Re: First report on Conm
|From:||Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>|
|Date:||Friday, March 28, 2003, 8:37|
Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:
> En réponse à Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:
> > I'm hearing so much different figures on this that I can only
> > that
> > definitions vary wildly. The last bigger thing on this I read
> > that
> > something like 1-2% of the world's population was ambidextrous,
> > left-
> > handed and the rest right-handed. Oh, and it's authors'd probably
> > considered "ambidextrous people with more or less inclination toward
> > left or
> > right" to be contradiction in terms.
> That's because the idea that lateralisation is a continuum is not
> > How strongly right/left-handed count as "fully" to get your numbers?
> Quite strongly actually.
> > Would the
> > fact that I can operate my mobile phone with my left hand make me
> > ambidextrous
> > by your definition?
> Infact, I can probably make most things I can with
> > my
> > right hand with my left one, except writing and doing things
> > my full
> > right-handed strength, only like ten times slower and more
> > inefficiently; I've
> > never met anyone who's thought that make me anything but perfectly
> > right-
> > handed.
> And I think they are right. Still, when you take this definition, you
> get my
> figures, not anybody else's. Ambidextry is more pervasive than it
> because it's usually invisible.
So where to draw the line between ambidextrous with a preference for the right
(left) hand and right-(left-)handed?
BTW, the article I refered to defined ambidextrous as equally proefficent with
either hand. It did speak of degrees of right-(left-)handedness, so it'd didn't
deny the existence of a continuum; it merely restricted the term ambidextrous to
the very middle point.