the rest of the way.

The specific mechanism for this theory is that those hunter-gatherer groups generally above the Tropic of Cancer and under the influence of the Westerlies threw better right-handed towards the south. The tolerances on a southern directed throw was much greater; decreasing the allowances of shorter distance and undistracted aim. In the 90% of human history when most societies were hunter-gathers, we were more evenly distributed over the planet. As our civilizations progressed, those hunter/gatherer groups that experienced the most population growth was coincidentally above the Tropic of Cancer (European, Egyptian, Fertile Crescent, Indus Valley, and Yellow River). And thus the ratio of our current right-handers. Genetically, the larger population affected the gene pool of those in the southern hemisphere so statistically, we have a quorum on the same ratio throughout the world.

Section "Prenatal vestibular asymmetry" added;

"Previc, after reviewing a large number of studies, found evidence
that the position of the fetus in the final trimester and a baby's
subsequent birth position can affect handedness. ..."

• Could this statement mix cause and effect?
  

It sounds, as if a fetus can't prefer a special position – conscious or not – related to his already given handedness.
Jaybear (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

the heart position could be the main reason humans are right handed predominantly.?

the heart position, in the chest, could be the main reason that humans are mostly right handed, i.e. the heart position, in the chest, causes humans to be right handed.? (Gmlcys (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2014 (UTC))Gmlcys (talk) 03:07, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Dubious: "Ambilevous or ambisinister"

The article asserts,

Ambilevous or ambisinister people demonstrate awkwardness with both hands. Ambisinistrous motor skills or a low level of dexterity may be the result of a debilitating physical condition.

I have tagged this sentence dubious because it cites no authority and I think it's baloney. If "ambisinistrous" or "ambilevous" is a recognized classification within handedness, let's see some learned articles on it. Handedness is not a matter of disability because of injury or disease. The right-handed person who loses his right hand in an accident does not thereby become left-handed, even if he learns to use his left hand for all purposes. No more does the left-handed victim of, say, muiltiple sclerosis, who loses dexterity in both her hands, cease being left-handed and become "ambisinistrous". Those terms may be used by the medical profession to describe individual patients, but I strongly doubt that they represent developmental categories comparable to "left-handed" and "right-handed". J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 18:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

What's a southpaw?

It's all well and nice to redirect "southpaw" here, but after reading the article, I have no clue about what the heck this word means. It would be very useful policy if everyone making a redirect would also see the redirected word or concept would be actually explained in the article. --213.184.43.2 (talk) 09:14, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

Nature vs nurture?

I know this is original research on my part, which is why I'm only putting it in talk -- but why is the possibility ignored that the correlation between parents and children might be environmental rather than genetic? You know, the nature vs nurture thing? To say "if both parents of a child are left-handed, there is a 26% chance of that child being left-handed", as if it supports the genetic theory, is a gigantic logical leap. If a kid's raised in a house where both parents demonstrate how to do things with their left hands, and goes on to use her right hand with 74% likelihood, isn't that an amazing demonstration of how little Nature (genetics) OR Nurture (environmental factors) has to do with it?

If there's evidence that suggests that it's nature rather than nurture, I think that evidence should be presented in this article. --RobertStar20 (talk) 15:13, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

List vs. Category vs. Neither

Hi, What about adding a list of notable left-handed people? Perhaps as a separate article? Smilesofasummernight (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of antipathy to this idea, as well as "Category:Left-handed people". See Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 May 16. I don't agree, but the sentiment was overwhelmingly negative. So this article, and the ones pointed to by "See also" are the extent of Wikipedia coverage of this topic. Note that given the strong antipathy of some editors, any assertions about handedness must be well-referenced to WP:RS to remain in Wikipedia. Reify-tech (talk) 14:51, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Why do cackhanded and cack-hadned redirect here? Why does Google show it?

I typed define cackhanded in my browser and Google provided a snippet from this article:

Web definitions

Handedness is better performance or individual preference for use of a hand.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cack-handed

Why do cackhanded and cack-handed redirect here to this article when it makes no mention of those words? Did it used to? – its history doesn't mention anything. cack-handed means "clumsy or inept"; the article talks about "left-handed" connoting clumsy, but the etymology of cack-handed (either 'excrement', + 'handed' or Norse 'keikr' (bent backwards) + 'handed') is unrelated. I'm going to change borth redirects to Bias against left-handed people#Expressions and colloquialisms.

