left brain - right brain... which one do you use?

[Kristin]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Daughter of Time (here)
I looked at the silhouette for about 20 minutes. To my perception, the silhouette changes rotation:

First it was clockwise for quite some time.

Then it went counterclockwise

Then back to clockwise

Then counterclockwise

Then clockwise again

Because it was clockwise for a long time, i imagine I'm right brain. I've always considered myself Right Brain.

But if I'm to go with what I see the silhouette do, then I guess I'm just a scatter-brain.

Thanks for the chuckle DoT!

Actually their interpretation of being able to perceive both is different than a "scatter brain":

The following table illustrates the differences between left-brain and right-brain thinking:

Left Brain .................. Right Brain

Logical ....................... Random
Sequential .................. Intuitive
Rational ...................... Holistic
Analytical ................... Synthesizing
Objective ....................Subjective
Looks at parts ............. Looks at wholes

Most individuals have a distinct preference for one of these styles of thinking. Some, however, are more whole-brained and equally adept at both modes. In general, schools tend to favor left-brain modes of thinking, while downplaying the right-brain activities. Left-brain scholastic subjects focus on logicalthinking, analysis, and accuracy. Right-brained subjects, on the other hand, focus on aesthetics, feeling, and creativity.

I am also a scatter brain!

[ThePythonicCow]

Here's a larger version of this now infamous rotating image: http://www.procreo.jp/labo/silhouette.swf

[Hervé]

Thanks, Paul, for the larger version.

So... ain't it obvious!?

There aren't that many graphical features to consider and of the only two possibilities, one is totally impossible as descibed graphically.

Here is a clue:

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
Thanks, Paul, for the larger version.

You're welcome.

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
So... ain't it obvious!?

No, quite the contrary.

It remains increasingly obvious to me that there is no preferred direction of rotation.

The image you show just above has texture and depth clues absent in the infamous silhouette.

[Daughter of Time]

Posted by Paul (here)
Here's a larger version of this now infamous rotating image: http://www.procreo.jp/labo/silhouette.swf

Well, it was the same thing again for me:

first clockwise

then counterclockwise

then clockwise again

then counterclockwise

then clockwise...

And Amzer Zo, I don't get the clue!

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Daughter of Time (here)
Well, it was the same thing again for me:

When I first viewed this image, it was pretty consistently rotating clockwise (left brain). Only by looking away and "holding my mind" just right could I get it to rotate the other way.

By now, I can blink, get one, blink, get the other way, back and forth ... too much practice .

(or ... is it that my brain is becoming more scattered ?)

[Hervé]

Posted by Paul (here)
[...]

It remains increasingly obvious to me that there is no preferred direction of rotation.

[...]

True from a preception viewpoint... but from a graphical analysis, there is only one direction of rotation that's being described

[Hervé]

Posted by Paul (here)
[...]consistently rotating clockwise (left brain).

[...]

(or ... is it that my brain is becoming more scattered ?)

Cough... cough...

According to the op linked webpage:

Left Or Right Brain?

If you see this lady turning clockwise, you are using your right brain. If you see it the other way, you are using your left brain.

Some people do see both ways, but most people see it only one way.

[Daughter of Time]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)

Posted by Paul (here)
[...]

It remains increasingly obvious to me that there is no preferred direction of rotation.

[...]

True from a preception viewpoint... but from a graphical analysis, there is only one direction of rotation that's being described

I still don't get it.

Maybe I am a scatter-brain after all!

OK, so according to your last post, it's the brain that sees it rotate one way or the other. I did get that right from the start, but... how is this accomplished by a simple design of a silhouette? How is the silhouette made to rotate if clockwise or counterclockwise rotation is all in one's brain? I'm finding this rather frustrating...

[TargeT]

I think the graphic is ambiguous enough that it does NOT describe a direction.. Each frame can be seen as spinning either way depending on perception

Posted by Paul (here)
When I first viewed this image, it was pretty consistently rotating clockwise (left brain).

I wonder if our professions give us this false sense of left brain dominance.... Haha

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Daughter of Time (here)
I'm finding this rather frustrating...

