@@PatsPsychologyMSc Nope. My report is all about the Nervous System and I had mentioned in my presentation about these pathways of nerve impulse and why It is reversal. That's why I came here in your video finding some understandable information and It helps.So, thanks.
@@Nievezsollana Brilliant. Well I'm delighted my video helped you with your report Unajan, thank you for sharing! I have lots of other episodes which you might find helpful for future reports, would love to see your comments if you watch them too!
Very interesting video Pat and a few more new words to add to my vocabulary! It's a very interesting topic and one many people are interested in especially if they know someone who has had a stroke! Damage caused to LHS of brain affects right side of the body and vice versa. I'm floundering here! 🐠 🐟
I'm delighted you found the video interesting Bernadette! I must do a future video on strokes and how they affect different people differently. Have you any questions regarding strokes you'd like answered?
Great video, interesting :) I only started to question WHY we utilize contralateral controle 1 hour ago. I believe the reason would be damage mitigation and maintaining controle of our dominant sides. Many theories talk about increased depth perception and coordination... However, some animals that utilize ipsilateral controle have even better depth perception and coordination than some animals that use contralateral controle. These theories make no sense to me. Now, let's say I am a right hand dominant hunter...odds are, I will be attacked on my right side, as that will be the side I am using to attack...putting it within a range of being damaged. If my right side of my head gets damaged...that effects the left side of my body, leaving me still in an advantage compared to losing controle of my dominant side. As someone who is right handed...if I want to look behind me, I generally look to the right side...putting that side of my head in danger as being attacked from behind would be more common ( sneak attacks or if I'm running away ). Additionally, if I'm looking into a small crack, if I'm not thinking first, I'm likely using my right eye... So contralateral controle seems to help mitigate damage and allow those who obtain damage on their dominant side to not lose function on their dominant side.
@PatsPsychologyMSc I wish ! Neurology and psychology are some of my interests/passions ! :D I have no post secondary education yet, I just started studying massage therapy in college :)
Love this theory but I’ll tell you the real reason that our brains control opposite sides of the body. First of all, our bodies already process a LOT of information backwards, include sight and hearing. The hemispheres being backwards just keeps everything in the same [backwards] direction. We also now understand the importance of right-side dominance. For example, our heart is on the left, but less important organs are on the right, and any highly important organ has two of each (like the kidneys) or two diff sides of the brain. Our bodies were designed to be right-side dominant, which means that we attack and are being attacked with our right side. Therefore the body placed the heart (the most important organ) on the left side, and the part of the brain that controls our right side, is actually on the left, to insure that any brain damage sustained on the right side in battle, would not affect our dominant side. It’s all in keeping with our predatory roots.
Very interesting perspective John, thanks a million for sharing! I don't know if I'm convinced that natural selection would cause such hemispheric separation. Similarly, I'm not sure if this idea explains the location of, for example, our liver. Maybe I'm not thinking it through properly! I'd love to know where you heard this argument?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I'm afraid it's the only hypothesis I know of paha (thanks to you). And it does sound reasonable (and cool, how it boils down to the twisting of the neck motion). So I'll go with it until I find another reasonable hypothesis and then weigh up which one survives greater scrutiny.
@@BallyBoy95 that's a good and scientific way to look at it Bally! It's the most convincing argument I've found. Maybe I'll make a new episode if I find another compelling explanation!
Fascinating as always Pat! I quite like the axial twist hypothesis myself, do you think Kinsbourne's ideas are more likely? Interested to hear your thoughts!
Thanks a million Podge, great to have your viewership! The axial twist hypothesis also has great explanatory power. Personally, I prefer the somatic twist hypothesis, as it appears as more parsimonious to my eye. I love succinct and (relatively) simple hypotheses. However, it's important to note that true scientific theories often have little respect for Occam's razor, or my personal preferences! Very curious to hear what you think? Do you have a preference?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Definitely agree on preferring more succinct and simple hypotheses. In this case however, it's the tangibility of the embryologic evidence of the axial twist hypothesis that sways me!
