Talk:Lateralization of brain function

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Psychology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Medicine / Neurology (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as Mid-importance).
 
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Anatomy (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anatomy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Anatomy on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article has been classified as relating to neuroanatomy.
 
WikiProject Cognitive science (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Cognitive science, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Cognitive science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Popular meaning[edit]

Can't the article start with the popular meaning, as a way to debunk it, but still be useful. People every day say "left brained" and I came here to see what it meant and was confronted by a wordy pedantic wordy blah blah wordy yadda yadda wordy digression. Or perhaps just have an article called "left brained" and put in the popular meaning and say "but it ain't true, see lateralization". Wikipedia is getting ruined by amateur pedants.

Disagree. If you want the "popular" meaning based on usage, consult a dictionary. If you want the currently most popular meaning, consult a web-dictionary. Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopedia that indexes and strives toward organization of the knowledgeable, not the knowledge of the man-in-the-street. In any case, there are an almost infinite number of "popular" conceptions about. Which of those do you propose be used? Yours?
The same argument can be turned around. Since no area of knowledge is ever "closed," the question becomes one of "which definitive factual meaning do you report on?" The bottom line is that people come here for answers; if you already know the answer to a question, why consult an encyclopedia? And if you don't know the answer, chances are that you may come here without a well-formed question in mind. The phrases "left-brain" and "right-brain" are common, not just on the street, and they refer to something different than just talking about lateralization of brain function. Though the wording may be inaccurate and misleading, it's no more so than saying "the sun is rising." Also, try to remember to sign your posts (not to be too left-brained about it). rowley (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2011 (UTC)
I agree. I think covering popular misconceptions about a specific subject in a specific field is well within the bounds of Wikipedia's goals. of course I just phrase that differently then listing a "popular meaning," but I believe the intent is to cover misconceptions about lateralization. it shouldn't be too hard to create a section called "popular misconceptions." Wulframm (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

The Master and His Emissary[edit]

The Master and His Emissary: The Divided Brain and the Making of the Western World is a new study of the specialist hemispheric functioning of the brain, and the conflict between their world views, by the psychiatrist and writer Iain McGilchrist. Published 2009. Esowteric+Talk 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

As The Economist notes in their review, McGilchrist seems to take astonishingly liberties with the scientific literature Edhubbard (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
But the reader is also treated to some very loose talk and to generalisations of breathtaking sweep. The left’s world is “ultimately narcissistic”; its “prime motivation is power”, and the Industrial Revolution was, in some mysterious sense, the left’s “most audacious assault yet on the world of the right hemisphere”. The sainted right, by contrast, has “ideals” that are in harmony with an “essentially local, agrarian, communitarian, organic” conception of democracy... But he offers no evidence that such differences can be explained in physiological terms... The book ends with a deflating admission that will not surprise those readers who feel the author’s main claims about the cerebral hemispheres have the ring of loose analogies rather than hard explanations. Mr McGilchrist would not be unhappy to learn that what he has to say about the roles of the hemispheres in Western culture is simply a metaphor and is not literally true. In other words, he seems to be in two minds about his own thesis, which is fitting but not encouraging.
Have expanded and balanced the article a bit now. Apparently the philosopher Mary Midgley will be reviewing the book in The Guardian in early January 2010. Will see what she has to say. Esowteric+Talk 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment Mary Midgley's review (Jan 2010) [1] says "McGilchrist's explanation of such oddities in terms of our divided nature is clear, penetrating, lively, thorough and fascinating. Though neurologists may well not welcome it because it asks them new questions, the rest of us will surely find it splendidly thought-provoking." Given that Mary Midgley is acknowledged by Wikipedia as being described by The Guardian as "a fiercely combative philosopher and the UK's 'foremost scourge of 'scientific pretension'", Wikipedia would do well to allow McGilchist's book as a reference. Simplicissimo (talk) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
  • The book is published by Yale University Press. That is a significant publisher. Whether we think it is hard science, metaphor or philosophy, a book by them addressing this specific topic is a RS and a bona fide addition. --JN466 20:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
Actually, it does matter. See WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Edhubbard (talk) 02:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
To clarify, it does not matter for the entry on the book, itself. We should have an entry on the book. But, given that this book does not purport to actually provide any factually correct information on the topic of this article, lateralization of brain function, but rather uses it as a "loose analog[y]" or a "metaphor" that is "not literally true", it should not be included on this page due to the wikipedia policies cited above. Edhubbard (talk) 02:53, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment What we're talking about here is my attempt to include the book in "further reading", an action that was reverted. I can appreciate your desire to keep what you see as "poppsych" weeded out of the article, so that it is not flagged as "pseudoscience" (whilst remembering that this is not someone's "recommended reading list" but a representative list of "further reading"). However, I think it's a little unfair to base your judgement on the reaction of a reviewer in The Economist. The introduction to the book (pdf) seems to paint a different picture of the book's actual content.
I like to run articles past their subjects and the author points out to me that "As to the neuropsychological, neurophysiological and other evidence, there are about 3,000 references to the literature included in the notes", and he himself dismisses what he sees as some popular misconceptions about lateralization, though I am reliant on input from reliable sources and cannot of course use phrases like "meticulously documented" until reliable sources use such phraseology. Further reading could perhaps be split into "mainstream" and "fringe" "popular psychology" (again remembering that heliocentricity was at one time dismissed as "fringe" theory :)), if it can be established that this is fringe theory, in order not to give undue weight to the less popular mainstream. Just a thought, Esowteric+Talk 11:26, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
None of the reviewers appear to have scientific credentials, as far as I can see. A book of this sort is likely to be reviewed by Science or Nature soon, if it hasn't been already, and reviews there would give a much better idea of whether this is a suitable book to direct readers toward for further information. Looie496 (talk) 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that seems fair enough. Esowteric+Talk 15:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Connection between Broca's and Wernicke’s[edit]

Moved existing comment from the article to here: 69.62.226.199 (talk) 22:30, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence Area and Wernicke’s Area are linked by a white matter fiber tract, the arcuate fasciculus.is explicitly negated in this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arcuate_fasciculus.

