Thread: Lefthanded more creative?

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is "27% more creative" supposed to mean?

53.2 percent of statistics are made up on the spot

Heh. Giving a 'creativity percentage' figure is rather silly. Giving a 'creativity percentage' accurate to 1% is just dumb.

I think it's scientifically reasonable to claim that left handed people think in more artistic ways rather than mathematical.

For example, I know that a higher-than-normal proportion of those with synesthesia are left-handed, and people with synesthesia often tend to be better at creating art and music but not as good at logic and mathematics.

So it could well be that the right hemisphere of the brain has a higher balance of the creative function matter.

Originally Posted by Pyrofan1

53.2 percent of statistics are made up on the spot

I heard it was 87%

Originally Posted by Xei

Heh. Giving a 'creativity percentage' figure is rather silly. Giving a 'creativity percentage' accurate to 1% is just dumb.

I think it's scientifically reasonable to claim that left handed people think in more artistic ways rather than mathematical.

For example, I know that a higher-than-normal proportion of those with synesthesia are left-handed, and people with synesthesia often tend to be better at creating art and music but not as good at logic and mathematics.

So it could well be that the right hemisphere of the brain has a higher balance of the creative function matter.

I wouldn't say people with synesthesia are necessarily more creative, they just see and hear things that others do not, and so if they were to paint a landscape it would come out in a way that someone with "normal" senses wouldn't even imagine.

Yeah, you could say that; but objectively, more of them are artists, musicians, etcetera.

I'm an analytical fuckwad and I'm left-handed, so if there's some rule of left-handedness out there I'm proof that there are exceptions to it. This isn't to say that I'm not (or at least haven't been in the past) creative, but when I am creative it tends to funnel out into high-order processes like piecing together nuggets of philosophy or arranging points in a plot arc... playing with meanings and abstractions rather forms and figures.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Just out of curiosity, what exactly is "27% more creative" supposed to mean?

Left handed people are generally more competent with there right Hemisphere of the brain.
It has been proven that this side is more abstract in nature. the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination: the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts.

Some of these different traits can be seen here;

Linear Vs. Holistic Processing

Logical Vs. Intuitive

Sequential Vs. Random Processing

Verbal Vs. Nonverbal Processing

Symbolic Vs. Concrete Processing

Reality-Based Vs. Fantasy-Oriented Processing

Originally Posted by Howie

Left handed people are generally more competent with there right Hemisphere of the brain.
It has been proven that this side is more abstract in nature. the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination: the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts.

Not sure why I was quoted for this response. My problem is not with the idea of being more creative, it is with the meaningless quantity "27%."

I have heard this, but how can you proove it?

Originally Posted by AdamA

I have heard this, but how can you proove it?

The proof is with brain imaging scans. FMRI and PET scans. Certain functions and activities are performed and that activity is shown on these scans.

Not sure why I was quoted for this response. My problem is not with the idea of being more creative, it is with the meaningless quantity "27%."

I don't think it is meaningless. Maybe not accurate. To me It is like trying to pinpoint levels of lucidity. It is just a benchmark. An educated guess.
We can see that the numbers are all over the place.

Originally Posted by Howie

I don't think it is meaningless. Maybe not accurate. To me It is like trying to pinpoint levels of lucidity. It is just a benchmark. An educated guess.

It is absolutely meaningless. The problem is not that it is just a guess (which it obviously is), but that the number being guessed has no meaning in the first place. What is a "27%" shift in creativity? It has no meaning at all. Can you say that Monet is 27% more creative than Degas? Were the Beatles 11% more creative than the Stones? There is no accepted quantifiable measurement of creativity, therefore no two numbers to compare to arrive at 27.

Originally Posted by skysaw

It is absolutely meaningless. The problem is not that it is just a guess (which it obviously is), but that the number being guessed has no meaning in the first place. What is a "27%" shift in creativity? It has no meaning at all. Can you say that Monet is 27% more creative than Degas? Were the Beatles 11% more creative than the Stones? There is no accepted quantifiable measurement of creativity, therefore no two numbers to compare to arrive at 27.

