Grammar Nazis Unite!

[pryjmaty]

BAH!!!! I yam what I yam!!!

[jenna]

Actually, the notion of people being either "left brain" or "right brain" has been almost universally debunked and discarded.

Here's a good article explaining why it's nonsense:

http://www.btinternet.com/~neuronaut/webtwo_features_leftbrain.html

Interesting theory. i don't trust it completely as it is coming from a source written for lay people and pop-psychology types. Makes me interested in researching for some more credible sources to see if they have anything similar. Professional journals actually check the facts and reliabibilty/validity of research before running anything.
Could very well be true though. The one thing that i learned in bio-psych classes that will probably remain up-to date and accurate info. through my entire life-span is this..... All that is trully known about brain functioning is that we know alot less about it than we'd like to think that we know. As soon as someone comes up with one theory on it, someone else will come up with another one to contradict it.

[The Stormstress]

I did a research paper on left-right brain hemisphere dominance n high school... it iz fascinating stuff (2 me, n e way)... those with one sided strokes & corpus collosum seperation make 4 the most nteresting research/data.

[doctorthoss]

Here's a third perspective on this debate (after the nature/nurture distinction and the left-/right-brain points):

Ludwig Wittgenstein, arguably the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, spent most of his time engrossed in questions about the nature of language, grammar, syntax, and semantics. In the 1910s and '20s, Wittgenstein became convinced (along with Bertrand Russell, Alfred Whitehead, Rudolf Carnap, and others) that language could be reduced to a precise logical structure that could be expressed in a mathematically-based "metalanguage" called the predicate calculus.
Let's call Wittgenstein a "grammar nazi" at this point in his development. He became interested in the debate because he came to the conclusion that most of the problems encountered in philosophy (ethics, metaphysics, aesthetics, etc.) were the product of attempting to use language in ways that were imprecise.
By the 1940s, however, Wittgenstein had changed his mind on nearly every point. He concluded that differing linguistic structures ("ordinary language," legalese, regional dialects, academic discourse, scientific discourse, etc.) were all equally valid and were, in fact, representative of nothing more than "forms of life." Each of these different structures he referred to as "language games." He also pointed to the ways in which language both shapes and is shaped by the culture/subculture using. "The limits of my language are the limits of my universe" and "the meaning of a word is its use" are typical quotes of his. To Wittgenstein, grammar was efficient only insofar as it could be used to convey a particular point in a specific "language game." By the time of his death in '50s, he was quite the avowed anti-"grammar nazi" and believed that we should be spending our time examining different "language games" rather than arguing over who had the "correct" one.

[Jack]

Interesting theory. i don't trust it completely as it is coming from a source written for lay people and pop-psychology types. Makes me interested in researching for some more credible sources to see if they have anything similar. Professional journals actually check the facts and reliabibilty/validity of research before running anything.

Did you even read the article? It was written by a professional journalist (did you bother to read the "About the Author" page which says that he regularly writes for the New Scientist, the Guardian, and the Lancet Neurology?) and the facts were checked. It was written to contradict pop-psychologists; labeling people "left brain" and "right brain" is pop psychology. I could find dozens more sources debunking left-right-brain theory.

Ah, I see where you got that idea from; one of his books says it was "aimed at students and lay-readers". However, that book is only one of his, and isn't even the book that said article is from! Why don't you check your facts?

I will say this: I like grammar and spelling, and I am logical and rational, but I am also incredibly creative, given that I play unconventional and good music, I write poetry and prose that has been widely considered by all who read it to be extremely creative and high quality, and I have very active apophenia. So am I "left-brain" or "right-brain"? I don't think you could make a compelling case for either.

[jenna]

Did you even read the article?....

Did you even read the article?

Yes. i did read the article. i also read the interview that was done with him, the stuff about his books, and looked up information on New Scientist as i was unfamiliar with the publication. i did not read the about the author, as i could not find it, both when i did my initial read and when i went back over it when you asked if i had read the about the author section.

So, as i don't have the information on him, i suppose it is possible that he has PHD's in both neurology and biological psychology and for some odd reason he just gets a kick out of losing prestige and bringing stuff to the masses in publications like New Scientist.

However, going on what you said and him being a professional journalist makes him a NON-realiable source. Being a professional journalist does not mean that he necessarily has the foggiest bit of knowledge in the field of psychology, it merely means that he is a good writer.

A professional journal is something entirely different from a professional journalist. A professional journal is a journal published and edited by experts in the field, only publishing articles by professionals in the field, for the audience of professionals in whatever field that it is that the journal specializes in. New Scientist is a publication for the masses and for lay people with a general interest in science, NOT a professional journal. It does not check the information in it for accuracy, reliability, or validity as a professional journal would. (read their disclaimer page)

Also, pointing to the dubious side is the fact that his documentation style was not APA. APA is the commonly accepted style in the psych. profession, so why is he not using it while at the same time trying to pass himself off as knowledgable in the field?

Of course i'm aware that all of that does not mean that the info. is incorrect, just that the source is unreliable. It could be a knowledgeable professional simply slumming it, or a journalist reporting accurate information. However,if i used that article as documentation on a paper or research proposal i would be laughed out of the profession.

Which speaking of.... i am a professional. i am sure that all of my 400 level psychology and social work, and graduate level ed. psych. professors, and publishers of the professional journals that i use would just be utterly thrilled to hear that you feel that they are wrong, and i'm sure they would take you quite seriously. Those are the sources that i have gotten my information on the brain hemispheres from. Granted, there is pop-psychology crap published on that side of the debate as well, but that is not where i get my information from.

[jenna]

Here's a third perspective on this debate (after the nature/nurture distinction and the left-/right-brain points):

......... By the time of his death in '50s, he was quite the avowed anti-"grammar nazi" and believed that we should be spending our time examining different "language games" rather than arguing over who had the "correct" one.

Wow. That just makes all kinds of sense.

i wonder if Wittgenstein is any relation to Tunastein?

[Jack]

Well, jenna, you may not like the article I showed you, but at least I did that much. Why don't you provide me a link to a recent and credible source which supports the notion that people can be divided into "left-brain types" and "right-brain types"?

I'm not disagreeing that some people are more logical than creative and vice versa - I'm just saying that in the past ten years I have heard no teacher of mine or credible neurologist say that being more of one than the other is biologically dependant on which side of the brain you are predisposed to use more.

[jenna]

Well, jenna, you may not like the article I showed you, but at least I did that much. Why don't you provide me a link to a recent and credible source which supports the notion that people can be divided into "left-brain types" and "right-brain types"?

Because web-sites with information that is anything resembling reliable in any of the behavioral science fields are damn near impossible to find. For the most part all that is out there is either home-pages of individuals with various Dx's explaining what their life is like, or web-pages of pop-psychology pseudo-intellectuals trying to make a quick buck off of the clueless.

Actual professional sources generally don't put stuff up on the web because they don't want the liablibility of lay people running around diagnosising eachother.
Or possibly because if everyone was able to Dx themselves, then all the pros would be out of business. i guess which theory your prefer depends on how big a fan you are of the profession.

The UT library has plenty of professional journals that i have found info of this sort before, or if anyone would like to see i'm sure i could dig up old note-books from classes i have taken.