Talk:Left-handedness/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Page reworking

Just a further note to say I still intend to return to this article in the near future and give it a thorough reworking. It's too long, full of unreferenced material of dubious quality and a bit of a mess. Top of the list to get a radical pruning is that 'List of left handed people', which is getting way out of hand (no pun intended). What are people's thoughts? Should this be split off into a separate page or just gotten rid of. Frankly I think it's a ridiculous idea and would dump it. Are we going to have a list consisting of 15% of everyone in Wikipedia? What's next, a list of people with brown hair? --Escape Orbit 20:57, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I have made the first step in improving this page by moving the burgeoning list of left handed people to a page of its own, where it can sink or swim on its own merits. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Escape Orbit, Although I see it coming, please do not make the mistake of assuming that you are the decider here. There are other editors here who have clinical medical background. There are sections in this that reference hard science. This page is not new. I find it disconcerting that you are planning to--unilaterally--rewrite this article that has had a long history and lots of edit history. For example, I do not see any problem with including the list of famous left handers. As to your comment about including 15% of wikipedia--I seriously doubt that anyone is proposing to include non-famous left handers. What is your objection to the presence of the list? Who does it harm? What misinformation is promulgated by having a list of famous left handed persons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 15:42, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed I am not the decider, which is why I flagged up here my concerns and intentions over a month ago for others comments. Whether other editors have a clinical medical background or not is irrelevant. The rules are No original research and uncited material should be challenged and removed. As for the list, it was getting to the stage that it was longer than the rest of the page. When I removed it to a separate page (from whence it came), it was put up for deletion and removed. The problem with not what was intended for it, but what it had become; a cruft-magnet that was over-running the article. I am intending to place back into the article a list of famous left-handed people, but only where it was relevant. Most of those listed before, even at the start, had nothing in common and their left-handedness was utter trivia. And that's before we even considered the inclusions that were either unproven or plain wrong.
The re-write I intend is not going to be a question of deleting everything and writing it myself. That would be pointless vanity and vandalism. It would be more a question of rearranging and rephrasing where necessary and removing the irrelevant waffle and uncited dubious material. I have already started this by pruning out some on the uncited material that made bold claims without evidence. In all my efforts my intention is to improve the article. I am happy for you to evaluate my efforts, comment and contribute --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:45, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
The problem with your plan to re-arrange the article is that it masks what you have changed. All differential comparisons will become nearly impossible because you will have modified the sequence of the items. And we all know how "rearranging and rephrasing" goes. You start off with the words that have been vetted and then you change just a little bit and then a bit more and before you know it you will have achieved your end of getting rid of what you don't like. And also, the implication of "where necessary" is an open ended inviation for you to make value judgements about what is "necessary." I frankly will oppose any wholesale changes to this article that you are attempting to make. I have been watching this piece for about a year and I do not see you as having standing to--unilaterally--decide what is and isn't "necessary". And the point you are missing is--if you decide to change it--then what stops someone else from coming along and reorganizing it according to their own druthers. Instead, sir, I do not think this article is in such dire need of your personal attention. Please be advised that I will be watching you like a hawk and if you try to modify this article in any way I will be there to revert it. I am not saying this with any intention of disrespect. Rather, I am protecting this well-vetted information that does indeed cite sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 12:23, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Einstein

As much as I would like them to be, Einstein and Picasso are not left haneded. They are some of the most wrongly cited lefties. See Chris Mcmanus' book RIght Hand Left Hand. P{icasso made one painting left handed, however he was unfortunately a righty.

Can we get rid of this "left-handedness and sexual offenses" thing please? Or at least reduce it to one or two sentences and group it under "developmental disorders" or something? Why does this need to be there as an entire subsection, taking up nearly 10% of a very general article about left-handedness? This creates the impression that pedophilia is a routine characteristic of left-handed people, and only serves to keep anti left-handed prejudice and superstition alive and well. "Hey look, not only are they all clumsy weirdos, but they're child abusers too." - Chris P.

"It has been said that being left handed has an effect on one's sexual preference. Some statistics say that left handed people have a higher probabillity of being homosexual than right handed people because of their thought process, "visual simultaneous", but has been disregarded as a myth due to lack of scientific evidence" It has been said? Some statistics? There seems to be no evidence to support this "most lefties are gay" 'theory', so why is this even here? I think it needs to be removed, it's just pointless. - M. Roberts

I think homosexuality and left-handedness may be the result of a similiar mechanism, but I doubt they're corelated. --MT —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jestempies (talk • contribs) 15:32, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe that Handedness is often determined by the hand with which a person writes because neurologists believe that writing is one of the most complex hand skills. Therefore, those who write with the left hand are in fact left-handed, even if righ-side dominant, and vice versa. Ploafmaster 23:39, 16 Jul 2005 (EST

Isn't there a complex relationship between left handedness, left footedness etc? Also, lots of historical stuff about repression. Mark Richards 00:11, 6 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Rewrote the sentence "One of the authors of this article can attest to the difficulty of writing legible Chinese characters with her left hand." Wikipedia articles should not refer to their authors. If a reference is necessary, it should be to previously published work. arj 18:21, 31 May 2004 (UTC)

From the article: "Gay people may be up to 39% as likely to be left-handed as straight people (Habib, 2000)." This is difficult to understand. What does this mean, precisely?

Should the 'effects in humans on thinking' section be revised, or even removed if no good revisions are made? The sources quoted seem dubious, vague, or not referring to particular studies. It does point out it is 'just a theory', but looks more like speculation.

The 'effects in humans on thinking' is actually grounded in hard science. Roger Sperry (Nobel Prize winner, 1981) did extensive research in the 1960s and 1970s that developed a lot of these hypotheses. The information was labeled as a 'theory' because nearly all information in science must be considered a theory. This is not meant to imply the colloquial meaning of a theory, which means 'sketchy'. Mr. Sperry's work is cited so I disagree with your desire to remove the section. Just because you are unfamiliar with the science does not make it speculative. Curmudgeon99

Roman Stigma

I think I've figured out why it is that the Romans disliked left-handed people. On a recent trip to Turkey, I visited the ruins of the City of Ephesus. They used group toilets there, which were more like long benches with holes in them placed every few feet away from one another. Well, I asked the tour guide if there was such a thing as Roman toilet paper. He said that there wasn't such a thing, that they used their hands instead, and specifically, their left hand. I think this might be because they used their right hands to do stuff and didn't want to get any shit on the things they were handling. Well, a leftie would be more likely to use their right hand to wipe their ass, for the same reason right-handed people would use their left hand. The Romans tended to salute each other with their right hand, and perceived a left-handed salute as an insult, probably because that would mean holding the hand you've just wiped your ass with out to somebody would be nasty. Lefties deferring to this custom of a right-handed salute, not wanting to insult their host, would be pointing a hand that had recently been in contact with their ass. Also, any handshake (I neglected to ask if the Romans actually shook hands, but I imagine they may have) where the opposite person would extend their right hand would involve a transfer of Roman shit from one hand to another, truly a disturbing prospect. After this happened a few times, I imagine people would start to get put off. The moral of this story? The Chinese were more advanced than the Romans. They used toilet paper, and didn't care if anyone was left handed or not. Wandering Star 23:37, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That was the most useless post. Read the article...it talks about common practice in the Middle East of washing their backside with their left hands. 12.152.207.5 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Technical advantages

I don't think the phrasing "One, and perhaps the only, universally common technological implement actually favoring left-handers is the QWERTY keyboard layout." is correct. It might be true for english keyboards, but as can be seen on the QWERTY article, many other languages have additional characters in their alphabets (such as my native Swedish language) and have those additional characters placed on the right side of the keyboard, thereby having at least the same number of alphabetical characters on both sides of the keyboards - if not more on the right side. Since these keyboard layouts are still QWERTY, the quoted statement is incorrect as it is not universally applicable. Also, "perhaps the only" seems like non-encyclopedic speculation. I rewrote the sentence to "One common technological implementation actually favoring left-handers if the (English-language) QWERTY keyboard layout." 212.181.133.116 06:09, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Division of Labor, among other things

The article failed to mention that the left side of the brain controls the right side of the body, a key premise towards understanding this theory. I've inserted a bit to clarify.

Overall, the writing in this article is sloppy at best and confusing at worst. Here's a list of things I feel need to be changed:

1. "Many members of the British royal family are left-handed. Genetics is usually used to explain this." That line either needs to be elaborated upon or removed, because it comes out of nowhere and goes nowhere.

