Sunday, 11 August 2013
Friday, 9 August 2013
Why Are Most People Right Handed?
It seems like such a simple question, but it's actually one of the biggest mysteries in all of science. Is it because of how our brains are organized, how ancient humans gripped tools, or is it simple anti-lefty prejudice?
Nobody knows for sure, but scientists have come up with theories that are alternately intriguing, persuasive, and a little bonkers. Let's take a look at the often baffling science of handedness, running from how the development of language in early humans might have helped cause the evolution of handedness...to how all the world's languages seem to have it in for lefties.
Nobody knows for sure, but scientists have come up with theories that are alternately intriguing, persuasive, and a little bonkers. Let's take a look at the often baffling science of handedness, running from how the development of language in early humans might have helped cause the evolution of handedness...to how all the world's languages seem to have it in for lefties.
Why does handedness exist?
Handedness - the idea that one hand is better able to perform certain tasks than the other - is, if not exclusively a human trait, then certainly a mostly human one. After all, how could you tell if a dog was left-handed or a lion was right-handed? Their paws aren't evolved to handle complex tasks like our hands are, and there's no evidence that non-primates favor one limb over any other.
But exactly why humans favor different hands, or why most people tend to be right-handed, remains mysterious. The most common answer is that handedness is determined by the structure of our brains, which are divided into two hemispheres. Our brains are far more specialized than those of other animals, with different regions of the brain responsible for different specific tasks. Admittedly, these are only general guidelines, and most neural activities are shared between the hemispheres to some extent, but we can definitely say that many functions are primarily handled by one hemisphere as opposed to another. This is known as brain lateralization.
Two of the most energy-intensive human activities are language and the use of our fine motor skills - in other words, the use of our hands. One theory suggests that it's more efficient for the brain to cluster control of these two major tasks in one hemisphere rather than having it spread throughout the brain. Since the vast majority of people have their language functions centered in the left hemisphere, it follows that most people's fine motor skills would be controlled by the left hemisphere too. Each hemisphere generally controls the opposite side of the body, so the end result is that most people are right-handed.
However, the opposite does not hold true - being left-handed does not mean the language centers are located in the right hemisphere, which is fairly rare. Certainly, lefties are more likely than righties to have their right hemisphere responsible for language, but it's still not a common arrangement. Between 61 and 73% of lefties have their language centers in the left hemisphere, compared to over 90% of right-handed people.
This doesn't necessarily invalidate the division of labor theory. After all, between 70 and 90% of people are right-handed, and well over 90% of those people do indeed cluster language and fine motor skill control in the left hemisphere. What we're looking at here is the evolutionary equivalent of a rule of thumb. People's brains are generally organized to maximize energy efficiency, but a reasonably large minority of people - including most lefties - get along just fine with a less efficient arrangement.
But why are most people right-handed?
As we've discussed, another possible way of phrasing that is, "Why is the language center usually in the left hemisphere of the brain?" After all, if the energy intensive language centers happened to evolve so that they were usually in the right hemisphere, then most people would probably be left-handed instead. To that point, there's no reason why our brains couldn't have evolved that way - it's simply a historical fact that they didn't.
But that hasn't stopped scientists from attaching great significance to the fact that we evolved as righties instead of lefties. In the January 1, 2002 issue of Discover Magazine, Jocelyn Selim describes a particularly spectacular theory:
In most primates and other animals, the hemispheres of the brain divide the processing of tasks somewhat equally. But in humans, the hemispheres tend to specialize: Nearly all righties process language in the left side of the brain, while many lefties process language on the right. Because handedness and language both seemed uniquely human traits, biologists long assumed that they were closely linked.
One Oxford neurobiologist went so far as to argue that right-handedness could be traced back 200,000 years to a single mutation-a sort of genetic Big Bang that created hemispheric specialization, language, and higher cognitive functioning in one go. Right-handedness, to this way of thinking, is the most obvious mark of the genetic instructions that separate us from speechless, symmetric beasts.
While some of that that might be going a bit far - if nothing else, it doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for lefties - the root of handedness quite possibly is a random genetic mutation that pushed the language centers to the left hemisphere as the ancient human brain became more specialized. Without this particular genetic mutation, our brains still might have evolved to their present levels of sophistication, but our language hemispheres would be chosen at random, meaning handedness would be more evenly split.
In fact, a second major gene mutation might have had precisely that effect, at least in a subset of the population. University College London neuropsychologist Chris McManus suggests that sometime between 20,000 and 100,000 years ago, a second mutation entered the human gene pool that canceled out the brain's natural bias towards right-handedness, allowing for the emergence of more left-handers. People who carry this second mutation are also more likely to have unusual patterns of brain organization, which neatly explains why lefties are more to have both high intelligence and mental disorders.
Handedness - the idea that one hand is better able to perform certain tasks than the other - is, if not exclusively a human trait, then certainly a mostly human one. After all, how could you tell if a dog was left-handed or a lion was right-handed? Their paws aren't evolved to handle complex tasks like our hands are, and there's no evidence that non-primates favor one limb over any other.
But exactly why humans favor different hands, or why most people tend to be right-handed, remains mysterious. The most common answer is that handedness is determined by the structure of our brains, which are divided into two hemispheres. Our brains are far more specialized than those of other animals, with different regions of the brain responsible for different specific tasks. Admittedly, these are only general guidelines, and most neural activities are shared between the hemispheres to some extent, but we can definitely say that many functions are primarily handled by one hemisphere as opposed to another. This is known as brain lateralization.
Two of the most energy-intensive human activities are language and the use of our fine motor skills - in other words, the use of our hands. One theory suggests that it's more efficient for the brain to cluster control of these two major tasks in one hemisphere rather than having it spread throughout the brain. Since the vast majority of people have their language functions centered in the left hemisphere, it follows that most people's fine motor skills would be controlled by the left hemisphere too. Each hemisphere generally controls the opposite side of the body, so the end result is that most people are right-handed.
However, the opposite does not hold true - being left-handed does not mean the language centers are located in the right hemisphere, which is fairly rare. Certainly, lefties are more likely than righties to have their right hemisphere responsible for language, but it's still not a common arrangement. Between 61 and 73% of lefties have their language centers in the left hemisphere, compared to over 90% of right-handed people.
This doesn't necessarily invalidate the division of labor theory. After all, between 70 and 90% of people are right-handed, and well over 90% of those people do indeed cluster language and fine motor skill control in the left hemisphere. What we're looking at here is the evolutionary equivalent of a rule of thumb. People's brains are generally organized to maximize energy efficiency, but a reasonably large minority of people - including most lefties - get along just fine with a less efficient arrangement.
