Talk:Cross-dominance

message: The "characteristics" section seems to be lacking in citations... is this stuff really true?  Can someone help clean this up?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.16.40.108 (talk) 08:01, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations? 

message: I merged ambidexterity here.  Why not the other way around?  After all, ambidexterity is more famous!  Well, my reasong is that cross-dominance is the broader category.  Hopefully we'll get some info on people who are cross-dominant with their eyes, feet, kidneys, whatever.  Then, rather than having an ambidexterous article that has a whole bunch of stuff aobut feet and eyes, we'll have this article.  Avraham 20:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambidexterity doesn't belong here. It has its own article: ambidexterity. Kortoso  (talk) 21:47, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Ambidexterity

message: The first paragraph of this links to Ambidexterity which redirects here. Is that right?
Jonathan 03:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Link to Ambidexterity

message: I have a question about the following statement: "Although ambidexterity is rare at birth,.."
In the handeness main article it says that it is not known exactly why we prefer one side to another, and that is it not genetic. So how it is possible to born with ambidextery?
: Please learn how to use Wikipedia. Kortoso  (talk) 21:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambidexterity rare at birth 

message: Can ambidexterity be acquired through training? For example, it's said that japanese swordsman Miyamoto Musashi was the most skilled swordsman ever. He developed his own ambidextrous sword technique, fighting with a long sword in one hand, and a short sword and the other at the same time.
In this sense, is it possible to develop other skills, such as write well with both hands, paint and even draw?
E.Cortez 00:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC-3)
:I think the third paragraph of Amberdexterity answers this question. ~Sushi 08:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Miyamoto Musashi's technique seems similar to certain historical European swordfighting techniques that used a long sword in one hand and a short sword in the other.  These were trained methods.  Being ambidextrous myself (left-dominant), my experience is that skill is not natural.  However, ambidexterity makes it simple to change sides while sparring with a two-handed weapon.  I do this while my opponent recovers from a move and I change stances many times during a match: it's a tremendous advantage.  Some right-handed people tried to learn this from me and acquired the stance change itself easily enough, but they had difficulty with the idea of inverting their blocking moves.  To answer the other part of your question, it seems possile to "become" ambidextrous through practice, but then there are some people such as myself who, as children, simply reached for a crayon or pencil with whichever hand was closer.  There are disadvantages too: I couldn't tell right from left until I was eight years old and still get directions wrong sometimes because the notion of "a right turn" is not intuitive.  I recommend taking the assertions in this article with a large grain of salt: I've tried to find sources to verify it and there's nearly nothing that satisfies WP:V.  In my PubMed searches, ambidexterity is not well defined or well studied.  I suspect it has something to do with brain organization, but this is pure speculation. Durova 12:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Development 

message: About this external link "Ambidextrous People Are Brain Damaged".  It says that 1.ambidexterity is always the result of brain damage and 2. ambidextrous people have impaired brain functioning.  Apart from the blow-to-one's-self-esteem-issue, I highly doubt this– look at all the high-achieving ambidextrous people (he includes left-handers forced to switch as brain-damaged ambidexters).  Does anyone know of any links to counter-research?Dawnfire 09:56, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added those links several months ago.  While I also doubt them, there has been very little formal study of ambidexterity.  The alternative was to link to even more dubious blogs. Durova 12:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: counter-research

message: I actually added some of the sports section so I'm as guilty as anyone of not doing this. We really should try and source the sportperson's being ambidextrous - if we define ambidextrous and being able to use the left and the right-hand/foot to some degree. Ronne O'Sullivan for example has played whole snooker tournaments left-handed. 
In tennis, a perfect example of a player who is ambidextrous is Maria Sharapova.
It says she's right handed with a double-handed backhand (like most players today) on her own page. Can anyone name any tennis players or golf players who have played who games/sets/holes/tournaments both left and right-handed?
Mglovesfun 01:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sports section 

message: It seems to me that the earlier merge of ambidexterity and cross-dominance was not a good idea. They are not synonymous, for one thing. Second, most of the article is about actual ambidexterity, not the other types of cross-dominance. To me it just didn't make intuitive sense reading the article. Since when do articles get merged if one is a type of another?
For the record, I think I have cross-dominance as I write with my right, throw with my left, kick with my left, do other sports with my right, etc. But they are not interchangable, except for tennis/squash and bowling, which I could do with either hand if I practiced equally with both. I also have trouble knowing my left from my right in general.
ONe more thing: I am not clear from reading the article whether someone who trains themselves to be ambidextrous become ambidextrous only for the things he/she has practiced, such as tooth brushing, or if over time everything becomes ambi. I would guess that it only works for what you practice; in which case, this does not seem like true ambidexterity. For that, if I start something new - say, playing the guitar, using left and right should both come naturally and be of equal difficulty. I am by no means an expert, but the article left these things unclear to me. --Chinawhitecotton 05:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: * I agree as well. Ambidexterity has its own unique and separate topic. Kortoso  (talk) 21:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambidexterity and Cross-dominance 

message: The example given in the opening paragraph about police officers who fire their sidearm with one hand and write with the other is not a good example.  I write with my right hand and fire a pistol or rifle with my left hand---but this is due to the fact that I am left eye dominant, it has nothing to do with which hand I favor.  I am cross-dominant, mind you, but firing a weapon has more to do with the eye (assuming one wants to hit one's target) than it does with the hand. ---Charles 01:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm an officer myself, and I'm cross dominant.  I started shooting with my left instead of my right, because it felt more natural.  I didn't discover which eye was dominant until I had been shooting for some time.  So in my case, it is the hand that mattered most.  I'm sure I'm not alone out there, as everyone in my academy had purchased a holster before we all did that "which are is dominant" test.JN322 (talk) 17:13, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Police officers 

message: This article looks a lot like mixed-handed.  Could they be merged, or even have one deleted? NightMaj 00:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I definitely think they should be merged. They have basically the same info, and the mixed-handed article even starts with the words "cross-dominance" as if that were the title of the article. Alienmercy 04:23, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree they should be merged- I'll do it. - Draeco 06:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mixed-handed article 

message: A year after this discussion was last broached, I also agree that the ambidexterity merge was ill-advised. Cross-dominance and ambidexterity are distinct topics and should have separate articles. Like the original merger, I'm going to get bold and reconstitute it as a full article. - Draeco 05:20, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Un-merging [[Ambidexterity]]

message: Needs to be re-written. Most of the paragraph deals with left-handers and that belongs in  left-handedness and sports, not here. The rest is primarily about ambidextrous players.
It's too bad, because the one source [] seems to have a load of info.
:Kortoso  (talk) 22:22, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baseball 

message: * Cross dominance in relation to learning disabilities]
* Mixed-handed children more likely to have mental health, language and scholastic problems]
* Mixed Dominance and Developmental Delay]
:Kortoso  (talk) 22:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some sources