2. There are too many objective observations: "Left-handed people cringe at this theory..."; "...because of pseudo-religious bigotry..."; "Thus, it is clear that genetics is not the only cause"; "Anyone with a smattering of European languages can testify this bias"; "As visual thinking is much promoted nowadays, left-handers cannot help but begin to gain more and more respect"; the aforementioned (and removed) "One of the authors of this article can attest..." I understand that you're left-handed, author, but original research shouldn't be used, no matter how sure you are of its truth.

I agree, even though I think the term bigority is accurate, such terms are far too subjective. This is surposed to be an encyclopedia. - Doug1984 @ 12:12 19/Feb/2006

3. The writing is awkward and unclear in the "Causes" section, particularly during the description of the warrior theory. --Funkmistress 04:33, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Life expectancy

Hi. Is it true that some studies show that left-handed people are more likely to commit suicide? I've heard that SO many times but I can't find anything about it in the article.

I can't remember where I saw the stat., maybe someone could corroborate, but I read once that left-handed people have a shorter life expectancy (not by much, 1-2 yrs. maybe) due primarily to auto accidents in countries where cars drive on the right. Left handed people instinctively jerk the steering wheel to the left (and presumably into oncoming traffic) when startled.

I'd assume that it's true. I had heard it a few times before and eventually saw it on one of those TV shows that does research to debunk myths. Not only are we (I'm left-handed) more likely to have car accidents, and because of those have a better chance at dying, but we're more likely to have accidents involving power tools since almost all that require two hands (saws for example) are set up for right-handed people. This causes a left handed person to either try to reverse hands in a very awkward manner, or hold it properly, although without the precision of a right-handed person, since they're holding it the reverse of what feels natural. This of course, causes very bad accidents, and is another cause of early death for left-handers. If I remember, or if someone else wants to do it, I'll try to verify this and add some more information about it later. -GamblinMonkey 15:33, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The research is probably that of Stanley Coren. A fairly well summarised and researched article by Cecil Adams (Straight Dope) that should make a good research start point is at http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a5_092.html, should GamblinMonkey or anyone else want to look into it further - Kvetch 15:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

== Sun Worship causes Social Stigma for Lefties? ==george


This contribution to the main article makes little sense (my additions are in parentheses):

"It is possible that sun worship relates to the association of the left with evil. People in the northern hemisphere, looking south, would see the sun rise on their left, move rightwards across the sky, and set on their right. In the southern hemisphere the opposite happens (when one faces north). Among cultures from the southern hemisphere, right-handedness is still dominant. No study on left-side connotations from those cultures has been done.

However, since most sun-worshipping cultures see the setting sun as it dying or vanishing, the right side would indicate the negative associations associated with a setting sun. This is the opposite trend from that (provided that one is not facing north in either hemisphere)."

No offence is intended, but it doesn't seem to provide any evidence either way. Am I missing something?

Cheers, Donovan. 13:27, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It strikes me as a load of hooey ... why does this only kick when they're when facing south? Facing north (due to the fixed nature of the north star) tends to be more prominent in cultural activities. - DavidWBrooks 13:34, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've edited it to reflect what we know. Cheers, Donovan. 02:45, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Material removed from the intro

I have removed the following material from the intro, where it certainly doesn't belong. If someone can find a good place for it in the article, please go ahead and insert it there!

The term southpaw is often used to describe left-hand people, because in baseball, the first base side of the baseball diamond (towards the pitcher's left side) was often towards the south. Those pitchers who were lefthanded, were thus called "southpaws".

--Niels Ø 13:46, May 21, 2005 (UTC)


Is left-handedness genetic?

Handedness runs in families, although even when both parents are left-handed, there is only a 26% chance of their child being left-handed. Thus, it is clear that genetics is not the only cause. Handedness must also be influenced by some of the other theories presented here.

Apparently, the Clan Kerr of Scotland built their castles with counter-clockwise staircases, so that a left-handed swordsman would be better able to defend it. However, a 1993 study found no statistically significant increase in left-handedness among people with the family name Kerr or Carr.


Many members of the British royal family are left-handed. Genetics is usually used to explain this.

> Anybody got a link to information regarding the 1993 study, I'm a Carr, and I'm left handed, so I'd like to read about it!


> In my family, I'm the only one who is nature born left-handed. My dad, mum, and my little bro all are right handed. So, I really wonder what is the reason for its... Or anyone have any theories on my situation ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.71.153.4 (talk) 10:18, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Intelligence

I have rolled-back an entry claiming that people think left-handed individuals are smarter, but that this isn't true. This is certainly a very interesting information, but I removed it because it was unsupported, either in the "widespread belief" that lefties are smarter, or in results of tests indicating that they aren't. It read very much like I-heard-this-once kind of information. A more strongly supported entry would be worthwhile. - DavidWBrooks 17:16, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

If you had even bothered to read my entry, you would have seen that I was counter-claiming the notion that left-handed people are more intelligent that right-handed people - not promoting it. Studies have shown that intelligence quotients are distributed normally, which results in a "bell curve" graph of IQ score frequency. However, in left-handed test subjects, the curve tends to be progressive, with low scores at one end, and high scores at the other.

Additionally, there is a common belief that left-handed people are more intelligent or creative than right-handed people. This very entry about left-handedness links through to a WikiPedia entry about famous left-handed people - many of whom are creative types, like artists or musicians. Personally speaking, any time I mention to people that I'm left-handed, it's usually followed up by a response querying if I'm creative or intelligent.

You didn't even bother stating in the edits why you had reverted them, nor make any effort to disprove the information. I'll keep adding it back in, until you can disprove otherwise. Copydeskcat 22:03, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

No, no, no - it's not up to somebody to disprove an entry in order to remove it, it's necessary to support why it's there in the first place. If I threw in a sentence saying "Folk mythology says left-handed people can't whistle" I wouldn't insist that it stayed until somebody found a study saying southpaws CAN whistle. I would have to give a reason why the statement should be there at all.
What does this term southpaws mean? -Doug 11:24, 5 Feb 2006 (GMT)
Is there any non-anecdotal connection between left-handedness and intelligence measurements? You mention "studies"? Which ones? Where? Are they linkable? I'm not saying such studies don't exist, just that the entry as worded reads like the sort of bald, half-thought-out assertions that are found all over the Net, not like something that belongs in an encyclopedia. As I said above, I "removed it because it was unsupported." - DavidWBrooks 01:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


If that's the case, then most of this article should be removed. For example, under "Causes of left-handedness", it states:

"No one knows for certain why the human population is right-handed-dominant, but a number of theories have been proposed."

So that bit should be removed. There is nothing to back up the statement other than a bunch of "theories", only one of which actually has a supporting link. The rest are superfluous, supported only by statements like:

"Apparently, the Clan Kerr of Scotland built their castles with counter-clockwise staircases, so that a left-handed swordsman would be better able to defend it. However, a 1993 study found no statistically significant increase in left-handedness among people with the family name Kerr or Carr."

What study is this? Where is the link?

If you're going to insist on links for my point, you should insist on them for every point on the page. The whole point of Wikipedia is to expand knowledge and then challenge it, not remove inserted information and require it to be fully supported. The community should decide if something is valid or relevant, not the individual.

Copydeskcat 11:06, 25 August 2005 BST.

well, the "community" is individuals ... as you know from working with wikipedia, generally there are only a few people who fixate on a partciular article (looks like it's just you and me here at the moment - a community of two)
You make good points about this article, which does have a lot of unsupported statements. That doesn't mean MORE unsupported statements are good, of course. "Things have gotten shoddy, so let's keep it up!"
I assume from your response that you don't know of any studies that support your contention - that the material you added is something you heard from somebody and are convinced is true? Do you really think that's encyclopedia-worthy? - DavidWBrooks 13:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I can see you point. I'll fish around and dig out the studies I've mentioned - their mostly academic journals, so there might not be any online. The BBC recently did a massive national IQ test which delivered results revealing that left-handed people on average scored 109, slightly higher than the right-handers at 108:

the nation

I may have sounded a bit snippy earlier this debate; if so, I apologize. That's a bad habit I fall into on Wikipedia.
Just curious: are you a copy editor? (I'm a newspaper reporter and ex-copy desk guy) Why not create an account so responses can be sent to you directly? No personal information of any kind needs to be included. - DavidWBrooks 14:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
don't worry about it. I know how you feel. I've added an email to my account now, my username is copydeskcat.

