Left Brain Vs Right Brain

[Koustubh]

I recently came across this. http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,2...281-661,00.html (an image of a girl twirling)

It says that people who see the dancer turning clockwise use more of their right brain than their left. I certainly see the dancer turning clockwise. However I strongly disagree about what that then implies (assuming the brain function classification is correct) about my thinking. Can someone tell me what that means?

PS: I know that this does not really belong in Epistemology but I could not find a better place to post it.

Edited March 9, 2008 by Koustubh

[Tenure]

By clockwise vs anti-clockwise, are we talking about what it would look like from above? I mean, if we imagine she starts facing away from us, and starts swinging to her (and our) right, is that clockwise? If so, then I see it clockwise too - I don't see how you could see it any other way. I've tried staring at it and focusing different ways and I can sometimes get it switch to anti-clockwise but then it becomes clockwise again. It's kind of like watching the lights flash by in the Underground tunnel, on the train, and if you focus really hard, you can almost convince your mind the the train is going in the opposite direction. It takes a lot of focus, and you can only hold it for a short time, but it's really freaky if you can do it (you also look like a right nutter, staring intently out the window at the wall rushing by).

EDIT - Ok, now I've figured out how this thing works, I can switch it back and forth by will, so I'm a bit unsure how reliable my testimony is now.

I'm left-handed, so I know by nature, I am more right handed (I'm not being silly - it is opposite sides to opposite hands). I don't know if that means I should be more emotional by nature, although I do know that 'Right Brain column fits me a lot more than that left brain one. I tend to find it is easier to 'believe' in something and invest my faith in something, to be fantasy based and risk taking, but I think these are all stemming from one of the things there: emotional. I still have many 'primacy of consciousness' issues, where I'll hold my own emotional well-being, or 'Pseudo-self-esteem' as Branden puts it, over the actual facts of reality.

If anyone here has studied neurology, I'd love to hear what you have to say about how the natural make up of our brain effects the manner in which we think, and which route we are dispositioned towards. For example, we have free will, but if you have a very tall body, muscular build, and impressive hand-eye co-ordination, you're more likely to choose to be a basketball player than an accountant, by virtue of it being something more efficacious for you... unlike a guy with a smart brain who would be better off doing accounting.

I think that also lies at the heart of valuation and why we each have our own unique value hierarchy, but that's another matter...

Edited March 10, 2008 by Tenure

[agrippa1]

I'm not sure I buy the left-brain right-brain theory wrt to this image. If you look closely, you can see that (if you see her spinning CW), her kicking leg and her arm appears higher wrt her body on the far side than it is on the near side.

That is a visual cue as to the position (wrt the viewer) of her leg and arm as she spins. Looking down on a feature, it will appear higher on the far side than the near side.

I find it hard to believe that a person with keen spatial awareness would see her in anything but a CW spin (anyone see her CCW?).

I'm a logical, scientific kinda guy, so I'm assuming that the piece is intended to reinforce the lefties of the world, while confusing us logical types into thinking that maybe we "feel" more than we think we do.

[Koustubh]

EDIT - Ok, now I've figured out how this thing works, I can switch it back and forth by will, so I'm a bit unsure how reliable my testimony is now.

The interesting thing about this image is that there are no clues about the direction of rotation (no lighting, shadows, viewing angle or even perspective). So it should be purely a matter of will to switch the direction of rotation. Yet I am unable to do so.

I took the image into an image editing software and played it backward and it still appeared to rotate clockwise! Then I played it forward and it appeared to rotate anti-clockwise. That I suppose is the logical part of my brain kicking in.

I would be thankful if someone can tell me whether the theory that brain functions are localized in different parts of the brain has been proved and whether the localization (if any) is actually consistent across individuals.

Koustubh

[Koustubh]

I'm not sure I buy the left-brain right-brain theory wrt to this image. If you look closely, you can see that (if you see her spinning CW), her kicking leg and her arm appears higher wrt her body on the far side than it is on the near side.

That is a visual cue as to the position (wrt the viewer) of her leg and arm as she spins. Looking down on a feature, it will appear higher on the far side than the near side.

Thanks. I had missed that.

[Tenure]

Well, if you want to know how it works, it's kind of like this:

Slide 1: 0-<-<

Slide 2: 0-/-<

Slide 3: 0-<-<

Slide 4: 0-\-<

Notice that what you're seeing this little stick man first with his arms by his side, then his right arm raised, then back to his side, then his left arm raised. What you are not seeing is the a slide in between raising his arm and putting it back down again. That's what happens with this image. You see her kick her leg out, and you see it in the returned position, but because you don't see the motion between it being kicked out and it being returned, your brain has to automatically form the logical step in between (this is the wonder of our ability to form principles, even to the point that they are automatised).