But why are most people right-handed?
As we've discussed, another possible way of phrasing that is, "Why is the language center usually in the left hemisphere of the brain?" After all, if the energy intensive language centers happened to evolve so that they were usually in the right hemisphere, then most people would probably be left-handed instead. To that point, there's no reason why our brains couldn't have evolved that way - it's simply a historical fact that they didn't.
But that hasn't stopped scientists from attaching great significance to the fact that we evolved as righties instead of lefties. In the January 1, 2002 issue of Discover Magazine, Jocelyn Selim describes a particularly spectacular theory:
In most primates and other animals, the hemispheres of the brain divide the processing of tasks somewhat equally. But in humans, the hemispheres tend to specialize: Nearly all righties process language in the left side of the brain, while many lefties process language on the right. Because handedness and language both seemed uniquely human traits, biologists long assumed that they were closely linked.
One Oxford neurobiologist went so far as to argue that right-handedness could be traced back 200,000 years to a single mutation-a sort of genetic Big Bang that created hemispheric specialization, language, and higher cognitive functioning in one go. Right-handedness, to this way of thinking, is the most obvious mark of the genetic instructions that separate us from speechless, symmetric beasts.
While some of that that might be going a bit far - if nothing else, it doesn't seem to leave a lot of room for lefties - the root of handedness quite possibly is a random genetic mutation that pushed the language centers to the left hemisphere as the ancient human brain became more specialized. Without this particular genetic mutation, our brains still might have evolved to their present levels of sophistication, but our language hemispheres would be chosen at random, meaning handedness would be more evenly split.
In fact, a second major gene mutation might have had precisely that effect, at least in a subset of the population. University College London neuropsychologist Chris McManus suggests that sometime between 20,000 and 100,000 years ago, a second mutation entered the human gene pool that canceled out the brain's natural bias towards right-handedness, allowing for the emergence of more left-handers. People who carry this second mutation are also more likely to have unusual patterns of brain organization, which neatly explains why lefties are more to have both high intelligence and mental disorders.
So is it really all about language?
Well...that's just one theory. It's a pretty good one, as theories go, but it doesn't explain everything, and - as we've just seen - it very easily gets wrapped up in grand triumphal stories of humanity's brilliant evolution. Certainly, we should be careful in saying the development of language centers in the left hemisphere caused the rise of handedness. The two appear linked, but it may not be quite as direct as we might have imagined.
One issue is that we're not the only other animals to use a particular hemisphere of the brain to create noises. Birds and frogs, for instance, process the noises they make in one particular side of the brain, and there's no evidence of handedness in the way they use their limbs. University of Auckland researcher Michael Corballis suggests an alternative explanation for our handedness in the Discover article:
"It's quite possible that what set humans apart was that speech began from gestures, which would explain an indirect association with handedness. But it's one of those mysteries that refuses to resolve itself. Think of it this way: Primates do have very symmetrical brains, but then again, so did Einstein."
The division of labor theory and the two genetic mutations don't need to be thrown out - instead, we can roll them into a larger picture of the evolution of handedness. It's possible that the specialization of our brains were already pushing our species toward handedness, but this process was accelerated by the activities of ancient humans, in particular their use of tools. In a 2009 blog entry for Science, Michael Balter details one possible explanation for the rise of handedness:
The "technology-dense lifestyles" of early hominins might have required our ancestors to more or less make up their minds about what hands they were going to use to perform complex tasks. Moreover, such hand bias could have aided the learning process as hominins taught each other toolmaking and other skills; a number of studies have shown that people learn manually difficult tasks, such as knot-tying, more easily when they use the same left- and right-hand movements as their teachers.
We can also add into the mix the development of longstanding, pervasive social prejudices against left-handedness, which I'll discuss in more detail in a little bit. These prejudices likely influenced countless children who otherwise would have developed into lefties to essentially force themselves to be right-handed, effectively inflating the proportion of the right-handed population.
Well...that's just one theory. It's a pretty good one, as theories go, but it doesn't explain everything, and - as we've just seen - it very easily gets wrapped up in grand triumphal stories of humanity's brilliant evolution. Certainly, we should be careful in saying the development of language centers in the left hemisphere caused the rise of handedness. The two appear linked, but it may not be quite as direct as we might have imagined.
One issue is that we're not the only other animals to use a particular hemisphere of the brain to create noises. Birds and frogs, for instance, process the noises they make in one particular side of the brain, and there's no evidence of handedness in the way they use their limbs. University of Auckland researcher Michael Corballis suggests an alternative explanation for our handedness in the Discover article:
"It's quite possible that what set humans apart was that speech began from gestures, which would explain an indirect association with handedness. But it's one of those mysteries that refuses to resolve itself. Think of it this way: Primates do have very symmetrical brains, but then again, so did Einstein."
The division of labor theory and the two genetic mutations don't need to be thrown out - instead, we can roll them into a larger picture of the evolution of handedness. It's possible that the specialization of our brains were already pushing our species toward handedness, but this process was accelerated by the activities of ancient humans, in particular their use of tools. In a 2009 blog entry for Science, Michael Balter details one possible explanation for the rise of handedness:
The "technology-dense lifestyles" of early hominins might have required our ancestors to more or less make up their minds about what hands they were going to use to perform complex tasks. Moreover, such hand bias could have aided the learning process as hominins taught each other toolmaking and other skills; a number of studies have shown that people learn manually difficult tasks, such as knot-tying, more easily when they use the same left- and right-hand movements as their teachers.
We can also add into the mix the development of longstanding, pervasive social prejudices against left-handedness, which I'll discuss in more detail in a little bit. These prejudices likely influenced countless children who otherwise would have developed into lefties to essentially force themselves to be right-handed, effectively inflating the proportion of the right-handed population.
When did handedness first evolve?
We can feel reasonably confident that Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis were right-handed. Neanderthal skeletons tend to have stronger right arms and shoulders than their left counterparts, perhaps because they used them to throw spears while hunting animals. There's less direct evidence for Heidelbergensis, but we can tell from their preserved teeth indicate that they ate food with their right hands. The 1.6 million year old Homo ergaster skeleton Nariokotome Boy showed signs of right-handedness, but we can't infer the hand preference of an entire species from just one skeleton.