We are comparing two hemispheres of a single brain, not two different individuals. The variables between Degas and Monet would be unmeasurable.
But what ever. I agree there is no actual percentage they can claim as "correct" But science generalizes and does so by comparisons. In this case a generalization can be made.
1. Two hemispheres
2. participants / subjects
3. research and results
4. = %

Originally Posted by Howie

4. = %

What on Earth?? I'm sorry to say that your deductive reasoning is seriously lacking.

"Left-handed people are 27% more likely to be in a creative field" = Good construct
"The percentage of left-handed people in the arts is 27% more than in the general population" = Good construct
"Left-handed people are 27% more creative" = Meaningless

You can measure 27% of the people (27 out of 100) or 27% of left-handers, or 27% percent of artists, etc... because you can count these things. But you can't count how many "creative points" a person, or hemisphere, or anything has.

Originally Posted by skysaw

What on Earth?? I'm sorry to say that your deductive reasoning is seriously lacking.

"Left-handed people are 27% more likely to be in a creative field" = Good construct
"The percentage of left-handed people in the arts is 27% more than in the general population" = Good construct
"Left-handed people are 27% more creative" = Meaningless

You can measure 27% of the people (27 out of 100) or 27% of left-handers, or 27% percent of artists, etc... because you can count these things. But you can't count how many "creative points" a person, or hemisphere, or anything has.

Points? Who is counting creative points? What is a creative point?
A creative attribute?
The processes of the brain are used for specific reasons. These areas (creativity) can be included in specific regions of the brain.
A percentage of these people use their creative attributes of the right hemisphere. Hence the conclusion.

Maybe you are not aware, they have come along way with brain scanning development. It is not just the MRI any more. The two scanning procedures that I pointed out earlier, the FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) and PET (positron emission tomography) have allowed scientist to zero in on much more precise areas of activity and firing neurons.

Originally Posted by Howie

[COLOR=Teal]Points? Who is counting creative points? What is a creative point?

Exactly, exactly, EXACTLY. Thank you. So what quantitatively is being measured to a percentage??

Maybe you are not aware, they have come along way with brain scanning development. It is not just the MRI any more. The two scanning procedures that I pointed out earlier, the FMRI (Functional magnetic resonance imaging) and PET (positron emission tomography) have allowed scientist to zero in on much more precise areas of activity and firing neurons.

And none of this has any bearing on my point, which has nothing to do with the brain or creativity, but with LANGUAGE and MEASUREMENT.

For example:

A foot is 1200% longer than an inch. Both of these can objectively be measured as specific quantities on a ruler.

A pound is 1600% heavier than an ounce. Both of these can objectively be measured by a scale.

A month is approximately 435% longer than a week. Both of these can objectively be measured on a clock.

There is no "creativeometer" that can make a similar comparison. MRIs, FMRIs, PET scans, will all give us a better understanding of the brain. But it won't change the English language in a way that makes "27% more creative" a valid concept.

I'm an uber-creative lefty. I do everything from drawing, painting, composing music, sculpting, writing, etc. and I'm always original and very creative in my ideas. (ideas that often end up getting stolen or copied btw heh)

That said, I'm a logical retard and don't understand 90% of what is said in these philosophy threads hehe. So I am biased to believe that this theory is true.

Personally I've always been way ahead of most people my age in logical reasoning, and mathematics and so forth.

But I am also very creative. I've won competitions for my writing (not conciously trying to inflate my ego to huge proportions here, by the way, sorry ), and I draw and write music; and listen to artistically good stuff, too (Beatles, can't argue with that ).

And I'm a righty.

So personally I've got no idea if lefties are better on the whole.

If somebody could actually get some statistic which isn't complete balls, that'd help.

Originally Posted by skysaw

Exactly, exactly, EXACTLY. Thank you. So what quantitatively is being measured to a percentage??



And none of this has any bearing on my point, which has nothing to do with the brain or creativity, but with LANGUAGE and MEASUREMENT.

For example:

A foot is 1200% longer than an inch. Both of these can objectively be measured as specific quantities on a ruler.

A pound is 1600% heavier than an ounce. Both of these can objectively be measured by a scale.

A month is approximately 435% longer than a week. Both of these can objectively be measured on a clock.

