User:Gamall Wednesday Ida/Aborted

Talk:Lateralization of brain function

Here's a [[1]] that should work for everyone. Let's take the first paragraph of the intro. Don't skim to the keywords, but read each sentence carefully.

Handedness is an attribute of the unequal distribution of fine motor skill between the left and right hand man is defined. Right-handed (informal) someone who is more skilled with their right hand and Left-handed and left-handed person who is skilled and capable of doing with it. Most babies as young as 6 months of their handedness show. A minority of adults are skilled with both hands so that they can be said to be double. Handedness is an instance of the side of the body (Johnston et al, 2007; Nicolas, 2009).

There literally isn't a single sentence that is correct English. It's almost as though it were one of those computer-generated hoax papers. I don't think it is though. You can sort of guess what it's trying to say. The beginning of the part that deals with the claim under discussion isn't any better:

Right-handed or left-brain phenomenon is a function of the lateral (Kenchet et al, 2000). Also, as is evident from the right ear or the left side (Webster et al, 2005), but lost interest in a person, a clear indication of the place of performance is the brain (Taylor et al, 1990).

It's even more gibberishy. The [[2]] where it's published says they do peer-review... but look at the

At any rate, even with the guessing googles on, the paper doesn't support the statement under discussion. All it says is that

{{quote|In popular psychology, often broad generalizations in people with certain tag, to the side there and labels, such as "reasonable" for left or "creative" is to the right. The use of these labels should be done carefully and with caution, although the lateral dominance is measurable, however, both hemispheres are in the process of their contribution (Wstin, 2006), empirical evidence, little support for a relationship between structural and functional differences between the two parties with such a broad definition stipulates that (Tuga & Thompson, 2003).

So I'm going to remove it again, this time on those grounds, which bypasses the discussion.