@@Bbbbolger that's certainly a very strong line of evidence for the axial twist! Two of the biggest proponents of the axial twist, de Lussanet and Osse, comment on Kinsbourne's somatic twist in this paper (see at the end of this comment - well worth a read, let me know what you think!) Thankfully their disagreements are very cordial! Ultimately I feel the definitive answer won't be uncovered for a long time. Hopefully we'll live to see the day! Have you any other favourite psychological theories? psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-56436-001
Thought it was pants, Pat! lol! However, you're so thought provoking, it's great to see you having found your niche (though you weren't a bad scientist either)! Keep it up... you'll have your own slot on d'telly some day!
Great to hear from you John! Your honesty gave me a great laugh! Do you prefer the axial twist hypothesis, or just find Kinsbourne's idea unconvincing? Thanks a million for your very kind words of encouragement!
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Well, I have a few thoughts that each, aren't much, but together would make me inclined to disagree (bearing in mind I'm not a geneticist so my theories are AT LEAST as likely to be pants). 1) The fossil record is reasonably solid... there are gaps but largely speaking, we have a decent picture with what it has thrown up and, as you point out, there's no evidence to back up Kinsbourne's argument! 2) Assuming a twist did occur and then undo itself, the easiest way for this to happen would be to turn off the gene or make it defective. Whereas, I'd expect that a double twist would take a lot more evolutionary work, for want of a better word. 3) If there was some change, would you not expect it to control all aspects of your senses. My (semi) understanding is that some aspects of vision (a good example to use as it's one of the earlier acquired traits) are contralaterally controlled and some are ipsilaterally controlled. This would point to something else in my opinion. If some things are ipsilateral, and others are contralateral, then something like a stroke/haemorrhage wouldn't leave one entire side of you defenseless. There are countless problems with that as a theory too but sure! In short (lol), I'm much more of a believer in selective design than accidental happenstance... There's a book called Zoobiquity that investigates ancestral causes of medical conditions (e.g. the reason people get haemorrhoids is due to our quadruped past, when the veins in your arse would be under less pressure and so, the veins' valves haven't caught up evolutionarily to our bipedalism). Worthwhile read if you're doing a good bit of work in this area... Apologies for the complete essay. You made the mistake of commenting just before I went to work so I've had the day to think about it! 😂
@@johnmcg5865 That's a very strong argument against the somatic twist John, thanks a million for taking the time to make it! A prime example of why it's always worth checking out the comments. Another interesting argument is that contralateral control might be a "spandrel" to use Stephen Jay Gould's term. A spandrel is a characteristic that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection. Spandrels are controversial among evolutionary theorists but interesting considerations nonetheless... Although for a gentleman who doesn't like the idea of evolutionary happenstance such as yourself, you might be on the opposing side of the spandrel debate! That book sounds very interesting, I'll have to check it out. No need to apologise for such a thoughtful comment, I'm extremely grateful that you took the time to write it! In terms of psychology more generally, are there any areas that you find particularly interesting or confusing?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I'm really interested in the concept of microdosing (I actually saw your video, watched about 10 mins but had to go back to work and haven't got back around- but will)... regarding your general question, I'll think about it and let you know! I'd be happy to lend you my copy of zoobiquity! Should probably read it again myself since I was a simple first year the last time I read it! 🤭
Thank you for commenting Robert, I was unfamiliar with tiktaalik! I've done some quick reading since reading your comment, but I'm failing to find information regarding the somatic twist hypothesis. Is there anything you've come across concerning contralateral control?
I came here because of my report about the nervous system. I did further research but this video gives some understandable details.
Thank you Unajan for commenting! Delighted you found the episode useful. Was your report about contralateral control?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Nope. My report is all about the Nervous System and I had mentioned in my presentation about these pathways of nerve impulse and why It is reversal. That's why I came here in your video finding some understandable information and It helps.So, thanks.
@@Nievezsollana Brilliant. Well I'm delighted my video helped you with your report Unajan, thank you for sharing! I have lots of other episodes which you might find helpful for future reports, would love to see your comments if you watch them too!