Yeah - whether or not that is Amzer Zo's intention, I have no way to know. But it is the affect of his pronouncements on this thread.

[Hervé]

I am sorry that anyone feels frustrated with this and I didn't think I would be the only one to catch on the graphic design but, so far, so it is.

I too get fooled half of the time in spite of the knowledge derived from the graphic sequence

What's that saying about "... it's in the details?"

[Daughter of Time]

Posted by Amzer Zo (here)
I am sorry that anyone feels frustrated with this and I didn't think I would be the only one to catch on the graphic design but, so far, so it is.

I too get fooled half of the time in spite of the knowledge derived from the graphic sequence

What's that saying about "... it's in the details?"

Maybe if I understood how graphic designs are made to work on a computer screen this might become clearer to me. But my technological ineptitudes are rather unaparalleled.

Anyhow, it been frustrating and amusing at the same time.

Thanks for the entertainment.

[ThePythonicCow]

Posted by Daughter of Time (here)
Maybe if I understood how graphic designs are made to work on a computer screen this might become clearer to me. But my technological ineptitudes are rather unaparalleled.

Well, I'm not a graphical designer or programmer myself, but I spent twenty years working side by side with some of the best such to be had.

In the case of this silhouette, one could create such an image (I do not know how Nobuyuki Kayahara actually did it) by using ray tracing software, with both the light source and camera (light sensor) at "infinity".

Imagine a wall filled with tiny laser flashlights, shining at another wall filled with tiny cameras, one laser for each camera, all the laser beams in parallel. Imagine the solid object in between, blocking some of the beams. Shine each light, and record whether its beam makes it to its corresponding camera. The light gets through, except when the solid body is in the way.

Don't actually build this apparatus physically, rather simulate the calculations in a computer. Computers are quite good at such repetitive calculations (especially large parallel computers, such as what I specialized in.) Notice in doing this that it does not matter which is the light source, and which is the light sensor. One could switch the pairs of light and camera around and get the same answer.

Using such technology, no actual rotating lady need ever have existed. Rather a single solid image (data file) of such a lady need be computed one time, perhaps by using the equivalent of the U.S.'s Transportation Safety Administration's (TSA's) "full body scanner". That single solid image is reduced to a simple solid 3D opaque data model of an object, with no surface texture. It's just computer bits saying there's object at this location, but not at that location, for many locations in 3D space.

This ray tracing software thus calculates the silhouette of such a solid, from a range of angles. The silhouette with the light at azimuth 30 degrees and the sensor at azimuth 210 degrees would be identical, pixel for pixel, to that with the light and sensor azimuth's reversed. Then assemble 30 or 40 such silhouette's, taken at sequentially increasing (or decreasing, doesn't matter) azimuth angles, sufficient to make one full circle, into a flash (swf) video.

All the above technology existed and was generally available to professional practitioners in the field by the mid 1990's.

No lovely lady was harmed in this experiment, or even made dizzy .

[a1exanderga11ier]

I occasionally ponder whether or not our under-functioning corpus callosum -- the "bridge" across the hemispheres of the brain -- to human physiology is an example of a modification which rendered our Species more "useful" to the "gods..."

At 01:25 in the video below, Jim Sparks elaborates on a recent encounter between himself and what he describes as a "near future human" (unaltered? upgraded?) who writes with both hands simultaneously, engages in telepathy, carries on conversation etc.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=Vk3gENi9SKU

[a1exanderga11ier]

As for the rotating lady, the orientation of bony landmarks and muscle groups convince me that she would perceive herself as rotating to her right [the big toe, arch of the foot, quadriceps, and medial/lateral ankles give it away].

[Hervé]

Despite what you've been told, you aren't 'left-brained' or 'right-brained'

The brain is more complex than corporate team-building exercises suggest, but the myth is unlikely to die anytime soon

Amy Novotney
theguardian.com,
Saturday 16 November 2013 12.30 GMT

A new two-year study found no evidence that participants had a stronger left or right-sided brain network. Photograph: Bbs United/Getty Images

From self-help and business success books to job applications and smartphone apps, the theory that the different halves of the human brain govern different skills and personality traits is a popular one. No doubt at some point in your life you've been schooled on "left-brained" and "right-brained" thinking – that people who use the right side of their brains most are more creative, spontaneous and subjective, while those who tap the left side more are more logical, detail-oriented and analytical.
Too bad it's not true.

