![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Handedness
So I was pondering handedness, because I'm working on Ice and this is the sort of thing I start thinking about.
My first thought was that being left or right handed might be an artifact of the way our brains are set up, since it doesn't seem there's much advantage to needing to use one hand to do tasks. In fact, there are a few problems that arise with it - left handed people are slightly more likely to die, as shown by the fact there are proportionately fewer of them in each age group. It's guessed this is because most machinery is made for right-handed people and such things. Then there are the problems that arise from damage to your favored hand, compounded by the fact that because it's used so much, it'll be damaged more often. And of what value is it to have one arm stronger than the other?
But then I thought more. Maybe there is a value. If you use one hand more often, it's stronger. Stronger than it needs to be for your ordinary tasks, and if you then encounter a new, harder situation, like, say, having to turn something stuck, that extra strength can be used. While if you used both hands evenly, you probably wouldn't have that much of a bonus strength in either, and a lot of what we do is one-handed anyway, although that might just as well be because we have handedness like this. But then, bashing something with a rock, or throwing a spear, also require one hand.
Then I thought, huh, that was a total waste of time, because the child still shouldn't favor one hand. Even if there is some advantage for people in some situations, it's more advantageous to her to be able to use either since her environment is unusually hostile.
So anyway, does this make sense? Did I miss some really obvious advantage to handedness? Am I totally off because there was some study that proved handedness was just an artifact?
My first thought was that being left or right handed might be an artifact of the way our brains are set up, since it doesn't seem there's much advantage to needing to use one hand to do tasks. In fact, there are a few problems that arise with it - left handed people are slightly more likely to die, as shown by the fact there are proportionately fewer of them in each age group. It's guessed this is because most machinery is made for right-handed people and such things. Then there are the problems that arise from damage to your favored hand, compounded by the fact that because it's used so much, it'll be damaged more often. And of what value is it to have one arm stronger than the other?
But then I thought more. Maybe there is a value. If you use one hand more often, it's stronger. Stronger than it needs to be for your ordinary tasks, and if you then encounter a new, harder situation, like, say, having to turn something stuck, that extra strength can be used. While if you used both hands evenly, you probably wouldn't have that much of a bonus strength in either, and a lot of what we do is one-handed anyway, although that might just as well be because we have handedness like this. But then, bashing something with a rock, or throwing a spear, also require one hand.
Then I thought, huh, that was a total waste of time, because the child still shouldn't favor one hand. Even if there is some advantage for people in some situations, it's more advantageous to her to be able to use either since her environment is unusually hostile.
So anyway, does this make sense? Did I miss some really obvious advantage to handedness? Am I totally off because there was some study that proved handedness was just an artifact?
no subject
As far as I know, it's not the most difficult thing ever to build strengh in, say, your left arm if you hurt your right one.
Por ejemple, Billy Wagner, a pitcher, suffered an injury to his right shoulder early in his career. Not wanting it to end-- and having been right handed all his life-- he taught himself to throw at 100 MPH with the other arm.
My friend also taught herself to write with her left hand because her handwriting with her right hand wasn't any good, and she figured he'd try it.
If you're determined enough, you can do it.
no subject
no subject
no subject
(And now my interest is piqued and I've looked it up) So handedness seems to be an artifact of language development in humans--right handedness is favored in us, whereas other species have right and left-handedness in equal amounts.
You're right about the effect of specializing one hand, though--I'm reading something about how chimps that favor one hand are better at getting termites than ambidextrous ones.
Hmm... I'm not sure which would be best for the child, then. Maybe she'd be a 'true' ambidexter--equal strength on both sides for all tasks in order to avoid the possible disadvantage of an attack coming from the weak side.
no subject
I figure that strength is a negligible point for the child compared to being able to function with damage to one hand, or partially encumbered. Which is a somewhat pleasing decision, because she's supposed to be as different than humans as possible.
no subject
So... hmm. I think I prefer your reasoning, since it does make her more distinct from humans, like you said.
no subject