LEFT-BRAIN, RIGHT-BRAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPPONENTS AT SITES OF RECURRING

 

AGGRESSION:  DISCOVERY OF FAMILIAL POLARITY, A BIOLOGICAL FACTOR TIED TO CONFICT

 

Bruce Eldine Morton, Ph.D., University of Hawaii School of Medicine

 

ABSTRACT:

 

Quantitative measurement of brain laterality-based behaviors has enabled reconstitution of “hemisphericity” within a new binary context called “hemisity”.  That is, about half of males and females are born with their unilateral brain executive located in the functionally asymmetric left hemisphere, biasing them to be more sensitive, top-down, deductive “splitters”.  The other half with their executives on the right tend to be more intense, bottom-up, inductive “lumpers”.  Observations that in most marriages hemisity- “opposites attract” led to the discovery of both Matripolar and Patripolar true-breeding lineages, independent of race.  Found throughout evolution, these parallel lineages are based upon two distinctive reproductive strategies:  Originally, polygynous patripolar males directly battled for reproductive access; while competition among matripolar males occurred at organ and cellular levels (sperm wars) in polyandry.   Sequential patripolar and matripolar ape-hominid migrations out of Africa appear to have created global polarity population striations.  Subsequently, the opposite hemisities and reproductive strategies between these human polar groups have been sources of multilevel global conflict, repeatedly manifest as terrorism, war, and genocide at their biological interfaces.  Sexual and learning abnormalities are also present in hybrids.  Awareness of familial polarity brings myriads of new opportunities.

 

LEFT-BRAIN, RIGHT-BRAIN DIFFERENCES BETWEEN OPPONENTS AT SITES OF RECURRING AGGRESSION:  DISCOVERY OF FAMILIAL POLARITY, A BIOLOGICAL FACTOR TIED TO CONFICT

INTRODUCTION:

            In addition to holding that all humans are equal in a moral sense, our innate self-referral also tells us that we all think alike.  Quite to the contrary, we actually differ from each other in at least three ways. In addition to sex, two of these three binary biological differences are currently unrecognized. This is troubling, because, unfortunately, this ignorance is unwittingly and inappropriately dividing us into often violently conflicting groups, both locally and globally.

Like pregnancy, there are several “either you are –or you are not” categories that apply to individual differences.  The three referred to above are: 1. Sex (in general, either your body is male or a female), 2. Hemisity (either you are a right or a left brain-oriented person), and 3. Familial Polarity (either you are genetically “patripolar” or “matripolar”, as will be described later).  This chapter reviews the discovery of the origin, nature, and consequences of the latter two:  hemisity and familial polarity.   As will be seen, these topics bear an unexpected significance to the psychology of war and conflict.

 

Two Novel Contexts Providing Useful Insights about Brain-based Behavioral Laterality

Two unorthodox contexts have provided unexpected insights about the behavioral laterality of the brain.  First, it has long seemed logically compelling that, by definition there can be but one executive element in any functioning institution, the brain being a prime example.  The vertebrate brain and spinal column are bilateral from top to bottom.  That is, its two, mirror-image sides are structurally, but not functionally, quite similar from top to bottom.  Because the pineal body, now known to be a gland, was only one non-duplicated structure in the brain, in 1637 it was argued by Descartes that it must be the “seat of the soul”[1].  Elimination of the pineal as a candidate, however, demands that the site of the executive system function must therefore be unilateral.  Thus, our first unorthodox insight is that the executive system of the human brain can be on only one side or the other, but not on both.  Support for this new idea will follow.

            Second, the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), part of the prefrontal cortex that is injured in “lobotomy’, is the most probable site for the executive [2-6], including its impressive preconscious decision-making skills [7, 8].  Thus, both the anatomical [9-13] and functional asymmetry [14-16] often reported for this bilateral structure were not unexpected.  Therefore, the second unorthodox insight was that this ACC, which is asymmetrically located inherently either on one side of the brain or the other, was the structure responsible for the functional operation of the human unilateral executive system. 

Experimental support for the existence of single-sided executive function was provided by hemisometer studies to be described later in which the site of the brain “observer” was found to be unilateral for 95% of 91 subjects [Morton, unpublished].  Crucially, in these studies, the side of the observer was correlated with the side of subject left-brain, right-brain hemisity, a topic regarding personal behavioral style that will be defined and discussed later.  These new ideas have been further reinforced by MRI observations on 150 subjects, also to be presented later.  Results indicated that the larger side of the ventral gyrus of the ACC (putative site of the executive system) and the side of subject hemisity were both located on the same side of the brain [Morton and Rafto, unpublished].  That is, the left or right side of one’s brain executive was tied to one’s right or left brain behavioral orientation. 

     Therefore, this entire review is based upon the unexpectedly rich, but parsimonious sequential consequences that emerge from application of the above two experimentally supported premises to investigations of behavioral laterality:  1. The brain’s executive system is unilateral, and  2. is inherently located on one or the other side of the anterior cingulate cortex, thus producing either right or left brain behavioral dominance.  

 

Development of Quantitative Methods for the Determination of Behavioral Laterality

From these two new perspectives, it appears unavoidable that the possession of a unilateral executive would impart an inherent thinking and behavioral bias upon any individual, depending within which of the functionally asymmetric right or left hemispheres their executive was embedded.  Recognition of such a behavioral bias, along with its implicit question, “Which side am I on?”, appear to be the underlying origin of the earlier proposed concept of “hemisphericity” with its contrasting right brain vs. left brain thinking and behavioral styles [17], popular in the 1960s.  However, due to lack of understanding of the binary (rather than gradient) nature of these behavioral differences and lack of quantitative methods, the provocative claims of hemisphericity could not be confirmed and research on the topic was brought to a halt as “a concept ahead of its time” [18]. 

Recently, four polymodal, highly intercorrelated biophysical measures have been developed which provided the first quantitative measures of the right or left brain cognitive and behavioral styles, both for individuals and groups [19-21].  These developments, together with the above new theoretical paradigm, have provided new approaches to reassess the existence and nature of the cognitive and behavioral manifestations of some form of left-brain, right-brain “hemisphericity”.

 The first of these physiological measures was based upon the inability of the minor ear in about half of 150 subjects to report consonant-vowel syllables during dichotic listening were two different syllables are simultaneously sent, one to each ear [21].  This subgroup of so-called “dichotically deaf” individuals was later found to be enriched in putative left brain-oriented persons.  In contrast, the other subgroup containing those reporting quite well with their minor ears was found to be enriched in right brain-oriented persons [22].

Next, a second biophysical hemisphericity measure was developed that employed the timed mirror-tracing of the outline of a large five pointed star, each hand competing with the other for quickness [19].  About half of the 150 right-handed subjects were faster with their left hand than their right hand.  This seemingly contra-intuitive result was interpreted as supporting a right brain location of the predominating hemisphere with these individuals.  This was based upon the observation that forelimbs are almost exclusively directed by the opposite side of the brain [23].  As predicted, these right-handed subjects with faster left hands were later found to be right brain-oriented persons.  Left brain oriented persons (also right handed) were faster with their right hand.  Thus, the right-brain, left-brain behavioral differences of hemisphericity were independent of handedness.  Most importantly, the individuals within two groups separated by this mirror tracing method were significantly correlated with those in the two groups separated by the dichotic listening technique above.

The third biophysical measure of hemisphericity was based upon a two-handed line-bisection test derived from [24].  Here again about half of 109 right-handed subjects were more accurate in bisecting 40 horizontal lines (7-16 cm in length) with their left hand than with their right hand [20].  This group was also later found to be highly enriched in right brain-oriented persons.  This would be predicted, assuming the more predominant side of the brain made more accurate line bisection estimates.  In contrast, the group found to make more accurate line bisections with their right hands was enriched in left brain oriented persons.  Again, the two groups separated by the “Best Hand Test” were highly correlated with those separated by the Dichotic Deafness Test as well as those separated by the Mirror Tracing Test.

Development of the fourth and last biophysical measure of hemisphericity required the invention of the above-mentioned Hemisometer [Morton, unpublished], illustrated in Figure 1.  PLACE FIGURE 1 AFTER THIS POINT.  Using this device, a single source, 0.5 ms photo flash was simultaneously emitted from two small orifices, one on the left and the other on the right side of the viewing field.  These were directed only to the subject’s nasal, or their temporal retinae by the incorporation of appropriate baffles within two prototype instruments.  In Figure 1 it may be seen that visual stimuli reaching the nasal half of a retina are shunted to the opposite hemisphere, while those reaching the temporal half of the retina only go to the hemisphere on the same side.

 

Figure 1:  Flash Hemisometer Design and Function, Subject with left Executive

Legend:  For both hemisometers, if the executive system must be reached by crossing the corpus callosum, the increased neural path length will add about 10 msec to the overall time elapsed.  Therefore, if executive is on the left, then the flash from the right for either hemisometer will arrive about 10 msec before the one from the left. Vise versa if executive is on right.