It's interesting that Google is offering the Wikipedia article on "Handedness" as the definition of "cackhanded." Google should rank wiki redirects lower, especially when the target of the redirect doesn't mention the word. -- Skierpage (talk) 21:58, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

the heart position influence on handedness examples: Dextrocardia, Situs inversus

probably the heart position influence handedness. For example: Dextrocardia, Situs inversus. In a way the heart position might make us right handed.Where, Handedness have genetic basis. Dextrocardia [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gmlcys (talk • contribs) 02:47, 19 August 2014 (UTC) Situs inversusGmlcys (talk) 02:53, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

If Gmlcys can find a reliable source for this notion, I invite her or him to put it into the article. I personally think it's hogwash, however, being left-handed and having my heart in the left side of my thorax, just like every other left-hander I know. The articles on situs inversus and dextrocardia make no mention of handedness, and those conditions appear to be much more rare than left-handedness. Coren, The Left-Hander Syndrome, claims there is no evidence of a genetic basis for left-handedness. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:25, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I would go further with evidence; however, I am not able to perform any experiments nor any research. This is an observation, or a mere opinion. The articles about situs inversus and dextrocardia do mention that there is a genetic relationship. I personally, truly believe the heart position in the human chest is what makes humans right handed predominantly. We have to look at the whole. The heart can not be disturbed with the movement of the hand/arm, inasmuch. There could/should be genetic basis, after all what is not in living organisms. Also, there could/should be neurological basis for being right handed too. However, the heart position is, what I believe, the main reason for humans to be right handed. Take the elbow bone for example: The elbow prevent our arm from extending backwards. The elbow bone is coded for by genetics and is also controlled neurologically (i.e. the movement of the arm). Nevertheless, the elbow is what prevent our arm from moving/extending backwards.Taissirn (talk) 23:23, 14 September 2014 (UTC)Taissirn (talk) 01:05, 15 September 2014 (UTC) In addition, mechanical stimulation(s) of some, if not all, the cell(s) is necessary for its activities. 02:12, 21 September 2014 (UTC) Taissirn (talk) 02:14, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia really is not the place to argue novel hypotheses. If there are reliable, scientific sources that assert that the location of the heart determines handedness, then Taissirn should add the theory to the article, citing those sources. Otherwise, with all due respect for his or her sincerity, it is inappropriate for Taissirn to use this page for observations and mere opinions. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 21:24, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Formation section

@Jdcrutch: The purpose of adding a section called Formation to Handedness is so that other people will add information to it later when they find it. I don't know anything about how it formed so I didn't add to it myself. Blackbombchu (talk) 21:17, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I guess my objection is that "Formation" is not really a term I generally associate with handedness, so the section heading doesn't suggest what might be written to fill the empty section. I associate "formation" with things that have a form, like volcanoes or the inner ear. In the context of handedness, I gather you mean something like, origin, development, or causes? Rather than creating an empty section and hoping somebody will fill it in (though I have done the same thing myself in one case), let me suggest that you either propose the section here on the talk page, or, better yet, if you can, do some research and write the section yourself. J. D. Crutchfield | Talk 23:13, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

No section for Cross-dominance?

I am cross-dominant, meaning I use my left hand for some tasks and my right hand for others. There is an entire article dedicated to this, and yet it's not even mentioned on this page? I think it should be mentioned, or maybe even merged into one article. War wizard90 (talk) 06:24, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

always something Only morons and bigots would make a big deal of this

Wow show a preference for handiness so one can invent differences amongst people. Could as easily live in a place where left handed is the majority. This invented and conditioned diffidence as real effects but who dare complain. the right handed will slightly adapt to the left handed desks. LEFT handed scissors do make sense. So glad people started to come out of this. unfortunately you still blame biology.

When there are people of multiple skin colors the narcissistic goes to work on projecting characteristic into superficial labels. when every one is white, we use gender, and each ego assigns the favorable traits to their group. When your all white male, then you discourage natural use of both hands limiting skill and brain function. Flip a coin " lets make right" or totem. Then make all physical objects revolve around it. To dumb in their bigotry to see they would be " awkward" in all left handed dominate building. create a mix of self created real problems and mindless dis-labeling. .All this for the sake of conformity and an excuse to make someone else feel bad or different. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.239.135 (talk) 04:09, 6 May 2015 (UTC)

handedness: what's going on?

