Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Lateralization of brain function) (bot |
m Archiving 1 discussion(s) from Talk:Lateralization of brain function) (bot |
||
| (7 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 24:
I am being taken to task for suggesting that it is disrespectful to brain researchers who (and I do know this) use sophisticated mathematics, to suggest that in their assertions about which parts of the brain are involved in mathematics, they are applying a childishly simple notion of what mathematics is. But this article as it is now written does encourage that impression. If the impression is wrong, the article should be changed accordingly. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 00:00, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
:No one should take you to task; these are important and pertinent points you raise. You may find it useful to look up [[acalculia]]; this is a neurologic finding that can be seen in relative isolation. In clinical practice it refers to difficulty with simple calculation - addition and subtraction, mainly, at least as I have seen it tested. Gerstmann claimed it was related to lesions of the left angular gyrus, but this is probably too specific to be applicable in all cases. -[[User:Ikkyu2|Ikkyu2]] 23:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::Heh. He's referring to [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Michael_Hardy&diff=37013979&oldid=36467040 my comment here] that I left on his user page. As the self-appointed [[Wikipedia:Esperanza|Esperanza]] bouncer I don't take too kindly to perceived intentional rudeness; I am a big fan of the [[Meta:Don't be a dick]] policy. Also, your point on [[acalculia]] (an article I've helped write) is dead on, but still not quite the point Mr. Hardy is getting at methinks. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::"Perceived intentional rudeness" was only ''perceived''. Nor do I think there was ''u''nintentional rudeness; someone just misunderstood what I wrote. However, I will admit that if I had written less hastily, I might have anticipated some ways in which my words could get misunderstood and taken care to phrase it differently.
Line 33:
:''Reasoning functions such as language and mathematics are often lateralized to the left hemisphere of the brain''
from my understanding its more symbolic processing and temporal processing in the left. Reasoning is a little to broad a claim. --[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Pfafrich|talk]]) 00:30, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
::[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]]: If you would not mind altering this as well, I would appreciate it. I'm trying to simultaneously do too many real life things to really correct this language right now. See my response below for my thoughts on this article. If you don't get to this in the next few days I should have time next week to dig up better references and resources to more clearly express the notion of laterality of "reasoning" in the brain. Cheers! [[User:Semiconscious|<
::: No problem I'll wait. This seem an article very much in gestation at the moment. --[[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] ([[User talk:Pfafrich|talk]]) 19:11, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 56:
[http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/284/5416/970 This article from ''Science'' magazine] attempts to describe more precise definitions of "mathematics", suggesting it either has linguistic origins or is more visuo-spatial. The crux of the article suggests there are different forms, what they call "exact arithmetic" and "approximate arithmetic". "Exact arithmetic"--"what brain researchers consider to be mathematics'"--is strongly left-lateralized as this article suggests. "Approximate arithmetic"--"what mathematicians consider to be 'mathematics'"--is bilateral.
Again, in deference to civility, I will amend this article to more clearly state these differences despite my intuition that this is a semantic argument that is unnecessarily clouding what is essentially an already poorly-defined notion. [[User:Semiconscious|<
::Also, thank you both for coming here to edit this page: if nothing else it is enforcing a more precise definition of the terms we are using. If I am coming across as abrasive, I have no intentions other than clarity and I truly appreciate the efforts here. [[User:Semiconscious|<
I was not suggesting anything about "approximate" versus "exact". I was suggesting that
Line 71:
::What I seem to be poorly expressing here is that--while I understand your point—it is too ill-defined for an encyclopedic article. You have pointed out to me a place where the language is poorly defined and thus open to many interpretations. Therefore I have altered the language acordingly and provided a citation in support of my change. You can continue arguing about your feelings as to what "mathematics" truly is but that is no longer relevant to this article or this discussion as the word "mathematics" or any of its variants no longer appears in the article in any form (other than in the title of reference I provided).