 

Of 91 subjects, 95% reported the flash consistently appeared first on one side only, or on the other, rather than on both sides at once.   The side of the hemisometer from which the 0.5 ms flash was reported by the individual to have appeared first, was presumed to be the brain side of the executive.  This is because the flash going to the non-executive side would be delayed by at least 10 ms (from 2 to18 ms) [25-27],  the time it takes to detour across the corpus callosum to the true side of the executive, thus appearing second as a result of this delay (Figure 1).  Again, remarkably, the two groups separated by the Hemisometer were found to be composed mostly of the same individuals separated by the three other biophysical methods [Morton, unpublished].  Correlations between these four polymodal methods averaged a quite respectable, r = 0.61, p=0.000 [Morton, unpublished].

 

Discovery of Neuroanatomical Markers of Behavioral Laterality

Most importantly, the right or left brain orientation of individuals, assessed by the above four biophysical methods, was essentially congruent with the larger side of the ventral gyrus of the anterior cingulate cortex (Figure 2), as for the first time revealed by a 3 minute MRI procedure [Morton and Rafto, unpublished].  Strategically, the MRI detectable laterality of this anatomically-defined putative executive structure could then be assigned as the primary standard defining individual behavioral “hemisity”, a term referring to a revised-reconstituted form of hemisphericity to be described later.  For the first time, the stage was set to ask and answer specific, concrete questions about the basis and nature of individual behavioral laterality.

 

Figure 2.  Anterior Cingulate Asymmetries:  The Four Hemisity Types

Legend: MRI sagittal images of subjects were taken 6mm right and left of the midline of calibrated hemisphericity subjects.  A: R-bom (right brain-oriented male),  B: R-bof (right brain-oriented female),  C: L-bom (left brain-oriented male), and D:  L-bof (right brain-oriented female).  Arrows reaching from the lower surface of the corpus callosum to the cingulate sulcus (CS) above illustrate the four measurements made for each subject.  The paracingulate sulcus (PCS), if present, is seen above the CS.  If the arrows were longest on the left hemisphere, subjects were placed into the left brain-oriented bin, and visa versa [18].

 

Reassessment of Objections to the Concept of Hemisphericity.

Before proceeding to new investigations of the interesting behavioral manifestations of hemisity, the issues brought up in a critical review of the earlier gradient construct of hemisphericity by Beaumont, Young, and McManus in 1984 [18] were readily addressed from the basis of a new “either-or” binary context of hemisity [Morton, unpublished].

As the result, what do we have at this point?  Hemisity refers to characteristic, measurable individual right or left-brain binary cognitive and behavioral orientation differences that are the consequence of the existence of a unilateral executive system inherently imbedded either in the right or left asymmetric cerebral hemispheres.

 

Behavioral Differences between Right and Left Brain-Oriented Persons.

A set of simple abbreviations were developed as a form of hemisity nomenclature to facilitate convenient labeling of the various hemisity types.  Thus, right or left brain-oriented persons, were designated as R-bops or L-bops, while right or left brain-oriented males were called R-boms or L-boms.  Right or left brain oriented females were called R-bofs or L-bofs.  These abbreviations are used throughout the remainder of this review.

To continue the logic:  with the advent of the four biophysical and one neuroanatomical quantitative measures of hemisity, described above, it became possible to ask the many MRI calibrated hemisity subjects to complete sets of specifically designed questions in order to explore the differences of cognitive and behavioral orientations manifest by the right and left brain-oriented groups (n = 110).  To this end, these studies started with an old and previously unpublished questionnaire by Zenhauser [28], reported to have 70% agreement with the once popular “Styles of Learning and Thinking Questionnaire of Torrance” [29].  Added to this were four new “sky’s the limit” type of forced-choice preference questionnaires whose calibration was based upon the new biophysical definitions of hemisity [22, 30, Morton, McLaughlin, and Rafto, unpublished].

Table 1 lists interesting results worthy of pondering.   Twenty eight behavioral dyads were identified which separated right and left brain oriented individuals, each being significant (p<0.05).  These were organized under five areas: logic orientation, consciousness type, sensitivity level, social orientation, and spousal dominance.  Note that although some of the differences between the styles of left and right brainers were similar to those of noticed earlier for hemisphericity, most them were new and quite unique to hemisity.

 

Table 1:  Twenty eight Binary Behavioral Correlates of Hemisity

 

Left Brain-Oriented Persons                                  Right Brain-Oriented Persons

 

LOGICAL ORIENTATION

Analytical (stays within the limits of the data)            Sees the big picture (projects beyond data, predicts)

Uses logic to convert objects to literal concepts        Imagines, converts concepts to contexts or metaphors Decisions based on objective facts                                        Decisions based on feelings, intuition

Uses a serious approach to solving problems             Use a playful approach to solving problems

Prefers to maintain and use good old solutions         Would rather find better new solutions.

 

TYPE OF CONSCIOUSNESS

Daydreams are not vivid                                            Has vivid daydreams

Doesn’t often remember dreams                               Remembers dreams often.

Thinking often consists of words                                  Thinking often consists of mental pictures or images

Comfortable and productive with chaos                  Slowed by disorder and disorganization

Can easily concentrate on many things at once       Tends to concentrate on one thing in depth at a time

Often thinking tends to ignore surroundings               Observant and in touch with surroundings

Often an early morning person                                   Often a late night person

 

FEAR LEVEL AND SENSITIVITY

Sensitive in relating to others                                      Intense in relating to others

Tend to avoid talking about emotional feelings        Often talks about own and others feelings of emotion

Suppresses emotions as overwhelming                      Seeks to experience and express emotions more deeply

Would self-medicate with depressants                       Would self-medicate with stimulants

 

SOCIAL AND PROFESSIONAL ORIENTATION

Independent, hidden, private, and indirect               Interdependent, open, public, and direct

Avoids seeking evaluation by others                          Seeks frank feedback from others

Usually tries to avoid taking the blame                      Tends to take the blame, blames self, or apologizes

Lets personal surroundings become messy                 Keeps personal surroundings neat and orderly

 

PAIR-BONDING STYLE AND SPOUSAL DOMINANCE

After an upset with spouse, needs to be alone          After upset with spouse, needs closeness and to talk

Tolerates mate defiance in private                             Finds it difficult to tolerate mate defiance in private

Needs little physical contact with mate                     Needs a lot of physical contact with mate

Prefers monthly large reassurances of love                 Likes daily small assurances of mate’s love

Tends not to be very romantic or sentimental            Tends to be very romantic and sentimental

Thinks-listens quietly, keeps talk to minimum              Thinks-listens interactively, talks a lot

Does not read other people’s mind very well            Good at knowing what others are thinking.

Often feels mate talks too much                                Feels my mate doesn’t talk or listen enough.

  

One of the earlier hemisphericity model misconceptions was the idea that individuals are located somewhere on a gradient of laterality between left and right extremes.   In contrast, implicit in the new hemisity model is the concept that one is born either a R-bop or L-bop, due to the side one’s executive system was on.  Thus, while one may hone their trans-callosal skills for accessing the opposite side of their brain by experience and education, the executive system cannot be transplanted to the other side.  Therefore, the hemisity questionnaires employed, “Either-Or”, forced choice dichotic statements in which the subject was required to select the statement alternative that was not necessarily identical, but the one that was judged to be the closest to their own viewpoint, however interpreted.  This eliminated a substantial loss of power occurring in earlier questionnaires where subjects could escape by indicating that their view was intermediate between the dichotomies listed.

However, because of the well-known complexity of individual differences, the robustness with which of any one of these twenty eight dyad pairs was tied to individual hemisity at the level of about four chances out of five.  Thus, individuals varied greatly regarding as to specifically which of each of these 28 questionnaire dyads they selected as “the most like themselves”.  For example, about 4 of 5 early morning types were L-bops, yet 20% were also R-bops, a significant number.  Although one of the latter hypothetical R-bop subjects could assert that hemisity was a false concept because they were an early rising individual, nevertheless their assertion would certainly be incorrect [31].  Not only did each dyad significantly parse with hemisity brain side overall, but also each individual’s overall balance of answers significantly fell on the hemisity side that was predominant in the four biophysical methods for hemisity [19-21, Morton, unpublished], and was anatomically (MRI) confirmed as the brain side with the larger ventral ACC gyrus in 97% of 113 cases [Morton and Rafto, unpublished].