So, in some activities it would seem that 'right-handed' individuals almost exclusively use their left hand for what seems to be the harder job. Guitar playing is an example: the dominant hand gets to do the relatively repetative strumming, whilst the 'cack' hand gets to do the seemingly more complicated fingering. So I thought, rather than 'better hand vs. less good hand' it might be something more complicated, like 'hand that's good at performing one single task' (throwing, hammering, writing) vs. 'hand that's better at co-ordinating multiple movements' (guitar fingering, for example).

So, came here to read the article and can't find anything. I'll go off and look and dump anything that i find here in the article, but, if i don't find anything, if anyone knows anything about this? Maybe a section on dual-handed stuff (guitar playing, knife-and-fork eating, etc) would lead us towards putting something pertinant about the division of labour in there? --Arkelweis (talk) 19:01, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Interesting questions. You might want to try asking them on Quora.com, and if you find any WP:RS, add them to the Wikipedia article here. Cheers! Reify-tech (talk) 03:15, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Notice the quotation from Scientific American: "A study of musicians in professional orchestras found a significantly greater proportion of talented left-handers, even among those who played instruments that seem designed for right-handers, such as violins." It is a odd to assert that violins favor right-handers, when all the complicated fingering, and vibrato, is done with the left hand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.113.81.184 (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

The "complicated fingering and vibrato" may appear more difficult, but meanwhile the right hand is maintaining a constant and even pressure on the bow, even as the position of the right arm is changing. That's challenging in a more subtle way. As a thought experiment for even a non-violinist: try typing your name with one hand while making a clean slice (no mashing or tearing) through a warm loaf of bread with the other. Both hands of a violinist are doing difficult work. -- Heath 50.134.34.221 (talk) 05:06, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

American Geography of Left Handedness

An interesting article on the the Geography of left handedness here, with a thematic map and chart. While a curiosity, not certain if fits into the article.RomanGrandpa (talk) 13:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Doesn't add up

It says in the intro that ""70-90%" of the population is left-handed. Later, an (uncited) section states that:

  "Interactive sports such as table tennis, badminton, cricket, and tennis have an overrepresentation of left-handedness, while non-interactive sports such as swimming show no overrepresentation. Smaller physical distance between participants increases the overrepresentation. In fencing, about half the participants are left-handed.[34]

  The advantage to players in one-on-one sports, such as tennis, boxing, fencing or judo, is that, in a population containing perhaps 10% left-handers and 90% right-handers, the left-hander plays 90% of his or her games against right-handed opponents and is well-practiced at dealing with this asymmetry. Right-handers play 90% of their games against other right-handers. Thus, when confronted with left-handers, they are less practiced (see Rafael Nadal). When two left-handers compete against each other, they are both likely to be at the same level of practice as when right-handers play other right-handers. This explains why a disproportionately high number of left-handers are found in sports in which direct one-on-one action predominates.[citation needed]"

This contradicts on two levels. First, if the number varies between 70 and 90% of the population, then "over-representation" in contact sports would mean that there is MORE than 10% of the participants that are left handed. 10% would be the very minimum, even if left-handers weren't over-represented. And if you take 30% to be the % of the population, then "overrepresented" could mean 40% of players are leftys, which would pretty much nullify the theory that rightys aren't used to playing leftys.

The next is that is says that a left hander "should be just as used to facing a left hander as a right-hander is to facing a right-hander". If a left-hander is used to facing right handers, because there is more of them, and right-handers are not used to facing left handers, then why would left handers be used to facing left handers? Statistically, a left hander should be facing another left hander 10% of the time, just like a right-hander. That would mean that a left hander is no more used to facing another left hander than a typical right hander is. Makes no sense. Best you could say is that a left-hander facing a left-hander is basically like a right-hander facing a right-hander, except any left-hander ought to much more accustomed to facing RIGHT-HANDERS, since they face 9 of them for every 1 left-hander they face, just like any right-hander. If anything, a left-hander facing a left-hander is at just as much a disadvantage as a right-hander facing a left-hander...except that he OTHER guy is equally at a disadvantage, which MIGHT cancel each other out. So they are both at a disadvantage, which would give the same results (theoretically) as a right-right match...so the statement is accurate theoretically (although dubious), but not for the reason stated. And that's IF you accept the "90%" number, which doesn't jive with the claim that they are "over-represented"..45Colt 10:33, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