Please, this intelligence-handedness stuff is urban legend. please dont perpetuate - no sound research demonstrates a difference. Even with a huge sample size, the difference between 109 and 108 on IQ is not statistically significant. Plus, we have no way of accurately operationalizing creativity (not to mention IQ represents only a specific type of intelligence). let us keep wikipedia free from pseudoscience. thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.111.79 (talk • contribs)


IQ/108 is not statistically significantly lower than IQ/109, especially ans the ways of gathering and reporting statistics aren't mentioned. What does concern me is how apparently bogus the numbers themselves are.
The average IQ is 100. If righties are 108, and lefties are 109, ambidextrous people, who make up maybe 1% of the population would have to have an average IQ of around 1 to balance this out. 1, for general information barely qualifies as comatose. samwaltz 08:20, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by this -- the average of 108 and 109 is 108.5, not 1. 1 is the difference between the two figures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.65.212.217 (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

If 1% of the population is ambidextrous,89% are right and 10% are left shall we say. Sam Waltz's conclusion that ambidextrous people have an average I.Q. of 1 is wrong but poignant and the reason is as follows if 99% of the population was indeed averaging 108.5% then there would have to be some cluster of the pool in the far left regions. If this were true the bell curve would not be a "bell" curve.On as side note it is funny how "mater of factly" you say this is us, and that is them; but my experience with being left-handed is that i can't communicate with anybody unless i convert all of my "whole" thoughts into "sequential" thoughts. I have found that i speak two languages one for me and one for everyone else and it is not "us and them" but "we". Please remember that language is a two stage process,this is what i find intresting about left handed intelligence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.186.136.146 (talk) 15:15, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

This is the first time that I've ever typed anything on Wikipedia, but I had to mention something that has always had me thinking about intelligence testing. Wouldn't it be safe to say that the most tests are compiled and administered by right handed people? I guess my point is that in small children, there may be different rates of learning for different areas and they may perceive things differently as well. Just thinking. OH! and I'm left-handed. Melanie —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.29.169.244 (talk) 13:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Left-handedness runs rampantly in my family! There is usually at LEAST one child per grouping. It comes from either the Native American side (Cherokee I believe?) or the Cox family from England. While neither of my children are purely left-handed and do write with their right hands, they both do other things left-handed. For instance, my oldest daughter (9) bats left-handed and she can hit a ball awesomely! My youngest's left side is dominant in everything except writing. She does cartwheels, roundoff's, splits, formal dance moves, etc. using the left sided of her body. My guess is that (me included) might have had them using their right hand from early on for writing. Melanie May 16, 2008

Lefties and alcohol

It was my understanding that left-handed people are more prone to alcoholism than our right-handed counterparts. Before I continue, I should mention that I am a left-handed alcoholic, clustered into an extreme end of the IQ spectrum. I'll do some research on the subject, for the possibility of inclusion in this article. Tomorrow, that is, when I am sober :) Autopilots 03:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources

I have used put the ""Unreferenced"" tag becuase it the article says such things as: "In a study..." or "In 1995, a study...." And there are no sources for it. — Kilo-Lima 15:48, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that a good source for the taboo against using left hand are the lonely planet guides of India and Indonesia. I do not have them at home at the moment. Andries 13:21, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Can we please remove the Dutch study about breast cancer and left-handedness?

This was a flawed statistical analysis and pointed out so in newspapers, though I forgot exactly where. Thanks. Andries 13:29, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Merger of Southpaw to Left-Handed

I propose this merge because the issue has been brought up through minor edit conflicts on the Left-handed article. The term Southpaw (in my opinion) is used often enough to refer to a left-handed person, although it has its origins in baseball (and possible boxing). A new section in the Left-handed article can be created for the term "Southpaw". Kareeser|Talk! 03:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


Question: is Southpaw an offensive term for leftie? I live out of the USA and have no clue. Doug1984 @ 23:47 14/2/2006
Doug, as far as I know, the term Southpaw isn't necessarily an offensive term. I myself am not left-handed, nor have I used the term in everyday conversation, but I personally do not consider it an offensive term. On the other hand, if it is, then of course the two article won't be merged... Kareeser|Talk! 16:18, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
I am a leftie, but I've never used the word either. I have heard it though, and I'm sure that it is not offensive. I suggest that this page should be merged here, but the Left-Handed, Right handed, andf handedness pages should remain separate because there is too much information on each one of them. --Jared [T]/[+] 02:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Jared, for your comment. This certainly isn't a concensus, but I do believe there is enough proof here that I can merge the pages. I'll give five days before I merge them, unless somebody would like to do so before me? Kareeser|Talk! 02:19, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
You know, I don't think you need to wait that long; I mean, what argument would someone have against this. Its your decision, though. Glad I could be of help! --Jared [T]/[+] 02:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
I am left-handed, and when I was young, my parents would sometimes get me left-hand-related items (books and calendars, for instance). Those sources always used the term southpaw in a neutral light, intrinsically neither bad nor good. I have also on a couple occasions had a fellow left-hander call me a southpaw. So, to my knowledge, the term isn't considered offensive. If a merger is done, though, I wouldn't see much point in changing the name of this page to "southpaw," as it seems to be a pretty obscure term. -E Maxfield Moen
FYI, most (every?) console game with a left-handed controller setting refer to it as southpaw.
I've followed this page for a little while. The merge is a good idea. -- Superdosh 17:14, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
I apologize for the lack of action recently. I've been bogged down with work, but if somebody else would like to perform the merge, I'd be happy. I'll get around to it eventually, however. Kareeser|Talk! 05:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
I've done it, and left it in a category in which future names can be added. Thanks to all who agreed. --Jared [T]/[+] 20:13, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, JP, I owe you one. Kareeser|Talk! 21:55, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous question

this seemed like the best place to ask this question:

does anyone know if there is a userbox for left handers?

just wondering.

i'm new here, so i need a lot of help with stuff.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lbr123 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, Lbr123! Welcome to Wikipedia. I don't know the coding for a "Left-handed" userbox off the top of my head, but I do know of a centralised repository of userboxes that you may be interested in. Just click the link to visit it. Kareeser|Talk! 04:55, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Lbr123, I am a fellow lefty and the UBX you can add to your page is: {{User left-handed}}. This will also add you to a category which displays other Lefty users; just another neat Wikipedia trick. Good luck on your future edits. --Jared [T]/[+] 20:16, 11 March 2006 (UTC)


Contradiction about handedness in primates

The last sentence of the article is "Most primates also exhibit a preference for using one hand over the other although their populations are not right-hand preferential." But earlier in the text, "Lastly, since other primates do not have a spoken language (at least of the type we have) there would be no stimulus for right-handed preference among them, and that is true." Isn't that a contradiction, or did I misunderstand something ? Unmitigated Success 15:38, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I think it is saying individual primates use one hand over the other but in the popupulation as a whole their is not a tendency towards righthandedness over left handedness.--E-Bod 21:40, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

"Disappearing" Left-Handers

Is it possible that the reason there seems to be fewer older people with left-handedness is due to the lack of acceptance of left-handedness at the time, and that left-handedness is essentially acceptable today, thus more people are open and admitting of the fact that they are left-handed, while older generations of left-handers have learned to live with being right-handed or are still too ashamed to admit it? Just a theory, but it seems to make sense; can anyone find any info that supports this?


  • The article already says "some researchers now attribute the different percentages among different age groups to the fact that older people would be more likely to have experienced pressure to switch hands, a factor not affecting the younger generations." I don't think people "hid" the fact that they were left-handed, rather they were forced to use their right hand. Unmitigated Success 07:31, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a 62 y.o. left-handed man. Writing is one of the few activities I favor the right hand (I use the left hand to write mirror-image words). I don't remember having been forced to write with the right hand though and I always attributed my right-hand writing to the fact that in my time and my native country (Viet Nam), students shared long desks and benches instead of having individual desk-chair sets. It's very awkward to try to write with the left hand because one keeps bumping elbows with the guy on the left side. I am never ashamed of being left-handed and like the fact that my ability to perform many activities in ambidextrous fashion is an advantage. (mirrordor 3/30/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs) 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Satanism

Could someone with more knowledge on the subject, add a section about the left and right hand paths, left hand path in satanism, Baphomet the sabbatical goat and the symbology of the left hand? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Girls gone docile (talk • contribs)


That's baseless crap without merit. 

 - not if you've read Anton Lavey's books.. which i believe the person above is talking about. And i too would enjoy to see some added knowledge about the history and associations that left handedness is attributed to.