Of course, you might assume that if you see her kick her leg out, and then return it, that she is doing so in a certain way - clockwise or anti-clockwise - and I suppose that researchers showed this to left handed and right handed people, or monitored the predominant activity in their brain perhaps, and then asked them which way round they thought she was spinning.

All you have to do to shift the direction of the dancer is to break your preconcieved notion of which way she is spinning. You might look at it, and your brain, used to approaching things from the left or right handed way, as is the theory of these scientists, will assume a certain direction. What you have to do is, realise first, that you are looking at 6 or so still frames, and then to realise, that, it is just as likely that she is starting with her toes pointing to your right (the right of the frame), pointing them round at you, then to the left (left of the frame) and then away from you. You have to really focus, because otherwise you'll just start thinking about what you'd expect to see, under your normal principle, and not what is also there, if you just focused.

I suppose it's a good exercise in learning that you should never trust in your principles over the actual reality of a situation, and that sometimes, there might be more going on than you expect, which calls for a new principle, even if it's difficult to accept.

[West]

The first time I looked at it, I saw it rotate clockwise. The second time I looked at it, it was counter-clockwise. After looking at it for some time, I figured that I only need to focus or imagine in my head that she was going one way or the other in order to have it rotate that direction. I don't see how it proves that you use one side more than another.

Edit: after a few seconds of practice, I can make it go whichever direction I want, at any point in time.

Edited March 10, 2008 by West

[Mammon]

I put a 12 right behind her, like where it would be on a clock, and then watched her leg move, like the hands of a clock.... in the direction of a clock.

I don't think it's matter of being either-or. I think you use all of the attributes of both "sides" but whichever you use more of determines which side is dominate. Look at the list of traits attributed to each one. Perhaps if you are "left brained" you use more traits from the "left brained" list.

Also, what's with the thinking that "right brained" people are extremely leftist?*

*I'd like to expand more on this but I'm about to head out to class and I wanted to make a preliminary post to start the debate machine up.

[K-Mac]

I think someone has put too much thought into an optical illusion. I can see it both ways at different times, but I'm not so sure what that has to do with my left or right brain.

[cilphex]

I'm not sure I buy the left-brain right-brain theory wrt to this image. If you look closely, you can see that (if you see her spinning CW), her kicking leg and her arm appears higher wrt her body on the far side than it is on the near side.

That is a visual cue as to the position (wrt the viewer) of her leg and arm as she spins. Looking down on a feature, it will appear higher on the far side than the near side.

I find it hard to believe that a person with keen spatial awareness would see her in anything but a CW spin (anyone see her CCW?).

Have you allowed yourself to see the figure spinning the other way? I think you're just extracting this 'visual cue' from the only rotation you've observed. If you see her spinning Counter Clockwise, her kicking leg and her arm appears lower with regard to her body on the far side that it is on the near side. So what? How does this tell me which direction she's spinning in? It doesn't. After your brain chooses a rotation to understand the image, you'll observe one of either of those things because it makes sense with regard to that particular rotation.

Now, I don't know if any of this means anything about left vs right brain, but you can certainly see it both ways and there isn't any 'visual cue' making the true rotation decipherable. If the graphic artist that rendered this image made a second one with the figure spinning in the opposite direction of what it was originally, it would look exactly the same. There isn't anything in the image that reveals depth.

It's like this: http://www.teach-kids-attitude-1st.com/ima...nt-illusion.gif

If you're having trouble seeing it both ways, I suggest scrolling down so that you only see the figure's feet. Try to observe the opposite rotation with the feet alone, then scroll up gradually when you think you've got it.

The first time I looked at it, I saw it rotate clockwise. The second time I looked at it, it was counter-clockwise. After looking at it for some time, I figured that I only need to focus or imagine in my head that she was going one way or the other in order to have it rotate that direction.

Ditto.

[agrippa1]

I think you're just extracting this 'visual cue' from the only rotation you've observed. If you see her spinning Counter Clockwise, her kicking leg and her arm appears lower with regard to her body on the far side that it is on the near side. So what? How does this tell me which direction she's spinning in? It doesn't.

So I would suggest you watch someone spinning clockwise with one leg extended. The foot will appear lower on the backside than on the front, if your point of view is above her foot. When you see the figure spinning CCW, it looks like she's leaning away from you, or like your view is from below. The reason you see her CCW when just looking at her feet is the reflection of her foot gives you a different cue as to her orientation and rotation.

There are two opposing 'visual cues,' her vertical rotational orientation, and the reflection of her foot on the glass.

[aequalsa]

The interesting thing about this image is that there are no clues about the direction of rotation (no lighting, shadows, viewing angle or even perspective). So it should be purely a matter of will to switch the direction of rotation. Yet I am unable to do so.