 

Sorting of Hemisity During Higher Education and in Career Selection

Having completed a description of the individual differences of the right and left hemisity subtypes, we can now move on to its population-level ramifications.  Ideally, it would be desirable to determine the hemisity of grade school children in the various regions of the world.  In the absence of this, hemisity distributions were recently assessed in groups of college freshmen at the University of Hawaii.  This was accomplished by use of the “Best Hand Test”, a rapidly administered and graded, two-hand line bisection-based biophysical method relatively independent of language, culture, or education [20].   Entering university students (n= 392) enrolled in three lower division courses were chosen as a reference population [32].   Each of these classes contained about 56% to 57% (a 1% range of variation) of left brain-oriented individuals.  In contrast, mean student left-brain distributions in four specialized, upper level courses (n = 180), ranged from 35 % to 68% (a 34% range), suggesting the occurrence of hemisphericity sorting in the process of higher education [32].

         Table 2 illustrates the even more pronounced hemisphericity distribution differences (a 57% range) found within university representatives of fifteen professions (n=421) [32].  PLACE TABLE 2 AFTER THIS POINT.  For example, of Biochemists (n=18), 83% were left brain-oriented vs. only 17% who were right brain oriented.  In contrast, among Astronomers (n = 21), only 29% were left brain-oriented while 71% were right brainers.

 

Table 2:  Brain Hemisity Distributions within Populations of Fifteen Professions (n=421)

 

 

GROUP                   percent

                                participation

 

N

 

 LEFT

BRAIN

 

Left

Males

 

Left Females

 

RIGHT  BRAIN

 

Right

Males

 

Right

Females

 

Unsorted College Entrants

 

228

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Western Civilization students    62

 

228

 

57%

 

19%

 

38%

 

43%

 

22%

 

21%

 

Specialist Populations

 

422

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Microbiology Professors              74

 

Biochemistry Professors               95

 

Physics (particle)Professors       80

 

Philosophy Professors                  73

 

Mathematics Professors             93

 

14

 

18

 

15

 

11

 

27

 

86%*

 

83%*

 

73%

 

73%

 

70%

 

72%

 

72%

 

73%

 

54%

 

70%

 

14%

 

11%

 

0%

 

19%

 

0%

 

14%

 

17%

 

27%

 

27%

 

30%

 

14%

 

17%

 

27%

 

27%

 

30%

 

0%

 

0%

 

0%

 

0%

 

0%

 

Accountancy Professors             75

 

Law Professors                                83

 

Art Professors  (vs. Artists)          92

 

Civil Engineering Professors      89

 

Clin. Psychologists (yel. Pages) 75

 

9

 

19

 

27

 

17

 

29

 

67%

 

63%

 

63%

 

53%

 

52%

 

44%

 

32%

 

38%

 

53%

 

24%

 

22%

 

31%

 

25%

 

0%

 

28%

 

33%

 

37%

 

37%

 

47%

 

48%

 

22%

 

21%

 

29%

 

41%

 

28%

 

12%

 

16%

 

8%

 

6%

 

20%

 

Electrical Engineering Profs.      75

 

Physicians (Medical Students)  80

 

Mechanical Engineering Profs. 75

 

Architecture Professors            100

 

Astronomy Professors                   66

 

16

 

178

 

9

 

12

 

21

 

50%

 

49%

 

44%

 

33%*

 

29%*

 

50%

 

25%

 

33%

 

26%

 

30%

 

0%

 

24%

 

11%

 

4%

 

0%

 

50%

 

51%

 

56%

 

67%

 

71%

 

44%

 

26%

 

56%

 

61%

 

60%

 

6%

 

25%

 

0%

 

9%

 

10%

 

*  p <0.05.  (yel. pages) = American Psychological Society members advertising in the yellow pages of the Honolulu phone directory.  (Medical Students): due to extremely low attrition rates of medical students, it was convenient to test them in mass rather than scheduling a separate appointment with each of them after they became clinicians.

 

         Because the possibility of sampling error exists for the smaller professional groups, whose size raged from 9 to 178 (mean = 29, n = 467) these data on the professions are offered with a great deal of skepticism and caution.   However, there appeared to be an internal consistency between the subtypes of the more left or right hemisphericity-concentrated professions.  That is, primarily “top-down” professions working at structural levels that are sub-visible to the naked eye, such as microbiologists, biochemists, and particle physicists, were each found to be highly enriched with left-brain-“important-details” oriented individuals.  In contrast, the more “bottom-up”, macroscopic professions, such as architecture, civil engineering design and astronomy, were enriched with right brain “big picture” oriented people.

         An explanation was proposed to account for this sorting of hemisity in higher education and career selection [32].  That is, sorting occurred as the result of R-bops and L-bops doing what they liked to do best.  Topics at which each excelled relative to the other resulted in one hemisity subclass doing well or poorly compared to the other.  Rewards from success, difficulty, or failure shaped individual opinion of the liking or dislike of specific topics.  This led to the selection of topics bringing personal success and to the avoidance of those bringing failure.  Thus in general, it appears that one ends up being an architect or a microbiologist simply by doing what one enjoys best. 

         At this point, six useful conclusions are among those that can be derived from the preceding sections of this review:

 1. Research now supports the view that, due to the unilateral nature of the executive system, the existence of hemisity is inevitable.

 2.  Quantitative methods have been developed to make it possible to assess any person in terms of their probable right or left brain orientation.

 3.  A three minute scan MRI-based primary standard has been discovered that enables the absolute hemisity of an individual to be determined, based upon anatomical landmarks within the brain. 

 4.  A number of the many “either-or” traits that separate the cognitive and behavioral styles of R and L-bops have been identified, most of which have no known ties to brain asymmetry as yet. 

 5. Methods now exist which can determine the average hemisity of groups with considerable accuracy. 

 6.  The recognition of the quantifiable existence of hemisphericity as a second dyadic personal identifier after sex carries profound genetic implications that can bring new clarity to human behavior.

Thus, it appears that it is now appropriate for brain lateral behavior studies to thrive once more, this time based upon much more quantitative foundations.

 

Discovery and Nature of Familial Polarity, a Feature Inherent in Hemisity:  It all Began with Spouse Hemisity Studies where “Opposites Attract” was the Most Common Alternative.

         The ability to accurately determine the hemisity of individuals and groups has opened a world of fascinating questions.  Curiosity about the hemisity of oneself and that of one’s family members led to the following introductory study (Morton, unpublished).   Determination of the hemisity of partners in 206 heterosexual couples of greater than five years duration from the University of Hawaii community provided the opportunity to answer that age-old question regarding the make-up of spouses.  In terms of hemisity, do “likes” seek “likes”, or do “opposites attract”?          

               One the first barriers for those not yet familiar with the concept of hemisity, is the natural but naïve point of view that “most humans think the way I do”.  This idea that we are all alike, has led to endless existential conflicts and requires further inspection here.  On the first level, this review provides comprehensive data that people fall into two different hemisity categories, each manifesting significant cognitive and behavioral differences.  As a consequence, there are in general four different and genetically unique types of humans globally, the R-boms, the L-boms, the R-bofs, and the L-bofs.

         Furthermore, spousal pair bonding data suggests, as in the Greek metaphor, that one attempts to find a soul mate by searching to find and reunite with the other half of that whole (rock) from which we had earlier been split.  Biologically speaking, complementarity between reproductive partners has many more advantages than are present in like-like hemisity pair-bonding.  Unfortunately, current lack of knowledge of the existence of hemisity, combined with the naïve view that we all think alike, brings much social stress.  For example, from that perspective, if one does something better than their spouse, then by definition, the behavior of their spouse is inferior, perhaps deserving of correction, etc.  However, if the spouses are complementary in hemisity, then while one may be the best at some things, they are delighted and grateful to discover that other is better at other things at which the first spouse is biologically less skilled.  Each spouse synergistically complements and enhances the survival status of the nuclear family team.  This reduces stress and sets the stage for mutual spousal appreciation, an illustration with international applications.

         As may be seen in Table 3, over two thirds of these couples were composed of partners of opposite (complementary) hemisity.  Further, in almost every case the de facto leader of the couple was an R-bop, be they male or female.  The latter was in keeping with a number of items in the behavioral preference questionnaires indicating the pair dominance of R-bops over L-bops (Table 1).  For the less than one third of couples composed of individuals of the same hemisity, dominance and leadership was hotly contested within the R-R (13.1%) pair, making their pair bonding the least stable of the four types.  In contrast, dominance within the L-L(19.4%) pair seemed to be of little issue to this couple type, often falling by default to the larger spouse (usually male).  These L-L couples were the most stable, with the complimentary R-L and L-R couples intermediate between the R-R and L-L couples in terms of stability.