Determining the handedness of other primates is also tricky for a bunch of reasons. In general, wild primates aren't particularly likely to engage in the sorts of activities that require fine motor skills - and thus would require handedness - and it's hard to know whether we can really trust results we get from giving human-like tasks to captive primates. But as primatologist Bill Hopkins explains in the Discover article, decades of accumulated research have given us some rather unexpected answers:
A close look at primate research since the 1920s shows that all primates have hand preferences, and those preferences follow a clear pattern: Lemurs and other prosimians tend to be left-handed; macaques and other old-world monkeys are evenly split between lefties and righties; among gorillas and chimpanzees, 35 percent are lefties, while in humans that percentage hovers around 10. In other words, the more primitive the primate, the more likely it is to be a lefty. Left-handedness, far from being a recent invention, seems to predate right-handedness.
SEXPAND
We know that the ancestor of all primates evolved about 65 to 85 million years ago as a member of the extinct order Plesiadapiformes. One of the last of the Plesiadapiformes was Carpolestes simpsoni, which had grasping digits like those of all its primate descendants. It's possible that the development of handedness goes right back to this very ancient transition from claws to digits.
Why primates apparently slowly moved from left-dominant to right-dominant as they evolved remains an open question. We could go back to the division of labor theory here. It's possible that because Carpolestes simpsoni and the earliest primates had small brains, they had to cluster control of their emerging motor skills in one hemisphere, which just happened to be the right.
This led to a lot of left-handed monkeys, but as larger, bigger-brained primates began to evolve, this division of labor became less important, which opened the door for a wider mix of righties and lefties. Of course, that doesn't explain why handedness started to swing towards righties as we get to chimps and gorillas is still - it's certainly possible that changing brain structure and random mutations played a major role, but we just don't know for sure.
We can feel reasonably confident that Neanderthals and Homo heidelbergensis were right-handed. Neanderthal skeletons tend to have stronger right arms and shoulders than their left counterparts, perhaps because they used them to throw spears while hunting animals. There's less direct evidence for Heidelbergensis, but we can tell from their preserved teeth indicate that they ate food with their right hands. The 1.6 million year old Homo ergaster skeleton Nariokotome Boy showed signs of right-handedness, but we can't infer the hand preference of an entire species from just one skeleton.
Determining the handedness of other primates is also tricky for a bunch of reasons. In general, wild primates aren't particularly likely to engage in the sorts of activities that require fine motor skills - and thus would require handedness - and it's hard to know whether we can really trust results we get from giving human-like tasks to captive primates. But as primatologist Bill Hopkins explains in the Discover article, decades of accumulated research have given us some rather unexpected answers:
A close look at primate research since the 1920s shows that all primates have hand preferences, and those preferences follow a clear pattern: Lemurs and other prosimians tend to be left-handed; macaques and other old-world monkeys are evenly split between lefties and righties; among gorillas and chimpanzees, 35 percent are lefties, while in humans that percentage hovers around 10. In other words, the more primitive the primate, the more likely it is to be a lefty. Left-handedness, far from being a recent invention, seems to predate right-handedness.
SEXPAND
We know that the ancestor of all primates evolved about 65 to 85 million years ago as a member of the extinct order Plesiadapiformes. One of the last of the Plesiadapiformes was Carpolestes simpsoni, which had grasping digits like those of all its primate descendants. It's possible that the development of handedness goes right back to this very ancient transition from claws to digits.
Why primates apparently slowly moved from left-dominant to right-dominant as they evolved remains an open question. We could go back to the division of labor theory here. It's possible that because Carpolestes simpsoni and the earliest primates had small brains, they had to cluster control of their emerging motor skills in one hemisphere, which just happened to be the right.
This led to a lot of left-handed monkeys, but as larger, bigger-brained primates began to evolve, this division of labor became less important, which opened the door for a wider mix of righties and lefties. Of course, that doesn't explain why handedness started to swing towards righties as we get to chimps and gorillas is still - it's certainly possible that changing brain structure and random mutations played a major role, but we just don't know for sure.
What does it actually mean to be right-handed or left-handed?
After everything we've already discussed, that may seem likely a stupidly easy question, but it's surprisingly controversial. The everyday answer to that question is probably this: if you write with your right hand, then you're right-handed. It's a straightforward enough popular definition, but translating that into scientific terminology is trickier than you might think. Even simply saying that handedness is determined by which hand you prefer to use doesn't actually help us that much.
Let's consider some of the problems here. Should a person's dominant hand be determined by the hand they prefer to use, or the hand that performs better in tests? In other words, is handedness primarily psychological or physiological? Even if you can sort that out, there's still the question of how to categorize all this. Should left-handed and right-handed be considered precisely equal, or does the fact that such a vast majority of people are right-handed suggest that the people are simply either right or non-right? That's a bit of a charged way to look at things, but it does have some popularity in scientific literature.
And how about people who use different hands for different tasks? I write and throw with my right hand but bat and play(ed) hockey with my left hand - should I be considered primarily right-handed, a mix of right- and left-handed, or ambidextrous, meaning I feel equally comfortable using both hands? (Yeah...I'm probably not ambidextrous.) And should we look at handedness as something that can be lumped into only a very few categories - say true right-handed, more right-handed, ambidextrous/mix, more left-handed, and true left-handed - or something that exists on a broad spectrum?
Indeed, the very idea that one hand is "dominant" might be a complete misunderstanding of how our hands divide up tasks. In the Science post, Michael Balter details an argument by University of Liverpool archaeologist Natalie Uomini:
Uomini points out that handedness does not mean that one hand is "dominant" over the other. Rather, she writes, "both hands have different but equally important roles." In right-handed people, for example, the right hand might be used for tasks requiring greater manual dexterity whereas the left hand might perform the more mundane but nevertheless crucial role of supporting an object. (Imagine eating dinner with just a knife but no fork, for example.)
There isn't a ton of consensus here - ask a dozen scientists and you'll probably get at least ten different ways to define and organize handedness. Part of the problem here is that handedness is generally a pretty touchy issue, one with a long history of bias and prejudice. Speaking of which...
What exactly do people have against lefties?
For reasons that can probably best be described as "stupid", people have historically held left-handers in contempt. You can find evidence of an anti-left bias throughout the world's languages. The word "left" itself comes from the Anglo-Saxon word "lyft", which means "weak." We get the word "sinister" from the Latin word for "left", and that double meaning persists in the modern Romance languages.