You must have misread the statement. It reads: "Right-handedness is most common. Right-handed people are more skillful with their right hands when performing tasks. Studies suggest that 70–90% of the world population is right-handed.[4][5]" It's usually a goof idea to copy and paste the sentence if no other reason to be sure you read it right (or is it left?) __209.179.0.121 (talk) 04:14, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Left handed sign on car

Drivers-beginners can set special signs to their cars that they are left-handed, left-legged, right-handed, right-legged or ambidexterous. It could help to determine their motions more intuitively by other drivers and especially by pedestrians. RippleSax (talk) 01:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Handedness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160104194022/http://www.ucd.ie/geary/publications/2004/laterality.pdf to http://www.ucd.ie/geary/publications/2004/laterality.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:35, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Shared material with left-handed

Moved to Talk:Laterality#From Talk:Handedness.23Shared material with left-handed. Please go there to continue merger discussion.

The removed material spans 10:25, 25 Jan 2005 to 03:12, 11 February 2006, and was moved from here at 10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Moved to Talk:Laterality#Merger proposal. Please go there to continue merger discussion.

The removed material spans 02:55, 11 February 2006 to 10:16, 11 March 2006, and was moved from here at 10:27, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Learning to tell left and right

This might lead to some interesting sources for expanding this article:

"Be Honest, Can You Really Tell Left from Right?". 2016-06-15.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Backgammon

When playing Backgammon the dice cup should be held in the right hand and the dice thrown into the board on the players right, this is in the official rules of the game. This is all well and good for right handers but is very awkward for left handers. Professional players have to get their opponents consent to play left handed and use the side of the board on their left.213.205.252.89 (talk) 18:24, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"This is common in the population with about a 1% prevalence"

I think that this refers to ambidextrous individuals, not cross-dominant ones. The article ambidexterity calls out this statistic, but the cross-dominant article has no such statistic. Can someone check the source? Kortoso (talk) 22:01, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

"handedness is an outward reflection of brain asymmetry for motor function"

Is this true, or is there at least consensus about this? If it is then shouldn't such a statement be promoted (e.g. from the "theories" section to the lede) to make that clear? Especially since this seems to be an implied assumption in several other places in the article.

And otherwise, i.e. if it is "merely" an assumption that is part of one or more of the several theories, shouldn't it be stated as such (rather than as a parenthetical but undisputed fact, buried inside the description of a theory)? AlexFekken (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Handedness. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070314134323/http://blogs.reuters.com/2006/08/11/higher-paychecks-a-left-handed-compliment/ to http://blogs.reuters.com/2006/08/11/higher-paychecks-a-left-handed-compliment/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:36, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

false precision

Studies suggest that approximately 90% of the world's population is right-handed.

The only reference for this assertion is an article saying the number is somewhere between 70% and 95%. —Tamfang (talk) 16:09, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

The problems with being gentically left handed

The article as it stands implies that a number of biological problems are caused by being left handed, some of which clearly does not follow from the evidence presented. For example, because a large proportion of people with cerebral palsy- a genetic condition present at birth- are left handed, it does not follow that they are C-P because they are left handed in any way. How would being left-handed change their genes into becoming C-P ? Being C-P and somehow usually ending up being left handed seems FAR more likely, given that left-handedness can be created by a number of different means without changing the genes.

If the majority of the significant differences are not caused by being left handed, then it follows that genetic left-handedness itself is not a significant problem.

Therefore I tried to alter the section which implies that being genetically disposed to being left handed should be a definite disadvantage in this sense and that only the supposed advantages ensure that the percentage is maintained. This notion is surely not likely to be the truth- that there are substantial natural selection advantages and disadvantages to being left or right handed but they happen to balance each other out and have done for as far back as we can measure, ensuring that the proportion has been roughly stable all this time. If the proportion has not changed back and forth as different factors have surely changed over scientifically recorded time it seems far more likely that the apparent significance is in fact NOT very great and therefore has little to no selection pressure.

I stand by the edit I made, despite its reversion, but will not get involved any more.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:27, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

Mention masturbation

See Talk:Masturbation/Archive_6#Handedness . Jidanni (talk) 00:14, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Genetic

@EpsilonCymose:: Handedness has been proven to be genetic, as shown by sources in the body of the article. If you find any study that shows it is not, I would like to see it. It is possible that it is influenced by the environment as well. Additionally, it can not be biased to state a scientific fact such as left-handedness being associated with higher rates of homosexuality and mental illness. It does not mean that these are "caused" by being left-handed. They do not have to be in the lead of the article, but they should be somewhere in the article. The mental illness stat has more evidence than the homosexuality one. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:25, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

Protection request

I requested protection on this page to stop the warring from the unregistered user/users. Revanchist317 (talk) 16:10, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Different redirect?

