Re: First report on Conm

Quoting Christophe Grandsire <christophe.grandsire@...>:

> En réponse à Andreas Johansson <andjo@...>:
>
> >
> > I'm hearing so much different figures on this that I can only
> conclude
> > that
> > definitions vary wildly. The last bigger thing on this I read
> claimed
> > that
> > something like 1-2% of the world's population was ambidextrous,
> 10-20%
> > 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
> widely
> accepted.
[snip]
> > 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?
>
> No.
>
>  Infact, I can probably make most things I can with
> > my
> > right hand with my left one, except writing and doing things
> requiring
> > 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
> seems,
> 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.

                                                            Andreas