::I further agree with [[User:Pfafrich|Salix alba]] that "reasoning" is a poor word choice as well. In my experience, the casual reader on Wikipedia does not like a great deal of technical language. In my attempt at trying to communicate a relatively simple idea to benefit the maximum number of readers, I chose to use simpler terms. This was clearly not an appropriate choice however, as I was unaware at how poorly defined a term such as "mathematics" was. My point being, you may continue arguing this--and I will gladly engage you in an argument of semantics if you would like--however in the context of this article I consider this issue to be resolved. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::I don't think imprecision in the definition of "mathematics" is the issue here at all. It is not easy to define "mathematics", and any definition would be subject to endless debate among informed people (and uninformed ones too, I suppose). But I meant that what actual mathematicians and other actual humans actually do, when doing things that everyone would agree is mathematics, is mostly not algorithmic processing. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 01:03, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Line 80:
==Exact/algorithmic/blah blah==
Hardy: Did you read the citation I provided? I was simply using the language they used. You can apply whatever words you'd like to this: it's so nebulously defined that I just really don't care. However I find you use of the phrase "recent discussion tends to confirm my suspicion" in your edit summary amusing, since it was more you talking ''at'' me rather than a discussion. :) [[User:Semiconscious|<
::I've looked at it enough to know that it provides some context that aids in understanding what they mean by "exact arithmetic" and that context is not (yet, anyway) in the present Wikipedia article. That article ''and'' the things you and others have said here do tend to confirm my suspicion. It's just as if they were confusing that sort of thinking with what mathematics actually is. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 87:
Recall that we are editing an assemblage of other people's work here, not conducting original research or trying to form cohesive theories out of disparate publications. Much of the current discussion above would absolutely vanish if the editors would confine themselves to statements developed from and taken directly from source publications, ideally cited by page number and possibly quoted briefly under fair use. -[[User:Ikkyu2|Ikkyu2]] 19:48, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
:Ugh I'm so sick of this. Michael Hardy clearly has strong feelings a '''''his''''' definition of math. After looking over at the [[Mathematics]] article, there's a huge issue with defining mathematis; I'm not sure why Michael Hardy is coming in here and making changes that go against a cited article in ''Science'' inserting his own definition based upon phrases such as "confirm my suspicion" and "what mathematics actually is". These are opinions sir, and not worthy of countering a good citation. I have conceded several times over that my original statement was unclear, so I feel the citation is a good compromise. But you just keep inserting your own personal views on the matter.
:It's [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mathematics&diff=11180862&oldid=11180822 clear] you feel strongly on this matter, but others [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Mathematics&diff=11160991&oldid=11160652 feel differently] than you and [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematics#NPOV_and_original_research.3F defining mathematics] is [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Mathematics#Recent_revert_wars problematic], so please quit reverting based upon your suspicions. Suspicion does not trump citation. [[User:Semiconscious|<
:::I did not propose any particular definition of mathematics. I don't know why Semiconscious thinks I did. I edited this article for clarity, not to support particular opinions. The only thing I said about the nature of mathematics consisted of a list of '''examples''', not a definition, and I don't think any of them are controversial. Also, to say that mechanically executing algorithms is '''not''' mathematics is also not contrvoersial. [[User:Michael Hardy|Michael Hardy]] 00:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Line 371:
[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. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly<
:::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<ref name="Catani et al 2007">{{Cite journal | last1 = Catani | first1 = M. | last2 = Allin | first2 = M. P. G. | last3 = Husain | first3 = M. | last4 = Pugliese | first4 = L. | last5 = Mesulam | first5 = M. M. | last6 = Murray | first6 = R. M. | last7 = Jones | first7 = D. K. | title = Symmetries in human brain language pathways correlate with verbal recall | doi = 10.1073/pnas.0702116104 | journal = Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences | volume = 104 | issue = 43 | pages = 17163–17168 | pmc = 2040413 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17939998}}</ref>.) [[User:PhineasG|PhineasG]] ([[User talk:PhineasG|talk]]) 15:01, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
