[MD] Arlo

[John Carl]

arlo

i wanna just quick check these souces you provide...

From
<http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship>

" Processing within each hemisphere relies on a rich, dense network of
connections. The corpus callosum that connects the hemispheres is big for a
fiber tract, but it is tiny compared to the network of connections within
each hemisphere. Physically, then, it doesn't seem feasible for the
hemispheres to fully share information or to operate in a fully unified
fashion. Moreover, in a lot of cases, keeping things separate is
(literally!) the smarter way for the hemispheres to function. Dividing up
tasks and allowing the hemispheres to work semi-independently and take
different approaches to the same problem seems to be a good strategy for
the brain ... just as it often is in a partnerships between people."

I conceded your point about brain physiology, and directed you to the
larger question of whether or not a dualistic perspective is useful.  I
think this paragraph at least supports THAT.

Altho to be sure, the article I'm on here isn't so dogmatic as you seem to
be.  I find it's often that way - a scientist discovers a new fact and
suggests a provisional theory to support it and then THAT gets taken up and
treated as gospel truth.

"Specifically how and why the hemispheres differ remains a mystery. They
are actually remarkably similar physically, and this is one reason I think
that studying hemispheric differences is critical for the field.

Over the past decade or so, a lot of effort has been put into "mapping" the
human brain – that is, linking areas that differ anatomically (have
different inputs, outputs, types or arrangements of neurons, and/or
neuropharmacology) to different functions. From this, we hope we can learn
something about how and why these anatomical differences matter. However,
in doing this, the field has also uncovered a lot of hemispheric
asymmetries – cases in which, for example, a left hemisphere brain area
becomes active and its right hemisphere homologue (with the SAME basic
inputs, outputs, etc.) is much less active (or vice versa). This should
really surprise us: here are two brain areas that are essentially the same
on all the dimensions the field is used to thinking about, yet they behave
strikingly differently. There must be physical differences between them, of
course – but then, this means that those "subtle" differences are much more
critical for function than the field has appreciated."

Asymmetrical responses? Wait, wasn't it you that said there was new proof
that they were homogenous?

"Why do the hemispheres differ? I think it is because even small
differences in something like the strength with which areas are connected
can lead to very different dynamic patterns of activation over time – and
thus different functions. For language comprehension in particular, my work
has shown that left hemisphere processing is more influenced by what are
sometimes called "top-down" connections, which means that the left
hemisphere is more likely to predict what word might be coming up next and
to have its processing affected by that prediction. The right hemisphere,
instead, shows more "feedforward" processing: it is less influenced by
predictions (which can make its processing less efficient) but then more
able to later remember details about the words it encountered. Because of
what is likely a difference (possibly small) in the efficacy of particular
connections within each hemisphere, the same brain areas in the two
interact differently, and this leads to measurable and important
asymmetries in how words are perceived, linked to meaning, remembered, and
responded to."
"I think the answer to your question is that what we see across the pattern
of asymmetries is neither a random collection of unrelated differences nor
divisions based on one or even a small set of functional principles (e.g.,
the left hemisphere is "local" and the right hemisphere is "global" ...
another popular one). Rather, some of the underlying biology is skewed, and
this has far reaching consequences for the kinds of patterns that can be
set up over time in the two hemispheres, leading to sets of functional
differences that we can hopefully eventually link systematically to these
underlying biological causes, and thereby deepen our understanding of how
the brain works."

Hah.  And Arlo accused ME of biodeterminism.

"There are certainly individual differences in hemispheric specialization
across people, but they are very difficult to reliably determine. Where
this matters most is in medical contexts: when people are going to have
brain surgery (e.g., for epilepsy or tumor resection), physicians would
like to make sure that in removing certain brain tissue they are not going
to disrupt critical functions like language."

Arlo, in light of just this one example, I have the feeling that you don't
actually read your supporting research, but just grab out the headlines and
first few paragraphs.  Should I bother even dissecting the rest of your
links?

>From the next one down:
<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071275>

"Two recent studies have investigated whole-brain lateralization using
rs-fcMRI [16]
<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071275#pone.0071275-Liu1>,
[17]
<http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071275#pone.0071275-Tomasi1>.
Liu et al. (2009) found that connectivity of classical language regions,
medial prefrontal cortex, and posterior cingulate cortex was most strongly
left-lateralized, whereas that of insula, angular gyrus, anterior cingulate
cortex, and visual cortex was most strongly right-lateralized. Males had
more strongly lateralized connections than females. In a factor analysis,
the four factors that accounted for the most variance involved regions from
the following cortical networks: visual, default, salience, and language.
Handedness influenced the laterality of the four factors; however, it
affected laterality differently across the factors."

And next:
<http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/29/there-is-no-left-brainright-brain-divide/>

Scientists have long known that the popular left brain/right brain story
doesn’t hold water. Here’s why. First, the sweeping characterizations of
the two halves of the brain miss the mark: one is not logical and the other
intuitive, one analytical and the other creative. The left and right halves
of the brain do function in some different ways, but these differences are
more subtle than is popularly believed. (For example, the left side
processes small details of things you see, the right processes the overall
shape.) Second, the halves of the brain don’t work in isolation; rather,
they always work together as a system. Your head is not an arena for some
never-ending competition, the brain’s “strong” side tussling with its
“weak.” Finally, people don’t preferentially use one side or the other.


