Conference moira::parenting_v3

    >...seems to throw equally well with either hand, and isn't quite
    >sure whether to bat right or left handed.
    
    He should throw right-handed and bat left-handed.  Throwing
    left-handed is generally a disadvantage in the field -- you have
    to turn to throw across your body in many situations where a
    right-handed throw can be made more quickly.  Unless he's a
    pitcher, in which case throwing left-handed is an advantage.     
    
    Since most pitchers are right-handed, batting left-handed will
    give him an advantage against them.  If he could learn to
    switch-hit, which will give him an advantage against both left-
    and right-handed pitchers.  
    
    --bonnie

I'd suggest to him to try to pick one particular way around that he feels
most comfortable doing any particular task ... be it right or left handed.
When he is comfortable with his choice the confusion will diminish.

Our two older kids were ambidextrous for the longest time ... 'till around
3 to 4, but settled themselves into being predominantly right handed,
although strangely, they still do some things years later from the left.
(We went out to a mini-putt yesterday and there they were holding the clubs
a gauche!)

It is handy to be comfortable doing things with the left hand later in life!

Stuart (who is decidedly right handed!)

    When I started to grab a crayon and scribble as a child, my mother, a
    person who'd been reared in Germany thinking right-handedness was
    proper, always moved the crayon from my left to my right. When that did
    not work, she knitted a mitten without a thumb and placed it on my left
    hand when I was playing with the crayons. I thought this was amusing
    and put up with it; I became right-handed by habit. When I was ten I
    started playing an instrument that needed more dexerity from my left
    hand. It was at this point I  became much more ambidextrous and since
    that time use my right hand for precision work (writing and drawing)
    and my left for strength (sports and tasks that require force).
    However, I can use the other hand when necessary. My brother on the
    other hand lasted only 1 session with the mitten, and is decidedly and
    stubbornly left handed. 
    
    My mom always said that if you try to push your hand up your back
    (hand in a fist and thumb pointed upward) the hand that goes the
    furthest is the handedness you were born with. I repeat this here
    knowing this is an amusing old wive's tail (although both my
    brother and I can reach furthest with our left thumbs).
    
    Monica 
              

    IMO, don't change a child who is a natural left handed.  I was a
    "lefty", but my kindegarten teacher (public school in a Boston suburb)
    refused to allow any leftys in her class, and would smack my hand with
    a ruler when I picked up an instrument with my left hand.  Well it
    worked, I guess in her opinion, I now write and do many things with my
    right hand.  I can, however, do almost as many things with my left. 
    But the unfortunate bottom line here is that I hold my pen, as my
    father used to say, like a baseball bat and my handwriting is just
    AWFUL!! sometimes barely legible.
    

    If Tobias truly seems confused and unable to decide, I would observe
    him doing things like coloring, using scissors, using a spoon or fork,
    brushing his teeth, etc.  Also observe him going up stairs...does he
    prefer to start with his right or left foot? it is a good indication of
    "sidedness". Another test for dominance is to put a small hole in the
    center of a blank sheet of paper. Hand it to him and ask him to look
    through the hole at a specific object. See which eye he holds it up
    to...that is his dominant eye. Now, theoretically, all the
    dominances...eye, hand and foot...should match. But they often don't,
    particularly early on. See which one is most natural for him and
    encourage that. At least that is how I would probably proceed.
    
    --dave--

    I just performed the behind-the-back test and my left thumb won.  I'd
    always heard that the arm you DIDN'T use would end up going higher
    becuase the muscles weren't as developed and therefore more flexible. 
    I'm right-handed, all my family is, so perhaps it's true that the tale
    is simply a tale.  

   See also:
   
   IOSG::LEFT_HANDERS
   
   Not specifically about parenting, but lots of stuff about being
   left handed.
   
   - Tom
   

    At 5 I think it should be determined if your child will be left or
    right handed.  What I base this statement on, it that at the Child
    Development Clinic where AJ was followed until his third birthday, they
    expressed a concern at 2.5 because they would do "play therapy" with
    him, such things as throwing him a ball, and he wouldn't be consistant
    with which hand he caught it.  They gave me some medical double talk
    which managed to only throw me into a panic of whether or not he was
    developing properly.  But shortly after his third birthday it was clear
    he was a "righty".
    
