Human Polarity: A New Context for Human Origins and Behavior

Bruce E. Morton, Ph.D., University of Hawaii School of Medicine ă2000



This document reports the discovery and significance of human Polarity.  It provides evidence that two opposite reproductive strategies, called polarities, existed anciently and still function today, both in non-human primates and modern humans.  Ignorance of these two polarities, which biologically differ at genetic, developmental, and behavioral levels, has been source of major human conflict, suffering, and loss.  Yet, the evidence upon which Polarity depends is so multidisciplinary and so dependent upon yet unestablished neuroscience concepts that the author despairs of having it accepted for publication.  Therefore, the present report has been written to record what has been discovered about Polarity thus far.

It was easiest to recognize the two reproductive polarities in modern apes.  Massive Gorilla or Orangutan “Haremic” males violently battle for dominance, the winner becoming the sole source of sperm for harem females. In contrast, “Orgeic” Chimpanzee or Bonobo females in estrus orgiastically copulate with all troup males, regardless of their size or prowess.  There, paternity is determined by the winner of the resulting sperm war.

Anciently, after Haremic (Patripolar) and Orgeic (Matripolar) primates repeatedly migrated out of Africa, they developed biologically contrasting cultures and religions, and expanded territorially.  Like matter and antimatter, they explosively collided without mixing, thus shaping world history, with genocide still occurring at perpetual hot spots of global violence.

Due to modern society, individuals of opposite polarities are now inadvertently mating.  Because unrecognized genetic differences, prenatal developmental failures causing dyslexia and trans-sexuality are occurring in crossed-polarity offspring.  Furthermore, due to pair-dominance reversals, postnatal psycho-social developmental arresting is becoming common.


Human Polarity: A New Context for Human Origins and Behavior

1.  Introduction

The discovery of human polarity has provided powerful new insights into the actual origins of humanity and especially into what unconsciously but overwhelmingly motivates human behavior.  Although not presently recognized, the conflicts inherent in the existence of polarity have powerfully shaped world history.  Ignorance of it has caused unnecessary suffering and death to billions.  Knowledge of the existence and nature of polarity has the potential for alleviating massive human conflict occurring at all levels of life.  These conflicts create unrecognized misery not only within our self, between our self and our families, and about our sexuality; but they also create suffering from our socioeconomic relationships within our community, our nation, and the world at large.   Knowledge of polarity is a milestone that will change, almost certainly for the better, the future of the human race and that of the living network upon which it depends.


However, the discovery of human polarity has had to wait for the discovery and proper verification of the existence of human brain hemisphericity, the phenomenon upon which the existence and understanding of polarity foundationally depends.  Recently, scientifically defensible evidence for the existence of hemisphericity has been uncovered by this author who at present is engaged in the lengthy process of publishing the evidence, step by step, in the scientific literature.  Although the first paper has been accepted (Morton, 2000a), this process is proving to be very slow.  Of the nine manuscripts that have been written up thus far (Morton, 2000b, c, d, e, f, g, h, i.), most have been rejected, some more than once.   These are being sharpened and sequentially resubmitted elsewhere (Morton, 2000b).  The rejecting referee’s comments generally were as follows:  From the current view of brain laterality, which is thus and so, the author’s hypothesis doesn’t make sense.  As interesting and statistically impressive as these data are, we do not understand their meaning.  Therefore, in absence of theoretical relevance, its publication cannot be recommended. 


Apparently, due to the newness and unorthodoxy of the several missing concepts required to explain the existence and nature of hemisphericity, it may require several years before Science will be able to accept its existence.  Therefore, it has been decided that a description of the discovery and significance of human polarity should be written.  This is recorded here in case the author does not survive the time needed for the acceptance of its required antecedent, hemisphericity, or to publish the data-based evidence for polarity itself.  As will become obvious from this account, once one makes the mental paradigm shift, evidence for polarity is everywhere and intuitively overwhelming.


2.  Hemisphericity

So what is this thing called hemisphericity?  And why was quantitative evidence for its existence essential before Polarity, this present scourge- yet future redeemer of humanity, could be discovered?  By the end of Section 3, this will become clear.  As the result of this information, and that provided in the appendices, you will be able to confirm the existence of hemisphericity in yourself and of those around you.  From there, the existence of polarity becomes increasingly obvious.


The ancient thought, that people can be divided beyond male and female into two different personality types, resonates strongly among the general population.  This idea has had no name to describe it other than an association with right hand-left hand distinctions.  The concept of hemisphericity (Bogen, 1969; Bogen, DeZure, Ten Houten, and Marsh, 1972), popularized in lay-psychology by split-brain research in the nineteen sixties (Gazzaniga, 1967; Sperry, 1982), replaced handedness with a potentially more accurate binary categorization device which was intuitively very attractive. 