You asked someone '...with more knowledge...' to write about your Satanism, and left-handed goats or whatever, and they did (quote- 'That's baseless crap without merit.' -unquote). Why do you then come back and disagree with them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.153.114 (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Strong statement about computer mice

Computer mice are very frequently shaped to fit the right hand, and it is nearly impossible to find ones that are left handed.

Unless the author is talking about left-hand-only mice and not mice that fits both hands, I don't agree with the statement.

From Logitec, Microsoft, Labtec and Razer I found 21 right-hand models and 54 symmetrical models. (numbers found here : prisguide.hw.no)

  • I think the author pointed that out in reference to those 21 right-handed mice you found, and not counting the symmetrical one. I mean, you found 21 righty mice as opposed to how many lefty mice? Nick15 00:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the sentence should be changed. At the moment it gives the impression that someone buying a mouse to use with their left hand would have difficulties. The meaning also changes depending on how 'shaped to fit the right hand' is interpreted - one would be 'shaped exclusively to fit the right hand', the other would be 'shaped to fit both hands (including the right). The former intepretation seems more immediate, but is also incorrect (28% in this connection is more a 'sometimes' than 'very frequent'). ..Oh screw this, I'll change it myself.
  • Left handed people actually use a mouse with their left hand? As a lefty myself, I use my right hand, I know many other lefties who also use their right hand. I assumed this was [almost] universal.
  • I'm a lefty and use a right-handed mouse, just because many of them are shaped to fit the right hand. When you're at a computer terminal, you don't have a choice of mice--every office I've worked in has given me a mouse shaped for the right hand as well. The new statement tells the truth: "Many mice are made to fit the right hand only." but not the whole truth. Symmetrical mice are less comfortable than ones that conform to the contours of the hand in many cases, and it's hard to find mice made specifically for lefties.Josh 12:34, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • I'm a lefty as well, favoring that side for almost everything, and a mouse is one of the few things I use right handed. It's just easier to go with the flow here - particularly when almost all group computer installations are configured for right-handed use. It's how I learn't to use a computer - and it feels natural to me. I can't use one of the things left-handed. Jb17kx 11:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm a lefty and this was a huge problem for me - I can't use a mouse with the right hand - until I got a touchpad and a laptop. 98.246.160.133 (talk) 05:39, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Lefty cartoonist phenomenon?

Does anyone have any information or whatnot about left-handed cartoonists? How can I put this.... uhm, well, we know Matt Groening (of Simpson's fame) is a lefty, and in the show, a lot of characters are seen using their left hand. I myself am a lefty cartoonist and find myself unconsciously having my characters do everything with their left hands. So.... is this phoenemenon something of note? Or is it just a coincidence? Nick15 00:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

When you say "left hands" do you mean the character's actual left hand, or characters' hand on the viewers left. I would think that the latter would be true, because the hands we most see are our own. Could you please clarify? 71.116.67.175 00:11, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I found that a sketch possibly done by a lefty was left-handed, and that there is a higher incidence of left handedness in anime, so the theory seems valid. However, a lot of animated characters I see just use the hand closest to the object their picking up. 209.68.148.253 17:43, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Brain hemisphere division of labour

There is written in the article:

The premise of this theory is that since both speaking and handiwork require fine motor skills, having one hemisphere of the brain do both would be more efficient than having it divided up. And since in most people, the left side of the brain controls speaking, right-handedness would prevail.

However, I think that left hand is controlled by right hemisphere, while right hand is controlled by left hemisphere. Jan.Kamenicek 22:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My experiences support not only the brain theory, but also the testosterone theory. Most lefties I know are either good at visual-spatial intelligence or logical-mathematical intelligence

Is there anything to the theory that mismatched eye to hand dominance impairs spatial-reasoning? I psycologist I know seems to think so, and the theory would explain why both me and a left hander I know have relatively low spatial intelligence. But in my case that's probably genetic. (209.68.148.253 16:25, 15 November 2006 (UTC))

Theories explaining handedness

Have removed section on theories explaining left-handedness as this section was simply a duplicate of the section on the overall handedness page. Instead on both this page and the right-handed there is a link to the main article. The information is still available via the link to the handedness page, it's not vandalism. Mglovesfun 16:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


To clarify, rather than have the same information on three different page, I've noted handedness as the main article on theories of why handedness occurs. I was trying to find info for the right-handed page and the left-handed and handedness page contained loads of stuff, in fact most of the stuff on the left-handed page explained right-handedness, such as the warrior and shield theory. It same a bit cheap to just copy the stuff from one page to another, so it's now only on one page with an explicit link from these two articles. Mglovesfun 19:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Left-handed in sports question

There is something I don't understand about handedness.

I'm totally right-handed, I can't even throw a ball correctly with my left hand. Same thing goes with my right leg. I do weight lifting and clearly see that both right arm/shoulder and right leg are always a tad stronger, despite unilateral training with same weights and reps.

Nonetheless, my position in baseball, hockey or golf is considered that of a "left-handed". I just don't get it? Is there something else to handedness than the arm and the leg, like an hips rotation preference? I heard that we have a dominant eye and ear too.

I'm the same as you, and it's not an uncommon trait. Your suggestion of the dominant eye sounds plausible; I think it has a lot to do with the side you prefer to stand, but also, I think some people prefer to have their dominant hand toward the base (extremity of the handle) of the club/bat/stick/raquet, which should actually encourage more correct technique in most cases. Thedangerouskitchen 05:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Handedness in school

This part of the entry should be changed or at least backed up with a citation:

This is because, when properly done, left handed writing is a mirror image to that of the right hander, making the learning process confusing for the left-handed student. The result is that the majority of left handed people write with their hand curled around the pen so that it can meet the paper at the same angle as the right hander, rather than simply tilt the paper the opposite way. Once this habit is formed, it is difficult to break. It is also a commonly held belief that the left hander curls his/her hand during writing to prevent dragging it through the still-wet ink. This is not true. The curled hand actually places the heel of the palm behind the writing, forcing the writer to lift it off the paper and making the grip even more awkward. When the left hand is held correctly, it is below the writing, just as with the right hander.


I know of many lefty's who write with the curled hand, who do this so as to not get ink or pencil on their hand. When you do it right, you don't either, unlike this part suggests. The author even contradicts themselves in the same paragraph.

yes. As a lefty the advandtadge I find in the curled-hand writing is that my hand drag through already dryed ink, for my hand is approximately 8 lines over the line I am writing. Moreover, I am interested in knowing the "proper way" to write with the left-hand and I find the author's description unclear, since English is a foreign language to many readers I think, images could help.

I'm a lefty too and don't write like this, when I was in grade school though I wrote with the curled hand until I started using pens instead of pencils.

As a random point of interest, I'm a lefty. I never ever had problems writing in school until cursive because we were taught to write in cursive with the paper tilted. All the rightiest had to tilt their papers in one direction to write cursive, but since I was a lefty, I had to tilt my the opposite way. I HATED it. Now my little cousin, who is left handed, is having the same problem. The teacher keeps trying to get her to tilt her paper the opposite way from everyone else and she wont do it. Is there any evidence out there that many lefties have this issue when learning cursive?

This whole section is nonsense. I am a lefty, and I write with my hand above the page precisely so that I do not dirty my hand and sleeve. I keep my elbow out to the side so that my arm is almost parallel to the page. That way the heel of my hand rests comfortably, with only a very slight bend to the wrist. The pen is angled almost directly away from me (perhaps 10-15 degrees left of centre), gripped evenly between the tips of the first two fingers and thumb. It works as well for cursive as for printing, and after a three-hour exam my hand is no more cramped than average, so I defy anyone to call my technique "improper". Rickwodz 06:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm a lefty and as long as I have been writing i just ignored the ink on my hand and hoped that the teacher could read the smudge. I also write in scribble/cursive and I found I write neater when my hand drags through the writing.

Sorry goys but that stuff about Darren Gough and Sachin Tendulkar writing with their left hands is bollocks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.16.60.151 (talk) 19:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Is 50 Cent left-handed?