    What I'm trying to say here is that it appears that right or left
    handiness should be obvious by the third birthday.  If it isn't then
    there may be a problem worth looking into further, not to cause a panic
    but only a thought.
    
    Lyn

    Have him fold his hands (with fingers interlocked).  The thumb that's
    on top tells the handedness!
    
    I just tried the "how far up the back" test, and my OFF hand reached
    the highest.
    
    A variation on the paper test is to have the subject point to an
    object, and without moving the pointing finger, view the object with
    first one eye and then the other.  Whichever eye sees the finger
    closest to the object tells the handedness.  (Paper with a hole would
    be easier for everyone concerned when the subject is a child!)
    
    Leslie

    re -
    
    
    OK  here are my results..
    
    I folded my hands and the left thumb was on top.
    
    I reached up my back and the left hand went further.
    
    I pointed with my left hand and closing my right eye made my arm "move"
    then I pointed with my right arm and closing my right  eye again made
    my arm "move".
    
    So....am I lefty or righty???
    
    -sandy
    

    And a reminder that some people ARE ambidextrous or
    cross-dominant.  
    
    --bonnie

    re .9
    
    By all that, I must be left handed .... 
    
    Tell my left hand that if it attempts to write!
    
    Right-handed Stuart

re: .11

> And a reminder that some people ARE . . . cross-dominant.  
    
Sounds kinda kinky to me.  :^)

Another test for the dominant eye is to line up a near object, such
as a pencil or your finger, with a far object.  First close one eye,
then the other.  The eye for which the near object moves less is
the dominant eye.

I think, but I'm not sure, that the dominant eye doesn't necessarily
correspond to the dominant hand.

Clay

    
    I wondered if my daughter would be a lefty like her dad or a righty
    like me, but what I would suggest is just buy another glove and let
    your son decide which he prefers.  I've asked my doctor how to tell 
    and he suggested I let her decide.
    
    I believe that doing this won't hurt him any and that he will make a 
    decision.  I will encourage Courtenay to pick her own way and I won't
    try to alter her decision.  My husband hopes she will decide to be a 
    righty, since he knows the pains of being a lefty in a right-handed 
    world.  He just wants her to have an easier time learning things.
    
    Rose Marie                        

    I agree with .14's reply, buy two gloves.  Being a lefty myself I remember
    that I would eat with both hands, it just depended upon which side of the 
    plate my Mom put my fork!  Eventually, I started eating exclusively with 
    my left hand.
    
    My family is all right handed so my Mom just waited to see which hand I
    wrote with before she decided that I was a lefty.
    
    Growing up in a rightie world isn't that bad!  Although I must admit, I
    do a lot of things right handed because I didn't know any better, or
    didn't have access to left handed tools, like scissors.  I'm sure most
    lefties will agree that you have to be adaptable in a right biased
    world.  
    
    
    Jane (a Southpaw)

    I was semiserious in .1.  If he really doesn't have a preference
    _in his baseball skills_, if he can learn either way, it's a major
    advantage to be able to switch hit or bat lefthanded, and unless
    he's playing first base, generally a disadvantage to throw
    lefthanded.  I'm not talking about overall dominance here; my
    normally right-handed daughter was a switch hitter in little
    league.  
    
    --bonnie

I'm ambidextrous.  I can write with either hand (the handwriting is different),
but usually use my right hand because I have more practice with it - more
socially acceptable and the schools encouraged it.

But I have favorite hands for some tasks, but none for others.  I cannot brush 
my teeth with my left hand.  I throw with either, but tend to use my left.  I 
eat with my left, because that's where the fork is and then I don't have to 
switch after cutting something.  I comb my hair with my right.


I have very little sense of direction and can become confused about numbers -
like looking at the number 34 and *seeing* 43, even after it's been pointed out
to me that the number is 34, not 43.  (The numbers happen mostly when I'm
very tired).

I've been told that this confusion is related to being ambidextrous, that
left and right have less meaning to me than to strongly-handed people.  I'd
be curious if other ambidextrous people have noticed this.

    re -1;
    Yes sir, I sometimes confuse right and left and once in a while read
    out a two digit number backward (but I always figured that was because
    of my german parents -- where in german you don't say twenty-two, but
    two and twenty). 
    I've discussed this with my buddy here in the office, and she, also
    ambidextrous, notices the same problem with discerning right from left.
    