In a new two-year study published in the journal Plos One, University of Utah neuroscientists scanned the brains of more than 1,000 people, ages 7 to 29, while they were lying quietly or reading, measuring their functional lateralization – the specific mental processes taking place on each side of the brain. They broke the brain into 7,000 regions, and while they did uncover patterns for why a brain connection might be strongly left or right-lateralized, they found no evidence that the study participants had a stronger left or right-sided brain network.

Jeff Anderson, the study's lead author and a professor of neuroradiology at the University of Utah says:

It's absolutely true that some brain functions occur in one or the other side of the brain, language tends to be on the left, attention more on the right.

But the brain isn't as clear-cut as the myth makes it out to be. For example, the right hemisphere is involved in processing some aspects of language, such as intonation and emphasis.

How, then, did the left-brained/right-brained theory take root? Experts suggest the myth dates back to the 1800s, when scientists discovered that an injury to one side of the brain caused a loss of specific abilities. The concept gained ground in the 1960s based on Nobel-prize-winning "split-brain" work by neuropsychologists Robert Sperry, and Michael Gazzaniga. The researchers conducted studies with patients who had undergone surgery to cut the corpus callosum – the band of neural fibers that connect the hemispheres – as a last-resort treatment for epilepsy. They discovered that when the two sides of the brain weren't able to communicate with each other, they responded differently to stimuli, indicating that the hemispheres have different functions.

Both of these bodies of research tout findings related to function; it was popular psychology enthusiasts who undoubtedly took this work a step further and pegged personality types to brain hemispheres.

According to Anderson:

The neuroscience community has never accepted the idea of 'left-dominant' or 'right-dominant' personality types. Lesion studies don't support it, and the truth is that it would be highly inefficient for one half of the brain to consistently be more active than the other.

Yet, despite Anderson's work and other studies that continue to disprove the idea that personality type is related to one or the other side of the brain being stronger, my guess is that the left-brained/right-brained vernacular isn't going away anytime soon. Human society is built around categories, classifications and generalizations, and there's something seductively simple about labeling yourself and others as either a logical left-brainer or a free-spirited right brainer.

Similar to the Myers-Briggs test – another widely used personality test with limited scientific evidence – the left-brained/right-brained thinker theory provides us with an explanation for why we are the way we are, and offers insights into where we fit into the world. It's also a great conversation starter – and if used as a novelty, or a way to strengthen the "weaker half" of your brain, the myth is pretty harmless.

The problems start, however, when the left-brained/right-brained myth becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. When your 12-year-old fills out an online personality test that pegs her as a "right-brainer" and she decides to skip her math homework – because the test told her she isn't good with numbers – the persistence of this false dichotomy starts to become destructive. The same goes for the unemployed worker who forgoes applying for their dream job because the job description calls for creativity skills they think they may not have.

What research has yet to refute is the fact that the brain is remarkably malleable, even into late adulthood. It has an amazing ability to reorganize itself by forming new connections between brain cells, allowing us to continually learn new things and modify our behavior. Let's not underestimate our potential by allowing a simplistic myth to obscure the complexity of how our brains really work.

--------------------------------------

I found it interesting that the author of the above article, although making a few steps in the right direction, stops short of considering the obvious: what in the world would entice a brain -- the so-called, according to some, "seat" of all thoughts, emotions, behaviours, etc (hence, it should be pleased with itself)... you know, the "It's all in your DNA!" kind of people -- to "re-wire"... I mean, birds haven't rewired their brains to remodel their nests according to some idea on aesthetics...

[sheme]

This is a random program nothing to do with individuals control -scroll the picture until you can only see her feet concentrate on the standing foot.

[Hervé]

Posted by sheme (here)
This is a random program nothing to do with individuals control -scroll the picture until you can only see her feet concentrate on the standing foot.

Since this is an ordered sequence of pictured graphics... there is nothing random about it.

You are right, though, about concentrating on the feet...

[sheme]

The random bit starts depending where you begin your study.