Line 489:
{{small|Above undated message substituted from [[Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment]] by [[User:PrimeBOT|PrimeBOT]] ([[User talk:PrimeBOT|talk]]) 08:52, 18 January 2022 (UTC)}}
== Inadequate images and captions ==
I think images being presented as examples of counterfactual information are confusing, especially if the original context of the image is not heavily emphasised. Furthermore, simply presenting an example of an image containing factoids without detailing or even indicating which aspects of the image are correct (e.g. the depiction of the brain as having two hemispheres), which aspects have some merit (e.g. intuitive thought in the right hemisphere), which aspect are straight up wrong (e.g. random sequencing in the right hemisphere) and which aspects are not only wrong but also plain nonsense (e.g. creative writing in the right hemisphere - I'd like to see someone write a novel without using language - and I mean a traditional novel, nothing avant-garde) doesn't actually give any real information to people who do not already have it. [[User:Anditres|Anditres]] ([[User talk:Anditres|talk]]) 04:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: Introduction to Psychology Honors==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Paradise_Valley_Community_College/Introduction_to_Psychology_Honors_(Fall_2023) | assignments = [[User:Ph1275|Ph1275]], [[User:MinnieMollet3|MinnieMollet3]], [[User:18roo|18roo]] | reviewers = [[User:Mirmir77|Mirmir77]], [[User:AstroWiki143|AstroWiki143]], [[User:Soccernumber1|Soccernumber1]], [[User:Inferior12|Inferior12]], [[User:Birdie2324|Birdie2324]], [[User:Addisonel|Addisonel]], [[User:ThunderhillMc|ThunderhillMc]], [[User:TheBrapHeardAroundTheWorld|TheBrapHeardAroundTheWorld]] | start_date = 2023-08-21 | end_date = 2023-12-15 }}
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:TheOneCheese|TheOneCheese]] ([[User talk:TheOneCheese|talk]]) 19:26, 7 November 2023 (UTC)</span>
== Possible Unreliable Source? ==
Schroeder, Thomas (15 July 2023). "Left-Brain, Right-Brain Reconceptualized: A New Neuroscientific Understanding of an Old Divide". Medium.
This source is quoted three times but is simply a medium post by someone with no actual expertise in neuroscience, in the very article cited they're selling a book that claims to teach you to "develop both sides of the brain’s neocortex". Considering that the author has a vested financial interest in their claim being true and has no apparent quailification, I think it's odd that they would be cited instead of directly citing the article by Elkhonon Goldberg (who by all accounts is an expert in this field of study). This is especially strange seeing as the Schroeder medium post relies entirely on the Goldberg article. I understand wikipedia prefers secondary and tertiary sources but a more reputable one would be preferable. [[User:Darkpixelftw|Darkpixelftw]] ([[User talk:Darkpixelftw|talk]]) 16:21, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
:Agreed. The Medium article falls into the same old pop-science trap of wildly extrapolating neuroscientific theories into broad descriptions of the patterns of peoples behaviour, despite no evidence actually being given to link the two together (or even that such variations corresponding with left/right-brainedness even exist in the first place!). Despite claiming to be a more nuanced understanding, it still presupposes the existance of left- and right-brained peoplem, and uses the authority of Elkhonon Goldberg to argue for points not supported by his research. [[User:FChlo|FChlo]] ([[User talk:FChlo|talk]]) 11:27, 26 April 2024 (UTC)
== Hemispheric Asymmetry ==
Many sweeping generalizations have been made about right and left hemisphere function which are hard to justify. One such claim is that the left hemisphere is specialized for local, detailed, serial processing, whereas the right hemisphere is more specialized for global, holistic, parallel processing. [[User:תיל"ם|תיל"ם]] ([[User talk:תיל"ם|talk]]) 14:57, 24 May 2024 (UTC)
==Wiki Education assignment: BIOL 3358 Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience==
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Temple_University/BIOL_3358_Cellular_and_Molecular_Neuroscience_(Spring) | assignments = [[User:Pndakip|Pndakip]] | reviewers = [[User:K.P.Neuro|K.P.Neuro]] | start_date = 2025-01-14 | end_date = 2025-04-28 }}
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by [[User:Plantsvszombiesenthusiast|Plantsvszombiesenthusiast]] ([[User talk:Plantsvszombiesenthusiast|talk]]) 14:17, 28 February 2025 (UTC)</span>
== Possible New Content ==
Hello! I'm finished with my edits for my Wiki Education assignment. I wanted to give an outline of some recommended improvements for this article:
1) Add sections under lateralized functions for visuospatial processing, theory of mind, and "The Interpreter" hypothesis (which I think is what "Value Systems" is trying to explain).
2) More sources for lateralization of language.
3) Add small section about handedness + its relation to language (maybe within the motor system section).
4) Evolutionary basis of lateralization + other animals
5) Developmental and genetic basis of lateralized functions
[[User:Pndakip|Pndakip]] ([[User talk:Pndakip|talk]]) 14:49, 18 April 2025 (UTC)
| |||