It really is an insanely long list - English, French, Chinese, Korean, Finnish, Irish, Hungarian, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and most of the Slavic languages all either link the word "right" with goodness, the word "left" with wrongness and impropriety, or both. That's not even getting into all the expressions and customs that have sprung up against left-handed people. In Ghana, even gesturing with the left hand can be considered taboo, and a common form of 19th century bigotry was to say minority groups such as homosexuals and Roman Catholics were left-handed.
As to why these prejudices exist - well, it does appear that majority right-handedness has been around at least since modern humans first emerged 200,000 years ago. This may simply be a case of a natural majority picking on a minority, perhaps out of an embarrassingly human fear of what's different. There's also at least one possible vaguely practical reason for this animosity. As any lefty will be happy to tell you, tons of everyday objects that right-handed people take for granted are a pain in the ass to use if you're a lefty. There's spiral notebooks, can-openers, stick shifts...and that's just what I remember from the Simpsons episode on the subject.
It's possible that ancient tools were similarly designed with right-handed users in mind, and the natural difficulties a lefty would have with such implements could draw social scorn and, over time, build up negative associations towards lefties. That all sounds fairly fanciful, honestly - although a few languages do have words that mean both "left" and "clumsy", suggesting a linked meaning somewhere along the line. Ultimately, we're probably just looking at good old-fashioned fear of the unusual.
That's the finding of a new study examining the link between cognitive ability and handedness. Lefties score consistently lower on aptitude… Read…
There's really no definitive evidence either way that righties are better than lefties or vice versa - they just happen to hold their pencils differently. And while there have been a bunch of attempts to tease out specific differences between the two groups - including a recent study that basically suggested left-handedness is a form of cognitive impairment - there's way too much conflicting data out there to say much for certain.
As Chris McManus observed in the Discover article, ""The real question is why everyone wants left-handers to be defective", and there's a great deal of truth to that observation both throughout history and right up to now. Anyway, if this whole exercise has taught us anything, it's that we're probably just a couple random genetic mutations away from left-handers snootily trying to figure out what's up with that 30% minority of righties.
After everything we've already discussed, that may seem likely a stupidly easy question, but it's surprisingly controversial. The everyday answer to that question is probably this: if you write with your right hand, then you're right-handed. It's a straightforward enough popular definition, but translating that into scientific terminology is trickier than you might think. Even simply saying that handedness is determined by which hand you prefer to use doesn't actually help us that much.
Let's consider some of the problems here. Should a person's dominant hand be determined by the hand they prefer to use, or the hand that performs better in tests? In other words, is handedness primarily psychological or physiological? Even if you can sort that out, there's still the question of how to categorize all this. Should left-handed and right-handed be considered precisely equal, or does the fact that such a vast majority of people are right-handed suggest that the people are simply either right or non-right? That's a bit of a charged way to look at things, but it does have some popularity in scientific literature.
And how about people who use different hands for different tasks? I write and throw with my right hand but bat and play(ed) hockey with my left hand - should I be considered primarily right-handed, a mix of right- and left-handed, or ambidextrous, meaning I feel equally comfortable using both hands? (Yeah...I'm probably not ambidextrous.) And should we look at handedness as something that can be lumped into only a very few categories - say true right-handed, more right-handed, ambidextrous/mix, more left-handed, and true left-handed - or something that exists on a broad spectrum?
Indeed, the very idea that one hand is "dominant" might be a complete misunderstanding of how our hands divide up tasks. In the Science post, Michael Balter details an argument by University of Liverpool archaeologist Natalie Uomini:
Uomini points out that handedness does not mean that one hand is "dominant" over the other. Rather, she writes, "both hands have different but equally important roles." In right-handed people, for example, the right hand might be used for tasks requiring greater manual dexterity whereas the left hand might perform the more mundane but nevertheless crucial role of supporting an object. (Imagine eating dinner with just a knife but no fork, for example.)
There isn't a ton of consensus here - ask a dozen scientists and you'll probably get at least ten different ways to define and organize handedness. Part of the problem here is that handedness is generally a pretty touchy issue, one with a long history of bias and prejudice. Speaking of which...
What exactly do people have against lefties?
For reasons that can probably best be described as "stupid", people have historically held left-handers in contempt. You can find evidence of an anti-left bias throughout the world's languages. The word "left" itself comes from the Anglo-Saxon word "lyft", which means "weak." We get the word "sinister" from the Latin word for "left", and that double meaning persists in the modern Romance languages.
It really is an insanely long list - English, French, Chinese, Korean, Finnish, Irish, Hungarian, Dutch, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese, German, and most of the Slavic languages all either link the word "right" with goodness, the word "left" with wrongness and impropriety, or both. That's not even getting into all the expressions and customs that have sprung up against left-handed people. In Ghana, even gesturing with the left hand can be considered taboo, and a common form of 19th century bigotry was to say minority groups such as homosexuals and Roman Catholics were left-handed.
As to why these prejudices exist - well, it does appear that majority right-handedness has been around at least since modern humans first emerged 200,000 years ago. This may simply be a case of a natural majority picking on a minority, perhaps out of an embarrassingly human fear of what's different. There's also at least one possible vaguely practical reason for this animosity. As any lefty will be happy to tell you, tons of everyday objects that right-handed people take for granted are a pain in the ass to use if you're a lefty. There's spiral notebooks, can-openers, stick shifts...and that's just what I remember from the Simpsons episode on the subject.
It's possible that ancient tools were similarly designed with right-handed users in mind, and the natural difficulties a lefty would have with such implements could draw social scorn and, over time, build up negative associations towards lefties. That all sounds fairly fanciful, honestly - although a few languages do have words that mean both "left" and "clumsy", suggesting a linked meaning somewhere along the line. Ultimately, we're probably just looking at good old-fashioned fear of the unusual.
That's the finding of a new study examining the link between cognitive ability and handedness. Lefties score consistently lower on aptitude… Read…
There's really no definitive evidence either way that righties are better than lefties or vice versa - they just happen to hold their pencils differently. And while there have been a bunch of attempts to tease out specific differences between the two groups - including a recent study that basically suggested left-handedness is a form of cognitive impairment - there's way too much conflicting data out there to say much for certain.
As Chris McManus observed in the Discover article, ""The real question is why everyone wants left-handers to be defective", and there's a great deal of truth to that observation both throughout history and right up to now. Anyway, if this whole exercise has taught us anything, it's that we're probably just a couple random genetic mutations away from left-handers snootily trying to figure out what's up with that 30% minority of righties.