 

Table 3:  Hemisity Identity of Spouses and Pair Type Fertility

Pair Type

Couples Found

N             (%)

Dominant Partner

Childlessness

n            (%)

Complementary

R-bom / L-bof

L-bom / R-bof

Opposites combined

 

    81           (39.3)

   58           (28.2)

 139           (67.5)*   

 

R-bom

R-bof

 

12          (15)

5            (9)

 

Similar

R-bom / R-bof**

L-bom / L-bof**

Likes combined

 

27           (13.1)

40           (19.4)

67           (32.5)*

 

Hotly contested

The larger (male) by default

 

4           (15)

15          (38)*

 

* <0.05,   **Developmental anomalies reported in offspring. (dyslexia, homo and trans-sexuality)

 

         Of grave and unexpected significance, for couples of like-like hemisity there was evidence of fertility and fetal developmental incompatibilities.  These problems were manifested by a relative infertility in L-L pairs (38% vs. 13% average for the other three couple categories) [Morton, unpublished] , and by the appearance of homosexuality in about 25% of the L-L offspring [Morton, unpublished].  Further, R-bop offspring of R-R pairs while heterosexual were afflicted with a mild but life-altering form of dyslexia never found in L-bops [Morton, unpublished].  In contrast, L-bop offspring of R-R pairs, while also heterosexual, often unwittingly manifested a trans-heterosexual identity (the source of non-homosexual “wimps” and “jocks”) [Morton, unpublished].  These unexpected but highly important findings will not be discussed further here.

 

The Existence of Two True-Breeding Lineages is Demanded by the Hemisity of Children

         Compilation of fifteen genealogies, three to five generations in scope, indicated a strong genetic component to the hemisity outcome of children [Morton, unpublished].  As indicated in Figure 3, most of the offspring of complementary hemisity couples (R-bom and L-bof pairs, or L- bom and R-bof pairs) were true breeding, producing hemisity outcomes that were: “like father like son, like mother like daughter”.   This was true whether they were R-bom and L-bof children from R-bom and L-bof parents, or R-bof and L-bom children from R-bof and L-bom pairs. However, and this is crucial, within same hemisity couples (R-bom and R-bof, or L-bom and L-bof) the hemisity of the hybrid offspring were random among the four possibilities (R-bom, R-bof, L-bof, or L-bom).  This was an unexpected and important finding.

 

Figure 3.  Hemisity of Offspring from the Four Marital Hemisity Possibilities

 

Familial Polarity: Lineages with Contrasting Reproductive Strategies

         The above spouse and offspring hemisity results appear to fit The Familial Polarity Model most parsimoniously [Morton, unpublished].  In this model, either one or the other of two ancient genetically and evolutionarily distinct true breeding reproductive strategies is utilized by the respective parallel ape, hominid, and modern human lineages.  The Patripolar lineages appear to have originally been between polygynous, haremic (harem forming) males and the females they attracted.    In contrast the Matripolar lineages appear to be functional derivatives of early polyandrous and “orgeic” (having reproductive group orgies at the estrus of each female) dominant females, and the courting males whom compete between themselves for her largess.

 

Discovery of Reversed Callosal Sizes in Spouses of Opposite Polarity.

Compelling evidence for the biology of familial polarity is supplied by the reversed corpus callosum midline cross sectional area (CCA) size distributions between patripolar and matripolar spouses, illustrated in Figure 4 [Morton and Rafto, unpublished].   There, it may be seen that the patripolar spouses having the largest average CCAs were right brain-oriented dominant males.  Yet for the matripolars, it was the right brain-oriented dominant females that had the largest CCA.  CCAs were smallest in patripolar left brain-oriented supportive females, followed by those of matripolar left brain-oriented supportive males.  Since genetics dictates callosal size [34, 35], these data strongly support the existence of two general human lineages, one matripolar and the other patripolar.

 

Figure 4:  Contrasting Corpus Callosal Areas Between Patripolar and Matripolar Spouses

Legend:  Abbreviations are, R-bom (right brain-oriented male), R-bof (right brain-oriented female), L-bom (Left brain-oriented male), L-bof (Left brain-oriented female).  76% of the subjects were Caucasian, n= 149 (Morton and Rafto, unpublished).

Contrasting Personality Traits within Matripolar and Patripolar Families

The application of the Familial Polarity model to lineages of modern humans is illustrated in Table 4, which is worthy of careful inspection.  There the currently unrecognized, but hauntingly familiar biology-driven behavioral dyads of the two familial polarities are compared.  The contrasting differences in the hemisity of parents and children outlined there illustrate the two almost mirror-image optimal reproductive strategy niches available in biology, both of which have been filled.  The existence of these equally valid and functional, opposite biologies provide the basis for many of the polarized cultural differences seen between and within complex societies.  For example, in current entertainment media, depiction of female sexual display is encouraged by matripolar elements.  On the other hand, it is abhorred as societally-destabilizing by patripolar segments who instead promote male-dominant sports- media role models and marital virginity as the ideal.

 

Table 4:  Personality Traits within the Two Polarity Family Types

Trait

Patripolar

Families

Matripolar

Familes

Parental Sex

Hemisity

Corpus Call. Size

Mental Orientation

Verbosity, Speech

Family Leadership

Male

Right

Large

Big Picture

Charismatic

Most Dominant

Female

Left

Smaller

Important Details

Quiet-Articulate

Most Supportive

Female

Right

Larger

Big Picture

Charismatic

Most Dominant

Males

Left

Smaller

Important Details

Quiet-Articulate

Most Supportive

 

Parental Love type

Parental Function

Parental Status

Child’s Hemisity

Conditional

Sets Standards

child role model

Boys are Rights

Unconditional

Prevents Abuse

Serves the Child

Girls are Lefts

Conditional

Sets Standards

child role model

Girls are Rights

Unconditional

Prevents Abuse

Serves the Child

Boys are Lefts

 

Mating Behavior

Male selects from courting fe -males who are:

Females court and display to males who are:

Females select from courting males who are:

Males court and display to females who are:

 

Mating Target

Intelligent Healthy, Loyal Humorous, Devoted, Want to serve Him

Champ, strongest Rich, Tall, dark, & Handsome,

Socially powerful, Smartest of crop

Intelligent, Healthy, Loyal Humorous,  Devoted, Want to serve Her

Rich, Lean waist, Beautiful face, Big breasts, Socially adept, Smartest

 

 

 

Affirmations of the Existence of Familial Polarity from Ethnology

Existence of contrasting patriarchal and matriarchal socio-cultural organizations based upon division between the sexes has long been noted.  Robust documentation of this is found in Murdoch’s ethnic databases of over 1170 cultures [36-38], as interpreted by DeMeo [39] and outlined in Table 5.   These include many characteristic cultural differences, such as bride price for most patripolar populations as opposed to dowry practices in many matripolar populations.  

 

Table 5:  Contrasting Social and Religious Institutions Often present in Patriarchal and Matriarchal Societies*

Category                               Patrarchal:                                        Matriarchal:                                  .

Culture, Family                      Patrilineal descent                           Matrilineal descent

Social Structure:                   Patrilocal marital home                  Matrilocal marital household

                                                Compulsive monogamy                 Non-compulsive monogamy

                                                Often polygamous                          Rarely polygamous

                                                Authoritarian                                     Democratic

                                                Heirarchal                                         Elegantarian

                                                Political/Econ. centralism               Work-democratic

                                                Military specialists/caste                No full time military

                                                Violent, sadistic                                Non-violent, sadism absent

Ancient                                  Male/Father oriented                     Female/Mother oriented

Religion:                                 Asceticism, avoidance of              Pleasure welcomed and

                                                    pleasure, pain-seeking                    institutionalized

                                                Inhibition, fear of nature                Spontaneity, nature worshiped

                                                Male shamans, healers                   Male or Female shamans/healers

                                                Strict behavioral codes                  Absence of strict codes               .  

 

*15 variable correlations within Murdoch’s ethnic database of 1170 cultures [69]

 

Also apparent are the contrasting types of religion practiced by the two polarites.  Patripolar males tend toward the practice of Protestantism, Islam, or Confucianism, where a spontaneous, direct “one on one” interaction with a “Higher Authority” occurs.  In contrast matripolar males prefer the public tradition, perfection of ceremony, and the ostentation of “High-church” types, such as Catholicism or Rabbinical Judaism (while still acknowledging its once patripolar roots), where correctness and beauty of worship replaces personal interchange with deity.  Furthermore, as indicated in Table 6, these institutional differences are founded upon a more ancient contrasting cultural- biological attitudes and familial practices regarding the nurturance of children, the emergence of their sexuality, and the value of women.

Table 6:  Contrasting Behaviors and Attitudes correlated with Patriarchal and Matriarchal Cultures*


Category                   Patriarchal                                        Matriarchal                        .