Very interesting video Pat and a few more new words to add to my vocabulary! It's a very interesting topic and one many people are interested in especially if they know someone who has had a stroke! Damage caused to LHS of brain affects right side of the body and vice versa. I'm floundering here! 🐠 🐟
I'm delighted you found the video interesting Bernadette! I must do a future video on strokes and how they affect different people differently. Have you any questions regarding strokes you'd like answered?
Great video, interesting :)
I only started to question WHY we utilize contralateral controle 1 hour ago. I believe the reason would be damage mitigation and maintaining controle of our dominant sides. Many theories talk about increased depth perception and coordination... However, some animals that utilize ipsilateral controle have even better depth perception and coordination than some animals that use contralateral controle. These theories make no sense to me.
Now, let's say I am a right hand dominant hunter...odds are, I will be attacked on my right side, as that will be the side I am using to attack...putting it within a range of being damaged. If my right side of my head gets damaged...that effects the left side of my body, leaving me still in an advantage compared to losing controle of my dominant side. As someone who is right handed...if I want to look behind me, I generally look to the right side...putting that side of my head in danger as being attacked from behind would be more common ( sneak attacks or if I'm running away ). Additionally, if I'm looking into a small crack, if I'm not thinking first, I'm likely using my right eye...
So contralateral controle seems to help mitigate damage and allow those who obtain damage on their dominant side to not lose function on their dominant side.
That's a very interesting idea, thanks for sharing! Out of curiosity, do you have a psychology/neuroscience background?
@PatsPsychologyMSc I wish ! Neurology and psychology are some of my interests/passions ! :D
I have no post secondary education yet, I just started studying massage therapy in college :)
@@jennanelson5453 no doubt you will fly through your Massage Therapy course with your critical thinking! Thanks for commenting ❤️
Love this theory but I’ll tell you the real reason that our brains control opposite sides of the body. First of all, our bodies already process a LOT of information backwards, include sight and hearing. The hemispheres being backwards just keeps everything in the same [backwards] direction. We also now understand the importance of right-side dominance. For example, our heart is on the left, but less important organs are on the right, and any highly important organ has two of each (like the kidneys) or two diff sides of the brain. Our bodies were designed to be right-side dominant, which means that we attack and are being attacked with our right side. Therefore the body placed the heart (the most important organ) on the left side, and the part of the brain that controls our right side, is actually on the left, to insure that any brain damage sustained on the right side in battle, would not affect our dominant side. It’s all in keeping with our predatory roots.
Very interesting perspective John, thanks a million for sharing! I don't know if I'm convinced that natural selection would cause such hemispheric separation. Similarly, I'm not sure if this idea explains the location of, for example, our liver. Maybe I'm not thinking it through properly! I'd love to know where you heard this argument?
Damn, that's fascinating, and good job with communicating all of that info. clearly.
Thanks Bally! Did you find the somatic twist hypothesis convincing?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I'm afraid it's the only hypothesis I know of paha (thanks to you). And it does sound reasonable (and cool, how it boils down to the twisting of the neck motion). So I'll go with it until I find another reasonable hypothesis and then weigh up which one survives greater scrutiny.
@@BallyBoy95 that's a good and scientific way to look at it Bally! It's the most convincing argument I've found. Maybe I'll make a new episode if I find another compelling explanation!
Fascinating as always Pat! I quite like the axial twist hypothesis myself, do you think Kinsbourne's ideas are more likely? Interested to hear your thoughts!
Thanks a million Podge, great to have your viewership! The axial twist hypothesis also has great explanatory power. Personally, I prefer the somatic twist hypothesis, as it appears as more parsimonious to my eye. I love succinct and (relatively) simple hypotheses. However, it's important to note that true scientific theories often have little respect for Occam's razor, or my personal preferences!
Very curious to hear what you think? Do you have a preference?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Definitely agree on preferring more succinct and simple hypotheses. In this case however, it's the tangibility of the embryologic evidence of the axial twist hypothesis that sways me!