Wednesday, 7 August 2013
25 Acts of Body Language To Avoid
Our body language exhibits far more information about how we feel than it is possible to articulate verbally. All of the physical gestures we make are subconsciously interpreted by others. This can work for or against us depending on the kind of body language we use. Some gestures project a very positive message, while others do nothing but set a negative tone. Most people are totally oblivious to their own body language, so the discipline of controlling these gestures can be quite challenging. Most of them are reflexive in nature, automatically matching up to what our minds are thinking at any given moment. Nevertheless, with the right information and a little practice, we can train ourselves to overcome most of our negative body language habits.
Practice avoiding these 25 negative gestures:
“ I speak two languages, Body and English. ” — Mae West
- Holding Objects in Front of Your Body – a coffee cup, notebook, hand bag, etc. Holding objects in front of your body indicates shyness and resistance, such that you’re hiding behind the objects in an effort to separate yourself from others. Instead of carrying objects in front of you, carry them at your side whenever possible.
- Checking the Time or Inspecting Your Fingernails – a strong sign of boredom. Never glance at the time when you’re speaking with someone. Likewise, completely avoid the act of inspecting your fingernails.
- Picking Lint Off of Your Clothes – If you pick lint off of your clothes during a conversation, especially in conjunction with looking downwards, most people will assume that you disapprove of their ideas and/or feel uneasy about giving them an honest opinion. Leave the lint alone!
- Stroking Your Chin While Looking at Someone – “I’m judging you!” People frequently stroke their chin during the decision-making process. If you look at someone while you’re stroking your chin, they may assume that you’re making a judgmental decision about them.
- Narrowing Your Eyes – If you want to give someone the impression that you don’t like them (or their ideas), narrow your eyes while looking at them. It immediately places a scowling expression on your face. A slight narrowing of the eyes is an instinctual, universal expression of anger across various species in the animal kingdom (think about the angry expressions of tigers, dogs, etc.). Some people make the mistake of narrowing their eyes during a conversation as a reflex of thinking. Don’t send people the wrong message… don’t narrow your eyes.
- Standing Too Close – This just makes people feel uncomfortable. Most people consider the 4 square feet of space immediately surrounding their body to be personal space. Cross this invisible boundary with good friends and intimate mates only.
- Looking Down While in the Presence of Others – usually indicates disinterest. Sometimes it’s even interpreted as a casual sign of arrogance. Always look straight ahead and make eye contact when you see someone you know.
- Touching Your Face During a Conversation – Face touching, especially on the nose, is commonly interpreted as an indication of deception. Also, covering up the mouth is a common gesture people make when they’re lying. Always keep your hands away from your face when you’re speaking.
- Faking a Smile – another sign of deception commonly seen on the face of a fraud. A genuine smile wrinkles the corners of the eyes and changes the expression of the entire face. Fake smiles only involve the mouth and lips. It’s easy to distinguish between the two. Don’t force yourself to smile… unless it’s for the camera.
- Leaning Away From Someone You Like – a sign of being bored and disinterested. Some people may also interpret it to mean: “I don’t like you.” People typically lean towards people they like and away from people they dislike. This is especially true when they are sitting around a table. If you lean away from someone you like, you’re sending them the wrong message.
- Resting Hands Behind the Head or on the Hips – usually interpreted as a sign of superiority or bigheadedness. Only use these gestures when you’re in the presence of close friends.
- Not Directly Facing the Person You’re Speaking To – This indicates a certain level of discomfort or a lack of interest. When we’re happily engaged in a conversation we face the person we’re speaking to with our feet and torso facing directly forward. When we’re unsure of the other person, or not completely committed to the conversation, we tend to angle our feet and torso to the side. Face directly forward during a conversation to give off the impression that you’re truly interested in what the other person is saying.
- Crossing Your Arms – a sign of defensive resistance. Some people may also interpret it as a sign of egotism. Always try to keep your arms open and at your sides.
- Displaying a Sluggish Posture – When you’re in an environment bustling with people your posture becomes an immediate telltale sign of your confidence and composure. Your stance literally makes a stand for you, delivering a clear message about how you should be treated. It can make a huge difference in the way strangers respond to you. Place your feet a comfortable distance apart, keep your shoulders pulled back, head up and greet people with direct eye contact and a firm handshake.
- Scratching at the Backside of Your Head and Neck – a typical sign of doubt and uncertainty. It can also be interpreted as an indication of lying. Try to keep your hands away from your head when you’re communicating with others.
- Messing With the Collar of Your Shirt – It screams: “I feel horribly uncomfortable and/or nervous!” Once again, keep track of your hands. Don’t fidget.
- Increasing Your Rate of Blinking – a clear sign of anxiety. Some people start blinking their eyes really fast (in conjunction with an increased heart rate) when they get nervous. Since most people try to make eye contact, it becomes immediately obvious to others. Be cognizant of your blinking habits when you’re nervous, especially if someone is looking at you from a close proximity.
- Slouching Your Shoulders – indicates low self-esteem. People associate perked-up shoulders with strong self-confidence. Always pull your shoulders back. Not only will you look more confident, you’ll feel more confident as well.
- Standing with Your Hands Crossed Over Your Genitals – This casual posture almost guarantees that you’ll lose a little respect before you even have the chance to speak a single word. People feeling nervous or unsure of themselves will unconsciously take a guarded stance. Quite frequently they adopt a posture that guards one of their most vulnerable areas, their genitals. This stance pushes your shoulders forward and makes your entire body look smaller and weaker. Again, try to keep your hands at your sides and your shoulders back.
- Propping Up Your Head with Your Hands – “I’m getting bored!” Never prop up your head with your elbows and hands during a conversation. Place your hands on the table in front of you and keep them at rest.
- Wiping Sweaty Hands onto Your Clothes – a sign of frantic nervousness. If your hands are sweating, just let them sweat. Take a few deep breaths and try to relax.
- Sitting on the Edge of Your Chair – a clear indication of being mentally and physically uncomfortable. It’s an apprehensive stance that will make others around you feel uncomfortable as well. Keep your rear end firmly planted on the surface of the seat. When you lean forward, use your back without moving your bottom.
- Foot and Finger Tapping – usually indicates stress, impatience or boredom. Monitor your habits and practice keeping your limbs at rest.
- Using Your Hands to Fidget with Small Objects – a pen, paper ball, etc. This is another sign of anxiety. It can also be interpreted as a lack of preparedness. It’s always best to keep your hands comfortably at rest when you’re in the presence of others.