There are alot of people on the list of famous left-handed people that aren't left-handed and I think 50 Cent is one of them. VitamEn-J 04:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

He is left-handed. Flesh-n-Bone 21:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)


demographics

The article states that 10-15% of people are left handed. Is this a worldwide phonomenon? Are there studies done in a variety of countries? Many Russian hockey players, for example, shoot left (though I'm not sure that means they are left-handed). It would be interesting to see whether this is because of handedness, style of play, etc. Roger 00:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Breakdown of the "Contents" or the logical flow needs help

I noticed that most of what is under the section, Social stigma and repression of left-handedness, doesn't have anything to do with this topic, and belongs someplace else; anyone up to the task of cleaning up and re-arranging things? Leon7 12:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The word 'prav' in slav languages

The page states: 

  the root prav is used in words carrying meanings of correctness or justice

although prav has meaning of corectness and justice, in literal translation it means streight, and I can't see any connection between prav and left-handedness, this applies to Serbian and Croation I don't know about other slav languages

Not an expert myself, but I do know that in Russian, "na pravo" means "to the right", as in na pravo you can see the cathedral, and of course "pravda" means truth, so that's kind of reminiscent of the two meanings of 'right' in English. Gzuckier 16:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oppressed?

This article seems to create the impression that left-handed people are oppressed and looked down on, even in modern times. That's a bit of a strange assertion (or at least it is to me), so perhaps the tone of the article should be changed in some places. YankeeDoodle14 18:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Granted, the tone of the article does not conform to NPOV but, given the amount of discrimination against south-paws in this right-handed culture, oppressed might be just the right word for it. Consider scissors, doors and the written orientation of most languages just for starters. --Larry In Cincinnati 19:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
Im left handed and a lot of people think its cool that I am. I'm in no such way oppressed. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.24.106.106 (talk) 00:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

The only oppression I recieved for being a lefty is having an IV drip in my left arm and trying to eat. It is difficult to see that as oppression though.

Causes

I fail to see how birth stress could have anything to do with handedness. According to this [1], back in 2004, Peter Hepper and researchers from Queen's University showed that handedness preferences begin in the womb. The National Geographic film "In the Womb" also mentions this correlation. Anyone object to me removing the current statement and replacing it with the findings of this study? --W0lfie 22:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Presumably, if child has suffered slight brain dammage in the part of the brain controling the right side of body, it would be easier for him/her to use left hand ---- Xil/talk 12:57, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Writing with the left hand

It is not mentioned that when using a pen in the left hand, the barrel will tend to unscrew as the pressure exerted by the thumb and forefinger rotate the barrel in the opposite direction to that of a right-hander.

Jack the Ripper

What convincing evidence is there that Jack the Ripper was left handed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Horacelamb (talk • contribs) 09:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC).


Exaggerated effect?

I am left handed, and have never met anyone make anywhere near the fuss over the fact as has been made on this page. I have never found myself forced to contort myself to write on a page; my problems with scissors are minimal and if the worst truly comes to the worst (which frankly can't be that bad considering how important cutting some paper can really get) I can find a blessed right hander to do the work for me.

It seems that the people who reel off objects that are apparently practically unusable due to them being a member of a pretty significant minority (including cars, doors, and coffee mugs) are just looking for something to make them feel unique.

This page needs to considerably reduce the amount of POV in implying that left handers are akin to subhumans, and present the topic as an interesting scientific phenomenon and a very minor factor in everyday life. Mr Poo 23:51, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

well most left-handers do just cope(I have never seen someone use a left-handed mouse), and I believe objects that are symmetrical, are marked as left handed as a joke, like a left handed pencil. Rds865 (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Article's Bias

This article has a strong bias towards lefthanded people and relies on many studies that have little to no scientific credibility. E.G. The ultra sound study should be removed. Left handed-ness and intelligence/creativity... that should be removed; without a strong positive correlation that simply reflects anecdotal evidence. Overall this article is really bad because it was written by people that are trying to claim that being lefthanded is better than being right handed; when in reality there are no credible studies showing that.

Thank you for saying this so I didn't have to write it!

I don't know about bias, but this page certainly has a great deal of totally unreferenced entries making confident statements about left-handed research. Someone needs to tidy the lot of them. I'm minded to return in a month or so and remove all the statements that have aren't cited or appear to be original research. If anyone has a problem with this, please get those cites in! --Escape Orbit 20:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

New research: cause

According to [2], Juha Laurén discovered the gene modification what causes left-handedness. According to him, a certain form of the LRRTM1 -gene makes a person left-handed. The left-handness gene is active in brains already in fetus, and apparently guides left and right parts of the brain develop differently. His thesis will be checked on 13th in Helsinki University. Can you find any sources in English? The thesis is available here, and as full pdf here. --Pudeo (Talk) 11:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Zurdo

In mexican slang a left-handed person is called a "Zurdo", left hand being called "La zurda" or "La mano zurda". This is not a derogatory term , it is merely a statement of fact. A left handed person will have no problem describing himself as a "Zurdo". It would be interesting if someone came up with an etimology, i haven't been able to find one. Amendezg 16:09, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • From spanish Wikipedia: El origen etimológico de la palabra zurdo, no está claro. Se trata quizá de una voz prerromana pirenaica, afín a las palabras vascas zurrun («inflexible, pesado») y zur («avaro, agarrado»). La -rr- cambia normalmente a -rd- en palabras «de procedencia aborigen» .Ejemplo:bizardun- bizarro. Numerosas lenguas románicas vecinas, como el gallego, el bearnés y el portugués, poseen términos emparentados con zurdo. En todos los casos suelen partir de la idea de «grosero», «torpe». Esquerrà, en aragonés y catalán, está originada de la euskera ezkerra. 82.198.37.12 (talk) 22:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fencing

The concept of left handed fencers having an advantage due to being more used to facing right handed opponents (as described on the page) is not the whole story. Left handed fencers undeniably do very well (just look at the proportion of left to right in the finals of all top level competitions), but at the elite level it is correspondingly not uncommon for right handers to encounter left handers. The advantage seems to come about during the early learning stages. When novice fencers begin competing the left handers tend to do better (due to the reason described on the page). Such early success is encouraging so left handers are less likely to give up fencing. Similarly, fencing coaches, recognising the disproportionate success of left handers, always give novice left handers much more attention and better lessons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.155.254.242 (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


Molly Duker

I'd like to know the etymology of the term "molly duker" as a title for left handers. This term is used in Australia, though not often, and could possibly be of English origin. I'm reluctant to add it to the page as it is because I don't have any information on it, other than the word itself - is this term used in any other countries or places? Neenish Tart 08:41, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

New Handedness in Sports page?

I'm concerned about the condition of the Popular Culture section. It's very sports-centric, and is unevenly presented even within that sub-topic (eg the long list of left-handed cricketers). There are also very few references or source citations. I am tempted to transfer most of the sports content to a new page and work on refining it there. Any problems with that?? JXM 16:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Snowboarding / Surfing

A mention of the "goofy" stance in the above sports may be worth having in the article. For "regular footed" riders, the front is the left hand and foot. For "goofy footed" riders, the front is the right hand and foot. Pejorative but affectionate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.151.100.224 (talk) 06:54, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Writing in right-to-left languages

The following paragraph is *really* incomplete..........

"However, left-handed people who speak Arabic, Persian, Urdu and Hebrew or any other right to left language, do not have the same difficulties with writing. The right to left nature of these languages prevents left-handers from running their hand on the ink as happens with left to right languages."

It begs for an explanation of why right-handed people don't have the same problems with these languages that left-handers apparently have with English. Do we have anybody who can address this topic with some semblance of authority? JXM 21:04, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Right-to-left language is written from the right side of the paper so the left hand is never on the written part. Chinese language is also written in columns, instead of lines, so by the time the hand of a rightie goes up to the next column, the ink is no longer wet. Finally, the Chinese and Japanese write with their hand completely off the paper, i.e. only the brush touches it. (mirrordor 3/30/08) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mirrordor (talk • contribs) 04:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

- Wouldn't it be more correct to say "WRITING SYSTEMS" instead of "LANGUAGES"? LBA, 8 of July, 2008

Language section relevance

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etymological_fallacy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.125.51 (talk) 21:03, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

About Charlie Grimm

I had noted that Grimm was known as "baseball's only left-handed banjo player" and that it is difficult to play a string instrument--banjo, guitar, violin, etc.--left-handed. The "citation needed" notation was appended to this comment; I obliged and quoted The Left-Handed Book written and illustrated by James P. DeKay about 1969--and my citation was omitted. Why? Dougie monty (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Video Games