[edit]

The article Arcuate fasciculus explicitly states (cited) that, while it was believed to connect Broca's area and Wernicke's area, it is no longer believed to do so. I don't have the time now to figure out what should be incorporated into this article, but I did want to be sure to bring it to the attention of hopefully anyone involved with this page. -- Natalya 21:35, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
I think the truth is that the cellular-level synaptic connections and boundaries of Broca's, Wernicke's, and really any other area of the cortex are poorly understood, and therefore an accurate but still helpful statement might be, e.g., "the arcuate fasciculus connects the lateral prefrontal cortex (including Broca's area) with the posterior parietal and temporal cortex (including Wernicke's area) and has been shown to play a role in language processing." (See, e.g., Catani et al 2007[2].) PhineasG (talk) 15:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
  1. ^ http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/02/1
  2. ^ Catani, M.; Allin, M. P. G.; Husain, M.; Pugliese, L.; Mesulam, M. M.; Murray, R. M.; Jones, D. K. (2007). "Symmetries in human brain language pathways correlate with verbal recall". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 104 (43): 17163–17168. doi:10.1073/pnas.0702116104. PMC 2040413free to read. PMID 17939998. 

lateralization differences between men and women[edit]

Copied from my (Lova Falk's) talk page into this page, concerning this edit with the following edit summary "One single study cannot refute accepted knowledge. You need a review of all study results that concludes that these differences don't exist.":

I suppose I understand the bureaucratic nature and necessity of such a system, but how does one fit the facts into these goal posts which could seemly move depending on an individuals personal understanding of each bit of research? At which point is enough research enough to negate past research? The article you linked me was interesting - yet it seemingly supports my addition to the page because not only was the primary source peer-reviewed by experts in the field, but has been talked about in almost 20 or more secondary sources, and has been cited by quite a few papers. Such a subjective system seems quite contradictory to science and the pursuit of knowledge because one can claim that no valid scientific consensus has been reached how ever much they want, moving those posts as wide as they wish. Furthermore, the article linked also states that one should use the most up to date information - which is included in the study I cited.

Secondly, the study itself shows directly that lateralization in both men and women does not bias either hemisphere - and in that it also shows that neither men or women are more lateralized than the other. There was only one study cited that claimed that men are more lateralized than women, which doesn't show any sort of "general consensus" when it comes to brain lateralization. The very fact that a new study has in fact challenged that leads to the conclusion that past ideas about lateralization have been wrong. To claim that it is still "generally accepted" is simply false. Countered (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. The fact that a study was discussed in the popular press is meaningless; this study has not been cited even once yet in the scientific literature. You have far more faith in the virtues of peer review than reality warrants -- the criteria listed at WP:MEDRS are there for good reasons. Further discussion should take place at Talk:Lateralization of brain function. Looie496 (talk) 18:00, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
You very clearly need to re-read the criteria for adding new data to a wikipedia page when it contradicts old data. Plos one is a peer reviewed medical journal - and it clearly states in WP:MEDRS that "Peer reviewed medical journals are a natural choice as a source for up-to-date medical information in Wikipedia articles." Secondly the only source you have for "general consensus" is a previous study in another journal. Do I really need to spell this out? In all reality this whole page needs to be rewritten because much of the data is now proven to be false by new methods; that is, whole brain lateralization scans as opposed to the previous localized scans. not only is the study I posted more thorough in it's more advanced methods, but it has been completely unopposed in the medical community. Countered (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
I don't mean to come off as hostile either - I just don't really understand how wikipedia can maintain quality while claiming things which have seemingly been thoroughly disproved. Plos one is even quoted on WP:MEDRS. I guess I just don't understand what more is necessary to disprove past claims. Countered (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

The Relationship Between Sperry and Gazzaniga is Unclear[edit]

The article lists Michael Gazzaniga and Roger Wolcott Sperry in that order as the researchers. Sperry actually was Gazzaniga's professor at the start of this research. Sperry is a full generation older and is considered the pioneer in this research. Gazzaniga's work is outstanding, but he got his start under Sperry's lead. Sperry is no longer alive but Gazzaniga is still leading research efforts in neuroscience. I realize this is not much more than a footnote in the full story of split-brain research, but even footnotes (or their metaphorical equivalent) should not be misleading. Soulfulpsy (talk) 06:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

So basically you're suggesting to change the order? Looie496 (talk) 13:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Additional images[edit]

In both of the additional images, "Corpus callusum" should be spelled "Corpus callosum." Correct spelling is vital for anatomic terms (or any standardized terminology). Even if the spelling were corrected, the two additional images do not seem to add anything useful or specific to the article. Remove both images? --Sveika (talk) 16:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

The Divided Brain[edit]

Right brain: broadly vigilant attention

Left brain: narrow-focused attention — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.94.37.27 (talk) 00:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Pop psychology - opposite the truth[edit]

"Ironically these ideas held denote LHS as the 'logical brain' and RHS as the 'creative brain' which, even in the most generalized sense, is opposite the truth".

I see no evidence for the above statement anywhere. It has the smell of the halfbacked academics faddish taste for wanton and habitual iconoclasm. Shouldn't it be removed or backed up with actual evidence? It disturbs and contradicts the whole article. Frisenette (talk) 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)