Broadly defined, hemisphericity indicates which side of the brain is involuntarily more predominant in terms of the production of an individual’s habitual mood,  personality, and characteristic cognitive and behavioral style.  Thus, inherently one is either a “right hemisphere”-oriented person (Davidson and Hugdahl, 1995; Schiffer, 1996), or a “left hemisphere”-oriented (Springer and Deutch, 1998; Fink, Halligan, Marshall, Frith, Frankowiak, and Dolan, 1996) person (descriptions supplied later) as the case may be.  However, subsequently there has been neither agreement on the meaning of the term hemisphericity, nor any primary hemisphericity reference standard against which comparisons could be made, or even certainty that such a phenomenon actually exists (Beaumont, Young, and McManus, 1984).  As a result, scientific progress in this area has virtually come to a halt, and the concept of hemisphericity has fallen into disrepute, both in psychology and psychiatry, but not with the general public.


2.1. Hemisphericity Reconstituted

Recently, three independent biophysical brain laterality methods have been uncovered, each of which separated people into two different groups of unknown significance (Morton, 2000a; Morton, 2000c; and Morton, 2000d).  By use of three other independent hemisphericity-type questionnaires (Zenhausern, 1978;  Morton, 2000b;  Morton, 2000e), one set of these groups was found to be enriched with putative right brain-oriented people, the other with putative left brain-oriented people.  In fact, all six methods separated people into quite similar right brain or left brain-enriched groups.   Because they are performance-based, the biophysical methods were temporarily assigned as functional standards for hemisphericity, rather than the preference-based questionnaires.  Provided all six methods were used, hemisphericity could accurately be determined in this way for 98% of all individuals tested (Morton, 2000g).  The overall hemisphericity distributions of large groups, such as classrooms full of students, could be determined more easily, requiring the use of only a single biophysical measure because of the large numbers involved (Morton, 2000f).


A simple physical explanation for the cause of hemisphericity itself was discovered (Morton, 2000h).  That is, whether an individual is right or left brain-oriented depends on which side of the brain the person’s executive center (within the limbic anterior cingulate cortex, Carter, Botvinick and Cohen, 1999), is innately located.  Apparently, it is more difficult for the executive to reach the skills on the opposite side of the brain than it is for it to reach those on the same side.  Not only are the physical distances greater, thus slightly slowing interactions, but more importantly because the fibers crossing between hemispheres limit access to certain areas (Hasegawa, Fukushima, Ihara, and Miyashita, 1998) on the other side.  Among normal people, there is a three fold variation in  the number of cerebral fibers crossing the corpus callosal bridge (Lang and Ederer, 1980, Yazgan, Wexler, Kinsbourne, Peterson, and Leckman, 1995).  Beyond this, some congenitally abnormal individuals lack a corpus callosum altogether and apparently rely on more circuitous subcortical pathways for their trans-brain communications to exchange cerebral information, if this occurs at all.


Thus, being born with one’s executive center located on the right side of the prefrontal cortex, as in a right brain-oriented person (R-bop), generally tends slightly to favor right brain processes, such as global and emotional skills, but requires relatively more difficulty to obtain the left side details inherent in abstract language and math performance.  In contrast, the left side-located executive center of a left brain-oriented person (L-bop) tends to excel in the details of left brain language and mathematics, but to be somewhat detached from right brain global perspectives and right brain social emotions.  The appended glossary defines new terms.


Measurement of the corpus callosal cross sectional area (CCA) in 150 subjects, using midline sagittal high-resolution magnetic resonance imagery (MRI), indicated that the mean corpus callosal midline cross sectional area of right brain-oriented males (R-boms) and females (R-bofs) was significantly larger than that of left-brain males (L-boms) and females (L-bofs), but with some overlap (Morton, 2000i).  These mean hemisphericity CCA differences were the largest found thus far between any identified groups, being much larger than the sex differences previously reported in the literature (Bishop and Wahlsten, 1997).  Although, the CCA data do not alone account for hemisphericity, when combined with the above mentioned brain laterality of the executive, they do.