Now this one from Time Mag could have been what caught your attention in
the first place or somebody refered it to you, but note that what is being
refuted is the absolute division and that people only use 1/2 half of their
brain or other.  That was never a viable assertion - "left-brained"
as a rhetorical concept is not an exact scientific description.  It seems
silly to work at disproving such an obvious fallacy.

But brain lateralization is real and dual processing is real and splitting
up different tasks is real That's my point.

The 4th level is a dualistic pattern, is my point.


John



On 6/5/14, ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR <ajb102 at psu.edu> wrote:
> [Ian]
> ... different people have different propensities to mental styles that use
> the different halves.
>
> [Arlo]
> No. The research says exactly otherwise.
>
> [IG] Evidence - ready when you are.
>
> [Arlo]
> I've already listed two different overviews of the current research. Each
of
> these has links to the empirical studies cited. But, sure, I'll play
> along...
>
>
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2013/12/02/248089436/the-truth-about-the-left-brain-right-brain-relationship
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0071275
> http://ideas.time.com/2013/11/29/there-is-no-left-brainright-brain-divide/
> http://www.livescience.com/39373-left-brain-right-brain-myth.html
> http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/08/130814190513.htm
>
http://scan.oxfordjournals.org/content/8/4/475.abstract?sid=b99d03b9-38cc-4858-98e3-49f54244898d
>
http://www.spring.org.uk/2013/08/debunked-right-brain-and-left-brain-personalities.php
>
http://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/more-left-brain-right-brain-nonsense/
>
http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-theory-cognitive-modes/201401/left-brain-right-brain-wrong
>
http://www.yalescientific.org/2012/04/left-brain-right-brain-an-outdated-argument/
>
> "How, then, did the left-brained/right-brained theory take root? Experts
> suggest the myth dates back to the 1800s, when scientists discovered that
an
> injury to one side of the brain caused a loss of specific abilities. The
> concept gained ground in the 1960s based on Nobel-prize-winning
> "split-brain" work by neuropsychologists Robert Sperry, and Michael
> Gazzaniga. The researchers conducted studies with patients who had
undergone
> surgery to cut the corpus callosum – the band of neural fibers that
connect
> the hemispheres – as a last-resort treatment for epilepsy. They discovered
> that when the two sides of the brain weren't able to communicate with each
> other, they responded differently to stimuli, indicating that the
> hemispheres have different functions.
>
> Both of these bodies of research tout findings related to function; it was
> popular psychology enthusiasts who undoubtedly took this work a step
further
> and pegged personality types to brain hemispheres.
>
> According to Anderson:
>
> The neuroscience community has never accepted the idea of 'left-dominant'
or
> 'right-dominant' personality types. Lesion studies don't support it, and
the
> truth is that it would be highly inefficient for one half of the brain to
> consistently be more active than the other.
>
> Yet, despite Anderson's work and other studies that continue to disprove
the
> idea that personality type is related to one or the other side of the
brain
> being stronger, my guess is that the left-brained/right-brained vernacular
> isn't going away anytime soon. Human society is built around categories,
> classifications and generalizations, and there's something seductively
> simple about labeling yourself and others as either a logical left-brainer
> or a free-spirited right brainer."
>
> "This is one of those memes that refuses to die. It’s a zombie-meme, the
> terminator of myths, one of those ideas of popular culture that everyone
> knows but is simply wrong – the idea that individuals can be categorized
as
> either left-brain or right-brain in terms of their personality and the way
> they process information."
>
> I have no doubt those whose profession depends on the 'brainedness' myth
> will go down with their sinking ship rather than follow the research. But,
> hey, Peirce talked about the strength of tenacity. But here's a grain of
> hope, maybe rather than turning this into a battle with me, you should
> really let this cast a little doubt on your beliefs.
>
>
> Finally, I like how one author ends his article: The
left-brain/right-brain
> dichotomy is pop-psychology pseudoscience. Be suspicious of anyone touting
> it as a legitimate or insightful way of looking at human personality or
> cognition."
>
> Yep.
>
> Finally, just to avoid the "there are differences!" reply, lateralization
is
> universal, not personality-dependent. "For example, language function
> lateralizes to the dominant hemisphere, which is the left hemisphere for
> most people. Visuo-spacial reasoning lateralizes to the non-dominant
> hemisphere (right hemisphere for most people)." And again, even this can
be
> overcome when necessary (neuroplasticity).
>
> At the very least, I hope anyone with half a brain will not put this idea
> that the "hemisphere dominance" myth maps on to Pirsig's notions of
> (SOM-derived) classical and romantic modes of thinking.
>
>
> Moq_Discuss mailing list
> Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc.
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org
> Archives:
> http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/
> http://moq.org/md/archives.html
>


-- 
"finite players
play within boundaries.
Infinite players
play *with* boundaries."