<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.2627" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial; BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff"
bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV>
<P><FONT face=Verdana>I'm beginning to see it more as a continuum of cerebral
variation. Chris McManus, in his awards-winning book <I>Right Hand, Left Hand
(2002),</I> explains that although there’s oddly little research done on the
genetics of handedness, and ‘brainedness’, there is good reason to believe there
are genes responsible for hemispheric dominance, lateralization and
organization. According to McManus, there <I>is</I> a left-handed gene and it is
known as the <I>C </I>gene; the right-handed gene<I> </I>is known as the<I>
D</I> gene. Three manifestations of the alleles are possible: <I>CC</I>,
<I>DC</I> and <I>DD</I>. Most <I>CC</I> individuals will be left-handed but also
may be susceptible to such things as dyslexia, stuttering, autism, and
schizophrenia. These individuals make up about 4% of the population. Most
<I>DD</I> individuals will be right-handed and make up 64% of the population.
And finally the <I>DC</I> individuals (32% of the population), will be
right-handed <I>and</I> left-handed. </P>
<P></P>
<P>McManus writes:</P>
<P>"In looking for an advantage for the <I>C</I> gene—and specifically for the
<I>DC</I> genotype—a good starting place is the most striking feature of the
<I>C</I> gene: its ability to confer randomness on the organization of the
brain, not only for manual dexterity and language…but almost certainly for a
host of other cerebral symmetries, such as those for reading, writing,
visual-spatial processing and emotion. Although it might seem paradoxical,
randomness, at least in small amounts, can benefit complex systems."</P>
<P>His <I>theory of random cerebral variation "</I>provides an explanation," he
explains, "for the lay belief that some people literally ‘think differently’ or
have their brain ‘wired differently.’ In a nutshell, McManus characterizes the
<I>DD</I> brain/mind as "the standard textbook description" and having the "cold
certainty of an ice crystal." For McManus, every <I>DD</I> brain is
<I>effectively</I> built the same way and that about 2/3 of the population have
such brains/mind. The <I>DC</I>ers, in contrast, have modules all over the
place, their brains neither lateralized nor compartmentalized the way
<I>DD-</I>brainers’ are. What this randomness means is that there’s a good
chance you get a kind of creativity you might not have gotten otherwise. Here
are a couple of his examples, but there are many:</P>
<P>Say a <I>DC</I> individual has "a module specialised for understanding
emotions located in the left hemisphere rather than the right, so that it now
sits alongside left-hemisphere modules involved in the production of spoken or
written language, that might be beneficial for writing poetry or being an
actor....Or "imagine that a module for understanding three-dimensional space is
in the left hemisphere rather than the right, so that it is now located
alongside modules involved in fast, accurate, precise control of the hand; that
might well benefit drawing or the visual arts, or perhaps ball control in
sport." (p.231)</P>
<P><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3>cheerys,<BR></FONT><FONT
face="Times New Roman" size=3>Alice</FONT></P></FONT></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; FONT: 10pt arial; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=Thrst4knw@aol.com
href="mailto:Thrst4knw@aol.com">Thrst4knw@aol.com</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=paleopsych@paleopsych.org
href="mailto:paleopsych@paleopsych.org">paleopsych@paleopsych.org</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=Euterpel66@aol.com
href="mailto:Euterpel66@aol.com">Euterpel66@aol.com</A> ; <A
title=ToddStark@aol.com href="mailto:ToddStark@aol.com">ToddStark@aol.com</A>
</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Monday, April 25, 2005 9:40
AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> Re: [Paleopsych] Revenge of the
Right Brain</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV>In a message dated 4/24/2005 10:07:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time, <A
href="mailto:ljohnson@solution-consulting.com">ljohnson@solution-consulting.com</A>
writes:</DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid"><FONT
face=Arial>I thoroughly disagree with the premise. First, the idea of
right-brain / left-brain has been thoroughly discounted. Second, the author
is creating a false dichotomy. Most technical people are creative and
artistic. Both my brother (Ph.D., chemical engineering) and my son
(mechanical engineering) play jazz guitar. <BR>Lynn</FONT></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<DIV>First, I agree that overly much had been made of hemisphericity and its
supposed role in cultural as well as individual differences. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Second, I also suspect that pervasive regional and subcultural
differences in thinking patterns are sometimes real and when they *are* real,
are indeed loosely related to different ways of using the same cognitive
talents present in all of us (that is, using the same human brain in different
ways). I don't see these two views as contradictory once we
grasp the differences in logical levels between brain function and
actually using the mind. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>The differences in the way the cerebral hemispheres work probably
does plays a role in pervasive differences in thinking patterns,
although the notion of "drawing on one side of the brain" is surely
simplistic and isn't a very practical or accurate way of thinking about the
implications of this. It implies that using your brain differently
is like flexing your left arm rather than your right arm, which confuses
function with neuroanatomy. The fact that some function of the brain has
some relationship with a particular part of the brain doesn't tell us as much
as one might think because we generally think of it as a mechanical
relationship, whereas brain function is a partly a result of organized massive
intercommunication, not just mechanical relationships between component
parts. Also, the mind in action is structured partly by how it is used
rather than (just) how it is wired. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>As a result, there are a couple of different ideas here that are
usually confused together: (1) differences in cognitive patterns that
vary in different environments (e.g. "cultural" thinking differences), and (2)
cognitive differences related to hemisphericity, the specialization of the
human cerebral cortex. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>In "Geography of Thought," Richard Nisbett does an early but plausible
analysis of the factors that lead to pervasive culture thinking
differences of the sort we used to associate with being "right" vs.
"left" brained. His thesis: the organization of human groups, partly a
result of ecological condtions, helps determine the way human beings form
and process basic concepts and even influences basic perception in some
ways. His thesis is tested in the laboratory and applied to
speculations about geographical and cultural differences. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Does this link back to the hemispheres? Possibly to some
degree. Bob Ornstein, an early adopter of the strong hemisphericity
thesis and later skeptic, finally gives a moderate account in "The Right Mind:
Making Sense of the Hemispheres." Essentially he concludes that while
the earlier interpretations of "creative" or "mystical" right brains and
"logical" left brains were not supported in fact (nor even the idea that the
right side is "mute"), it appears to be true that there is a
profound evolutionary and developmental division where essentially the
brain specializes into providing the context or big picture, and keeping
track of the details. </DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>It isn't hard to see that keeping track of details would play a large
role in Nisbett's Western cultural model of thinking, which emphasizes the
properties of individual objects, and that providing context would play a
large role in processing complex systemic relationships of the sort that
characterize Nisbett's Asian model of thinking.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Perhaps Nisbett's differences couldn't be manifested without
Ornstein's differences, so we could rightly say they are linked in
some way. On the other hand I think it would be wildly inaccurate to say
that they are simply the same thing.</DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV>Ornstein, Robert, (1998). "The Right Mind: Making Sense of the
Hemispheres." Harvest Books.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Nisbett, Richard (2003). "The Geography of Thought: How Asians and
Westerners Think Differently and Why." Free Press.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>kind regards,</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV>Todd</DIV>
<P>
<HR>
<P></P>_______________________________________________<BR>paleopsych mailing
list<BR>paleopsych@paleopsych.org<BR>http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych<BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>