Originally Posted by
mono
I, personally, found the article fascinating, despite my disagreement with a few parts of the article, which I thought, required immensely more empirical evidence to entirely prove all of the theories - theories, I call them, or hypotheses, because many concepts communicated appear far more reliant on non-linear logic more contingent on personal belief than, for example, a documented scientific journal or document.
If possible, sushil_yadav, could you supply the works cited for finding this article? Without breaking the law for posting this article, possibly forgetting to cite your sources, it would also satisfy my curiosity regarding the reliability of the source - whether it seems more of faith-based scientological outlook (though I intend no offense to scientologists) or something more fact-based by scientific research, composed by doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, ecologists, and other relating researchers to the article's content.
Despite how much right-sided hemisphere brain-cognition and left-sided hemisphere brain cognition differ, however, I find that both can live in unison; I offer myself as a decent, though not the best example. For this purpose, I will expose my vulnerability to a public forum that I do suffer from mental illness (two, in fact); besides my incessant struggle, I find myself strongly attached to both science (particularly human biology, and remain a mere 2 weeks from graduating from nursing school), and attached to literature (also as a writer, writing notebooks full of poetry, and a third play in progress). I also admit the fact of my male gender; I find this relevant because females, on average, can have an average 48% larger corpus callosum (the connecting tissue between both hemispheres of the human brain, thereby increasing neural transmissions between the two).
Despite any such research that appears uncited and absent of any scientific relevance without a reliable source (perhaps in a bibliography), I find this article difficult to consider. I can admit that I agree with some parts of it, but disagree with others; of course, not calling myself an empiricist in all my thought, when speaking in more scientific matters, I find empiricism essential in providing any proof of the relevance of this article.