- Repeatedly Shifting Body Weight from Foot to Foot – This is another gesture that usually indicates mental and physical discomfort. People may also see this and assume that you’re ready to abandon the conversation, especially if you’re not directly facing them. Don’t shift your feet around more than once every 2 to 3 minutes.
Tuesday, 6 August 2013
The 16 Personality Types
ISTJ - The Duty Fulfiller
Serious and quiet, interested in security and peaceful living. Extremely thorough, responsible, and dependable. Well-developed powers of concentration. Usually interested in supporting and promoting traditions and establishments. Well-organized and hard working, they work steadily towards identified goals. They can usually accomplish any task once they have set their mind to it.
Click here for a detailed description of ISTJ.
ISTP - The Mechanic
Quiet and reserved, interested in how and why things work. Excellent skills with mechanical things. Risk-takers who they live for the moment. Usually interested in and talented at extreme sports. Uncomplicated in their desires. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solutions to practical problems.
Click here for a detailed description of ISTP.
ISFJ - The Nurturer
Quiet, kind, and conscientious. Can be depended on to follow through. Usually puts the needs of others above their own needs. Stable and practical, they value security and traditions. Well-developed sense of space and function. Rich inner world of observations about people. Extremely perceptive of other's feelings. Interested in serving others.
Click here for a detailed description of ISFJ.
ISFP - The Artist
Quiet, serious, sensitive and kind. Do not like conflict, and not likely to do things which may generate conflict. Loyal and faithful. Extremely well-developed senses, and aesthetic appreciation for beauty. Not interested in leading or controlling others. Flexible and open-minded. Likely to be original and creative. Enjoy the present moment.
Click here for a detailed description of ISFP.
INFJ - The Protector
Quietly forceful, original, and sensitive. Tend to stick to things until they are done. Extremely intuitive about people, and concerned for their feelings. Well-developed value systems which they strictly adhere to. Well-respected for their perserverence in doing the right thing. Likely to be individualistic, rather than leading or following.
Click here for a detailed description of INFJ.
INFP - The Idealist
Quiet, reflective, and idealistic. Interested in serving humanity. Well-developed value system, which they strive to live in accordance with. Extremely loyal. Adaptable and laid-back unless a strongly-held value is threatened. Usually talented writers. Mentally quick, and able to see possibilities. Interested in understanding and helping people.
Click here for a detailed description of INFP.
INTJ - The Scientist
Independent, original, analytical, and determined. Have an exceptional ability to turn theories into solid plans of action. Highly value knowledge, competence, and structure. Driven to derive meaning from their visions. Long-range thinkers. Have very high standards for their performance, and the performance of others. Natural leaders, but will follow if they trust existing leaders.
Click here for a detailed description of INTJ.
INTP - The Thinker
Logical, original, creative thinkers. Can become very excited about theories and ideas. Exceptionally capable and driven to turn theories into clear understandings. Highly value knowledge, competence and logic. Quiet and reserved, hard to get to know well. Individualistic, having no interest in leading or following others.
Click here for a detailed description of INTP.
ESTP - The Doer
Friendly, adaptable, action-oriented. "Doers" who are focused on immediate results. Living in the here-and-now, they're risk-takers who live fast-paced lifestyles. Impatient with long explanations. Extremely loyal to their peers, but not usually respectful of laws and rules if they get in the way of getting things done. Great people skills.
Click here for a detailed description of ESTP.
ESTJ - The Guardian
Practical, traditional, and organized. Likely to be athletic. Not interested in theory or abstraction unless they see the practical application. Have clear visions of the way things should be. Loyal and hard-working. Like to be in charge. Exceptionally capable in organizing and running activities. "Good citizens" who value security and peaceful living.
Click here for a detailed description of ESTJ.
ESFP - The Performer
People-oriented and fun-loving, they make things more fun for others by their enjoyment. Living for the moment, they love new experiences. They dislike theory and impersonal analysis. Interested in serving others. Likely to be the center of attention in social situations. Well-developed common sense and practical ability.
Click here for a detailed description of ESFP.
ESFJ - The Caregiver
Warm-hearted, popular, and conscientious. Tend to put the needs of others over their own needs. Feel strong sense of responsibility and duty. Value traditions and security. Interested in serving others. Need positive reinforcement to feel good about themselves. Well-developed sense of space and function.
Click here for a detailed description of ESFJ.
ENFP - The Inspirer
Enthusiastic, idealistic, and creative. Able to do almost anything that interests them. Great people skills. Need to live life in accordance with their inner values. Excited by new ideas, but bored with details. Open-minded and flexible, with a broad range of interests and abilities.
Click here for a detailed description of ENFP.
ENFJ - The Giver
Popular and sensitive, with outstanding people skills. Externally focused, with real concern for how others think and feel. Usually dislike being alone. They see everything from the human angle, and dislike impersonal analysis. Very effective at managing people issues, and leading group discussions. Interested in serving others, and probably place the needs of others over their own needs.
Click here for a detailed description of ENFJ.
ENTP - The Visionary
Creative, resourceful, and intellectually quick. Good at a broad range of things. Enjoy debating issues, and may be into "one-up-manship". They get very excited about new ideas and projects, but may neglect the more routine aspects of life. Generally outspoken and assertive. They enjoy people and are stimulating company. Excellent ability to understand concepts and apply logic to find solutions.
Click here for a detailed description of ENTP.
ENTJ - The Executive
Assertive and outspoken - they are driven to lead. Excellent ability to understand difficult organizational problems and create solid solutions. Intelligent and well-informed, they usually excel at public speaking. They value knowledge and competence, and usually have little patience with inefficiency or disorganization.
Click here for a detailed description of ENTJ.
Serious and quiet, interested in security and peaceful living. Extremely thorough, responsible, and dependable. Well-developed powers of concentration. Usually interested in supporting and promoting traditions and establishments. Well-organized and hard working, they work steadily towards identified goals. They can usually accomplish any task once they have set their mind to it.
Click here for a detailed description of ISTJ.
ISTP - The Mechanic
Quiet and reserved, interested in how and why things work. Excellent skills with mechanical things. Risk-takers who they live for the moment. Usually interested in and talented at extreme sports. Uncomplicated in their desires. Loyal to their peers and to their internal value systems, but not overly concerned with respecting laws and rules if they get in the way of getting something done. Detached and analytical, they excel at finding solutions to practical problems.
Click here for a detailed description of ISTP.
