Content deleted Content added
fix header |
manually archive old |
||
Line 339:
::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. [[User:Countered|Countered]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Countered|Countered]] ([[User talk:Countered|talk]]) 21:17, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
== Popular meaning ==
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). [[User:Jmrowland|rowley]] ([[User talk:Jmrowland|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." [[User:Wulframm|Wulframm]] ([[User talk:Wulframm|talk]]) 19:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
== The Master and His Emissary ==
''[[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. <b><font color="green">[[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]]</font>+<font color="blue">[[User talk:Esowteric|Talk]]</font></b> 16:13, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
: As ''The Economist'' notes in their review, McGilchrist seems to take astonishingly liberties with the scientific literature [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk: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. <b><font color="green">[[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]]</font>+<font color="blue">[[User talk:Esowteric|Talk]]</font></b> 19:31, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
::::'''Comment''' Mary Midgley's review (Jan 2010) <ref>http://www.theguardian.com/books/2010/jan/02/1</ref> 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. [[User:Simplicissimo|Simplicissimo]] ([[User talk:Simplicissimo|talk]]) 17:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
* The book is published by [[Yale University Press]]. That is a [[Wikipedia:NPOV#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view|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. --'''<font color="#0000FF">[[User:Jayen466|JN]]</font><font color=" #FFBF00">[[User_Talk:Jayen466|466]]</font>''' 20:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
::Actually, it does matter. See [[WP:FRINGE]] and [[WP:UNDUE]]. [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Edhubbard|Edhubbard]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lateralization_of_brain_function&action=historysubmit&diff=333312394&oldid=333115114 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 [http://www.iainmcgilchrist.com/The_Master_and_his_Emissary_by_McGilchrist.pdf 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 "<strike>fringe</strike>" "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, <b><font color="green">[[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]]</font>+<font color="blue">[[User talk:Esowteric|Talk]]</font></b> 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. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 14:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, that seems fair enough. <b><font color="green">[[User:Esowteric|Esowteric]]</font>+<font color="blue">[[User talk:Esowteric|Talk]]</font></b> 15:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
== Connection between Broca's and Wernicke’s ==
Moved existing comment from the article to here: [[Special:Contributions/69.62.226.199|69.62.226.199]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Natalya|Nataly<font color="green">a</font>]] 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<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)
<references />
== The Relationship Between Sperry and Gazzaniga is Unclear ==
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. [[User:Soulfulpsy|Soulfulpsy]] ([[User talk:Soulfulpsy|talk]]) 06:47, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
:So basically you're suggesting to change the order? [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 13:05, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
== Additional images ==
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? --[[User:Sveika|Sveika]] ([[User talk:Sveika|talk]]) 16:11, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
: I think you're right, [[User:Sveika|Sveika]]. Pinging {{u|Anatomist90}}, the author of the images in question. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 06:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
== The Divided Brain ==
Right brain: broadly vigilant [[attention]]
Left brain: narrow-focused [[attention]] <small class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/84.94.37.27|84.94.37.27]] ([[User talk:84.94.37.27|talk]]) 00:00, 3 June 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
== Pop psychology - opposite the truth ==
"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. [[User:Frisenette|Frisenette]] ([[User talk:Frisenette|talk]]) 09:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
:@[[User:Frisenette|Frisenette]]. Well, the "LHS = logical, RHS = creative" idea is clearly complete nonsense. That said, I doubt it's even coherent enough to be "opposite the truth". To be ''opposite the truth'' and not simply irrelevant noise, you need to have a pretty good hunch where the truth is to begin with, and then dutifully miss the target.
:There were two sources to that "opposite the truth" statement. I just deep-sixed the first one, on grounds that whoever wrote that "paper" was barely literate -- at least in English. The authors seem to be two students. The other source is a serious paper, and at a glance I find nothing in it directly supporting the quote. It concerns itself with more serious questions like language processing and handedness, and doesn't address or reference the pop-psy notion in any way that I can see.
:It would be nice to enlist an editor competent in neurosciences to go over this paragraph and either rework the statement or provide a more specific reference. Asking for help on relevant wikiprojects might be the best way forward. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 07:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::I just restored the reference you removed, albeit blindly. (I don't have handy access to the book.) An editor's opinion of the writing in a textbook by a major publisher does not negate its use. Scrapping it would be a [[WP:RSN]] issue. [[User:BiologicalMe|BiologicalMe]] ([[User talk:BiologicalMe|talk]]) 13:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
{{od}}Dang-it all to heck, I just wasted 20 minutes dissecting choice quotes from the paper before realising you're right, I'm dissecting the WRONG paper. I blame the flu, it's making me bilaterally distracted. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 15:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:[[User:BiologicalMe|BiologicalMe]]: I cannot access that source. I have called for help on wikiproject neuroscience. Since this is not my field, there's not much else I can do. Thanks for catching my mistake in deleting that reference. (Thanks to a botched search and a brain bug, I confused the book with a terrible paper citing the book). — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 15:31, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::I feel for you. I haven't tackled the issue because I couldn't check the specific text. I don't like the phrase "opposite the truth" because it is ambiguous. Does it mean that there is lateralization in the reversed pattern or no lateralization? Get better soon. [[User:BiologicalMe|BiologicalMe]] ([[User talk:BiologicalMe|talk]]) 15:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
:::Thanks for the kind words. Combined with the opening "ironically", I 100% interpret the last sentence as "there is lateralization in the reversed pattern", (or, more charitably, "to the extent there ''is'' lateralisation, it is in the reversed pattern") which, if anything, is even more wrong than the original view, I think. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 16:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
*Textbooks are not considered good sources for controversial statements. The sentence in question was introduced on April 1 in a large edit by {{user|XenusG}} ([https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lateralization_of_brain_function&diff=prev&oldid=713001678 diff]). A lot of material introduced in that edit is poorly written and problematic in meaning. In my opinion the sentence in question should be deleted unless much better sourcing can be found, and even then the wording of the sentence would need to be clarified. There are lots of other things in this article that need to be fixed as well. [[User:Looie496|Looie496]] ([[User talk:Looie496|talk]]) 15:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
::Ok, thanks. I might remove the sentence after a while if nobody more qualified takes that step — but I won't be able to more constructively improve the article. — [[User:Gamall Wednesday Ida|Gamall Wednesday Ida]] ([[User talk:Gamall Wednesday Ida|t]] · [[Special:Contributions/Gamall_Wednesday_Ida|c]]) 16:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
| |||