Southpaws: The Hops in Humanity’s Beer?
This is the first article in a series that explores the attribute of chirality (handedness), which is intrinsic to life across scales yet surprisingly absent from speculative fiction (the single time I recall a plot point hinging on it is during Mal’s battle with the Operative in Serenity). A version of it appeared on Huffington Post.
“Light is the left hand of darkness…” – Ursula K. Le Guin
Those who are, like me, left-handed and older than fifty probably recall being forced to write with our right hand and the frustration of using many “handed” tools, including scissors, rulers and computer mice. We also remember being told that left-handers are prone to immune deficiencies, shorter lives, depression, dyslexia, schizophrenia and a host of other woes… and no wonder, given the drizzle of harassment! Finally, there is the conflation of left with evil, wrong or inept in practically all religions and languages (sinister, gauche, linkisch…) not to mention most political systems, especially those which place high value on obedience and conformity.
Left-handedness is genetically determined, although controversy swirls around candidate genes that have been tentatively linked to the trait and the complications supposed to accompany it – most prominently a protein with the impressively lengthy name of Leucine-Rich Repeat Transmembrane Neuronal 1. LRRTM1 is involved in regulation of the synapses, the tips of the neuronal processes where exchange of information takes place by molecules bridging the gaps between cells. Other theories propose that left-handedness may arise from exposure to increased testosterone during gestation. Yet others attribute it to the asymmetry of the human brain, brought about by the appearance of language whose centers almost invariably reside in the left hemisphere (which regulates the right side of the body).
In contrast to the even distribution of paw preferences in our ape cousins, the percentage of human left-handers hovers around 10% regardless of race and culture. The most common explanation for the persistence of the trait was that left-handed warriors had the element of surprise in primitive societies. As a result of this sneakiness, they survived long enough to leave a few like-handed descendants. Notice that this explanation is exclusively male-oriented and also implies that the trait is both monogenic and dominant. In fact, LRRTM1 is maternally silent – but at least in my case, I know that I inherited my quasi-ambidexterity (loaded word!) from my mother’s side. On the other hand, nobody who has met me can conclude that I’m low on testosterone.
From my professional knowledge of biology and my own awareness of what strengths and weaknesses I possess, I hit upon a slightly more flattering explanation for the persistence of the trait. Namely, I decided that left-handed people must be less lateralized in their thinking. This can lead (literally) to crossed brain wires – and hence to such outcomes as dyslexia. But it can also lead to less mental compartmentalizing, more efficient multi-tasking, enhanced ability to see the big picture and to think across boundaries.
Recent results from several neurobiological disciplines lend support to these speculations. Apparently, left-handers do cluster at the two ends of the IQ range; the connections between the two sides of their brain are faster than in right-handers; they often use both hemispheres for language; and they excel at complicated tasks. Lists of southpaws in history show that they are disproportionately represented among mathematicians, scientists, artists and, for better or for worse, among charismatic leaders — from Alexander the Great to Jeanne d’Arc. Moreover, a disproportionate ratio of US presidents since WWII have been southpaws, partly because schoolchildren in an increasingly un-corseted culture were no longer forced into right-handedness. So left-handers may not be a relic of barbaric times, after all. Instead, they may be the hops that add zest to humanity’s beer.
Images: top, Southpaw by RobtheSentinel; bottom, an illustrious left-hander — Marie Sklodowska Curie, Physics Nobel 1903; Chemistry Nobel, 1911.
I’ve always wished, just a bit, that I was left-handed. I know it’s terribly inconvenient in many ways, but there’s such a mythology about it.
Instead, I’m effectively ambidextrous, a much more useful arrangement I think. I write right-handed, but do pretty much everything else including eating with chopsticks with either hand. Experimental evidence suggests that if I were interested in practicing I could write legibly left-handed, but I haven’t seen any reason to put the work in. For one thing, I would get ink from my favorite fountain pen all over myself (even more than usual).
Apparently ambidexterity, like left-handedness, is linked to various psychological and educational problems. Hm.
I think almost all people have a dominant hand — it’s the one you use without thinking for a task. Most people who are considered ambidexterous are left-handers taught/forced to use their right hand (I was officially classified ambidexterous; I can write and do tasks with either hand, but my default is left, so I’m really left-handed). True ambidexters are 1% of the population. There is also cross-dominance (using different hands for different tasks).
The business about writing over the text (and smudging it) if you write left-handed is just the result of poor instruction from right-handed teachers who cannot visualize the process. You can write exactly as you would if you were right-handed, under the text. Ditto for using fountain pens.
I believe you, but when I’ve tried writing left-handed, I’ve made a terrible mess. For me, the payoff hasn’t been great enough to put in the effort to learn how to do it properly (legibly and without getting covered in ink).
I was never forced to use a particular hand for anything. I naturally write right-handed. Cross-dominance is probably a better term, thanks.
[...] Southpaws: The Hops in Humanity’s Beer? — Chirality, fiction and you. Science In My Fiction on handedness. [...]
From what my mom has told me, she started off favoring her left hand. Years of being forced to use her right hand has also made her “quasi-ambidexterous”.
I, on the other hand, am a right-hander through and through. I guess that makes me barley malt?
You know, I wonder if the forcing itself decreases brain lateralization, resulting in the various good and bad outcomes associated with the attribute.
