Slashdot Mirror
The Science of Handedness
Hugh Pickens writes "Representing only 10 percent of the general human population, scientists have long wondered why left-handed people are a rarity. Now a new study suggests lefties are rare because of the balance between cooperation and competition in human evolution and a mathematical model was developed that predicts the percentage of left-handers by sport based on each sport's degree of cooperation versus competition. 'The more social the animal—where cooperation is highly valued—the more the general population will trend toward one side,' says study author Daniel M. Abrams. 'The most important factor for an efficient society is a high degree of cooperation. In humans, this has resulted in a right-handed majority.' If societies were entirely cooperative everyone would be same-handed, but if competition were more important, one could expect the population to be 50-50 because cooperation favors same-handedness—for sharing the same tools, for example while physical competition favors the unusual. In a fight, for example, a left-hander would have the advantage in a right-handed world. The mathematical model accurately predicted the number of elite left-handed athletes in baseball, boxing, hockey, fencing, and table tennis (PDF)—more than 50 percent among top baseball players and well above 10 percent (the general population rate) for the other sports. For other sports like football or hockey where team cooperation is paramount, it is ideal for all individuals to possess the same handedness. For example, in football, blocking schemes are often designed to protect a quarterback's blind side. As a result, it is beneficial for all quarterbacks on the roster to possess the same handedness to minimize variations of the offensive sets. 'The accuracy of our model's predictions when applied to sports data supports the idea that we are seeing the same effect in human society.'"
"Why isn't everyone left-handed?"
I might say that it's a sinister plot, but that would be gauche of me.
In a perfect world we would all be ambidextrous -- being able to use BOTH hands would make things much simpler.
Yeah, one could take over when the other got tired.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!
Writing, scissors, buttons, car shifter (first few I thought of in 10 seconds).
In particular, writing: It's designed that right-handers are dragging the writing implement behind their hand in a smooth gliding motion. For left-handers we're smashing the point into the page in front of our hand, making it highly variable and irregular (a non-equilibrium), and then also smearing the hand over what we just wrote. Truly a pain. That's specifically the reason why my uncle (for example) was forced to switch by my grandparents tying his left hand behind his back.
And personally, I think that writing is the most important of all human tools.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
are like the wolves amongst you right-handed sheep, right!!!!???
I'm not ENTIRELY convinced, what about situations where it is advantageous for people to have opposite handedness for optimal cooperation? There seems to be a built-in assumption here that different-handed assortments of people will always have more problems working together. I'm not sure there's a practical way to test this as a general thing though.
I agree, the theory is weak.
Using sports as a model for why handed-ness exists is putting the cart before the horse. That Baseball was able to capitalize on left handed pitchers throwing to much more common right handed hitters is a rather late innovation in the annals of human endeavor.
Further, very few tools existed in historical times where handedness mattered at all. A wrench or a hammer or a spear have no handedness. Only much later were tools invented to meet the needs of the majority or users, which is why there was a tendency to put controls on power tools on the right.
The whole thesis mistakes cause for effect, suggesting tools and games we invented had something to do with what made us what we are. Whether our ancestors threw the spear, or picked the berry right or left handed couldn't have mattered at all.
Sig Battery depleted. Reverting to safe mode.
All I can say is that I'm left-handed. Both my parents are right-handed and so are both my brothers.
At the same time?
No, it wasn't actually...
"Cooperation favors same-handedness—for sharing the same tools, for example. Physical competition, on the other hand, favors the unusual. In a fight, a left-hander would have the advantage in a right-handed world."
This is simply taken axiomatically as a starting point for the study. I see no indication that it was determined by any sort of analysis. I'm not even sure such an analysis is feasible. You'd have to know what activities people carried out in prehistoric times, how, and what the value of cooperation was for each one. There could be various advantages and disadvantages of same or opposite handedness depending on the activity, etc. The entire concept of their study rests ENTIRELY on the validity of this same-handedness is better for cooperation proposition. I'm not saying it is untrue, but without demonstrating it to be true and to what degree I cannot see how any meaningful conclusions can be drawn.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
FTA:
Representing only 10 percent of the general human population, scientists have long wondered why left-handed people are a rarity.
Wow, I never knew that scientists made up ten percent of the population. Yay us.
Parity: What to do when the weekend comes.
I have (fraternal) twin sons. One is right handed, one left handed.
-- Alastair
And this still doesn't explain why I pee with my left hand and masturbate with my right hand.
- It definitely doesn't explain any of THAT! I believe most people don't pee with their hands.
You can't handle the truth.
if you ever meet a perfect version of yourself constructed by aliens from radio transmissions, don't shake their hand.
For those who don't know, this refers to a story in the Feynman Lectures on Physics. Here's my version; I've taken some liberties.
Imagine you're on the phone with an alien who speaks English, except they don't know what "left" and "right" mean. You want to explain it to them so they know which tentacle they should use to shake the right-handed President's hand if they should ever meet. The alien can be anywhere in the universe, so you can't refer to stellar positions or similar, leading you to devise an experiment for them to perform.
Your initial attempts use gravity, electricity, and magnets, but you notice each experiment comes out essentially the same if you swap "right" and "left"--for instance, you could give the alien instructions for making a clock in hopes of defining "right" using clockwise rotation, except if the alien made the clock exactly backwards by reversing the notion of "left" and "right", they wouldn't be able to tell. A particle physicist happens by and tells you about a magical experiment involving the weak nuclear force that *does* distinguish left and right inasmuch as the experiment fails if the alien screws up "right" and "left" and succeeds otherwise. (For the curious, some more details here and here.) Great, problem solved.
"But wait!" the physicist says. "The alien needs to use regular matter instead of antimatter in the experiment. The results will be reversed otherwise! Come to think of it, I have no idea how to tell them the difference between matter and antimatter. If you ever meet them and they start trying to shake your left hand, RUN, since the alien will be made of antimatter!"