Southpaw and Left-hander both redirect here. I recently created a page called List of people who are left-handed and I think those two pages should redirect to the new page entirely about left-handers and southpaws. JustinMal1 (talk) 05:20, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Well done!

Kortoso (talk) 10:23, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Left-handed people are also more prone to various health problems.

Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.233.128.95 (talk) 00:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I wondered this too. If it's true, it should be substantiated; otherwise I'd remove it. – AndyFielding (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why this is, but sources say that it is true. The specific health problems more prevalent in left-handers are found in the section Handedness#Health. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:40, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Two problems

Original research, little citations. WikiJanitorPerson (talk) 14:22, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Why don't you point out some original research as an example, personally, I think everything is well cited and don't agree with your statement.? RomanGrandpa (talk) 15:19, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Tasks do not investigate

The current article text contains:

“When tasks investigating lateralisation are averaged across a group of left-handers”

I fail to see how tasks could perform investigation, and I wonder what meaning is actually intended.Redav (talk) 02:22, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Oxford Comma

This article seems, in its entirety, to lack the Oxford Comma. What is Wikipedia's official stance on the comma? Besenj (talk) 11:15, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Besenj See MOS:OXFORD. I think the Oxford comma should be used, so you can add it everywhere if you want. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 17:08, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The WP:STYLERET convention forbids us from changing the style of the article without a proper reason. The Oxford Commas are to remain absent. Besenj (talk) 06:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Mortality rates in combat

I'm curious as of how and when the military realized they had to adapt to the reality of left-handed servicemen? I hazily remember reading something along the lines that it was noted (when? where?) that officers could have made better use of lefthanded men by assigning them to the flank best suiting their range. But haven't they been forced into righthandedness, in accordance with the rules and regulations as well as the requirements of all the righthanded equipment? If so, I speculate about the role forced righthandedness had in regards to avoidable loss of lives. If lefthanded soldiers, forced to be righthanded, were sent into action after receiving the same amount of training as their righthanded pals, there's an actual probability that they were still struggling to adapt to the righthanded warfare, which simply did not "come naturally" to them. The short inhibition, having to override your instinct and switch from left to right, could cost you precious time and, ultimately, your life. Any sources? --15:53, 6 July 2022 (UTC) 2003:CA:3F1E:3BB5:2DE9:644E:4C4F:F0CE (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Cueva de las manos

Does the source actually contain the statement on "prevalence of right-handedness"? The article Cueva de las Manos only informs that the images were formed using tubular bones (bone pipes) to spray paint and that this (only so such much as) suggests that the pipes were held with the right hand. While the prevalence of right-handedness can hardly be disputed anyway, it still is a bold conclusion to be drawn from such meager evidence. There simply are too many unknown factors for that. Extrapolating the then present distribution of handedness, assuming that it in fact could be derived from the images, results in 3.60% of left-handed artists (concluded from 829 left and 31 right hands shown), which in comparison to the current statistic of around 10% of left-handed people among our populations, is surprisingly small, considering that past cultures probably had less reason to suppress left-handedness. The only thing that might be safely said is that, including evidence from Indonesia and Australia, there appears to be a prevalence of left hands being stenciled. One might also have to take into account, that modern hand stencilings lean further towards right-handed techniques, since they mostly rely on tools such as pens, pencils or brushes, the handling of which requires more experience than holding the ancient predecessor of a spraying-can. --17:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC) 2003:CA:3F1E:3BB5:2DE9:644E:4C4F:F0CE (talk) 17:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Unnecessary citation request?

"Conversely, right-to-left alphabets, such as the Arabic and Hebrew, are generally considered easier to write with the left hand in general.[citation needed]" appears in the article, under the section referencing discrimination. However...this seems more than obvious enough that it doesn't need citation. Before, it explicitly states that smudging can cause difficulty when writing left-to-right languages. This is uncited, and appears more than obvious enough, because it's rather clear that dragging your hand over a letter you just wrote will smudge it in many circumstances. Given that in right to left languages, the left hand will be moving away from the letters just written, it seems pretty obvious that the letters that were just written can't be smudged by the left hand.