    Monica
    

    I also confuse right and left, or I used to, and my left thumb
    goes on top when I fold my hands (I also reverse numbers). But
    I'm a righty, tho I tried very hard in my teen years to teach
    my left hand to write.... tho not very successfully.
    
    Bonnie

    I also have a lot of trouble with switching numbers, not telling
    my right from my left, getting confused in mirrors, etc. but I'm
    definitely right-handed.  
    
    --bonnie

    This is an interesting and highly revealing experiment:
    
    In front of a mirror, hold a piece of cardboard over the left side of
    your face and look at yourself.  Then try covering the right side. 
    Most people look very different on the left and right.  Often, one side
    (usually the left) looks more "suppressed", and the other side comes
    out more.   If you photographed each half, then reversed the image to
    make it a full face, you may look like two different people, like
    siblings who resemble each other or identical twins who differentiate
    themselves.  Some psychologists relate this to the right-left-brain
    split and people favoring one mode or the other.  (Curiously, the left
    brain controls the right side of the body, and vice versa.)  
    
    I am strongly right handed but in the experiment above, the right side
    of my face looks "suppressed" - the eye looks smaller and further back,
    and the muscles look tighter.    The left side looks fuller, more
    expressive and more relaxed.  I also use only my left eye for focussing 
    a camera or target shooting.  
    
    I think this experiment reveals the "split" aspects of the personality.  
    I want to try it one day on my baby.  I don't think any difference will
    show up yet.
    
    I don't believe the use of right or left hand relates to personality
    type, though.
    
    Laura 

    re. .11
    Ambidextrous and cross-dominant are *not* the same thing! True
    ambidextrousness is actually quite rare. Definition: (clinical) being
    able to do almost everything *equally well* with either hand. 
    Now the ambidextrous person would not be cross-dominant, but, more
    precisely, non-dominant. Would not prefer either eye, hand or foot, but
    use whichever was most convenient. Habit may dictate on or the other,
    but skill would be equall in either one.
    
    Cross-dominance is technically a learning disability, but is certainly
    a common one. Many people do just fine and never realize they are
    cross-dominant until pointed out to them. And reversing numbers and
    letters, as well as right-left discrimination problems, are all very
    common learning "disabilities", although not really disabling unless
    they interfere to a significant degree with your functioning. We joke
    in our home that we have four direction: left, other left, right and
    other right. That's how bad I am at directions. I am not
    cross-dominant, and am strongly right handed. I have a real problem
    with letter and number reversal when reading. My wife, on the other
    hand is cross-dominant, a whiz at numbers and spelling and has no
    problem with telling left from right. We make an interesting pair!
    
    My thanks to my resident occupational therapist (my wife) for the
    majority of this info!
    
    --dave--
    ("Turn left at the corner. *NO*! I said left! Other left!!!")

    This is an interesting string --
    
    I'm a lefty -- when I fold my hands my right thumb naturally ends up on
    top.
    
    It depends on which hand you use to point with at an object as to which
    closed eye makes your hand move the most!  So that test doesn't seem
    very accurate.  If I use my left hand to point, when I close my left
    eye and view with my right, the object moves the least, and vice versa.
    
    The only thing I've ever heard about "handedness" is that there is some
    genetic inheritedness that plays a role in it.  So that there is a 1 in
    4 chance that any child of two parents, on righty and one lefty, will
    be left handed.  In my faimily my father is left handed my mother
    right, and out of 8 children 2 are left handed.  So it was accurate
    there. With my four children so far one is left handed.  Rather wierd I
    think.
    

    re: .22
    
    Yes, I know they aren't the same.  That's why I put ambidextrous
    OR cross-dominant.
    
    I'm sorry if I sound peeved, but this is the first time I've ever
    heard cross-dominance called a "disability"!  It doesn't make a
    damned bit of difference whether someone shoots a gun or picks up
    a hairbrush with the right hand or the left hand!  It might be
    inconvenient if the implement is designed assuming a right-hander
    (as so many implements are) or a left-hander (as a typewriter is)
    but it sure isn't a disability!  The sometimes-associated
    switching of letters and so on could conceivably be considered a
    learning disability, though from my experience it's more a case of
    rigidity in the school system refusing to acknowledge alternate
    perceptual styles than it is any lack of ability in the person who
    does the switching.  
    