ISFJ - The Nurturer
Quiet, kind, and conscientious. Can be depended on to follow through. Usually puts the needs of others above their own needs. Stable and practical, they value security and traditions. Well-developed sense of space and function. Rich inner world of observations about people. Extremely perceptive of other's feelings. Interested in serving others.
Click here for a detailed description of ISFJ.
ISFP - The Artist
Quiet, serious, sensitive and kind. Do not like conflict, and not likely to do things which may generate conflict. Loyal and faithful. Extremely well-developed senses, and aesthetic appreciation for beauty. Not interested in leading or controlling others. Flexible and open-minded. Likely to be original and creative. Enjoy the present moment.
Click here for a detailed description of ISFP.
INFJ - The Protector
Quietly forceful, original, and sensitive. Tend to stick to things until they are done. Extremely intuitive about people, and concerned for their feelings. Well-developed value systems which they strictly adhere to. Well-respected for their perserverence in doing the right thing. Likely to be individualistic, rather than leading or following.
Click here for a detailed description of INFJ.
INFP - The Idealist
Quiet, reflective, and idealistic. Interested in serving humanity. Well-developed value system, which they strive to live in accordance with. Extremely loyal. Adaptable and laid-back unless a strongly-held value is threatened. Usually talented writers. Mentally quick, and able to see possibilities. Interested in understanding and helping people.
Click here for a detailed description of INFP.
INTJ - The Scientist
Independent, original, analytical, and determined. Have an exceptional ability to turn theories into solid plans of action. Highly value knowledge, competence, and structure. Driven to derive meaning from their visions. Long-range thinkers. Have very high standards for their performance, and the performance of others. Natural leaders, but will follow if they trust existing leaders.
Click here for a detailed description of INTJ.
INTP - The Thinker
Logical, original, creative thinkers. Can become very excited about theories and ideas. Exceptionally capable and driven to turn theories into clear understandings. Highly value knowledge, competence and logic. Quiet and reserved, hard to get to know well. Individualistic, having no interest in leading or following others.
Click here for a detailed description of INTP.
ESTP - The Doer
Friendly, adaptable, action-oriented. "Doers" who are focused on immediate results. Living in the here-and-now, they're risk-takers who live fast-paced lifestyles. Impatient with long explanations. Extremely loyal to their peers, but not usually respectful of laws and rules if they get in the way of getting things done. Great people skills.
Click here for a detailed description of ESTP.
ESTJ - The Guardian
Practical, traditional, and organized. Likely to be athletic. Not interested in theory or abstraction unless they see the practical application. Have clear visions of the way things should be. Loyal and hard-working. Like to be in charge. Exceptionally capable in organizing and running activities. "Good citizens" who value security and peaceful living.
Click here for a detailed description of ESTJ.
ESFP - The Performer
People-oriented and fun-loving, they make things more fun for others by their enjoyment. Living for the moment, they love new experiences. They dislike theory and impersonal analysis. Interested in serving others. Likely to be the center of attention in social situations. Well-developed common sense and practical ability.
Click here for a detailed description of ESFP.
ESFJ - The Caregiver
Warm-hearted, popular, and conscientious. Tend to put the needs of others over their own needs. Feel strong sense of responsibility and duty. Value traditions and security. Interested in serving others. Need positive reinforcement to feel good about themselves. Well-developed sense of space and function.
Click here for a detailed description of ESFJ.
ENFP - The Inspirer
Enthusiastic, idealistic, and creative. Able to do almost anything that interests them. Great people skills. Need to live life in accordance with their inner values. Excited by new ideas, but bored with details. Open-minded and flexible, with a broad range of interests and abilities.
Click here for a detailed description of ENFP.
ENFJ - The Giver
Popular and sensitive, with outstanding people skills. Externally focused, with real concern for how others think and feel. Usually dislike being alone. They see everything from the human angle, and dislike impersonal analysis. Very effective at managing people issues, and leading group discussions. Interested in serving others, and probably place the needs of others over their own needs.
Click here for a detailed description of ENFJ.
ENTP - The Visionary
Creative, resourceful, and intellectually quick. Good at a broad range of things. Enjoy debating issues, and may be into "one-up-manship". They get very excited about new ideas and projects, but may neglect the more routine aspects of life. Generally outspoken and assertive. They enjoy people and are stimulating company. Excellent ability to understand concepts and apply logic to find solutions.
Click here for a detailed description of ENTP.
ENTJ - The Executive
Assertive and outspoken - they are driven to lead. Excellent ability to understand difficult organizational problems and create solid solutions. Intelligent and well-informed, they usually excel at public speaking. They value knowledge and competence, and usually have little patience with inefficiency or disorganization.
Click here for a detailed description of ENTJ.
Sunday, 4 August 2013
10 Psychological Effects Of Touch
Psychological research on how a simple (nonsexual) touch can increase compliance, helping behaviour, attraction, and signal power.
To get around in the world, we mainly rely on our eyes and ears. Touch is a sense that's often forgotten.
But touch is also vital in the way we understand and experience the world. Even the lightest touch on the upper arm can influence the way we think. To prove it, here are 10 psychological effects which show just how powerful nonsexual touch can be.
1. Touch for money
A well-timed touch can encourage other people to return a lost item. In one experiment, users of a phone booth who were touched were more likely to return a lost dime to an experimenter (Kleinke, 1977). The action was no more than a light touch on the arm.
People will do more than that though; people will give a bigger tip to a waitress who has touched them (Crusco & Wetzel, 1984).
(Stop giggling at the back there!)
2. Touch for help
People are also more likely to provide help when touched. In one study, strangers who were touched lightly on the arm were more likely to help an experimenter pick up things they had dropped (Gueguen, 2003). The percentage of people who helped went up from 63% to 90%.
To get around in the world, we mainly rely on our eyes and ears. Touch is a sense that's often forgotten.
But touch is also vital in the way we understand and experience the world. Even the lightest touch on the upper arm can influence the way we think. To prove it, here are 10 psychological effects which show just how powerful nonsexual touch can be.
1. Touch for money
A well-timed touch can encourage other people to return a lost item. In one experiment, users of a phone booth who were touched were more likely to return a lost dime to an experimenter (Kleinke, 1977). The action was no more than a light touch on the arm.
People will do more than that though; people will give a bigger tip to a waitress who has touched them (Crusco & Wetzel, 1984).
(Stop giggling at the back there!)
2. Touch for help
People are also more likely to provide help when touched. In one study, strangers who were touched lightly on the arm were more likely to help an experimenter pick up things they had dropped (Gueguen, 2003). The percentage of people who helped went up from 63% to 90%.