Because of this...I think the citation request is a bit unnecessary.

I don't know if there's something else here I'm missing, though (is it perhaps a citation request for both the difficulty in writing left to right and ease in writing right to left?), so I'd like to have someone else concur before I remove the citation request. DuskTheUmbreon (talk) 08:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Integrated into other section

The Titles of "Episodic Memory", "Corpus Callosum" and "Divergent Thinking" should either be integrated into "Correlation with other Factors" or maybe a small section of Neurology Differences, just a suggestion, removed the trivial information on astronauts 161.130.36.121 (talk) 15:27, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Prevalence of mixed-handedness

I'm having difficulty believing that mixed-handedness or cross-dominance is extremely rare and prevalent in less than 1 %. Not only because I know lots of people like this, but also because it seems weird that it's less prevalent than ambidexterity. I have tried to access the source (Annett M 2002), but can't access it fully and cannot find anything about this in the little parts that I can access. It's also difficult to find other research about this, partly because it seems like mixed-handedness and cross-dominance don't always refer to the same thing in some research. Could anyone else support or discard this statement with some recent trustworthy source? Zedetsa (talk) 12:54, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

It's indeed strange, the reference [7] (Papadatou-Pastou et al Human handedness: A meta-analysis) actually has an estimate of mixed-handedness as high as 9,33%. ChainForced (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)

Knots in the brain

Just noting here that I have again reverted and warned YEAR_3000X regarding the addition of poorly sourced claims about "knots in the brain". Guidelines are clear about medical claims. Primary sources are discouraged, particularly if they are not peer reviewed research, and contain claims not generally accepted. If YEAR_3000X continues to add this, without discussion, I shall report them for edit warring. In the meantime, I welcome anything anyone can find regarding these claims from better, secondary, sources. Thanks. Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 08:59, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for addressing this Escape_Orbit, and I agree, YEAR_3000X has been disruptive and reverting questionable content.RomanGrandpa (talk) 22:58, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Undue Weight

I'm starting to feel there might be a little bit of undue weight in the causes section. Should we really be profiling the work of a single (or small group) of researchers like Elkhonon Goldberg and Fred Previc? At least the Ultrasound section has a meta-study to back it and the hormone exposure has a CDC statement to back it up, but there isn't a lot of research outside their own that backs Previc and Goldberg RomanGrandpa (talk) 16:18, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

It might seem I'm biased, as I posted the theory related to Elkhonon Goldberg, but I think posting such theories is the point of Wikipedia. The post didn't claim to be THE cause of handedness, and the section itself even begins with a statement that there are many theories on how handedness develops. Listing such a theory, even if it only has one substantiated research, is still valuable to Wikipedia users, in my opinion, and as a heavy user of Wikipedia for such types of information.

I strongly urge the editors of this page, and RomanGrandpa himself as well as Dudhhr, to consider my point, and to try to see the value of providing some POSSIBLE theories rather than not listing possible ones. If anything, rather than delete the entire theory, make revisions to it that state it lacks research, point out its potential issues, etc.

Deleting information is just that--it eliminates the possibility of knowledge to be shared with others. If that doesn't go against the point of Wikipedia, I seriously question its purpose.

And to make one last point, what if the theory that was deleted is in fact correct? No evidence was presented to oppose it, and deleting it prevents people from being able to consider it and vet it further. The theory, after all, explains much, including increased right-handedness that occurs in captive chimpanzees, why cross-dominance occurs, discordant handedness in identical twins, and more! It also explains language lateralization, another mystery science has yet to explain. Through such posts on Wikipedia, users can learn about such theories--if they're deleted, that opportunities is taken from them. 66.27.116.20 (talk) 19:35, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

Your addition was cited only to Medium, which is not a reliable source, and the blog's author, Thomas J. Schroeder, doesn't appear to be an academic (no results for a "Thomas Schroeder" in google scholar). – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 23:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

If you read the Medium article, it cites three reliable sources. Most notably, the handedness theory itself is directly based on work by Elkhonon Goldberg, a well-published academic that has even written three neuroscience books. Aside from Goldberg's work, the Medium article provides three other research studies that further support the handedness theory. 66.27.116.20 (talk) 01:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)

Some of Goldbergs points were already covered by the language dominance theory, so it was a bit repetitive , but mostly the theory would need to be covered by a credible third partly publication, like what Dudhhr linked to, any academic can come up with a theory and publish a book about it, but it has to have a broader acceptance by the research community.RomanGrandpa (talk) 17:07, 25 September 2023 (UTC)

The two theories share a similar aspect, but the language dominance theory has a related flaw to it that is even described in the article. In comparison, the early learning rate theory has no identified flaws. It also has support from THREE RELIABLE academic sources. Furthermore, it explains much (such as cross-dominance, discordant handedness in identical twins, etc.), which further adds to the theory's merits.