Together, these studies strongly support that hemisphericity does exist as a real

phenomenon.  First, they have provided the first biophysical, performance-based standards for functional definition of hemisphericity (Morton, 2000a,c,d).  Second, they have led to the development of a battery of practical methods by which individual hemisphericity can be determined (Zenhausern, 1978; Morton, 2000b,e,g).  Third, methods requiring less than five minutes testing time were developed which quite accurately characterized hemisphericity distributions within large groups (Morton, 2000f).  Fourth, a simple brain laterality mechanism has been discovered that not only explains hemisphericity but actually demands the phenomenon to exist (Morton, 2000h).  Fifth, the behavioral preferences selected in the hemisphericity-type questionnaires that were correlated with the performance-based hemisphericity standards were consistent with the known brain laterality properties expected from an asymmetrically located central executive (Morton, 2000g).  Sixth, physical evidence that hemisphericity exists has been obtained, namely that the mean brain corpus callosal size of right brain-oriented persons is significantly larger than in those with a left brain-orientation (Morton, 2000i).  From these foundations, investigations into the behavioral meanings of hemisphericity were begun (Morton, 2000j).


2.2.  More Accurate Meanings for Hemisphericity: Whats Right Brain? and What’s Left?

Some of the 56 preference choices within the three hemisphericity questionnaires turned out not to be selective for hemisphericity.  However, 27 of them were significantly correlated with the right or left brain-oriented groups separated by the biophysical hemisphericity standards (Morton, 2000g).  These “either-or choice differences fell under three general headings: Logic and memory processing, Social-professional orientation, and Pair bonding style, as shown in Appendix A. was created which integrated these behavioral dyads, both into the known framework of right brain-left brain properties, and into the larger context of the functioning brain as a whole (Morton, 2000h).  A summary of this model has been placed in Appendix B.  A central organizing concept of the model is the existence of paired right and left similar-appearing but functionally contrasting brains (Henry and Wang, 1998). Their differences are the ancient origin of the so-called “double standard”:  one set applied to family, the other to enemies.  That is, overall the left- brain appears to be specialized to survive against alien competitors in the wild by use of antisocial, deceptive, competitive, win-lose physical force.  In contrast, the right brain is comparably specialized to promote and optimize the survival of “family” members, using pro-social, open, cooperative, win-win non-violence.  Historically, intractable conflicts of left-brain competitive violence have been converted to right brain cooperative partnerships, simply by redefining who was family.  By this means, Hitlerian violent, competitive seizing can be transformed into Gandhian non-violent, cooperative sharing because all have both brains at their disposal.


In terms of individual hemisphericity differences, generally right brain-oriented persons (R-bops) are verbose, globally oriented (“Big Picture”), larger in corpus callosum, and dominant as spouses (Morton, 2000g, h, i).  For R-bops, the extended family automatically includes the community at large.  Thus, in the workplace, R-bops are self-assured, nonviolent, cooperative, “win-win”-requiring, non-elitist leaders working efficiently for their family.  Usually, they do not belong to the larger local L-bop in-groups.


As equally intelligent, exact compliments to the R-bops, left brain-oriented persons (L-bops) are more silent, important-details oriented (“The Devil’s in the Details”), smaller in corpus callosum, subdominant and supportive as spouses (Morton, 2000g, h, i).  However, in contrast to their inherent sub-dominance within the home, in the community, or workplace, L-bops join the local elitist dominance hierarchy.  This is formed from their L-bop associates into a neighborhood gang or fraternity, similar to that formed by bachelor males of a primate troup.  Only after symbolic fighting for dominance, often by undergoing initiation and hazing rituals, and then resigning themselves to their resulting relative status, is the L-bop accepted as a member of the clan.  This fairly large in- group forcefully competes against rival groups within the community to enlarge their gang’s piece of the pie (Morton, 2000j). 


3.  From Hemisphericity Came the Discovery of Human Polarity

Within a standard population consisting of hundreds of unsorted incoming college students, all four hemisphericity types: right brain-oriented males (R-boms) and females (R-bofs), and left brain-oriented males (L-boms) and females (L-bofs), (See Glossary), were found in roughly equal numbers (Morton, 2000f, Appendix C).  However, for students in upper level courses, those in graduate-level courses, and for the faculty within 15 different professions, a large hemisphericity sorting was found to have occurred, both during higher education and job selection.


Of the professions investigated, the most enriched with right brain individuals were the more globally oriented professions of Astronomy, Architecture, and Mechanical Engineering.  In contrast, those most enriched in left brain-oriented persons were the more reductionistic professions, such as Particle Physics, Bacteriology, and Biochemistry.  These results (Morton, 2000f) may be seen in Appendix C, which also includes a second table illustrating hemisphericity results found within a professional sub-specialization.  A composite questionnaire (Morton, 2000b, e) is provided in Appendix D for your use in estimating the hemisphericity of oneself, family, friends, and other acquaintances.


