thoughts on things

mrseb's raw stream
 

Is left-handed masturbation juicier?

84892084_e1fdfa9793_b1
I've been told before that my brain and its thought processes work in weird yet wonderful ways.

The truth is, I only share a tiny fraction of what actually goes on in this wacky head of mine. Most of it gets contemplated, researched and then filed away, only to be brought up in relevant conversation. But not this time! This time you get the raw, unfiltered stream of consciousness.

So, there I was... sitting... as one does. I wasn't actually masturbating, but I was thinking about masturbation. (This often happens when I look at my hands, for some reason.) I was wondering what percentage of right-handed people masturbate with their left hand.

Without being gratuitous, I think everyone can appreciate that some flexibility is necessary when it comes to gratification. But, at the end of the day, everyone has a favourite hand. So I got to wondering: is there a statistically significant number of right-handers that consider their left land the primary go-to tool for tickling the bits?

And if so, why? (I told you I think about weird things...)

Being the scientist that I am, I immediately thought of brain lateralization, where each half of your brain (we think) controls specific functions. The left hemisphere is considered to be the 'routine' half, where repetitive actions (speech, wiping your ass) and 'linear reasoning' (maths, calculation) are performed. The left hemisphere also controls your right hand. The right hemisphere is thought to be in charge of creative thinking and reasoning through novel (unexpected, new) experiences. The right hemisphere processes audio and visual stimuli. The right hemisphere controls your left hand.

You can probably see where this is going, but I'll continue anyway. When we use our left hand, our brain's right hemisphere is more active. It's believed that left-handers are generally more creative and artistic -- well, what if, by masturbating with our left hand, we momently become more creative, more attuned to our audio and visual stimuli?

I could be wrong -- it might simply be that we need our right hand to push the mouse around -- but, well, I think I need to put my theory into practice and get some empirical evidence.

Feel free to help me with this scientific endeavour, and please report your findings.

Filed under  //   brain   hand   lateralization   left   masturbation   mrseb   right   sensuality   sex   thought  
Posted June 30, 2010
 

Psychiatric diagnosis? Pah! Here comes neurological diagnosis!

via ted.com

Watch it, it's only 7 minutes. I think you'll find it unsurprising that most people have tagged it as 'jaw-dropping'.

She makes an incredibly good point, and one that strikes very close to some ideas that have been whizzing around my brain recently. Why do we use physical manifestations to diagnose mental pathology?

We actually diagnose things like depression, ADHD and autism based on observed behaviour. No proof, no science, just... interpretation of physical manifestation. It's crazy. It's barbaric. It's like using leeches to suck out your melancholia. It really makes no sense, when you think about it -- as the speaker says in the video: we don't diagnose a heart condition without first using the technology available! In fact, you'd probably get a medical malpractice suit if you did -- yet psychiatrists continue to diagnose children with reckless abandon.

As you can see from the talk, we now have the technology to scan the brain and deduce any extant mental maladies with excellent accuracy. It's safe, it's quick and it's non-invasive. Look at those happy children in the video! Marvel (or glumly gawp) at how many kids with autism, ADHD or any other learning disability might be suffering from something else -- something that can be remedied with non-psychoactive drugs. 

Filed under  //   adhd   autism   brain   disability   disorder   drugs   mental   psychology   technology   ted  
Posted June 29, 2010
 

Michael Shermer: The pattern behind self-deception

via ted.com

There's nothing new here -- at least for rational, non-mad humans. It's nice to hear someone (more qualified than I?) reaffirming exactly what I think, though.

The best bit -- the bit that shows how close we are to knowing what chemically makes us tick -- is the bit about dopamine levels in the brain. More dopamine = hyperactive imagination, see patterns everywhere and in everything; not enough dopamine = dull, sluggish, unable to make potentially life-saving associations.

That a single neurotransmitter can play such a vital role in our lives is scary. My point of view is that humans are basically pattern matching machines. We do carry out extemporaneous acts -- we do sometimes act without actually thinking of the consequences -- but ultimately, living life is a matter of matching objects, ideas, thoughts and people against archetypes held in cranial memory.

I don't think people realise that without accurate, rational pattern-matching abilities, we basically fail as human beings. Fail to associate a road sign with 'stop' -- you're dead. Fail to associate a pointed gun with 'stop talking' -- you're dead.

You can take the pattern-matching thing even further. Consider laboratory scientists -- specialist humans designed to spot very specific patterns, often at the expense of having weaker pattern-matching in other areas. The same goes for any specialist: they all spot patterns, or make best guesses based on known patterns -- a bomb defusal expert (circuits, wiring, smell, sight); a video gamer (peripheral vision, color processing); a lawyer (similar cases, concepts, human traits).

I need to learn more about how dopamine affects our rationality; it's an interesting vein of thought, that's for sure.

Filed under  //   brain   chemistry   dopamine   ideas   patterns   ted  
Posted June 14, 2010