Is Wikipedia a place that supports knowingly flawed theories but blocks non-flawed ones from being shared? I implore you and other editors to strongly consider sharing the deleted theory. Sure, it hasn't been directly published by a third-party, but if you consider its strongly supported merits, it seems irresponsible to me not to share it.

Why not share it and let others vet it? I could understand deleting a poorly-supported theory, but if you actually read and understand the early learning rate theory, it explains many otherwise unexplained occurrences related to handedness (such as gender differences, increased left-handedness in neurologically atypical people, etc.). Seven in total, not including its related explanation of language lateralization.

Do you really think it's warranted to block this theory from being shared? What is the harm in sharing it? More importantly, consider the great harm that's done by blocking the mystery of handedness from finally being potentially solved.

After all, what, if any, flaws exist in the theory, and what does it not explain? If you can identify none, why not allow it to be posted so others might? Lastly, rather than delete it, why not instead add statements to it, perhaps even stating it has yet to be published in a third-party source. 66.27.116.20 (talk) 01:28, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

If you really want the theory do go under handedness causes, you may want to integrate it into the language dominance theory and keep it short, but I'm not the final authority on the subject, honestly, I would like an expert to weigh in on it, but I don't think we will get that here, so I have to follow wikipedia's policy of third party citation, because I can't determine the validity of the theory. RomanGrandpa (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion. In my opinion, though, the theories are too different to be integrated together. Furthermore, both theories have a fair amount of content, so it improves readability of the page to keep the theories separate.

Wikipedia has another policy than the one you state (actually a "pillar"): Wikipedia has no firm rules. Furthermore, Wikipedia states: "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Based on these statements, as well as the EXTENSIVE support the deleted theory has, I strongly suggest we set aside the third-party citation suggestion, and post the theory to allow others to learn of it and even vet it.

In fact, I'm going to take the liberty to post it again. This time, though, I'll add a note to it that states it lacks a third-party citation. Feel free to edit it otherwise, too, of course, but please consider the Wikipedia guidance I provided above, and especially consider all the merit the deleted theory has (i.e., 11 different supporting pieces of evidence). Lastly I'll ask what risk is there in sharing the theory, and is there not great potential harm by disallowing it, as it prevents the possible explanation of handedness from being shared. 66.27.116.20 (talk) 02:19, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

...and post the theory to allow others to learn of it and even vet it. Readers of Wikipedia are not expected to vet theories written in articles. – dudhhr ^talk_contribs^she_her 03:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

I said that it could even be vetted, not that it needs it (or that Wikipedia is a place to do so).

In fact, is the theory not already sufficiently vetted? After all, it already explains seven otherwise unexplained occurrences related to handedness, it has support from 3 reliable sources, and it also explains language lateralization. Is that not an extensive amount of support? What other handedness theory offers so much support?

What, in particular, is your issue with the theory? Does it not improve Wikipedia to share such a well-supported theory (and one that has no identified flaws)? And if so, how does it not improve Wikipedia? And if it does improve it, why are we ignoring the related statement and pillar described above? 66.27.116.20 (talk) 02:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

There's yet to be a reply yet to my post, which got my thinking: Two editors have expressed issue with the post, but there are other editors that haven't been given much of a chance. Might it be in-line with Wikipedia's policy to post the theory to give other editors an ample chance to provide their opinion?

It seems to me, we might be at an impasse otherwise (correct me if I'm wrong, though): two people are against the addition, and one person (myself) is for it. Should we not give others a chance to properly weigh in on the matter? 66.27.116.20 (talk) 16:45, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

There's been no response to my post. I would appreciate continued dialogue. I would repost the theory again, but I wasn't sure where you stood on the matter. Please advise. Thanks! 66.27.116.20 (talk) 01:01, 7 October 2023 (UTC)