Next, the hemisphericity of the members of 200 marital pairs was measured (Morton, 2000j).  The results indicated that the folk-observation, “opposites attract”, actually matches the observed hemisphericity of most of the mated couples.  Thus, complimentary right female-left male pairs, or right male-left female pairs were substantially more common than right-right or left-left marital pairs.  Of the four possible combinations, complimentarity appeared to be the more ancient pattern. 


This was supported by results from numerous three to five generation genealogies, indicating that hemisphericity inheritance followed a fairly simple Mendelian organization (Morton, 2000j).  Importantly, the genealogy results strongly supported the existence of two different unrecognized human breeding stocks.  In many geographic areas, there were large imbalances in the ratios of the two types of family lines, either right female-left males, or right male-left females being more common (Morton, 2000j).  As long as these two family types did not intermarry, the hemisphericity of the sons matched the father and that of the daughters matched the mother in a true-breeding manner over succeeding generations (Morton, 2000j).  The strikingly different outcome of intermarriage will be described later.


4.  Primate Origins of Polarity

Analysis of the reproductive strategies of living non-human higher primates led to clues regarding the ultimate origin of the complimentary family types.  It soon became apparent that two opposite reproductive strategies currently exist within species of the higher apes.  This entire phenomenon is here named “Polarity”, hominid or human as the case may be (Morton, 2000j).


4.1. The Haremic Polarity Reproductive Strategy:  Males Compete to Fertilize at the Organism Level

In the harem-forming reproductive strategy, represented by the Gorillas and Orangutans, and here named Haremic, the males are much larger than females.  The masculine size and strength of these gentle vegetarians apparently had not evolved for hunting advantage or to ward off predators.  It only mattered when the males viciously fought each other for reproductive access.  According to long-term observers (Galdikas, 1995; Fossey, 1983), bones are broken and meadows bloodied by these violent battles.  In general, the surviving losing male and other weaned subdominant males are excluded from the troupe.  The winning male then collects his waiting harem containing all local females and nursing offspring.  Females coming into heat approach the highly dominant harem winner without courtship as their best reproductive source of winning offspring.


Loser males are avoided as much as possible by females, even when they are accessible.  They live a solitary or bachelor-camp type of existence while continuing in their attempts to overthrow the harem leader. When one is successful, the unweaned offspring of an overthrown harem master may be killed by the new conqueror.  This infanticide soon brings those females into heat so that the new master can begin to make his genetic contribution to the troupe.


Within a Haremic nuclear family, there is a status-based dominance hierarchy.  This manifests itself when a small cache of food is discovered.  The mother and daughters eat last.


4.2.  The Orgeic Matripolar Reproductive Strategy:  Males Compete to Fertilize at the Organ and Cellular Level

In the other set of living non-human higher primates, including Chimpanzees and Bonobos, the males are only slightly larger than females, the latter of whom are subtly the more dominant of the two (Wrangham, 1997).    Here, when a female enters heat, she voluntarily engages in 50 or more trysts in one day in an ongoing orgy that gives repeated reproductive access to all of the dozen or so males in the troup (Goodall, 1990; Kanno, 1992).  Because of this, the Polarity of primates using this reproductive strategy is named Orgeic.  Although Orgeic males may through enticement attempt to physically isolate a female in estrous, in general males do not seriously fight to gain sexual access to the females because Orgeic reproductive competition does not occur at the whole organism level.


That is, these equal-opportunity females do not select their tryst partners based upon his winning of anything by superior size, strength, or prowess.   In fact, before the application of DNA fingerprinting, the identity of who actually sired the offspring was usually unknown.  Since each of the dozen or so males in the troupe had made their reproductive donation, each of them protected all the females and their offspring as if they were his own.  This avoided Haremic infanticide.  Further, at least in the Bonobo family, when a limited cache of food is discovered, all pause while they sexually pleasure and re-bond with each other as equal family intimates.  Then these limited resources are simultaneously “shared and shared alike” without regard to status (De Waal and Lanting, 1997).  Nevertheless, non-violent competition for reproductive access does occur between Orgeic matripolar males, but it occurs unknowingly through genetics (Dawkins, 1990).  It is present, not at the organism level as in the Haremic patripolars, but at the organ level in terms of penile length and testes volume.  Even more importantly, it occurs at the cellular level, ultimately in terms of number of sperm competitors released, killer sperm not withstanding (Moore and Birkhead, 1999).