@@Bbbbolger that's certainly a very strong line of evidence for the axial twist! Two of the biggest proponents of the axial twist, de Lussanet and Osse, comment on Kinsbourne's somatic twist in this paper (see at the end of this comment - well worth a read, let me know what you think!) Thankfully their disagreements are very cordial! Ultimately I feel the definitive answer won't be uncovered for a long time. Hopefully we'll live to see the day!
Have you any other favourite psychological theories?
psycnet.apa.org/record/2014-56436-001
the metaphor of flounder is really interesting! lmao
Delighted you enjoyed it! Were you convinced by the Kinsbourne's theory?
Thought it was pants, Pat! lol! However, you're so thought provoking, it's great to see you having found your niche (though you weren't a bad scientist either)! Keep it up... you'll have your own slot on d'telly some day!
Great to hear from you John! Your honesty gave me a great laugh! Do you prefer the axial twist hypothesis, or just find Kinsbourne's idea unconvincing?
Thanks a million for your very kind words of encouragement!
@@PatsPsychologyMSc Well, I have a few thoughts that each, aren't much, but together would make me inclined to disagree (bearing in mind I'm not a geneticist so my theories are AT LEAST as likely to be pants).
1) The fossil record is reasonably solid... there are gaps but largely speaking, we have a decent picture with what it has thrown up and, as you point out, there's no evidence to back up Kinsbourne's argument!
2) Assuming a twist did occur and then undo itself, the easiest way for this to happen would be to turn off the gene or make it defective. Whereas, I'd expect that a double twist would take a lot more evolutionary work, for want of a better word.
3) If there was some change, would you not expect it to control all aspects of your senses. My (semi) understanding is that some aspects of vision (a good example to use as it's one of the earlier acquired traits) are contralaterally controlled and some are ipsilaterally controlled. This would point to something else in my opinion. If some things are ipsilateral, and others are contralateral, then something like a stroke/haemorrhage wouldn't leave one entire side of you defenseless. There are countless problems with that as a theory too but sure!
In short (lol), I'm much more of a believer in selective design than accidental happenstance...
There's a book called Zoobiquity that investigates ancestral causes of medical conditions (e.g. the reason people get haemorrhoids is due to our quadruped past, when the veins in your arse would be under less pressure and so, the veins' valves haven't caught up evolutionarily to our bipedalism). Worthwhile read if you're doing a good bit of work in this area... Apologies for the complete essay. You made the mistake of commenting just before I went to work so I've had the day to think about it! 😂
@@PatsPsychologyMSc also, pants might be a bit strong... just mimicking your own words! 😋
@@johnmcg5865 That's a very strong argument against the somatic twist John, thanks a million for taking the time to make it! A prime example of why it's always worth checking out the comments.
Another interesting argument is that contralateral control might be a "spandrel" to use Stephen Jay Gould's term. A spandrel is a characteristic that is a byproduct of the evolution of some other characteristic, rather than a direct product of adaptive selection. Spandrels are controversial among evolutionary theorists but interesting considerations nonetheless... Although for a gentleman who doesn't like the idea of evolutionary happenstance such as yourself, you might be on the opposing side of the spandrel debate!
That book sounds very interesting, I'll have to check it out. No need to apologise for such a thoughtful comment, I'm extremely grateful that you took the time to write it!
In terms of psychology more generally, are there any areas that you find particularly interesting or confusing?
@@PatsPsychologyMSc I'm really interested in the concept of microdosing (I actually saw your video, watched about 10 mins but had to go back to work and haven't got back around- but will)... regarding your general question, I'll think about it and let you know! I'd be happy to lend you my copy of zoobiquity! Should probably read it again myself since I was a simple first year the last time I read it! 🤭
I think the fish named tiktaalik (discovered fossil in 2004),is the answer to your theory.
Thank you for commenting Robert, I was unfamiliar with tiktaalik! I've done some quick reading since reading your comment, but I'm failing to find information regarding the somatic twist hypothesis. Is there anything you've come across concerning contralateral control?
In summary: we don't know.
I guess that's one way of putting it! I think there are some good hypotheses though. Are you convinced by any of them?
why is the sound out of sequence?
I'm going to have to fire my video editor!