Beneath the heading Left handed musicians there is a short paragraph pertaining to the Guitar Hero series, and following that there is also a video game paragraph entirely dedicated to the Legend of Zelda series. I am entirely a novice at any type of Wiki articles; however, as a constant Wikipedia user and fan, I feel it is necessary to put my two cents in, as it were. The aforementioned video game paragraphs seem to me unnecessary and out of place, especially in the Left handed musicians area of the article. That is to say, I can't imagine that they belong in the article at all. I hope I do not come off as negative or improper. I merely wish to help improve the article. As a novice, I do not intend to edit the article at any time in the near future, and I will leave that to someone who is more experienced and familiar with the subject and encyclopedia. Feedback would be much appreciated. --DeftHand (talk) 18:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. Neither games have anything to do with musicians and were pretty trivial and uncited anyway. So I removed the paragraphs. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:19, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know anything about left handedness in video games, but video games are certainly important. Can someone create a new specific section with more concise information? (as a subsection to Sport and games perhaps?) The removed information was only trivial I feel, because it contained too much detail about the ‘Zelda’ series of games, as they have a left-handed character. The 'Guitar Hero' info just needs slighly improving in a relevant section, I feel. It's a shame someone’s work should entirely go to waste.
Thinking about it, a relevant fact about he Nintendo video game company could be how it is known for being relatively conscientious and family-friendly – it could be an example of a company that considers the left-handed market important. Having said that, the actual deleted information was mostly about how Nintendo completely changed the (highly-marketed) Wii version of a Zelda game to cater for right-handers! Perhaps someone could research why they did that, and maybe leave some refs too. --Matt Lewis (talk) 21:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok. There was possibly something in the additions, if cited correctly and placed in the correct places. But the Guitar Hero example only works as a small example of the difficulties faced by left-handers, along the same lines as scissors. And the Zelda stuff only works if cited with the reasoning, again as an example of the difficulties companies can have in catering for both types of handedness, and how right handers inevitably win out. In the same way as I said about the left-handed men above, these things are only trivia if there's no point to mentioning them. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:27, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't there be a section on famous people with left hands? the reason most nintendo characters are left handed is that the creator of most of their games (miyamoto) is left handed. 87.33.190.94 (talk)

This issue has debated at great length on this page. A list of these was created on a separate article, but was deleted because it was unmaintainable, badly cited, and resulted in an ever growing pile of list cruft. Besides that, the list means nothing. A fair proportion of famous people are/were left handed. So what? With certain individuals, such as the one you mention, their left-handedness has/had a significance. With most it does not. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 12:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
i noticed there was a least after i read further down on the list —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.33.190.94 (talk) 13:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

left-handed userbox

I couldnt find any left-handed userbox so i decided to make one myself.

This user is Left-handed.

Pro66 (talk) 11:23, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Source?

"Most left-handed people favor their right hand for some activities, and many exhibit some degree of ambidexterity"

I'm left handed and this certainly isn't the case. Is there a valid source for this? Removal? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.79.31.242 (talk) 18:34, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

It has been my experience that most lefties use their right hand or right side in at least a few things. I think this is environmental, whether it comes from convenience or pressure to use the right. I'm old enough to remember mechanical typewriters, where the carriage return-handle was on the left side, making it quite a reach with the right to pull it back. This is just one example, but I'm sure there are other examples. But we still needd a citation. Leon7 (talk) 14:42, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Here are a few conditions where a leftie would likely use their right hand: car ignition switch, camera shutter release, power saws, coin slots in vending machines. For more situations, see Lefties in a Right Hand World. I will add this link to the article. Leon7 (talk) 02:52, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


Can anyone explain that although I am right handed, I clap left handed (Left hand over right) and draw a bow or a catapult left handed too? Welkinridge (talk) 14:29, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

"Parasinistral" valid?

The word "parasinistral" was added to this article last November. After a thorough search on Google, I am of the opinion that the person who added this word, coined it on their own, and that it did not exist previous to that time. Now it's being used in many wikis, some blogs, and personal pages, and it's just a matter of time before it spreads further. So the word is actually being coined and perpetuated from here at WP. Supposedly, it describes a person who was forced to use their right hand in writing, but is otherwise a lefty. This situation is more common that many think, especially in non-Western countries, so I think there's a need for such a word. I would like to allow it in WP, but I would have to defer to a linguist's validation and approval, to determine if it should be used and promoted here. Any other thoughts on this? Leon7 (talk) 14:26, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

If the word was made up by a Wikipedia editor, as you suspect, it would be a neologism and most definitely not permitted on Wikipedia. What makes you suspect it was first used here? --Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:44, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I had a google myself. this blog here is dated 2003 and uses the term parasinistral alienation. The blog bears the same name as the Wikipedia editor who added the word, so your suspicions may be right. I tagged the addition of it at the time, but I don't think I realised the connection. I would suggest it is removed unless anyone can produce a good cite. But this may be a fascinating case of Wikipedia original research infiltrating the language.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I have now removed mention of this. A good word, but Wikipedia is not here to define new words.--Escape Orbit (Talk) 18:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Left Handed People

Shouldn't there be a list of famous leftys. Such as Babe Ruth. Things to consider, notability of person and importance of handedness to person. For example, the Bible refers to a few hundred left handed Benjamites, and notes their accuracy with a sling.Judges 20:16, 1 Chronicles 12:2 Also, a judge, Ehud, kills a King with a dagger in his left hand(also a Benjamite) Judges 3:15 These are the only references to left handedness in the Bible, which suggests a high number of lefty Benjamites. Do you think it is relevant enough? Rds865 (talk) 03:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

We've discussed this before. This article is not a list of left handed people, and the left handers it does mention should be notable because of their left-handedness, as otherwise it's just trivia. As for the biblical references; unless there is some symbolism (religious or cultural or whatever), this would be trivia. If not; cites from notable scholars would be required. It's not enough to just drop the mention in. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Split "left-handedness in sports" to its own article

This section is about as long as the rest of the article, it has sourcing/OR problems that the rest of the article doesn't, and it's mostly unrelated to the concept of left-handedness in general. I suggest splitting it to its own article where its issues can be addressed and leaving a brief summary section here per WP:SUMMARY. Thoughts? Oren0 (talk) 17:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

It's an idea. You could do the same for the music section. Certainly most of the activity on this article for the last six months has been minimizing the general cruft and OR these two attract. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 14:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Wedding ring finger

Maybe this article should be extended to include information on wedding ring finger. In western societies, the marriage ring is traditionally worn on the ring finger of the left hand. However in some European countries, it is worn on the right ring finger. --Zhongxin (talk) 02:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous people who are left handed

This should also include a section or a new stub with people who are left handed. For example, Bill Clinton, Slyvester Stallone, George Bush snr, Napolean. --Zhongxin (talk) 02:29, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Left handed sports

"In Canada, left-handed children are encouraged to play with a right-handed shot, and this puts their dominant hand on the top of the stick, which strengthens stick-handling skills."

I live in Canada, and I play hockey left-handed, and I've never been discouraged from playing left handed. This has no reference, is irrelevant and needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.159.54.44 (talk) 11:30, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Solution to left-handed music problems?

What if we create list of left-handed musicians and let all the examples go there? Oren0 (talk) 19:27, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to start the article. However, you should know that if not very selective and cited it's likely to get deleted. See what happened to the last list this article spawned. No one's interested in a list of musicians who just happen to be left handed, particularly if its uncited and can't be verified. What's of value is musicians who are notably left-handed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 19:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)


Sinister Handed

"sinister-handed" is also an old saying about left-handed people - the article makes several allusions to "sinister" but doesn't mention that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.158.64.184 (talk) 00:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

List Of Left Handed People

Regarding recent edits. I am going to revert these edits for the following reasons, but invite Neutrality22 to explain why they should remain. Here's what's wrong with them;

  • Firstly this article is not a random list of unconnected people who happened to be left-handed. This article has been down this route before and all it results in is uncited listcruft that attracts more cruft. The previous section of "famous left handed people" was removed from this article and later deleted because of it being non-notable trivia. Unless the fact these people were famous or notable because of their left-handedness there is little point to the list.
  • The major source of your famous people appears to be a student's webpage. This is not a reputable source for this information and is clearly incorrect in significant places. Please link for me a single photograph that demonstrates Einstein left-handedness. I think you will find all show Einstein favouring his right. Picasso was also not left-handed, though it is an often repeated myth.
The other sources are the Washington Post, the Toronto Star and a book on left-handed people. Neutrality22 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "left-handed people tend to be heavily over-represented in history" - where does this statement of fact come from? I would be interested to hear how it was determined.
Evident from the list. Neutrality22 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • "87 percent of the adult population is right-handed" - Why did you replace cited figures with this uncited statement? It contradicts the figures given in the very next paragraph.
  • "left-handed people tend to be overrepresented among the most intelligent and successful" - where is this statement supported? Again, how was it determined?
Also evident from the list. Neutrality22 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
  • The information you added was initially uncited. Adding unsatisfactory cites afterwards, then accusing others of removing it isn't going to wash. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 23:55, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
My initial edit, accompanied with two references. You reverted it calling it "vandalism". Neutrality22 (talk) 12:14, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it is not evident from the list, and if it was you can leave it to the reader to determine, rather than providing your own analysis. There must be tens of thousands of people "represented in history". There are millions of people who are "intelligent and successful". How does your list of thirty represent "over-representation"? "Over-representation" in history means that most or unusually high proportion of those of made history were left-handed. It hardly means that all left-handed people have made history. Was it difficult for you to understand? Neutrality22 (talk) 13:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Please also address the point above. This is listcruft that has already been removed and deleted by consensus. What is your rational for its re-introduction against consensus?

