Re: First report on Conm

En réponse à John Cowan <jcowan@...>:

>
> Well, then, why not use the fork in the right hand (to hold things
> still) and
> the knife in the left (to cut)?
Laziness probably. I actually don't know. I guess I never got the idea to do so
because I never thought the knife was the important tool when eating. Hehe,
everyone is excentric somewhere :) .

  Even I can do things like hold a phone
> in
> my left hand while I dial it with my right.
>
Me too, although with small phones (like cell phones, although not mine since I
don't have one ;)) ) I dial always with my left hand because my right one is
not precise enough.

>
> > I, clumsy as I am, learned to walk on my hands (I lost the ability
> > since but I used to be able to do it). Anybody can do it when really
> wanting
> > (and with enough time and training).
>
> I doubt my arms would support me (160 kg).
>
As I said, unless you have some physical problem that might prevent you to do
so. There's no such thing for learning to use either hand.

>
> At age six, I might have been able to do the same.  At age 44, I doubt
> it.
You could, if the need was there. It would just take longer time and harder
training, so it would just need stronger need. Probably not necessary in our
time of computers and such, if the need was really there you'd manage, and at
any age.

> Young brains are flexible ones.
>
Doesn't mean old ones are inflexible :)) . It just means that they are *less*
flexible.

>
> If that were really true, there would be no left-handed behaviors,
> since
> (as you say) it is much more adaptive to play right-handed.
But it isn't *necessary* to play fully right-handed, and the human being is a
lazy animal :)) . And anyway, I do believe that if society was more acceptant
of left-handed people, there would be many more around, so you're not
contradicting me, on the contrary.

  A study
> of
> baseball players shows that left-handers are more short-lived, BTW;
> they
> are one of the few groups for which we have fairly complete vital
> statistics
> and chirality information both (since 1890 or so).
>
I know about that one. The problem is that it doesn't give any reason for the
short-livedness, giving the wrong impression that lateralization is the only
reason. But take any minority who suffered from oppression, and you'll find
that they are more short-lived than the majority, and that if the pressure is
relieved their life expectancy rejoins quickly that of the majority. There
again, you underestimate the power of society pressure. So those figures say
nothing except the extent of the pressure those people had to live under.

>
> Dextrals usually turn the paper 90 degrees when writing RTL.
>
As many sinistrals do when writing left to right :)) . As I told you, humans
are lazy animals. Adaptability will be kept to a minimum. It doesn't mean that
it is not due to the circumstances though.

>
> You may be right at that.
>
Hehe, I did read a lot about that and looked around a lot, and gathered lots of
stories :)) . I've long been fascinated by lateralisation :) .

>
> About time, too.
>
Hey, it's not my fault if you are all dirty-minded! ;))) I was thinking of
something very innocent and you turned it into something completely
different :) .

Christophe.

http://rainbow.conlang.free.fr

It takes a straight mind to create a twisted conlang.