Try closing you right eye and relaxing your gaze. Look at it without "thinking" about it and see if that helps.

[Thales]

This was on The Forum a few months ago. Initially I saw it as clockwise, but by focusing on the raised leg and consciously forcing it ccw I was able to reverse direction fairly quickly. Can't say how valid their theory is about what it means to see it going one way or another.

[cilphex]

So I would suggest you watch someone spinning clockwise with one leg extended. The foot will appear lower on the backside than on the front, if your point of view is above her foot. When you see the figure spinning CCW, it looks like she's leaning away from you, or like your view is from below. The reason you see her CCW when just looking at her feet is the reflection of her foot gives you a different cue as to her orientation and rotation.

There are two opposing 'visual cues,' her vertical rotational orientation, and the reflection of her foot on the glass.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I know that each rotation makes it seem as if you're observing the figure from a different vantage point, but I still don't understand why that means anything. As far as focusing on her feet is concerned, I found that it helped because it's easier to switch views on a disconnected part rather than the whole at once. It would be the same if the reflection weren't there, and after studying, I can't see how the reflection gives off any type of clue. You can see her CW or CCW looking at just her feet, or just her head, or her whole body.

I reversed the gif with an online gif editor. Now the counter clockwise vantage point is from above, and the clockwise vantage point from below. Still, this seems to say nothing except just that. If the image had been rendered this way originally, would the things you're pointing out demand that the figure was in actuality spinning counter clockwise? I still see nothing that makes the real rotation decipherable.

It may be reasonable to assume that the graphic artist rendered the image from a vantage point above the figure's waist, but isn't it just that--an assumption?

Edited March 10, 2008 by cilphex

[agrippa1]

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I know that each rotation makes it seem as if you're observing the figure from a different vantage point, but I still don't understand why that means anything. As far as focusing on her feet is concerned, I found that it helped because it's easier to switch views on a disconnected part rather than the whole at once. It would be the same if the reflection weren't there, and after studying, I can't see how the reflection gives off any type of clue. You can see her CW or CCW looking at just her feet, or just her head, or her whole body.

I reversed the gif with an online gif editor. Now the counter clockwise vantage point is from above, and the clockwise vantage point from below. Still, this seems to say nothing except just that. If the image had been rendered this way originally, would the things you're pointing out demand that the figure was in actuality spinning counter clockwise? I still see nothing that makes the real rotation decipherable.

(edit: removed image tag)

It may be reasonable to assume that the graphic artist rendered the image from a vantage point above the figure's waist, but isn't it just that--an assumption?

Look at the extended foot, and watch the ellipse it traces out on your monitor (mark it with your finger if you need to). The shape of the ellipse is a visual cue, which combines with the obvious circular motion to give you a depth cue. If you're looking down at a circle from a distance, you will see the far end of the circle above the near end of the circle. So when you see the foot swinging in a circle, and see the far end higher than the near end, it cues you to see the motion so that the high point is the far end of the motion. It's not an absolute cue, as the figure could be leaning away from you so that you see the circular motion from below, but I believe that is why we all seem to have seen her first swinging CW.

No look at the reflection of her foot in the glossy floor. The only way the image makes sense is if you see the reflection when the foot is swung away from you. For you to see the near swing reflected, but not the far swing, she would have to be "leaning" towards you such that the angle of her lean (that is the angle between her plane of rotation and the floor) is greater than the angle at which your line of sight to the reflection hits the floor. This is clearly not the case, so the reflection of her foot is a very strong analytical cue.

This would make sense as to why they posted the question. If someone were to ask me which way the girl is spinning, rather than which way I see her spinning, I would look for clues as to the direction, recognize the reflection as the proof of direction, and say "CCW." That would make it a perceptive v. analytical distinction.

Still, your point is taken. I'm pretty sure my point of view has been skewed by studying this image. (but damned if she isn't spinning CCW now) It would be interesting to send one or the other to random people and see which way they see each one spinning.

let's try this:

(I think my brain just exploded)

Edited March 11, 2008 by agrippa1

[John McVey]

I'd seen this one months ago too. Either direction is legitimate as a 3D interpretation of 2D observations because there is not enough cue material to solidify the perception as The One Proper Interpretation. It's kinda like solving a set of simultaneous equations and finding that there aren't enough unique equations to get the single solution - but that doesn't make what you have managed to get any the less legitimate or objective.

The point is not whether or not you can see both directions but of which you see first. That relates to the handedness of the brain because it deals with which hemisphere takes primary responsibility in coordinating the integration of cues from sensory data into percepts. It's semi-involuntary because as this whole thing shows you can change your perceptual interpretation once you know what you're doing - which means you're shifting hemispheric priority (so the theory goes?).

let's try this: ...