    --bonnie, seriously teed off.

    During her college courses for becoming a registered occupational
    therapist, my wife learned that cross dominance is considered
    *indicative* of learning disabilities, and can cause problems in
    physical coordination (the so-called accident prone person, which she
    was *definitely* one of), as well as other more serious areas. It was
    one ofe the areas tested in sensory integration testing.
    
    I apologize for the offence you took, Bonnie, but I believe you
    overreacted somewhat. This is the "clinical" picture, which is not
    always, as you probably know, the way it works in real life. That is
    why I said most cross-dominat people never even know they are, and
    function just fine, and that a "disability" isn't a disability unless
    you are disabled by it. I certainly know of no one that could be
    considered disabled by cross-dominance, but the testing for it falls
    under the domain of testing for sensory integration difficulties, which
    can cause children and adults *serious* problems.
    
    I understand, now, the "or" in your statement, but it did read to me as
    if the "or" meant you were using the terms interchangeably. Sorry I
    misunderstood...the joys of electonic, as opposed to face-to-face
    communications! 
    
    Again, Bonnie, no offence intended, not slur, nor injury or labeling.
    Just stating it from the clinical perspective.
    
    --dave--

    It may be hard to check on the handedness of parents, as many
    were forced to be right handed, regardless of their natural aptitudes,
    in school or at home. (Aunts tell me of rulers slapping hands when 
    writing tools were picked up by the left and not the right). 
    
    Dave, one can also argue the difference between learned handedness and 
    natural aptitude. Ambidextrousness and cross-dominance describes which?
    (i.e. one may have been ambidextrous when small but forced into using
    one hand over the other, and became more practiced with it.)
    
    I have also heard that forcing to use one hand may also have some
    damaging psychological consequences later on in life -- since it
    may be attempt to change the dominant side of the brain. 
    
    Needless to say, I'm quite fascinated by this topic....
    
    Monica
    

    re: .25
    
    I know you didn't intend any personal offense, Dave, and it's not
    you I'm mad at, but if the people who are testing our children are
    being taught that simply not meeting some arbitrary criteria of
    how your body is supposed to work makes you "disabled," it's no
    wonder so many of our kids are having trouble in school.  
    
    How can you say a trait that someone doesn't even notice can be a
    DISability???????  
    
    I'm willing to believe that cross dominance is an indicator of 
    certain kind of sensory problems.  I can even believe that looking
    for it helps you locate the people who do need help.  But saying
    that it's a disability is kind of like saying that being brunette
    is a disability because gentlemen prefer blondes.
    
    --bonnie

    I see what you mean, Bonnie. But it's not entirely arbitrary. There is
    much evidence that cross-dominance tends to be, well, a sort of
    "marker" indicating there may be other problems. But no one even looks
    for or tests for cross-dominance, in adults or our children, unless
    they have found other problems...then it will probably be looked for. 
    
    For example....your child is very uncoordinated, "accident prone",
    apparently not progressing on schedule (particularly in gross motor
    skills). The school or pedi recommends testing. At this point, they
    will probably test for cross dominance. This, in adn of itself, can
    cause a lot of cooridnation problems, even when there is no other
    problem present. Cross-dominance, for whatever it's worth, is *not* the
    way a brain is "supposed to" work. Dominance should "match" throughout
    the person. So, in this sense, it can cause a disability, even if you
    might technically not prefer to call it a disability by itself. 
    
    Now, as to whether it is naturally or artificially caused....
    All children, up to a certain age (about 3yrs. or so) are naturally
    ambidextrous. They'd just as soon use whichever side of there body is
    most convenient. But dominance gradually develops, depending on which
    side of the brain the body "prefers" (right brain = left handed, left
    brain = right handed). Now, it is true that you can train a person to
    do things with the non-domionat hand, and many who were forced as
    children to switch (invariably form left to right), can usually do fine
    with the right hand for writing, but still may prefer the left for
    other activities. And, Monica, yes, it can cause problems to be forced
    to switch, among them (it's thought) stuttering and language
    difficulties. It is truly rare for the person't brain not to be
    stronger on one side or the other...this is why "true" ambidextrousness
    is considered rare, and not necessarily a good thing...it appears the
    brain was intended to prefer on side or the other.
    
