1401
Physiology & Medicine / Re: Why are more people right handed than left handed?
« on: 13/07/2015 16:27:59 »
Handedness is a peculiar phenomenon. Most distributions in nature are either fairly even (male/female ratio in mammals) or very rare (reverse heart anatomy) but lefthandedness seems to occur somewhere in the 10 - 25% range.
My hypothesis is that about half of the human population is genetically incapable of being lefthanded, due to the brain having to learn all sorts of difficult things like standing on two feet, and talking. Quadrupeds and animals with a smaller vocabulary don't seem to be particularly handed in comparison. So in about half the population all the complex motor skills are, say, lodged in the left half of the brain whereas the other half of the population they are distributed more evenly.
Now society requires us to abide by certain hand conventions, and half of us can't use lefthanded tools, so the general convention is to use the right hand for fine motor control. This gives 50% of the population a choice to go with the flow or be different, and by Bayesian statistics about half of the "born ambis" choose to live as dextrals, possibly enjoying some advantage in twohanded skills like music and sport, whilst the remainder (which may include a very few "genetic sinistrals") use the left hand.
This may explain a few observed phenomena: a signficant number of lefthanded "creatives" including many composers (though few instrumentalists), mathematicians, and high-flying executives (lefthanded CEOs apparently earn 10% more than righthanders in FTSE companies) and politicians.
There was a reported association of lefthandedness with speech and hearing defects but AFAIK this phenomenon is statistically weak. I think there may indeed have been a case some years ago when schools insisited on righthanded writing, that the few who simply couldn't do it were "genetic sinistrals" and may indeed have had genetic problems of coordination, but with a more tolerant education system they have been diluted by the "lefties of choice".
My hypothesis is that about half of the human population is genetically incapable of being lefthanded, due to the brain having to learn all sorts of difficult things like standing on two feet, and talking. Quadrupeds and animals with a smaller vocabulary don't seem to be particularly handed in comparison. So in about half the population all the complex motor skills are, say, lodged in the left half of the brain whereas the other half of the population they are distributed more evenly.
Now society requires us to abide by certain hand conventions, and half of us can't use lefthanded tools, so the general convention is to use the right hand for fine motor control. This gives 50% of the population a choice to go with the flow or be different, and by Bayesian statistics about half of the "born ambis" choose to live as dextrals, possibly enjoying some advantage in twohanded skills like music and sport, whilst the remainder (which may include a very few "genetic sinistrals") use the left hand.
This may explain a few observed phenomena: a signficant number of lefthanded "creatives" including many composers (though few instrumentalists), mathematicians, and high-flying executives (lefthanded CEOs apparently earn 10% more than righthanders in FTSE companies) and politicians.
There was a reported association of lefthandedness with speech and hearing defects but AFAIK this phenomenon is statistically weak. I think there may indeed have been a case some years ago when schools insisited on righthanded writing, that the few who simply couldn't do it were "genetic sinistrals" and may indeed have had genetic problems of coordination, but with a more tolerant education system they have been diluted by the "lefties of choice".
The following users thanked this post: Zer0