[MD] Arlo

[ARLO JAMES BENSINGER JR]

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

[Arlo]
Sigh. Really? Really?? This is why its such a waste of time to respond to you directly, John. 

Every.. count them, EVERY... post I made about this (including the very one with all those citations), I have reiterated "of course there are lateralization differences". I have never said, nor even let open to implication, that the two sides were "homogenous". And yet here you are, despite all that in EVERY SINGLE POST, making this absurd response like "AHA! there are differences! and you said there were none."

Sigh.

So. For the record. YOU claimed that dominant "left-brainedness" and "right-brainedness" mapped to people who were "classical thinkers" and "romantic thinkers". I pointed out that either way you frame it, that classical/romantic thinking caused- or was caused by- left/right brain dominance WAS WRONG. Period. And the research backs this up completely.

And, in my very first reply I pointed out some of the lateralization they DID find, e.g. language tends to be left-lateralized. But this lateralization is UNIVERSAL. Language was just as left-lateralized for Einstein as for Picasso. And neither of them 'thought more with one side of their brain'. ANY lateralization effect found tends to be either universal in this way, or individually unique for people who have suffered some form of brain injury.

So, sure, the brain divides tasks around its infrastructure (again, as I have said from day ONE), but this division IN NO WAY AT ALL maps to the 'classical mode' and 'romantic mode' of thinking that Pirsig describes as competing ways of understanding the word in ZMM.

Either you don't read what I write, or you willingly twist it to create an endless shifting-sands landscape of shameless rhetoric. Either way, its a waste of my time.