    Bonnie, as far as a trait not being a disability if you don't notice
    it...I agree! In fact I believe I said that (twice)! Not a disability
    if you're not disabled. But what you wouldn't consider disabling,
    someone else might. As I said, my wife was *extremely* accidnet prone
    and clumsy as a child. Many injuries, broken bones, etc. Was this a
    disability? She didn't think so, although she remembers hating being so
    "different" and uncoordinated. She found out in college that she was
    cross dominant, and they told her that was likely why all the problems
    as a child. As she grew up, she simply learned to compensate well, and
    became less clumsy and accident prone. Now, someone else may have
    considered constantly falling, etc., and breaking bones, doing
    seriously bodily injury, to be a "disability". And in this day and age
    of seemingly testing a child for every little thing that isn't quite
    "normal", it seems apparent that it is much more likely to be called a
    disability. The "able" body should be able to work fairly smoothly and
    coordinatedly, even in a child....so if it doesn't, are you disabled?
    I still contend that you're not, if it's not a problem to you, and you
    can get along quite well (which my wife feels she did, for the most
    part). But if it interferes, causes emotional stress (likely put on the
    child by someone outside...a teacher, a parent, classmates), then maybe
    it does become a disablility. Maybe we're just arguing semantics,
    although lables like "disabled" are certainly powerfully undesirable
    ones!
    
    Rambling again....sorry again. Glad you weren't taking it personally
    Bonnie, and I *DO* see your point of view.
    
    --dave--

    First of all, if there are many cross-dominant people who aren't
    clumsy, uncoordinated, or anything else, where is the evidence
    that it *causes* coordination problems?  An association, yes, that
    I see, but not a cause.  I've seen it asserted in lots of
    psychology books and educational texts, but I've never seen any of
    them cite experimental evidence that the brain is "supposed" to
    "match."  
    
    You've said that they look for cross-dominance in children who are
    already having problems, and they find it.  Do they look in the
    population of normal functioning people to see how normal
    functioning people work?  I'm so cross dominant that the things I
    do with my left hand or eye are very difficult for me to do with
    my right hand or eye, but I'm not clumsy and I've never had any
    trouble doing such delicate two-hand tasks as crochet with a
    size-70 thread and a size-14 needle or rebuilding a carburetor. 
    Yes, I'm probably dyslexic and I get right and left reversed if I
    don't stop to think about it, but even brain researchers don't
    agree that dyslexia is related to unclear left/right dominance.
    
    Some of the brain research I've been reading recently doesn't even
    support the idea of left/right confusion or the contention that
    people who are ambidextrous have more mental illness, confusion,
    or speech problems.  Cross-dominance appears to be the brain's
    normal mode of operation -- one center, which might be on either
    lobe, is the primary controller for a particular activity, but
    other centers, often on the other lobe, feed into it. 
    
    Recognizing a face, for instance, is a cross-brain task.  The
    right brain recognizes the pattern, the left brain recalls the 
    name, and a different center that I think is in the left brain
    puts the two together.  Even more interesting, stroke victims who
    have had the image-processing parts of their brains damaged often
    recognize their friends by voice when the face means nothing. 
    They can often sing words -- even intricate songs -- that their
    lips cannot shape sounds for in speaking.  They understand the
    meaning of the sung words as they do not understand the meaning of
    words spoken to them.  The meaning is apparently stored in some
    other center. 
    
    But the point is, almost every mental activity requires
    participation by both sides of the brain.  One side is usually in
    charge, but for different tasks it's a different side -- in fact,
    a different part of the same side.  
    
    So it may be that in some people, the brain center that's supposed
    to be in charge of muscular control is not properly in charge. 
    But the whole brain is "cross-dominant" as its normal mode of
    operation.  
    
    Incidentally, there's an increasing body of research indicating
    that functionally, Western cultures place far too much emphasis on
    left-brain (linear logic, rational, right-handed) traits and not
    enough on right-brain traits (creative, intuitive, symbolic logic,
    left-handed), producing non-integrated personalities.  The lack of
    acceptance of right-brain functions causes most people to suppress
    those functions.  Could it be the suppression of normal
    functioning that causes the problems in cross-dominant people,
    rather than the existence of the function itself?
    
