Search results

Hemisphericity in behaviour studies is the role and dominance of right bran/left brain in the human brain, each side of which has varying roles and characteristics, thereby leading to different thinking orientations in the human. A study was conducted to measure the hemisphericity orientation of construction and design engineers in a large public construction organization. We know from literature that people of different hemisphericity orientations have unlike personalities and dissimilar perspectives of specific situations. The essential characteristics of hemisphericity as established in literature are presented and used in analysing the organization. From this study of engineers, it was seen that construction engineers in the organization, State Department of Engineering Construction (SDEC), are predominantly left‐brained while design engineers are predominantly right‐brained. This difference in orientation partially explains why the design and construction engineers at SDEC are unable to see eye‐to‐eye in issues concerning implementation of drawings. Left hemisphere dominant engineers are also seen to desire more organizational changes than their right hemisphere dominant counterparts. Ideally, researchers believe that a 50–50 distribution of hemisphericities in large organizations is desirable. Details, analysis, and recommendations are presented in the paper.

Managing one′s career entails knowing if one is primarily intuitive or analytical when approaching tasks. Right‐brain management techniques rely on feelings – intuition and creativity – to solve problems. On the other hand, left‐brain‐oriented managers follow rational and logical methods of reasoning. Available research indicates that at top management levels right‐brain and integrative‐brain‐skills are needed more than purely left‐brain skills in decision making. Analysis is thought to be predominantly a left‐brain activity; intuition is traditionally seen as a right‐brain activity. It is the integration and synthesis of both left – and right‐brain activity which are critical to the management process. Left – and right‐brain hemisphericity is discussed, a brain development technique offered, interpersonal dynamics which employ the intuitive right‐brain in the management process suggested, and how brain hemisphericity and intuition enhance career management is indicated.

Suggests that the arousability theory of intelligence and personality of Robinson (1996) lacks two important factors: the influence of neural transmission errors and of hemisphericity on intelligence and personality. It is considered that at least two factors contribute to intelligence. The first factor is the potential energetic level of Hebb’s engrams, which may be related to arousability. The second factor is the probability of neural transmission errors. It is suggested that the theory of H.J. Eysenck, that a neural message is sent repeatedly until it is accepted identically a certain number of times, which is smaller for more intelligent subjects, is correct.

Robinson and Behbehani (1997) contended against Fidelman (1996) and argued that neural transmission errors influence neither EEG nor intelligence. They also contended the suggestion of Fidelman (1996) that the mean hemisphericity of a sample may determine the sign of the correlation between IQ and the averaged evoked potentials (AEP) measures of string length and amplitude. These contentions are answered.

Robinson (1998) found that women have a larger cerebral arousal than men, and men have a larger Gsar factor of intelligence than women. It is suggested that this finding had been predicted by a previously published theory of this author. This is a continuation of a discussion, most of it in cybernetical journals, between Robinson and the present author about the biological origin of intelligence. Robinson relates intelligence to arousability, which he defined as the maximal level of activity which the cortex can obtain without activation by the brain‐stem. The author’s theory also takes into account the probability of transmission errors in the synapses and individual differences due to hemisphericity. The development of the ideas of this theory is surveyed; in each stage this theory encompassed more biological theories of intelligence. An appendix provides empirical evidence of sex‐related and hemispheric differences.

Considers the thesis that intelligence differences and EEG‐intelligence correlations can both be explained in terms of differences in the frequency of neural transmission errors. Considers an alternative theory which holds that intelligence variance and correlated EEG variance are both caused by variation of cerebral arousability. Refers to technical and methodological problems that bedevil the EEG‐intelligence literature and measurement difficulties that have arisen through lack of adequate concepts. Concludes that the principal measurement problems derive from failure to appreciate the important distinction that must be made between “cerebral arousal” and “cerebral arousability”; and that any useful EEG‐intelligence concept must go beyond vague and general ideas such as “neural efficiency” or “neural transmission errors” to explain how EEG differences relate to differences in brain function that can account for the main facts recorded in the intelligence literature.

Suggests that the probability of transmission errors in the central neural system (CNS) is a major factor determining intelligence. That is, the smaller this probability, the larger is the intelligence of the subject. Explains the observation that Hendrickson’s AEP measures, which are supposed to measure this probability, are sometimes correlated positively and sometimes correlated negatively with IQ.

This study is a sequel of a paper by Fidelman in 1996, where it was argued that the idea of Hendrickson and Hendrickson in 1982, that high intelligence is related to a small probability of neural transmission‐errors, may be correct, in spite of the contradictory evidence. The relation between several biological theories of intelligence is discussed in this study. These theories are Haier’s and Schafer’s theories relating intelligence to the energy consumption of the brain, the Hendrickson paradigm, Eysenck’s extension of the Hendrickson paradigm according to which a neural message is sent repeatedly until it is received identically a certain number of times, Jensen’s theory relating intelligence to reaction‐time, and Haier’s theory of synaptic density. Discusses the proposition that the attentional theory of Bates and Eysenck may be considered as an extension of the paradigm of Schafer.

Applies the analytic‐synthetic dichotomy of hemispheric functioning suggested by Levy‐Agresti and Sperry to explain the chunking theory of Miller. Constructs a theory of cognition, based on cerebral functions which were discovered through hemispheric differences. Shows that all the arguments of Efron against the hemispheric paradigm are merely “puzzles” that can be solved within this paradigm. New findings of Efron and Yund were, in fact, predicted by a component of this theory.