Originally posted by inimalistPersonality is not thought to be side dominated, but there is some evidence of personality dominance suggested by the results of hemispherectomies. Language can definitely be. McGlone's study was very interesting. Male left-hemisphere stroke victims suffered deficiency on WAIS verbal subtests and male right hemisphere stroke victims had deficits on WAIS performance subtests. Female stroke victims did not suffer any significant disruptive effects on those tests. The general conclusion is that males are more lateralized than females. Then Kanaksu, Yamaura, and Kitazawa showed that females tend to use both hemispheres more than males in language related tasks. They did that with brain imaging btw.
correction, it is [b]ENTIRELY pseudoscienceThere are hemespheric dominances, much like people can be right or left handed, and there are some functions that are specialized to each side of the brain. However, when talking about personality differences between individuals (and ESPECIALLY for men and women) you are NOT talking about left vs right brain. It is entirely bunk. There is absolutly no evidence to support it.
In fact, from a strict neurological perspective, saying an individual is either left or right brained has no real meaning. There is no possible mechanism for how one hemisphere could "dominate" the other so ambigiously. [/B]
Originally posted by inimalist
correction, it is [b]ENTIRELY pseudoscienceThere are hemespheric dominances, much like people can be right or left handed, and there are some functions that are specialized to each side of the brain. However, when talking about personality differences between individuals (and ESPECIALLY for men and women) you are NOT talking about left vs right brain. It is entirely bunk. There is absolutly no evidence to support it.
In fact, from a strict neurological perspective, saying an individual is either left or right brained has no real meaning. There is no possible mechanism for how one hemisphere could "dominate" the other so ambigiously. [/B]
Actually, I conceded you most of your points in my earlier posts, because we're generally in agreement. My only point was that there are those hemispheric dominances (as you nicely put it) with a variety of brain functions. I never claimed to believing in personality being affected by brain location....mainly because a "personality" is such an amorphous thing anyway, and it would be next to impossible to categorize it by brain function.
But when I was exchanging banter with debbie earlier, I was just using left/right brain in a functional sense, the way the world defines it, regardless of scientific theories that support (or deny) it.
Nellinator actually mentioned some of the research I was alluding to, including the penchant for women being able to "multi-task", so to speak, with different areas of the brain better than men.
Re: Producing the Paranormal
Originally posted by DigiMark007
Alright, so I'm a skeptic. That doesn't mean I inherently disbelieve claims of the paranormal, but I need solid evidence and a convincing argument that either trumps the rational argument against it or proves it wrong, before I believe the claim. The vast majority of paranormal claims can be attributed to completely rational causes, and many others simply lack enough evidence to validate or invalidate the claim.So what I'm asking for is discussion and debate on anything that would fall into this realm. If you believe in certain paranormal ideas, feel free to say so. Also feel free to say whether or not it is for intuitive reasons (personal "feeling", faith, or personal experiences) or because of data or research. If you don't believe in one or all of them, you can talk about that too.
But what I'm mainly interested in finding (and the reason for this thread) is rational arguments for these phenomenon, if they exist. I'll end up playing the role of the debunk-er more often than not, but I'm interested in the other side of the debate as well, and we can hopefully understand these beliefs better as a result. My goal is understanding, not argument, even if I happen to disagree. Hopefully this aim can keep the discussion civil.
Always remember that the burden of proof is on the claim. A lack of a debunking argument doesn't validate the claim unless empirical evidence also supports it.
Paranormal phenomenon can fall into many categories: ESP, physic powers, telekinetics, dowsing, various forms of magic, power of thought on the material universe (I include this because it seems to be popular on the forum...but let's not let it take over the thread), near-death experiences, reincarnation, a diety affecting the material world via supernatural means, voodoo, out-of-body experiences, prediction, crop circles, the existence of a soul, extraterrestrials, etc, etc. There's many I'm forgetting. Feel free to discuss one, many, or all of them.
Hopefully this isn't too broad to work, but I didn't want to deal with all of them individually, because many won't get any discussion.
So you're open to the possibility, Digi? That's cool. I had you pegged for a pig-headed, hard-nosed skeptic. (Like Boris)
You've never met anyone who was precognistic or psychometric in all your years?
And aliens would fall under mainstream science, since they have a physical existence unlike ghosts.
Originally posted by Quiero MotaBoris isn't a skeptic. He doesn't think things through.
So you're open to the possibility, Digi? That's cool. I had you pegged for a pig-headed, hard-nosed skeptic. (Like Boris)You've never met anyone who was precognistic or psychometric in all your years?
And aliens would fall under mainstream science, since they have a physical existence unlike ghosts.
Re: Re: Producing the Paranormal
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
So you're open to the possibility, Digi? That's cool. I had you pegged for a pig-headed, hard-nosed skeptic. (Like Boris)You've never met anyone who was precognistic or psychometric in all your years?
And aliens would fall under mainstream science, since they have a physical existence unlike ghosts.
Open, yes, but it doesn't mean I believe in something without evidence, or even if there's a lack of evidence one way or another.
And I know what precognistic (precognitive?) means, but what exactly is psychometric? Sounds like an insane Canadien to me ( 😉 ).
As for aliens, yes they would fall under quantifiable science, but so should most of these if they have tangible affects on the material world, which they would need to in order to exist at all. But alien hoaxes abound, and the investigation lacks any credible evidence for us having made contact with extraterrestrials so far, so I included it.
Re: Re: Re: Producing the Paranormal
Originally posted by DigiMark007
what exactly is psychometric?
Psychometry is the psychic ability in which a person touches a physical object (or person) and instantly they know everything about the object; it's history, where its been, what its done and so on.
It's been in a few movies and tv shows like Unbreakable and The Dead Zone.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Producing the Paranormal
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
Psychometry is the psychic ability in which a person touches a physical object (or person) and instantly they know everything about the object; it's history, where its been, what its done and so on.It's been in a few movies and tv shows like Unbreakable and The Dead Zone.
Gotcha. Thanks.
So you're asserting that you've known people like this, and have been able to remove possible confirmation bias to look at it objectively and determine whether or not they actually have these supposed powers?
I'd be interested to hear your justification, for this or the precognitive ones.