Infants &                    Less indulgence                               More indulgence

Children:                    Less physical affection                   More physical affection

                                    Infants traumatized                         Infants not traumatized

                                    Painful initiations                               Absence of pain in initiations                                                                                Dominated by family                       Children’s democracies

                                    Sex-segregated houses                  Mixed sex children’s houses         

Sexuality:                    Restrictive, anxious view               Permissive, pleasurable attitude

                                    Genital mutilations                           Absence of genital mutilations

                                    Female virginity taboo                    No female virginity taboo

                                    Intercourse taboos                         No intercourse taboos

                                    Adolescent sex censured Adolescent sex freely permitted

                                    Homosexual-Incest taboos            Absence of Homo-Incest tendency

                                    Concubinage / prostitution           Absence of concubinage / prostitution

Women:                     Limits on freedom                More freedom

                                    Inferior status                                    Equal status

                                    Vaginal bleeding taboos               No vaginal blood taboos

                                    Cannot choose own mate            Can choose own mate

                                    Cannot divorce at will                   Can divorce at will

                                    Males control fertility                      Females control fertility

                                    Reproduction denigrated              Reproduction celebrated                     

*15 variable correlations within Murdoch’s ethnic database of 1170 cultures [69]

 

The Ubiquity of Hemisity and Familial Polarity

Without a concept based upon some contextual model, many sensory observations of life tend

to remain unintegrated and thus go unnoticed.  Upon the creation of a new inner mental category, previously undifferentiated observations begin to take on stark distinctions.  This has been the case of the concepts for hemisity and familial polarity.   Once these contexts are entertained, examples of them pop out from the background everywhere.   Then, it becomes clear that there are, and have long been vivid public illustrations of both Patripolar and Matripolar family styles. These are well depicted by US public families known the world over.

In the case of the patripolars, these include the families of George W. and Laura Bush, Bill and Hillary Clinton, Ronald and Nancy Regan, and Jack and Jackie Kennedy.  In contrast, well known Matripolar families include, Al and Tipper Gore, Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, and Denis and Margaret Thatcher.   Popular movie and TV families illustrating or characterizing patripolarity include Archie and Edith Bunker of “All in the Family”, the movies and public lives of Hollywood stars, Henry, Peter, and Jane Fonda, and the risk taking “Crocodile hunters” Steve and Terry Irwin from “Down Under”.  Matripolars have also been well represented or characterized on American TV by Ricky and Lucy Arnaz in “I Love  Lucy”, by George and Louise in “The Jeffersons”, and Al and Peggy Bundy of “Married with Children”   Before the distinction of Familial Polarity existed, these classic illustrations of biologically opposite reproductive strategies simply appeared as inexplicably entertaining idiosyncracies.

 

Useful New Insights on Aggression Emerging from Hemisity and Familial Polarity: Evolutionary Origins of Hemisity and Familial Polarity

The yin-yang, dyadic, “dialectic” nature of the universe, recognized for thousands of years, has recently been reinforced by maps of the cosmic microwave background [40].   This universal binarity of extremes implies the existence of equally valid opposing representations for each of the myriad of the elements of which the universe is composed, including that of the origins of life itself.  For example, did life only originate in a warm little pond at the surface of the sea, or at a volcanic interface at its depths, or independently in both places?  Was the early genetics of these competing new life forms based only upon a RNA world, or a DNA-protein world [41,42]?  Does the existence of the two most ancient life-forms, the seemingly unrelated archebacteria and eubacteria, represent the outcomes of this intrinsic universal dyadism?

Increasing evidence suggests that two major opposite reproductive strategy niches of evolution were filled early in the behavioral organization of early multicellular life forms.  In the more familiar of these two reproductive strategies, herein called patripolarity, after gaining sole reproductive access as the winner of battles occurring at the organism level, only the dominant haremic male fertilized the local females.  As the polar opposite of this reproductive strategy, herein called matripolarity, males also battled.  But, instead a gaining all or nothing reproductive access as the patripolar males did, each conquered and defended territories of descending survival value.  For example, the most dominant male might control land nearest the water hole, while the least dominant may end up with the least desirable of the outlying real estate.  Here, although other males were vigorously excluded, females were warmly welcomed in the territory of any matripolar male.  Thus, because the receptive female sampled the wares of males in many local territories during her receptive period, the paternity of Matripolar species tends to be random [43].  These two opposite reproductive strategies (Table 7) can be found at all levels of evolution and lead to the speculation that Darwin was only aware of the barest of outline of evolution with its yet undetected polaric lineages [44].

 

Table 7: The Two Reproductive Strategies of Familial Polarity

Variable

Patripolar

Matripolar

Dominant Sex

Promiscuous Partner

Paternity

 

Males Must Fight For Reproductive Access

Males often much larger than Females

 

Type of Behavior Visible

 

Level of Competition

 

 

Robust Sex Organ Development to Compete

Male

Male

Alpha Male

 

Yes

Yes

 

Physical Dominance

 

Organism Level,

Males Battle

 

No

 

Female

Female

Unknown:  Random among male partners

No

No

 

Territorial

 

Cellular level,

Sperm Wars

 

Yes

 

From the perspective of familial polarity, within the vertebrates these currently unrecognized dyadic parallels are visible at many levels.  For example at the reptile level, there are the haremic patripolar alligators and territorial matripolar crocodiles.   At the level of the birds, haremic cocks battle, while territorial bowerbirds woo.   Among the monotremes, the haremic duck-billed platypus dominates, while the female spiny anteater is poly-inseminated.  In the marsupials, massively sexually dimorphic red and gray kangaroos battle for troupe leadership, while female Northern Quoll in heat have such intense orgies as to lead to the annual global extinction of all the males of the species until the next generation’s young are born a month later [45]. Regarding the mammals, the haremic patripolar species are usually well embedded in public consciousness.  For example, a single alpha male wolf, horse, buck, walrus, elephant, or rat usually sires all the progeny of their packs or herds.   However, seemingly unrecognized is the fact that in many other familiar species, the many available territorial males breed a single promiscuous in-heat female of the Matripolar species.  This matripolar reproductive strategy is used by such mammalian species as the fox, coyote, cat [43],  donkey [46], sheep, hyena [47], or mouse [48], usually resulting in semi-random paternity.

This dyadic parallelism of reproductive strategy also occurs at all levels of primate evolution, including such extant Madagascar remnants as the matripolar Ringtailed Lemur and the patripolar Brown Lemur.  It is especially apparent in the highly aggressive and violent sexually dimorphic patripolar Gorillas and Orangutans, compared to the matripolar chimpanzees and bonobos who would rather take turns making love to the subtly dominant female in heat [49] than fight.  Hemispheric lateralities have increasingly been noted among the non-human species by neuroscientists [50].  Here, it is predicted that dominant side of the brain in non-human species will be found to be only on the right in patripolar males or matripolar females, and on the left only in patripolar females and matripolar males [Morton, unpublished].

In hominids, the existence of the two opposite biologies is mirrored by the unshakable parallelism regularly uncovered in the archeological record.  Parallel “Gracil” and “robust” skeletal forms appear at all levels, including the classic record of 50,000 years of alternate occupation and reoccupation of Palestinian caves, apparently without significant interbreeding which between the competing populations of Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon types of hominids [51].  The existence of hominid familial polarity is the first sensible answer to the repeatedly asked burning question as to why these competing hominid lineages remained separate over such vast periods, the occasional later Romeo and Juliet stories not withstanding.

At their peak, both the patripolar Neanderthals (1740 cc) and matripolar CroMagnons (1630 cc brain case volume) had brains whose size was over one fifth larger than modern man (1350 cc) [52].  Yet, while seemingly converging, their biology appeared to be opposite each other in many puzzling ways that are for the first time explained by familial polarity.  As another example, it now makes sense that the many broken and reknit bones of the aggressive patripolar Neanderthal males, resulted for the same reason they do in orangutans (443 cc, MRI-determined brain volumes [53] or Gorillas (425 cc) as they reach sexual maturation today. Meadows are bloodied and bones broken to determine which male will have reproductive access to the females, who abhor and ostracize losers.  Nontheless, some of the losers knit their broken bones and survive [54, 55].  In contrast, matripolar male chimpanzees (321 cc) and bonobos (336 cc) do not come to serious blows over reproduction [56, 57].  Nor are they very sexually dimorphic, because sex is relatively freely available within their matripolar reproductive strategy.  Broken broken or reknit bones almost nonexistent in CroMagnon samples of matripolar males [51].

A banding of the eastern hemisphere populations seems to exist in terms of alternating regions of patri and matripolar predominant stock.  These may have resulted from up to six serial hominid migrations out of Africa [Morton, unpublished].  This multi-migration out of Africa model is supported by evidence suggesting that Patripolar lineages make up at least one third of the current 6 billion humans [Morton, unpublished].  The global presence of patripolar populations is supported by the MRI data of opposite corpus callosal size relationships between matri and patripolar human couples shown in Figure 4 [Morton and Rafto, unpublished].  Thus, in the Polarity Striations Hypothesis [Morton, unpublished], we see the orient to occident serial laying down of major old world patripolar and matripolar population blocks, across which later invading conquerers and with their shifting cultures held but brief and superficial sway.  As will be illustrated later, major sites of war and terrorism tend to be concentrated at the global interfaces between these biologically opposite populations.

