/sci/ - Science and Mathematics

"Broad generalizations are often made in "pop" psychology about one side or the other having characteristic labels, such as "logical" for the left side or "creative" for the right. These labels are not supported by studies on lateralization, as lateralization does not add specialized usage from either hemisphere.[2] Both hemispheres contribute to both kinds of processes,[3] and experimental evidence provides little support for correlating the structural differences between the sides with such broadly defined functional differences.[4]"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lateralization_of_brain_function

>>2948

>citing a wiki

>on fucking /sci/

Nigger what are you doin.

>>2969

It served its purpose. Here's the first source they link to:

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0071275

Does that satisfy your autism?

>>2970

Just what is the purpose that it serve? To define something with no authority? To provide a source that can be changed on a whim? Come on nigger stop citing wikis.

>>2971

The "authority" (I assume you mean legitimacy and validity by this) you call for is given a numerical value bracketed just like this [x] where x is an arbitrary counting number. You just click on that and it shows you what you want to see: Sources that can't "be changed on a whim". I hope you have a good day, yesterday didn't treat you well it seems.

>>2976

>Sources that can't "be changed on a whim".

They sure can silly. You edit the page and change them to something else. Either way though, citing a wiki as a set of sources (which may or may not even support your argument), and then expecting the person you're trying to convince to sort through them themselves and pick out just which one you want to use which actually supports your argument–in other words, to construct your own argument for you–is yet another problem with citing a wiki.

>>2978

Here are the questions he asked:

>Just how accurate is this?

It says very clearly that it isn't accurate at all, so check mark for that.

>And isn't there a name for this theory/idea?

(That's the very name of the Wiki page, so that's answered.)

And then a repetition of the second question, again, it's answered. Then the Wikipedia provides links to sources which are the ones I spoke about when I said "can't "be changed on a whim"", but you misread that, fine, and then you try to tailor a story where there was an argument involved. OP was asking for information. Information I readily handed to him, and even information that directed him to MORE information. What the fuck is wrong with you?