3. Touch for compliance
The power of a light touch on the upper arm often extends more broadly to compliance.
In a study by Willis and Hamm (1980), participants were asked to sign a petition. While 55% of those not touched agreed to sign it, this went up to 81% of those participants touched once on the upper arm. A second study asked people to fill in a questionnaire. The same touch increased compliance from 40% to 70%.
The power of a light touch on the upper arm often extends more broadly to compliance.
In a study by Willis and Hamm (1980), participants were asked to sign a petition. While 55% of those not touched agreed to sign it, this went up to 81% of those participants touched once on the upper arm. A second study asked people to fill in a questionnaire. The same touch increased compliance from 40% to 70%.
4. Touch twice for more compliance
And you can increase compliance with a second light touch on the arm.
Vaidis and Halimi-Falkowicz (2008) tried this out when asking people in the street to complete a questionnaire. Those touched twice were more likely to complete the questionnaire than those touched once. The effects were strongest when men were touched by a female surveyor.
5. Or, touch for a fight!
However, the acceptability of touch, especially between men, depends a lot on culture.
When Dolinski (2010) carried out a compliance experiment in Poland, he got quite different results for men and women. In Poland men asked to do the experimenter a favour reacted badly to a light touch on the arm. This seemed to be related to higher levels of homophobia. Women, however, still reacted positively to touch.
And you can increase compliance with a second light touch on the arm.
Vaidis and Halimi-Falkowicz (2008) tried this out when asking people in the street to complete a questionnaire. Those touched twice were more likely to complete the questionnaire than those touched once. The effects were strongest when men were touched by a female surveyor.
5. Or, touch for a fight!
However, the acceptability of touch, especially between men, depends a lot on culture.
When Dolinski (2010) carried out a compliance experiment in Poland, he got quite different results for men and women. In Poland men asked to do the experimenter a favour reacted badly to a light touch on the arm. This seemed to be related to higher levels of homophobia. Women, however, still reacted positively to touch.
6. Touch to sell your car
Unlike Poland, France has a contact culture and touching is acceptable between two men. So French researchers Erceau and Gueguen (2007) approached random men at a second-hand car market. Half were touched lightly on the arm for 1 second, the other half weren't.
Afterwards those who had been touched rated the seller as more sincere, friendly, honest, agreeable and kind. Not bad for a 1-second touch. We can safely assume the results would have been quite different in Poland!
Unlike Poland, France has a contact culture and touching is acceptable between two men. So French researchers Erceau and Gueguen (2007) approached random men at a second-hand car market. Half were touched lightly on the arm for 1 second, the other half weren't.
Afterwards those who had been touched rated the seller as more sincere, friendly, honest, agreeable and kind. Not bad for a 1-second touch. We can safely assume the results would have been quite different in Poland!
7. Touch for a date
You won't be surprised to hear that men show more interest in a woman who has lightly touched them. But here's the research anyway: Gueguen (2010) found men easily misinterpreted a light nonsexual touch on the arm as a show of sexual interest.
Perhaps more surprisingly women also responded well to a light touch on the arm when being asked for their phone number by a man in the street (Gueguen, 2007). This may be because women associated a light 1 or 2-second touch with greater dominance. (Bear in mind, though, that this research was in France again!)
You won't be surprised to hear that men show more interest in a woman who has lightly touched them. But here's the research anyway: Gueguen (2010) found men easily misinterpreted a light nonsexual touch on the arm as a show of sexual interest.
Perhaps more surprisingly women also responded well to a light touch on the arm when being asked for their phone number by a man in the street (Gueguen, 2007). This may be because women associated a light 1 or 2-second touch with greater dominance. (Bear in mind, though, that this research was in France again!)
8. Touch for power
Touch communicates something vital about power relationships. Henley (1973) observed people in a major city as they went about their daily business. The people who tended to touch others (versus those being touched) were usually higher status. Generally we regard people who touch others as having more power in society (Summerhayes & Suchner, 1978).
Touch communicates something vital about power relationships. Henley (1973) observed people in a major city as they went about their daily business. The people who tended to touch others (versus those being touched) were usually higher status. Generally we regard people who touch others as having more power in society (Summerhayes & Suchner, 1978).
9. Touch to communicate
Touch comes in many different forms and can communicate a variety of different emotions. Just how much can be communicated through touch alone is demonstrated by one remarkable study by Hertenstein et al. (2006).
Using only a touch on the forearm, participants in this study tried to communicate 12 separate emotions to another person. The receiver, despite not being able to see the toucher, or the touch itself, were pretty accurate for anger, fear, disgust, love, gratitude and sympathy. Accuracy ranged from 48% to 83%.
To put it in context, that is as good as we can do when we can see someone's face.
Touch comes in many different forms and can communicate a variety of different emotions. Just how much can be communicated through touch alone is demonstrated by one remarkable study by Hertenstein et al. (2006).
Using only a touch on the forearm, participants in this study tried to communicate 12 separate emotions to another person. The receiver, despite not being able to see the toucher, or the touch itself, were pretty accurate for anger, fear, disgust, love, gratitude and sympathy. Accuracy ranged from 48% to 83%.
To put it in context, that is as good as we can do when we can see someone's face.
10. Massage for maths
So, if you can do all that with a touch, imagine what you could do with a massage!
Well, one study has found that it can boost your maths skills (Field, 1996). Compared with a control group, participants who received massages twice a week for 5 weeks were not only more relaxed but also did better on a maths test. Once again, witness the incredible power of touch.
So, if you can do all that with a touch, imagine what you could do with a massage!
Well, one study has found that it can boost your maths skills (Field, 1996). Compared with a control group, participants who received massages twice a week for 5 weeks were not only more relaxed but also did better on a maths test. Once again, witness the incredible power of touch.
Boring disclaimer
All of these studies rely on the touch being appropriate. Being touched can have quite different meanings depending on situation, culture and gender. Generally the touch referred to is a light touch on the upper arm—the safest place to touch someone you don't know.
Also, research has identified a small proportion of people—both men and women—who don't like to be touched at all during everyday social interactions. These people are not likely to respond positively in any of these situations.
All of these studies rely on the touch being appropriate. Being touched can have quite different meanings depending on situation, culture and gender. Generally the touch referred to is a light touch on the upper arm—the safest place to touch someone you don't know.
Also, research has identified a small proportion of people—both men and women—who don't like to be touched at all during everyday social interactions. These people are not likely to respond positively in any of these situations.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)