 

Hemisity Sampling of Current Distributions of Matripolar and Patripolar Populations:

In studies of familial polarity, large amounts of data have accumulated from the measurement of hemisity of over 1000 individuals within the community of the University of Hawaii at its research campus in Manoa were over 20,000 multiethnic students are enrolled [Morton, unpublished].  These preliminary data, tabulated in Table 8, indicated that individuals drawn from certain ethnic or geographic locations varied greatly in the relative ratios of Patripolar to Matripolar populations of Familial Polarity.   For example, individuals of Germanic, Middle East, or the Northern Orient origins appeared to be predominantly Patripolar in composition.  In contrast, many Southern European, and some, but not all Southeast Asian populations appeared to be predominantly Matripolar in hemisity.

 

Table 8:  Ethnicity, Hemisity, and Polarity of Subjects from the University Community

 

Country of Origin

or Ethnicity

Patripolars:

R-bom or L-bof

Matripolars:

R-bof or L-bom

Matri/Patri Ratio

Scotland

Northern Ireland

England

Southern Ireland

French Canada

Western Canada

31

12

8

3

1

19

1

0*

44

24

14

4

0.03

0.08

6

8

14

0.21

Germany

France

Spain

Italy

Sicily

Hungary

47

3

2

2

16

9

12

29

32

28

0

1

0.25

10

16

14

0.06

0.11

Poland

Russia

American Indian

Mexican American

Hawaii

Samoa

0

2

15

3

51

27

18

16

2

33

23

5

18

8

0.13

11

0.45

0.18

Tonga

Northern Philippines

Southern Philippines

Okinawa

Japan

Southern China (Canton.)

18

3

18

29

65

3

2

41

1

0

32

40

0.11

14

0.06

0.03

13

13

North China (Mandarin)

North Korea

South Korea

Thailand

Egypt

Isreal

50

10

1

0

11

2

4

2

28

11

0

41

0.11

0.20

14

11

0.09

10

Palestine

Pakistan

Indian Hindu

Indian Seik

Bangladeshi

Black American

14

15

0

12

8

3

1

1

28

0

2

49

0.09

0.07

14

0.08

0.23

16

Subjects tested=1089

514 Paripolars

575 Matripolars

1.12

* Zero values were arbitrarily assigned the value of one.

 

The hemisity data of Table 8 indicate the presence of consistent major differences in

 the Matripolar /Patripolar ratio for the countries represented by these subjects.  Populations drawn from global sites thought to be racially homogeneous and commonly labeled with the words, Caucasoid, Negroid, or Oriental, here appeared to be highly variable in terms of their overall polarity, in keeping with the well known (until now, paradoxical)  observation that DNA sequence variation within a population greatly exceeds that between different races [58].  This early, and albeit fragmentary, evidence strongly supports the Polarity Striations Hypothesis as a context that can account for these results [Morton, unpublished].

To further understand nature of genetically complexity present within races, these data, together with extensive ethnographic analysis the familial polarity of the cultures and religions of certain of these subpopulations [36-38], have been combined into a preliminary and tentative familial polarity assessment of some of the Old World countries.  This analysis is summarized in Table 9.   Immediately visible is the presence of immiscible competing matri- and patripolar population elements with their matri- and patripolar cultures and religions whose distribution appears more ancient than current national or even racial boundaries.

 

Table 9.  Preliminary Estimation of Distributions of Familial Polarity Within Old World Countries

 

Location

 

PATRI

R-bom Ethnicity

POLAR

R-bom Religion

MATRI

L-bom Ethnicity

POLAR

L-bom Religion

France

Germany-Austria-Switzer.

Britain

British Isles

Italy

Hugenot

 

Teuton

Scottish

Northern Irish

Sicilian-Greek

Protestant

 

Protestant

Protestant

Protestant

Greek Pagen

French

 

Slavic, Mediterr.

English

Southern Irish

Italian-Roman

Roman Catholic

 

Roman Catholic

Episcopal (Cath)

Roman Catholic

Roman Catholic

Spain

Morocco

Greece

Russia

Yugoslavia

Catalonian

Moor

Greeks

Chechnyan etc.

Albanian, etc.

Protestant (orig.)

Islamic

Greek Pagan

Islamic

Islamic

Castilian

Berber

Slavs

Russian

Serbia

Roman Catholic

Animistic

Greek Orthodox

East. Orthodox

East. Orthodox

Turkey

Israel

Arabia, Iraq, Iran, Syria, Iran Lebanon, Egypt,

Afghanistan,

Turk

Palestinian

 

Persian

Arab, etc.

 

Islamic

Islamic

 

Islamic

Armenian

Jewish

 

Opposition not

East. Orthodox

Judaism

 

well tolerated!

Africa

Nilotic hunter- herdsmen,
Watutsi’s, etc.

Islamic

Bantus farmers, Hutus, etc.

Catholic, pagan

Indian

   Sub-continent.

Southeast Asia

Pakistani, Bangladeshi

Myanmar, Malay

S, Filipino Moro

Islamic

 

Islamic

Islamic

Indian

 

Thai, Sri Lankan

N. Phil. Tagalag

Hindu

 

Buddhist

Roman Catholic

China

Korea

Viet Nam

Mandarins

North Koreans

North Vietnamese

Confucianism

Confucianism

Buddhism

Cantonese

South Korean

SouthVietnamese

Taoism

Buddhism

Roman Catholic

Australasia

Aborigines, Polynesians,

Papuans

Pagan

Melanesian, Micronesian

Animistic

 

Rewriting History:  Familial Polarity as the Unseen Source of Multilevel Conflict

As with any new paradigm, a restructuring of the fabric of knowledge occurs with consequent waves and ripples extending from its epicenter.  In the case of hemisity and familial polarity, these new integrations impact inquiry not only on the origin of humans, but also upon their survival a subspecies.  In terms of the ancient and modern history of human conflict and the true origin and nature of aggression including terrorism and war, remarkably coherent new themes are becoming apparent.  Examples of such can be seen, not only in the patripolar Protestant Reformation, but also in the patripolar founding and development of the United States.  This places a new perspective upon the attempts of charismatic patripolar Puritan, Pilgrim, and Quaker males to escape the tyranny of the “moral majority” present in the established ethnic blocks of the Old World.  That is, they wished to enjoy the freedom of belief and worship, which is never permitted under the religious legalism, censure, and oppression imposed by matripolar males wherever they become unified by their hierarchal territorial dogma. 

This freedom theme was further elaborated in the American Revolution, led by such patripolar males as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson.  In the Civil War, this drive for freedom again repeated by the patripolar Confederates of the white south who wished secede in order to use slaves in a form of economic competition in spite of the wishes of the national majority.   More recently this patripolar separation-isolation theme has been dramatized by the founding of the Mormon, and other patripolar Christian denominations.   For example, a number of recent U.S. social rebels come from patripolar Seventh-day Adventist conscientious-objecting roots, including Malcom X, David Koresh, and Lee Malvo.  Yet, these thematic sub-elements pale in the face of patripolar Islamic history and possible “Battle of Armageddon” familial polarity interpretations of current Middle East Conflict.  As a generalization then, it would appear that religion and culture follow the biology of familial polarity, not vice versa.

 

Familial Polarity and the Logic of Opposite Governance Styles

            The perspective of Familial Polarity has opened a panoramic new perspective of the context of human origins, history, society, government, and aggression, including war and terrorism.  As suggested in the ethnographic distinctions of Table 9 (above), patripolar cultures have tended toward right-brain, bottom-up loyalty to the authoritarian winner-leader and his chains of command.   In contrast, in matripolar cultures tend toward a left brain top-down type of independence within competitive communal-democratic types of structure.  Therefore, it would be expected that polarity conflicts might occur in mixed polarity groups due to the opposite brain side modes of thinking of the predominant males.  For example, both world wars were fought between the mostly Matripolar Allies vs. the mostly Patripolar Axis.

Attempts to govern mixed polaric groups, either under only autocracy, or only democracy have resulted in centuries of conflict and hatred, still unfortunately underway.  However, if patripolar autocratic order and constraint was the original thesis, and matripolar democratic freedom and chaos its antithesis, then the republican-democracies represent the synthesis of the two.  Of the more recent solutions to governance of populations of mixed polarity, the presidential two party government of the USA, a republican democracy informed by Greek Democratic and French Revolution models, has been the most successful in creating a balanced golden mean, at least for brief periods.   As the familial polarity partisans on either side of the Democratic, Republican isle battle each other for ascendancy, the pendulum swings back and forth and the country as a whole staggers down the middle of the road.  A recent period of notable overall balance in US government occurred under the mixed polar leadership of a R-bom president (Clinton) and a L-bom vice president (Gore) working as a coordinated team.  With knowledge of the existence and effects of familial polarity sub-populations, it becomes theoretically possible to logically design governments that can replace current global conflict with greater cooperation and mutual benefit within and across the polaric cultures.