    >The "able" body should be able to work fairly smoothly and
    >coordinatedly, even in a child....so if it doesn't, are you
    >disabled? I still contend that you're not, if it's not a problem
    >to you, and you can get along quite well (which my wife feels she
    >did, for the most part). But if it interferes, causes emotional
    >stress (likely put on the child by someone outside...a teacher, a
    >parent, classmates), then maybe it does become a disablility.
    >Maybe we're just arguing semantics, although lables like
    >"disabled" are certainly powerfully undesirable ones!
    
    This is really the core of why this is a hot button for me. 
    Parents and teachers put pressure on the kid to be different, and
    it's the *kid's* disability.  That's blaming the victim with a
    vengeance.  As I said, I'm strongly cross-dominant, and that has
    made me quite aware of how deeply the assumption of
    right-handedness is burned into our culture, into the very design
    of our buildings and machines.  A right-handed person never
    notices that something that appears to have perfect bilateral
    symmetry -- a rifle, for example -- is in fact meant for a
    right-hander until they try to use it in a left-handed way.  When
    you're trying to fit into or use equipment that wasn't designed
    for you, you drop it more, you stab yourself with it, you shoot
    yourself with it, you fall off it.  You have more accidents.  This
    is a known and documented problem for left-handers, to such an
    extent that left-handers have a demonstrably shorter lifespan than
    right-handers.  Most of it's due to the differing accident rate. 
    
    So yeah, the kid has trouble with gross motor skills like cutting
    out shapes with scissors, or wrecks her 10-speed bike trying to
    shift gears with a gear lever that's on the wrong handle.  And
    instead of blaming the equipment, we call in experts who say the
    kid is disabled.
    
    --bonnie
    
    

    >All children, up to a certain age (about 3yrs. or so) are naturally
    >ambidextrous. They'd just as soon use whichever side of there body is
    >most convenient.
    
    I'd go along with quasi-ambidextrous   :^)   but not with your second
    sentence above.  Alexandra was *determinedly* a rightie by the age of 6
    months, despite my fervent hope that she'd take after her southpaw maw.
    
    Leslie

    Leslie,
    Obviously there are exceptions......Alexandra must be one of them.
    
    Bonnie,
    What about people who are naturally (always tended toward, never forced
    to switch) right handed and are very clumsy and cross-dominant? I
    didn't mean only left handed people...my wife is right handed, although
    fairly well able to "pinch hit" with her left for many things. She and
    her parents all claim she's always been right handed.
    
    I definitely agree about the bias in tools, etc. toward right handers, 
    and you are absolutely right to state that this causes many of the
    accidents and "clumsiness" for left handers. And you are correct about
    generally a shorter life span (statistically).
    
    I'd be willing to believe that many people are cross-dominant...maybe
    even as many as are singly dominant. And many that are cross, never
    have any problem whatsoever...any many that aren't are clumsy and ill
    corrdinated.
    
    My point was only that this is (or at least *was*...Wendy graduated 11
    years ago) being taught as a sort fo marker to investigate in relation
    to learning disabilites. And, yes, there was considerable statistical
    proof that the vast majority of those considered learning disabled were
    cross-dominant. However, not (that she can remember) any research into
    how common cross-dominance was in the non-learning disabled population.
    I would imagine there are tons of cross dominant people, like yourself,
    who can do things of intricate quality and precision, while still being
    cross dominant. 
    
    New research and theories flow like a torrent on how the brain works,
    why it does what it does, etc. What was "true" 11 years ago, may have
    been shown false by now, and what is "true" now may be disproved in 11
    more years.
    