I would also like to see a good reference (and not some filler fluff piece) that is specifically about either Einstein or Picasso that identifies them as left handed. Please explain why Chris McManus, professor of psychology at University College London, an authority on the subject and already referred to in a number of places on the article is wrong about these myths, and your references are right.

My original reversion was an error on my part, for which I apologise. I had meant to do a revert with explanation, rather than a revert and labelling as vandalism. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 13:16, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

One more request to Neutrality22 to respond to the below three questions. If he/she declines to discuss then I can only assume he/she is not interested in defending the additions and is ignoring previous consensus decisions.

  • ""Over-representation" in history means that most or unusually high proportion of those of made history were left-handed." - where is this cited from? How was this fact determined? What is the proportion, so that we can see if it is unusually high or not? Wikipedia is not interested in your extrapolation from a list of a few dozen people and if you cannot produce a cite we can only conclude that this "fact" is your original research.
  • What is your justification for re-introducing a list of "famous left handers" when this has repeatedly, by consensus, been removed and deleted from Wikipedia before? This article has seen all this listcruft before, you are not adding anything new, and it has all been removed before as badly cited, frequently incorrect, irrelevant trivia.
  • Where is your cites, other than poor quality fluff-pieces that mention it in passing, that prove that Einstein & Piccasso were left handed? Particularly when we have an authority who specifically says they were not? I'm concentrated on these two simply as an example; it shows just accurate these often quoted lists are.

--Escape Orbit (Talk) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Maybe you can fuck off and let the others read the cites and conclude for themselves. The cites support exactly what I say. Less than 10% of people are left-handed, but you can deduct, from the fucking list, that most people who have made history are left-handed, hence the unusually high proportion and hence "over-represented in history". As for the trivia being "badly cited" and the references being "poor quality fluff-pieces", I don't think, you fuck, that it is up to you to decide whether or not articles on left-handedness by the Washington Post and the Toronto Star, books written specifically on left-handedness and its impact on history and pieces written by Stanley Coren and Calyampudi Radhakrishna Rao are unreliable and of poor quality. Neutrality22 (talk) 16:11, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As for where the cites support what I added in the introduction, the first source says "Lefties are overrepresented among the mathematically talented and are also more likely to find unexpected or counterintuitive solutions on problem-solving tests.". The second source says "There are some loose theories about left-handedness in general, how southpaws tend to be overrepresented among the highly intelligent, more flexible and resilient in a right-handed world." and "And studies have shown lefties to be exceptional. Australian research has found that lefties think quicker when playing computer games or sports. They tend to earn more money, too. They include the likes of Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. They're overrepresented in Mensa, the high-IQ club; among those gifted at high-level mathematical reasoning; among those with higher education degrees; and, most starkly of all, among American presidents. " and the third source says "Then again, as many lefties might point out, being left-handed can also offer intellectual prowess. Tests conducted by Alan Searleman from St Lawrence University in New York found there were more left-handed people with IQs over 140 than right-handed people. Famous left-handed thinkers in history from Albert Einstein to Isaac Newton to Benjamin Franklin seem to underline the point." Learn how to fucking read and stop wasting my time. Neutrality22 (talk) 16:21, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I've added a warning to your user page regarding your lack of civility.

As I have explained before, we could produce a list 10 times the length of the one you have added to the article of right-handed people who have "made history". So your list means absolutely nothing on its own. And if you are "deducing" this then you are adding original research.

To address your cites. There is nothing wrong with their content (except the accuracy I note later on), what is wrong is the way you are attempting to use them to make a sweeping generalisation in the lead paragraph.

  • The Washington Post one talks about "mathematically talented". This is not what you have added to the article. The rest is is a fluff piece about the US Elections. If you want to add some trivia about left-handed US presidents then add it and it will be treated on its own merits.
  • The Star piece talks about "loose theories". "Loose theories" might just manage a reference in the the appropriate section, they do not merit being in the lead paragraph. Its vague mention of "Australian research" hardly merit a reference. The rest, if it is to be used at all, only function as specific cites to specific facts, not the sweeping generalisation you are adding.
  • The ABCNew coverage of Alan Searleman's research would again be better placed in the the appropriate section. It at least is specific, but you are still over-egging your summary. Where, in any of your cites, is it said left handers are over represented amongst the successful?

But more importantly; please explain why your list of famous left-handed people, repeatedly removed from this article before, should remain against consensus. I have repeatedly asked you about this, but you appear unwilling to address the issue. Your additions are contrary to Wikipedia policy on Consensus.

I've already asked you for an explanation why an authority on the subject is wrong about the inclusion of Einstein and Picasso in your list of trivia. I could add this to the article, but it would be far better if we were to get down to the actual facts rather than quote differing opinion on what must be a straight-forward fact. But in addition here's a quick gallery of photos that illustrate just how haphazard these "famous left-hander" lists tend to be. Einstein liked to use his right hand a lot; writing, with chalk, playing the violin again with chalk, and more fiddling. "Left-hander" Pele uses his right hand for writing. [3] [4] [5] [6] And so does "left-hander" Maradona [7] [8].

These indicate just how much reliance we should place on “famous lefthander” lists, all of which tend to regurgitate, unverified material from other lists. It would be far better to cite individual references about the subjects in articles not about left-handedness. That way we may get closer to the truth. The fact that these are so hard to come by may be an indication that the subject in question was in fact, unremarkably, right-handed. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 21:32, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed the "Famous People" section as Neutrality22 has not provided any argument for its re-introduction against previous consensus. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 17:12, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Sinistral handwriting photo

"When properly done, left-handed writing is a mirror image to that of the right-hander..."

It's hard to figure out precisely what this means and what it would look like. I think a (small) photo of such proper left-handed handwriting should be uploaded to the section, just to make it clear what it looks like. 137.122.30.140 (talk) 21:05, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

List of left-handed people on deletion review

I've added List of left-handed people to Deletion review. --Salix (talk): 10:20, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Firearms discussion AND measured skills, intellegence, etc.

First the article seems to place too great an emphasis on the left vs right handedness of a firearms shooter, i.e. left handed shooters must buy left handed versions of guns, when the majority of shooting coaches believe that decision should be determined by which EYE is dominant, not which hand.

Next, it has been over thirty years since my human factors engineering studies, but I have rather distinct memories that in a wide range of measures, a general trend was that right handed people had fairly "normal" bell looking distribution curves, while left handed people were much more likely to have a bimodal response or two distinct groups. I remember the professor saying that however left handedness happens, it seems to have really good or really bad impact on an individual's performance in a wide range of measures. Tombirdwell (talk) 03:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Article written mostly by an imbecil