 

Terrorism, War, and Genocide at Interfaces of Biologically Polar Populations

As an indication of the reality of these ideas, Table 10 illustrates 21 sites of recurring global unrest representing millions of war dead.  Importantly, twenty of these locations occur at biological interfaces between striations of matri- and patripolar populations.

 

Table 10:  Matter vs. Antimatter at Interfaces between Polaric Populations­

                                                             French vs. Germans               

                                              Russians, Slavs vs. Germans 

                                                                Jews vs. Germans             

                                                             English vs. Scottish  

                 MATRIPOLARS              Southern vs. Northern Irish           PATRIPOLARS

                                                             Italians vs. Sicilians      

                                                        Spaniards vs. Moors                 

                  MOTHERLAND             Spaniards vs. Basques                   FATHERLAND

                                                                Jews vs. Arabs

                                                               Serbs vs. Albanians

                                                          Russians vs. Chechnians

      “MOTHER !!!                            Armenians vs. Turks                    “FATHER !!!”

                     MOTHER !!!”                   Indians vs. Pakistanis                           FATHER !!!”

                                                             Indians vs. Sieks

        “I’M DYING !!!”                   Hutu Farmers vs. Watutsi Warriors       “I’M DYING !!!”

                                          Cambodian Khmer vs. Moung  

              “SAVE ME !!!                           South vs.  North Korea                    “SAVE ME !!!”

                                                               South vs.  North Vietnam

                                                       Philippines vs.  Moros   

                                                           Romans vs. Greeks

.                                    *Sri Lankan Sinhalese vs. Indian Tamils                                          . 

 

*= The only case where conflict apparently was between populations of the same polarity.

 

The pathetic nature of these unnecessary conflicts is reinforced in Figure 5 by pictures of futility and losses on either side of just one of these interfaces. 

 

Figure 5:  A History of Endless, Needless, Global Conflict and Slaughter!

Legend: Note prominent brow ridge on ethnic Albanian. Upper picture was from the Honolulu

Star Bulletin, March 27, 1998.  The lower was from Scientific American, June, 2000, p 55. 

 

 

It is also worthy of note that none of the 21 sites of aggression of Table 14 are in the New World.  In the western hemisphere, there are few remaining large population blocks of indigenous culture.  As a result, interfaces of familial polarity are reduced in size to that of inner cities, or other spots where drug abuse is endemic and civilization has backslid to the self-survival laws of the jungle.

 

 

Inferences and Predictions Emerging from the Concept of Familial Polarity: Concluding Thoughts

 

The Problem:  Global ignorance of the biology of familial polarity leads to the unrecognized and unintended infliction of major developmental trauma in very young children even in the best-intended, most affluent families.  This leads to permanent developmental scarring [59], resulting in stress-sensitization [60, 61], excessive reward-hunger (drug vulnerability) [62], and the emergence of neurosis-psychosis and depression in adulthood [63].  The totally unnecessary consequences of this developmental arresting ultimately lead to conflict, waste, social corruption, violence, terrorism, war, and genocide.

The Solution:  As repeatedly demonstrated, in our dyadic universe it is impossible to annihilate the opposition.  The same goes for the patripolar and matripolar national, cultural, and religious elements of humanity who continue to fight over their unrecognized and uncompensated biological differences.  These battling ethnic and national spouses need to be awakened to the existence of hemisity and familial polarity.  With these new insights, these “parents” can ultimately celebrate each other’s unique special skills and reunite as essential complementary marital partners of a larger whole, the human family.  By doing so, life-optimizing synergistic benefits will unavoidably emerge both for humanity and its world-wide life support ecosystems - personal benefits that exceed any of those accessible by a multinational “divorce”, even if it were possible.   Recognition of this option of complimentarity gives hope for the future.  The resolution of conflict at ten levels, from the intrapersonal to the international, brought by the knowledge of familial polarity is described in Table 11.

 

Table 11:  How Understanding Familial Polarity Reduces Global Conflict at Ten Levels:

1.  This information resolves polarity-based motivation and identity conflicts within oneself.

Seeing one’s own polaric identity as perfect brings realization of belonging in the global family.

 

2.  This information resolves polarity-based conflicts in one’s spiritual life.

Knowing one’s own hemisity clarifies that one’s religious experience is normal.

 

3.  This information helps avoid polarity-based conflicts within one’s nuclear family.

Understanding the polarity needs of each member creates familial synergy.

 

4.  This information helps deal with polarity-based conflicts within one’s extended family.

Recognizing inherent L-bop sensitivity and R-bop intensity reduces misunderstandings.

 

5.  This information reduces polarity-based conflicts with one’s neighbors (Western hemisphere)     

Identifying polarity differences of neighbors helps one to accept them as family again.

 

6.  This information helps avoid polarity-based conflicts within one’s community (Eastern hemisphere)

Recognition that patripolar and matripolar family groups are inherently different brings respect.

 

7.  This information can lower polarity-based conflicts within one’s town or city.

Unique patripolar and matripolar group strong and weak points are complimentary.

 

8.  This information can reduce polarity based conflicts within one’s state.

Dyadic pendulum extremes of polaric opinion become easier to recognize and dampen.

 

9.  This information can help prevent polarity based conflict within one’s nation.

Knowledge of reality, the origin, and nature of polaric conflict brings wisdom to social policy.

 

10. This information makes it possible to avoid polarity based international conflict within one’s world.

Recognition of nationalistic competitive vs. polaric family of nations cooperative interactions

can transform territorial politics into a complimentary global network for peace and prosperity.

 

If hemisity and familial polarity are truly more accurate second-approximations of the origin of the causes and possible cures of multilevel global problems, then these two “memes” [64] will spread as useful tools (Table 15), ultimately to replace overpopulation, conflict, suffering, and waste, with survival-optimizing balance (vs. growth maximization), collaboration, and consilience [65].

 

References:

   [1]  Descartes R.  La dioptrique:  In: Discours de la methode. Leiden, Ian Maire, 1637,

            In: Adam & Tannery, Vol VI ,Paris ,CNRS/vtn, 1964-74.

   [2]  Fornito A, Yucel M, Wood S, Stuart GW, Buchanana J, Proffitt T, Anderson V, Velakoulis D, Pantelis P. 

Individual differences in anterior cingulate/paracingulate morphology are related to executive functions in healthy males. Cereb Cort 2004;14:424-431.

   [3]  Walton ME, Bannerman DM, Alterescu K Rushworth MFS.  Functional specialization within medial frontal cortex

of  the anterior cingulate for evaluation effort-related decisions.  J Neurosci 2003;23:6475-6479.

   [4]  Paus T. Primate anterior cingulate cortex: where motor control, drive, and cognition

            interface.  Nat Rev Neurosci 2001;2:417-424.

   [5]  Carter CS, Botvinick MM, Cohen JD.  The contribution of the anterior cingulate cortex to

            executive processes in cognition.  Rev Neurosci 1999;10:49-57.

   [6]  Devinsky O, Morrell MJ, Vogt BA.  Contributions of anterior cingulate cortex to behavior.  Brain 1995;18:297-306.

   [7]  Libet B, Gleason CA, Wright EW, Pearl DK.  Time of conscious intention to act in relation to onset of cerebral

           activity (readiness-potential): The unconscious initiation of a freely voluntary act.  Brain 1983;106;623-642.

   [8]  Wegner DM.  The Illusion of Conscious Will, Cambridge MA. MIT Press, 2002

   [9]  Paus T, Tomaiuolo F, Otaky N, MacDonald D, Petrides M, Atlas J, Morris R, Evans AC. Human cingulate and

            paracingulate sulci: Pattern, variability, asymmetry, and  probabilistic map.  Cereb Cort 1996a;6:207-214.

[10]  Paus T, Otaky N, Caramanos Z, MacDonald D, Zijdenbos A, D’Avirro D, Gutmans D,

            Holmes C, Tomaiuolo F, Evans AC.  In vivo morphometry of the intrasulcal grey matter in

            the human cingulate, paracingulate, and superior-rostral sulci: hemispheric asymmetries,

            gender differences, and probability maps.  J Comp Neurol 1996b;376:664-673.

[11]  Hutsler JJ, Loftus WC, Gazzaniga MS.  Individual variation of cortical surface area

            asymmetries. Cereb Cort 1998; 8: 11-17.

[12]  Ide A, Dolezal C, Fernandez M, Labbe E, Mandujana R, Montes S, Segura P,  Verschae

            G, Yarmuch P, Abiotiz F.  Hemispheric differences in variability of fissuaral patterns in

            parasylvian and cingulate regions of human brains.  J Comp Neurol 1999;410:235-242.