Now that's just plain freaky I have been able to see all four combinations of her motion - both oppositely as though gear-driven and together as though belt-driven, and in both directions - in the space of a minute. I can shift focus with ease now because I had seen it before, but I hadn't expected to be able to do that so easily and quickly.

JJM

[EC]

I you guys sure this thing just doesn't randomly spin either way because the only time I can get it to change direction for me is if I refresh the screen.

[Publius]

The point is not whether or not you can see both directions but of which you see first.

I think this is the point, your initial impression. I saw the image moving CCW first, but after further observation could see it either way. Interestingly after seeing the image reversed, my initial impression was that the reversed image was moving CW, but then my brain shifted to seeing it CCW the more I watched, so for whatever reason I think I'm wired to seeing it CCW.

[Thales]

I you guys sure this thing just doesn't randomly spin either way because the only time I can get it to change direction for me is if I refresh the screen.

No, looking at the two images above, I was able to make them go in opposite directions (one cw and the other ccw), and then I had them both going in the same direction. Try to force a leg's silhouette such that you see the full leg (where one is behind the other) the way it should be for a cw or ccw rotation. It takes focus, but I've been able to do it several times.

[cilphex]

No look at the reflection of her foot in the glossy floor. The only way the image makes sense is if you see the reflection when the foot is swung away from you.

Alright, you got me. This makes sense.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

At first CCW--then suddenly clockwise--then I had a bear of a time switching back. I scrolled so only the foot was visible, that helped.

Then at least once the foot was rotating in one direction and the rest of her was rotating in the other direction.

[stuzal atla creala iuday]

Actually, if the left and right brain hypothesis is correct, it may be the first definitive scientific proof of Ayn Rand's theory of Free Will. According the the Theory, mental qualities mostly associated with deductive/inductive ability, such as artistic talent and inovation, whilst the left half is associated with purely perceptive anylitical mentalities, with the inner brain's corpus collosum being the connector between the two. Therefore, I submit that the, since the corpus collosum is the connector between the reason dominated right brain and the perception dominated left brain, it is the most likely source of Free Will; or concept forming mechanism. This was most obviously demonstrated to me upon watching a documentary on the man (I can't remember his name) that was the inspiration for the main character of the movie Rainman. This man, as has been proven by science, has amazing perceptual abilities such as unbelievable memory but, due to an agenesis of the corpus collosum, is incapable of forming concepts and, therefore, by definition, not human.

[DavidOdden]

This was most obviously demonstrated to me upon watching a documentary on the man (I can't remember his name) that was the inspiration for the main character of the movie Rainman. This man, as has been proven by science, has amazing perceptual abilities such as unbelievable memory but, due to an agenesis of the corpus collosum, is incapable of forming concepts and, therefore, by definition, not human.

Kim Peek. He also has macrocephaly, damage to the cerebellum, and is missing the anterior commissure. A being that cannot form concepts cannot learn language, and Mr. Peek can. His main failing in language pertains to the fuzzy, non-literal stuff -- subtle non-literal implications to people ordinarily understand, indicating that he sticks too close to the definitions of concepts. He is, in fact, human.

[aequalsa]

Therefore, I submit that the, since the corpus collosum is the connector between the reason dominated right brain and the perception dominated left brain, it is the most likely source of Free Will;

Since men have on average, 25% less corpus collosum than women, does that imply that they also posess more freewill or higher concept formation capabilities? I don't believe so. Trying to isolate our identity to a single part of the brain, while conforting religiously, is not bound to be accurate. The brain is a single organ with certain parts which are generally responsible for certain activities, but it is also incredibly plastic and capable of reorganization. The recovering speech of stroke victims who loose a hemisphere, increased hearing and sense accuity of blind people, dyslexic kids who learn to read with an unusaul part of their brain and can be retrained to use another, are all examples which come to mind. Better to think of parts of the brain as tools with varying utility. A knife can be used to put butter on bread, but can also be used to put in screws, pry things, decorate a wall, kill people, etc.

Interconnectivity is not primarily responsible for forming concepts, just helpful in connecting them with words associated with the concept. So people with more poor connectivity(like men generally)are perfectly capable of holding complex abstractions in their mind, but may have difficulty describing it in words....say...when talking about their feelings. In extreme cases, like rainman, or even the stereotypical absent-minded professor, can be brilliant at theoretical physics, or high level math, but have great difficulty having a conversation or relating to others.

[stuzal atla creala iuday]

Both of you pose valid points. I realize that I need more training in the biological sciences to refine my claims (I'm looking to be a biotechnician), however, I think the location of and proving of the mental mechanism of free will via scientific research is certainly a worthy quest for me in the future, as well as my other idea of genetically engineering plants to better survive on Mars to help private space explorers.