There is no "creativeometer" that can make a similar comparison. MRIs, FMRIs, PET scans, will all give us a better understanding of the brain. But it won't change the English language in a way that makes "27% more creative" a valid concept.

Skysaw, It is not as though I do not understand your reasoning. You are working with concrete mathematical comparisons. We are discussing areas of the brain.
If a person is subject to utilize an area of the brain that is used for creative processes, then that area of the brain is showing activity via these scanning methods when given that particular task, that you cannot quantify the reasoning behind their reasoning to try to give this concept a percentage?
As I had said earlier, if nothing else but building blocks and stepping stones for science.
Perhaps far from accurate at this point but surely far from meaningless.

Originally Posted by Howie

[COLOR=Teal]Skysaw, It is not as though I do not understand your reasoning. You are working with concrete mathematical comparisons. We are discussing areas of the brain.

I never said that the premise of more creativity was in doubt (though, perhaps it is), ONLY that I had a problem with the wording. Saying someone is 27% more creative is exactly the same as saying someone is 27% more beautiful, or 27% more funny. As soon as you hear the statistic, you can throw out any results from the finding on the assumption that the person doesn't know what they're talking about; there is no objective creativity/beauty/humor yardstick. As soon as you use a statistic, it implies something countable. "Creativity" as a concept is not countable. There is no other way to look at this.

...when given that particular task, that you cannot quantify the reasoning behind their reasoning to try to give this concept a percentage?

I absolutely CAN see a reason to try to give the concept a percentage. It is to make it sound more scientific. But for the reasons I gave, this goal falls flat.

If the claim came from anywhere respectable, I can only assume that the wording has been garbled. It draws a specific conclusion where only speculation can occur. Either of these claims would have been acceptable:

"Left-handed people have 27% more electrical activity in the right hemisphere of their brains. Since this area has been connected to creative centers, it suggests that lefties may have more of a tendancy to be creative."

Or:

"A poll of recent college graduates showed that those who went into artistic fields were 27% more likely to be left-handed than those who went into business."

There... problem solved. Of course these two interpretations have completely different meanings. Could one of them corrolate to the original claim? There is no way of ever knowing, if they don't tell us what the "27%" represents.

I think you are right in what you are saying.
I guess the only thing that the "27%" could be used for is a generalizing reference point. The building blocks.
More suitable for scientists to use than the general public.

One of the problems with any claim is that people want facts. If scientist claim that left handed people are more creative then society screams -(HOW MUCH?)

Do you think it would still be just as unadmissible to keep it at 25 50 75 or 100%?
The reason I ask is when someone claims 27%, it seemingly makes it sound that it is dead on the nuts.

Originally Posted by Howie

Do you think it would still be just as unadmissible to keep it at 25 50 75 or 100%?

There is no number that would have made the claim any more meaningful.

The reason I ask is when someone claims 27%, it seemingly makes it sound that it is dead on the nuts.

People do this for that exact reason: it makes it seem like there must be some figures to back them up.

If you are old enough, perhaps you remember the commercials for Ivory Soap, where they claimed their product was "99⁴⁴/₁₀₀% pure." It sure sounded scientific! This marketing campaign was hugely successful, and their sales skyrocketed.

I saw an interview with the person responsible for the campaign on TV a few years ago who explained that the number was completely fabricated. They chose something that sounded so precise, that the perception would be that it just had to be true. People today still believe in "99⁴⁴/₁₀₀% pure," long after they admitted the number was meaningless.

"The hypothesis that left-handed people are predisposed to visual-based thought has been validated by a variety of evidence. In the 2004 book Brains that work a little bit differently[38], researchers Allen D. Bragdon and David Gamon, Ph.D., briefly described some of the current research on handedness and its significance. "Handedness researchers Coren and Clare Porac have shown that left-handed university students are more likely to major in visually-based, as opposed to language-based subjects. Another sample of 103 art students found an astounding 47 percent were left- or mixed-handed.""

There's some numbers for you. Oh and 8-15% of the adult population is left handed.

Originally Posted by Aquanina

There's some numbers for you. Oh and 8-15% of the adult population is left handed.

Thank you, Aquanina. That's all I was asking for: a claim with meaning. This is something I could actually discuss!