Talk:Left-handedness

Hasty Conclusion

To start off, I am new here, and I apologize if I am not formatting this correctly. In the negative association of language section, there is an example of two Korean words sounding similar. The fact that they sound the simlar should not be an evidence given to support the idea of negative association. It'd be appropriate to point out that the root of the word, "right had" actually came from "correct hand" Thank you! (Please disregard my last post-brain cramp!)

Preference?

Left-handedness is not a preference, as falsely claimed in the lead. It is something born with, and cannot be chosen. AD 19:07, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

• • • • • Response: There are degrees, some like myself are ambidextrous - I could probably have been set on the path to write with either hand - so I think preference is a good choice.

Lloque Yupanki

Early chronicles depict him in positive colors, as a skillful diplomat (see es:Lloque Yupanqui). The epithet "Yupanqui" also had only favorable connotations in the Inca era, it was a part of many Inca names such as Capac Yupanqui and Tupac Yupanqui. Raoul NK (talk) 10:49, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Accident rate

This article discusses the problems caused by tools and machinery often being designed for right-handed operation but it does not go on to discuss the consequently increased accident rate for left-handed people. See Left-Handedness and Accident-Related Injury Risk Roger (talk) 09:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The article also fails to mention specific design features that cause increase risk, as opposed to merely not being optimal. For example a lock button for an electric drill may end up under the palm of a left handed user instead of being positioned for an optional finger press; thus an inadvertent locking can cause the drill to fly out of control. The current article overlooks tools that are difficult to impossible to operate safely with the left hand. Hagrinas (talk) 23:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Alternative Sexuality

Restored the alternative sexuality section. The Rahman & Symeonides abstract clearly states, "elevated paraphilic interests were correlated with elevated non-right handedness" . In the introduction section of article (pg 166 Archive of Sexual behavior) the researchers reference pedophilia.

I got the homosexual reference from the wiki page /Handedness and sexual orientation, but that page had the % wrong, I corrected the % to align with the research. That is homosexual men have 82% greater odds of being non-right-handed than heterosexual men

Will expand negative correlations with left handedness to include stuttering, dyslexia, autism, when time permits. Witch Hazell (talk) 17:46, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

That article is probably where any mention belongs, not here. Since the small amount of 'research' being cited has 'suggested' but not verified any relationship, it definitively does not belong here, or any other article not associated with the claim. Dave Dial (talk) 22:14, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Redirect

Should we redirect this to Handedness like we did to Right-handed? Just a thought. Levonscott User talk:Levonscott User:Levonscott 06:08, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it should be kept separate and not a redirect. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 14:28, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I oppose a redirect - there's simply too much in this article to easily incorporate into the 'Handedness' article. In fact, if all of this information was on that article I'd 100% support that it be moved to a new article. --Peter (Talk page) 23:12, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support. Difficult call to make, but there is a problem here that should be addressed. I appreciate what Peter says, but most of what is on Handedness is already discussing left-handedness, as it differs from the more usual right-handedness. So each article covers a great deal of the same ground and Wikipedia shouldn't have both. The Handedness article is not as good an article. (Compare 35 refs on Left-handedness to 25 on Handedness, for instance, and the large section on sports is primarily unsourced tangential waffle about baseball). So if we were to merge then I'd suggest that much of the uncited stuff on Handedness be removed and replaced by this article. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Having several articles discussing the same topic is not a problem, if one of them is a subtopic of the other. If there's enough content for two articles of course we can have both. Instead of merging and deleting, I suggest creating new articles for specific subtopics like theories of handedness and left-handedness and sports, and make good use of summary style linking them from both handedness and left-handedness. Another option is, instead of merging into Handedness, moving those sections to left-handedness. Given that most content is about left-handedness, that article should be the preferred place to have most of it. Diego (talk) 07:54, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, and move the sections about left-handedness from handedness here. Diego (talk) 07:55, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Hemispheric brain damage

The article fails to mention brain damage as a cause. It's important because physical hemispheric damage has a 50/50 chance of disabling the left or right side if it's the type that causes physical impairment. Therefore about half of the 90% naturally right handed individuals would end up left handed as a result, but only 5% of the overall population would become right handed as a result. Also, there's a strong correlation between such damage and impaired cognitive ability.

Thus sections of the article such as those on intelligence and income lack context. If the percentage of left handed individuals is artificially high at the "low" end, and statistically high at the "high" end, it would put lefties and righties on par with each other on average. But it would also explain why lefties with college educations do better financially (as is stated) and why increased intelligence can be possible among those without damage induced left handedness yet the same groups might show no statistical advantage overall.

This in not some sort of new theory that needs to be introduced, but merely a mention of what's already known based on an equal likelihood of damage to either side of the body in a random accident, in utero or otherwise. Hagrinas (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)