  • "Historically, the justification of forcing use of the right-hand was in part due to the difficulty left-handers had writing with liquid ink or fountain pens." That would make all middle-easteners left handed.
  • "In adulthood, left-handers were often shunned by society, resulting in fewer marrying and reproducing". True. Like the famous Holocaust of the Lefties. Grow up!
  • "older mothers are more likely to give birth to left-handed children." Right. And infertile women are like that because they are 10 times more likely to give birth to a live duck.
  • "Dory Previn wrote a song in which she explains that she was born left-handed but nuns in her school "broke her out of it"; later in life, she went back to using her left hand she said "I went back to using my left, my natural hand", and discovered her musical talent, among other things." Truly a remarcable thing, something worthy of an encyclopedia. What? No mention of Mrs. Smith about whom everybody said she was born with two left hands?
  • "Hand orientation is developed in unborn children, most commonly determined by observing which hand is predominantly licked or held close to the mouth." Also, do not forget to mention that illiterate people who are missing their left hand are MOST PROBABLY illiterate because they are unable to use their left hand.
  • "People with long-term impairment of the right hand are more likely to become left-handed, even after their right hand heals". Also people who suffer a lot are three times less likely to smile. Unless they go to some TV talk show. Meaning Talk Shows improve life standards and should be mandatory for anyone who had someone close recently deceased.
  • "Left-handed people are sometimes placed at a disadvantage by the prevalence of right-handed tools in society." Same goes for extremely tall people trying to find clothing and so on. Actually in a market economy based on mass production this happens to anything that is not widely used.
  • "Fortunately for left-handed people, modern guns feature more ambidextrous or right/left-handed reversible operating parts than their predecessors". It is true. The fortune of having murderers both right handed and left handed. Given that most sharp objects are also made for the right handed people as implied by this mockery of an article the poor "lefties" would be degraded to killing with staves and other blunt objects who give neither finesse or precision.
  • "In 2006, researchers at Lafayette College and Johns Hopkins University in a study found that left-handed men are 15 percent richer than right-handed men for those who attended college, and 26 percent richer if they graduated." Also most billionaires are college dropouts or worse. Is this the conspiracy to deny the fine art of writing to some people because of ink stains?

and so on. Wikipedia way to go! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.32.194.22 (talk) 02:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Simultaneous versus linear thinking

Left-handed persons are thought to process information using a "visual simultaneous" method in which several threads can be processed simultaneously. Another way to view this is such: Suppose there were one thousand pieces of popcorn and one of them was colored blue. Right-handed people—using the linear sequential processing style—would look at the popcorn one at a time until they encountered the blue one. The left-handed person would spread out the pieces of popcorn and look at all of them to find the one that was blue. A side effect of these differing styles of processing is that right-handers need to complete one task before they can start the next. Left-handers, by contrast, are capable and comfortable switching between tasks. This seems to suggest that left-handed people have an excellent ability to multi-task, and anecdotal evidence that they are more creative may stem from this ability to multi-task.[citation needed]

The popcorn challenge seems like such an obvious case for visual/simultaneous thought that both left and right-handed people would probably approach it identically. If handedness does predict cognitive style, it's probably only in the wider and more abstract challenges where significant differences become apparent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.83.58 (talk) 06:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Roger W. Sperry determined all this using split-brain patients--people whose hemispheres could not communicate. A normal healthy person would be able to use both. And this is just an analogy to illustrate the principle. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 14:41, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Ronald Reagan left-handed?

I believe he was right-handed, though he may have started out life as a lefty but been forced to use his right hand in school. 76.21.8.213 (talk) 03:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

According to the Washington Post article footnoted in the main article here, Reagan is listed as having been left-handed. It could be he was forced to switch hands, or else the Post was wrong.--Susan Nunes 22 January 2009

Yes, he was. He was born left-handed but forced to write right handed in in his childhood. However, that does not alter how yoru brain is organized so he still counts as a left-handed person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Curmudgeon99 (talk • contribs) 23:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia

Apparently, we lefthanders had a higher chance of developing dyslexia. Also, I've heard the claim that forcing a child to use their right hand when their left handed can cause dyslexia by "unbalancing" the brain. If anyone has sources to studies/etc proving or disproving these claims, we can add them as popular myths and state if the evidence suggests they are true or not. - Doug1984 @ 12:06 6/Feb/2006

Hi - not sure where to put this, but wanted to say that I've just deleted this line:

"In Britain, the term "cack-handed" derives from a coarse Dutch term for excrement."

As far as I'm aware (speaking as a Brit), cack-handed simply means "clumsy", not left-handed. Wouldn't know about the Dutch origins, though.

- Trinity_x18, 23/11/06

Seems believable to me, in Afrikaans (spoken here in South Africa and derived from Dutch), Kak (pronounced 'kuh-k') means sh*t. Not that we use 'Cack-handed' as a descriptor here though.--Irish South African (talk) 03:36, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

"affliction"

This otherwise excellent article currently states 'as a result of their "affliction"'; that seems to me an unfortunate wording. Could we change it somehow? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.20.145.31 (talk) 18:14, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

"Left-handedness in language" section is off-topic

The language section is mostly about the usage of the words "left" and "right" (relative directions) in various languages and only bits and pieces mention handedness. The entire section is not far from being WP:TRIVIA. Should the off-topic content be deleted or relocated to another article. Any suggestions? --Fama Clamosa (talk) 10:43, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Probably not because all the references are in the context of being left-handed. Bewp (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Picture

The picture of the left hand showed in the page is wrong, since a left-handed person would use his/her watch on the right hand, and not on the left hand like in the picture. Saying so, I believe the picture should be replaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MsMrgan (talk • contribs) 22:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Who's to say which hand a left hander might chose to sport a watch on? I'm left handed and when I used to wear a watch on my wrist it was always the left. 81.102.15.200 (talk) 10:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)


Actually, why do we need the picture at all? How does it contribute to the understanding of the article? Answer: It doesn't. 75.71.198.223 (talk) 00:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Left-sideness

I'm deleting this entire section. Here's why:

"Studies show that left-handedness does not necessarily correspond with "left-sidedness" (such as using your left foot to kick), although most left-handed people tend to have "left-sidedness". The same effect holds with ocular dominance. It has also been found that people have dominant sides of the body, such as the eye, foot, and ear."

--Fair enough, but "studies show" is not exactly encyclopedic language.

"Possible effects in humans on thinking

There are many theories on how being left-handed affects the way a person thinks. One theory divides left- and right-handed thinkers into two camps: visual simultaneous vs. linear sequential.[31][32][33][34]

According to this theory, right-handed people are thought to process information using a "linear sequential" method in which one thread must complete its processing before the next thread can be started.[35]

Left-handed persons are thought to process information using a "visual simultaneous" method in which several threads can be processed simultaneously[36]. There is another way to view this, by way of analogy: Suppose there were one thousand pieces of popcorn and one of them was colored blue. Right-handed people—using the linear sequential processing style—would look at the popcorn one at a time until they encountered the blue one. The left-handed person would spread out the pieces of popcorn and look at all of them to find the one that was blue. A side effect of these differing styles of processing is that right-handers need to complete one task before they can start the next. Left-handers, by contrast, are capable and comfortable switching between tasks.[37] This seems to suggest that left-handed people have an excellent ability to multi-task, and anecdotal evidence that they are more creative may stem from this ability to multi-task.[38]

According to research conducted by Dr. Roger Sperry, right-handed people process information using "analysis", which is the method of solving a problem by breaking it down to its pieces and analyzing the pieces one at a time.[39] By contrast, left-handed people process information using "synthesis", which is the method of solving a problem by looking at the whole and trying to use pattern-matching to solve the problem.[40]"

--Most of these citations are .coms (ONE IS SELLING A PRODUCT!!!) and the studies are old (the two studies I checked are from 1996 and 1982. I don't think either study supports any of this as "theory" anyway.) The fact of the matter is that every human brain processes information simultaneously, and the essayistic analogy doesn't do a very good job at explaining the difference between linear and parallel processing.

"The hypothesis that left-handed people are predisposed to visual-based thought has been validated by a variety of evidence. In the 2004 book Brains That Work a Little Bit Differently[41], researchers Allen D. Bragdon and David Gamon, Ph.D., briefly described some of the current research on handedness and its significance. "Handedness researchers Stanley Coren and Clare Porac have shown that left-handed university students are more likely to major in visually-based, as opposed to language-based subjects. Another sample of 103 art students found an astounding 47 percent were left- or mixed-handed". [page 76]

Ultimately, being left-handed is not an all-or-nothing situation. The processing styles operate on a continuum where some people are more visual-simultaneous and others are more linear-sequential." --The quote here does not support the hypothesis in question any more than it supports the hypothesis that painting/drawing/sculpting/doing art is more enjoyable with your left hand. Also, having visual-based though has little to do with being an art student. Last bit is just pure essay.

If you wrote this bit and feel like making it encyclopedic and provide legitimate, crucial information about the relation between handedness and thought (I doubt that there will be any encyclopedic information on this for another 10-20 years).

This whole article is garbage by the way. It needs major cleanup. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.201.11.205 (talk) 23:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC) X2 for this article being utter garbage. Remove all personal opinion , remove all citation needed blah blah blah. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.96.7.226 (talk) 16:13, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Left-handedness/Archive_1&oldid=1149973806"