And there’s nothing wrong with barley malt – though I personally favor wheat beers (peat whisky is another story)! *smile*
Hi Athena, talking about southpaws (another somewhat derogative term) in movies: in the Addams Family, I guess it’s a comfort for you peeps that the Thing is (usually) a right hand. This goes against the grain of what left-handedness has come to unjustifiably connote; as you noted, a conflation with evil/the unholy.
Anyway, the Thing being a right hand may be saying that we right-handed people have no brains. <- speaking for myself (^_^)
Hehe! Interesting observation about the Thing, Robert. No, right-handers do have brains. It’s only when they insist that their brains are “better” that our paths diverge. This will be the topic of another article in this series.
Hi Athena, this is the second time that I’ve been struck by your fairness.
Years ago, I read a simple article in Discover Magazine exploring the role of the “less dominant” hand. Here’s the link:
Neuroquest by Eric Haseltine
Until now, I didn’t know that the article was really about the appreciation of chirality (please correct me if I’m wrong about this). Despite the myth that it is the dominant hand that does all the work, the article proved that, in fact, the less-dominant hand do perform tasks of no less import than that of its counterpart’s. And, if we were to take Mr. Haseltine’s experiments to account, I would even be bold to say that the less dominant hand performs the more subtle and complex role of balance and grace (for me, that would be my left hand), whereas the dominant hand seems only to know brute force. What I am now unclear of is why left-hand utility seem to carry more advantage than right-hand utility, given the fact that in most circumstances, both hands have plenty of chances to be active despite their different roles. Am I missing something here? Thanks.
Robert, on a more general note, I never suggested that being either-handed is “better”. On the contrary, I pointed out how the default assumption of “better” by right-handers is not justified just because they happen to be in the majority. At the same time, chirality plays a crucial role at other scales, which I intend to discuss in future installments.
As I said to Sarah earlier, the “dominant” hand does not mean you never use the other; it’s just the hand that you use by default, without thinking, for a one-handed task (example: turning a door handle). In two-handed tasks you have no choice but to use both hands, by definition. And there are many more of them than there are of the one-handed kind: threading a needle; sweeping, raking, ploughing; almost all weapons (most prominently bow and arrow, but even a light sword needs balancing with the other arm); playing all instruments (some less asymmetric: piano and flute; some more so: all string instruments); driving, riding, typing, pitching in cricket and baseball… I could go on and on.
Haseltine discussed two-handed tasks in his article. Your point about force versus balance is more true of asymmetric tasks. The more symmetric tasks have both hands doing similar or identical things. So there is nothing contradictory between my view and his.
Athena, when I wrote my reply above, I was actually thinking along the lines of the relationship between the hands and their corresponding brain hemispheres. I have to admit that I am very muddled with regards to this topic. I’ve heard before that each of the brain hemispheres governs the opposite side of the body; you also mentioned something of the like in your article. Somewhere along that, I’ve always kept this notion that one of the hemishperes must be (much) more developed than the other. I honestly don’t know where I got this idea. I am unsure whether this is a correct assumption, or a misconception, on my part. It is the source of my uncertainty, triggered by the subject of chirality (thanks, btw, for bringing the subject up).
Mr. Haseltine’s article seemed to say that there really is no “dominant” hand, though of course there is a “default” as you say, for neither one of the hands could be said is more sophisticated, or superior, than the other. Here is where my befuddled inkling comes in. My way of thinking is: if that were true of the hands, then it must be true of the brain hemispheres also. This questioned my assumption in paragraph #1. It also made me wonder about left-handed people being less lateralised in their thinking.
Athena, so sorry if this is long-winded. I hope you bear with me. At least in scientifically expert blogs like this, I have the right to be, shall we say, less knowledgeable, for that is what I am.
I think we not only share knowledge in teaching, but share it also in our willingness to learn.
The two brain hemispheres are equally developed but they are different in interesting ways and do overlapping but different tasks, which is where lateralization comes in. Also, everyone’s brain is slightly different and brains are plastic (though increasingly less so as we age). I think diCaprio may have implanted the idea that different=unequal (which is often the mental mindset that results from social interactions and institutions, especially segregation whether based on gender or race; people in power routinely abuse biological concepts to cement the status quo).
By the way, are you the RobertT who linked Tomm Moore to my Kells review?
This is the same RobertT. Wonderful article you have there on the Unibrow Theory. In many ways, it is the answer that I’ve been looking for. You have clarified the important significance of Art in Film. To my knowledge, no one has (yet) expounded on this subject like you did. I’ve been reading on movie reviews that reflect the need for Art to exist in Film. Bob Herbert at NYT recently lamented on the commercialisation of films.
I find Armond White’s reviews at NYP to be eye-openers. I regard him as one of the better critics out there (on par with master critics the likes of Ebert, Scott, et al). He sometimes doesn’t get his facts right, but one can immediately feel that he is guarding something precious, and I find this to be a very worthy goal. If only he would trim down on name-calling. Also, I wish that he would write an article defining ART, for he seems to know a lot about this, and how it is to be applied in FILM. But hey, you did just that, and in simple layman terms that I found not at all alienating (though I wish that your article could have been longer).
The Secret of Kells is itself an eye-opener. It’s been captivating my neuroplastic mind eversince. I hope Cartoon Saloon pulls off another great work in Song of the Sea, which is their next project.
Thanks for the lead on neuroplasticity. If there is a chink in my reasonings and assumptions, then it must be different = unequal.
Btw, Athena, perhaps I didn’t assume or misconceive. Probably I just read the thing from somewhere, and it was thus implanted into my mind. You know, the way Leonardo deCaprio implants ideas in other people’s heads.