    However, I doubt if there will ever be any disproving your statement
    that the brain functions as a whole in most tasks, and it is a
    fascinating topic. Wendy saw much of the kind of things you spoke about
    when working with stroke victims who had extnesive damage on one side
    of the brain. Particularly the language and music stuff...quite
    remarkable, actually. But just because the both halves of the brain
    function together, doesn't mean that there is usually one side which is
    "stronger" for each and every task. Artistic abilities, perceptual
    abilities concentrate heavily on the right side. Language and logic are
    mostly on the left. My point was not that the sides don't function
    together, but that the body usually (supposedly) keys into one side as
    the stronger for precision physical tasks (writing, eating, knitting,
    hammering, toothbrushing, etc.). If you are focusing with the left eye
    and writng with the right hand, you are using both sides as the
    *dominant* side for different aspects of the *same* task. This is
    different than using both sides together cooperatively. It creates a
    sort of competition, and *can* (but doesn't *have to*) cause a
    problem in coordination. When the both sides of the brain work together
    on a task such as preparing a meal (assuming single dominance) they are
    not fighting for the control, but working in concert. Right brain
    focuses on the sensory...does it look right, taste right, smell and
    feel right? Left brain is following the recipe...2 cups of flour, 1 cup
    of shortneing, mix in the right order, etc.  Each does its own taks
    
    I'm maybe explaining this badly. Probably. Sorry bout that!
    Cross-dominant people are not disabled just by virtue of being
    cross-dominant, but learning disabled people are frequently
    cross-dominant. So, I woudl suspect are many in the general populace,
    and it would be interesting to see research on it. But then agian, go
    looking for problems, and you'll probably find 'em!
    
    --dave-- 

    The replies and discussions here have been fascinating!
    As the author of .0 I thought I'd just update what's
    happened.  Tobias has apparently decided he's right-handed
    as far as throwing is concerned.  So now the only
    question is regarding batting, which he'll probably
    also do right handed.
    
    But please keep up this intriguing discussion.

    re: .32
    
    Have him try switch hitting.  If he likes it and is good at it, it
    really is an advantage.  If he's any good, he could probably step
    straight into a job with the Red Sox!  
    
    re: .31
    
    I see what you're saying, Dave.  I don't have any quarrell with
    saying that cross-dominance is an indicator that other problems
    might be present.  My problem is with saying cross-dominance is
    itself a problem.  
    
    I find it interesting that you, and most brain researchers, assume
    that when both sides of the brain are involved in the same task,
    they must necessarily be competing for control.  Why not assume
    they're cooperating, each presenting a unique perspective on the
    task and thus providing a more complete picture of how to solve
    it?  Is it because we're a competitive rather than a cooperative
    society, so we frame our questions, investigations, and
    definitions in terms of the interactions we're most used to?  
    
    To read most brain researchers, you'd think each of us had a 
    quarrelsome marriage living inside our heads, instead of a single
    integrated brain operating in fruitful collaboration.
    
    --bonnie

    re. .33
    
      >  I find it interesting that you, and most brain researchers, assume
      >  that when both sides of the brain are involved in the same task,
      >  they must necessarily be competing for control.  Why not assume
    
    Ah, not quite (I think!) what I said! I think, probably "competing" for
    control when it involves 2 different dominances...like dancing when
    your left foot is dominant, but your right eye is. There is a conflict
    *then*. But not in normal tasks (like I gave example) such as cooking
    or whatever, where you must use the specialities where each half of the
    brain excels, together. Then there is cooperation, because each half is
    contributing the talent and perspective that it can best contribute.
    Only when the two halves both try to contol different bodily parts for
    *dominance*, do I see it as a competition. And, no, at least in my
    case, I don't think the competitive nature of society at whole is
    influencing my opinions. I think, in general, society is way too
    competetive, and try to strive diligently to be and to teach to my
    children, the idea of cooperation. As for the researchers....who knows!
    
    --dave--

    But that's what I'm saying.  We can't even conceive that the brain
    could be structured such that a left foot and a right eye could be
    working together.  We assume that because the right side of the
    brain coordinates the left side of the body, and vice versa, that
    when both the right and left physical sides are involved, there
    has to be a struggle, conflict, or drain of energy to determine
    who runs the operation.  They can't be saying, more or less, "I
    went first last time.  Here, you go first this time." 
    
    The analogy of playing four-handed piano comes to mind.  Two
    people at the keyboard playing the same song can't compete, or the
    whole song goes down the tube.  They have to coordinate almost as
    if the other was a part of their own body.  Some people prefer to
    play with one pianist in charge, but other pairs simply
    coordinate. 
    
    For myself, I'm very good at driving a car with a manual 
    transmission in part because I'm cross-dominant -- my left foot is
    on the clutch and my right foot is on the gearshift, and they're
    working together beautifully. 
    
    --bonnie