[13]  Yucel M, Stuart GW, Maruff P, Velakoulis D, Crowe SF, Savage G, Pantelis C.   Hemispheric and gender-related

differences in the gross morphology of the anterior cingulate/paracingulate cortex in normal volunteers: An MRI morphometric study.  Cereb Cortex 2001;11:17-25.

[14]  Wilkinson DT, Halligan PW.  Stimulus symmetry effects the bisection of figures but not

            lines: Evidence from event-related fMRI.  Neuroimage 2003;20:1756-1764.

[15]  Daglish MR, Weinstein A, Malizia AL, Wilson S, Melichar JK, Britten S, Brewer C, Lingford-Huges A, Myles JS,

Grasby P, Nutt DJ.  Changes in regional cerebral blood flow elicited by craving memories in abstinent opiate-         dependent subjects. Am J of Psychiat 2001;158:1680-1686.

[16]  Stephan KE, Marshall JC, Friston KJ, Rowe JV, Ritzl A, Zilles K, Fink GR.  Lateralized cognitive processes and

            lateralized task control in the human brain.  Science 2003;301:384-386.

[17]  Bogen JE, DeZure R, TenHouten, WD, Marsh JF. The other side of the brain.  III. The corpus callosum and creativity.  Bull Los Angeles Neurolog Soc 1972;37,49-61.

[18]  Beaumont G, Young A, McManus IC.  Hemisphericity: A critical review. Cog Neuropsychol

            1984;1:191-212.

[19  Morton BE.  Phased mirror tracing outcomes correlate with several hemisphericity

            measures.  Brain Cognit. 2003; 51:294-304.

[20] Morton BE:  Two-hand line-bisection task outcomes correlate with several measures of

            hemisphericity.  Brain Cognit 2003;51:305-316.

[21]  Morton BE.  Large individual differences in minor ear output during dichotic listening.

            Brain Cognit 2001;45:229-237.

[22]  Morton BE.  Outcomes of hemisphericity questionnaires correlate with unilateral dichotic

            deafness.  Brain Cognit 2002;49:63-72.

[23]  Gazzaniga MS, Bogen JE, Sperry RW.  Dyspraxia following division of the cerebral

            commissures.  Arch Neurol 1967;16,602-612.

[24]  Schenkenberg T, Bradford, Ajax, ET.  Line bisection and unilateral visual neglect in

          patients with neurological impairment.  Neurology 1980;30:509-517.

[25]  Efron R.  The effect of handedness on the perception of simultaneity and temporal order.   Brain 1963;86:261

-284.

[26]  Schnitzler A, Kessler KR, Benecke R.  Transcallosally mediated inhibition of interneurons

            within human primary motor cortex.  Exptl Brain Res 1996;112:381-391.

[27]  Terasaki O, Okazaki M.  Trancallosal conduction time measured by hemifield stimulation of face

images.  Neuroreport 2000;13:24-29.

[28]  Zenhausern R.  Imagery, cerebral dominance, and style of thinking: A unified field model.

            Bull Psychonom Soc 1978;12:381-384.

[29]  Torrance EP, Reynolds CR.  Norms and technical manual for “Your Style of Learning and

            Thinking”. Athens, GA, Dept Ed Psychol, U Georgia,1980.

[30]  Morton BE.  Asymmetry Questionnaire outcomes correlate with several hemisphericity

            measures.  Brain Cognit 2003;51:372-374.

[31]  Corbera X, Grau C.  Diurnal type and hemisphericity asymmetry. Cortex 1993; 29:519-528.

[32]  Morton BE.  Hemisphericity of university students and professionals: Evidence for sorting

            during higher education.  Brain Cognit 2003;52:319-325.

 [33]  Tramo MJ, Loftus WC, Stukel T A, Green RL, Weaver JB, Gazzaniga MS. Brain size, head

            size, and intelligence quotient in monozygotic twins.  Neurol 1998;50:1246-1252. 

[35]  Pfefferbaum A, Sullivan EV, Sean GC, Carmelli D.  Brain structure in men remains highly

         heritable in the seventh and eighth decades of life.  Neurobiol of Aging 2000;21:63-74.

[36]  Murdoch GP.  Ethnographic Atlas, Pittsburg, U. Pittsburgh Press, 1967. 

[37]  Murdoch GP.  Atlas of World Cultures.  Pittsburg, U. Pittsburg Press, 1981.

[38]  Murdoch GP, White DR.  Standard cross-cultural sample.  Ethnology 1969;8:329-369.

[39]   DeMeo J. Saharasia,  The 4000 BCE origins of child abuse, sex-repression, warfare, and social violence in the

deserts of the old world, , Ashland, OR Orgone Biophysical Research Lab. p.111-178 1998. 

[40]  Ellis GFR.  Maintaining the standard. Nature 2002;416: 132-133.

[41]  Robertson MP, Miller SL.   Prebiotic synthesis of 5-substitued uracils: a bridge between the RNA world and the DNA-protein world.  Science;1995:268:702-706.

[42]  Joyce GF.  The antiquity of RNA-based evolution.  Nature 2002;418:214-221.

[43]  Natoli E, De Vito E, Pontier D. Mate choice in the domestic cat (Felis silvestris catus L.),

        Aggressive Behavior 2000;26:455-465.

[44]  Darwin C.  The Descent of Man and Selection Related to Sex. New York. Prometheus, 1871.

[45]  Oakwood M.   Reproduction and demography of the northern quoll, dasyurus hellacatas, in

        the lowland savanna of Northern Australia.  Austral J Zool 2000;48:519-539.

[46]  McDonnell SM.   Reproductive behavior of donkeys (Equus asinus).  Appl Anim

        Behav Sci 1998;60:277-282.

[47]  East, ML, Burke T, Wilhelm K, Greig C, Hofer H.  Sexual conflicts in spotted hyenas: male

        and female mating tactics and their reproductive outcome with respect to age social status

       and tenure.  Proc Roy Soc: Biol Sci 2003;270:1471-2954.

[48]  Hagar R, Johnstone RA.  The genetic basis of family conflict resolution in mice. Nature 2003;421:533-535.

[49]  Wrangham RW.  Subtle, secret female chimpanzees.  Science 1997;227:774-775.

[50]  Vallortigara G, Roger LJ, Bisazza A.  Possible evolutionary origins of cognitive brain

        lateralization, Brain Res Brain Res Rev 1999;30,164-175.

[51]  Trinkhaus E, Shipman Pl.  The Neanderthals.  New York,  Random House, 1992.

[52]  Holloway RL. The poor brain of Homosapiens neanderthalensis: See what you please. In:

        Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, ed, by E. Delson, New York, Alan R. Liss 1985, p.319-324.

[53]   Semendeferi K, Demasio H.  The brain and its main anatomical subdivisions in living hominoids using magnetic resonance imaging.  J Hum Evol 2000;38:317-332.

[54]  Fossey D.  Gorillas in the mist, Boston, Houghton-Mifflin Co, 1983.

[55]  Galdikas BMF.  Reflections of eden: My years with the orangutans of Borneo. New York, Little, Brown, and Co,

1995.

[56]  Goodall J.  In the Shadow of Man, New York, Dell Publishing Co, 1971.

[57]  DeWaal F, Lanting F. Bonobo:  The forgotten ape. Berkeley, U CA Press, 1997.

[58]  Rosenberg NA, PRitdchard JK, Weber JL, Cann HM, Kidd KK, Zhivotovsky L, Feldman MW.

Genetic structure of human populations. Science 2002;298:2381-2385.

[59]  Pruessner JC, Champagne F, Meaney MJ, Dagher, A.  Dopamine release in response to psychological stress in

humans and its relationship to early life maternal care:  positron emision tomography study using [11C] Raclopride.  J Neurosci 2004;24:2825-2831.

[60]  Young LD, Suomi SS, Harlow, HF, McKinney WT.  Early stress and later response to

        separation in rhesus monkeys.  Amer J Psych 1973;130:400-405.

[61]  Liu D, Diorio J, Tannenbaum B, Caldji C, Francid D, Freedman A, Shharma S, Pearson,

        D, Plotsky PM and Meaney MJ.  Maternal care, hippocampal glucocorticoid receptors,and

        hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal responses to stress.  Science 199;7277:1659-1662.

[62]  McLaughlin JP, Marton-Popovici M, Chavkin M.  k-Opioid receptor antagonism and prodynorphin gene disruption

       block stress-induced behavioral resonses.  J Neurosci  2003;23:5674-5683.

[63]  Henry JP and Wang S.  Effects of early stress on adult affiliative behavior.  Psychoneuroendocrinology

1998:23:863-875.

[64]  Dawkins R.  The Selfish Gene, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1976.

[65]  Wilson EO.  Concilience, London, Little and Brown, 1998.