This difference in reproductive strategy is dramatized by the great sex organ size difference between Haremic and Orgeic males.  That is, since he has no competition within the Haremic patripolar female reproductive tract, the small internal testes and the 3 cm erect penis (Short, 1981) of Gorillas have been perfectly adequate for millions of years.  In contrast, to fertilize the egg in the reproductive tract of each Orgeic matripolar female entering heat, the male Chimpanzee competes against his fellows by use of a 8 cm erect penis (Short, 1981) to more directly deliver huge numbers of sperm from his massive external testicles.


Haremic patripolar females rarely need to compete for the attention of the harem leader.  In contrast, Orgeic matripolar females appear to compete for the most attentive and supportive males, not by physical combat, but again by several non-violent genetic feminine wiles (Margulis and Sagon, 1991).  For example, the occurrence of partner-specific orgasm appears to a way for the female to selectively siphon semen from the preferred male toward her egg, giving him an advantage over those preceding or following him.  Further, in the Bonobos, the failure of the breast to deflate when no longer needed results in the increased breast-waist ratios that appear intrinsically to increase the sexual attractiveness of nonpregnant females.  In addition, prolonged genital signs of heat (Furuichi, 1992), and later, total loss of them (Margulis and Sagan, 1991), appear to have resulted in the selection of males who pay long-term supportive attention to a female.  This ultimately enabled an attentive male both to sire and care for his own offspring.


5.  Polarity and the Origins of Homo sapiens

In hominid evolution, an apparent paradox is often noted.  At each evolutionary level there are usually two types of Hominids are represented in the fossil record, one having robust (sturdy) males and another with gracile (slender) males.  This suggests that both the Haremic-patripolar and Orgeic-matripolar races have long evolved toward modern humanity in parallel.  Further, the apparent immiscibility of the robust and gracile races has been repeatedly noted.  The existence of polarity, that is, the continuous presence of evolving Hominid races of two opposite reproductive strategies would account for these previously unexplained findings.


It is thought that by 25,000 years ago the most abundant pre-human stocks were the robust Neanderthals and gracile Cro-Magnons.  Evidence that even these two primate stocks did not interbreed is provided by archeological records of repeated turnover of Levantine cave occupancy between these two breeds over the preceding 50,000 years (Trinkhaus and Shipman, 1992).  That they would not mix, supports the concept that even at this late date, they utilized different reproductive strategies, essentially preventing interbreeding.  Further, archeological observations that knit, earlier-broken bones are common among male Neanderthal skeletons, but essentially nonexistent among the slender Cro-Magnon males (Trinkhaus and Shipman, 1992), indicates that the Neanderthals were still using their inherently violent Haremic patripolar reproductive strategy at that time.


By 25,000 years ago, the cranial capacity of the Neanderthals had reached over 1740 cm3 and that of the Cro-Magnons was at least 1600 cm3 (Holloway, 1985).  Because of the small sample sizes, these values can be considered to be average.  Such large volumes are to be compared to the 1390 cm3 mean cranial capacity of modern humans (Semendeferi and Demasio, 2000), who now seem to be devolving (Roush, 1997).  Perhaps this devolution is occurring because more recent civilization has permitted the survival of all, rather than only of the fittest.  Recently, a proportionality between human brain size (cranial capacity) and intelligence has been noted (Tan, Tan, Polat, Ceylan, Suma, and Okur, 1999).  This implies that both of these prehuman hominids were highly intelligent, formidable survivors, quite unlike “The Flintstones’ stereotype.


Current popular theory asserts that by 20,000 years ago, the Cro-Magnons had killed off all the Neanderthals, and furthermore, that the present human stock has evolved from these remaining genocidal Cro-Magnons (Stringer and Gamble, 1993).  Current hemisphericity research results strongly contradicts this theory.  It is clear that both Haremic and Orgeic lines have survived to become modern humans.  In fact, hemisphericity evidence, including the finding of opposite corpus callosal area differences between the polarity reproductive pairs (Morton, 2000i), indicates that Haremic patripolars, not only are distributed globally, but also appear to represent at least one third of the current human population (Morton, 2000j).


6.  Go Forth and Multiply

DNA studies have shown that the African human population has far wider genetic variation than populations on any other continent. This has been interpreted to suggest that all humans are derived from hominids who first arose in Africa and then migrated elsewhere later.  Preliminary hemisphericity evidence indicates that human polarities are currently globally distributed as though the following, six separate ancient migrations out of Africa occurred (Morton, 2000j).  These are diagramed in Figure 1.


The patripolar Orangutan Haremics appear to have been the first to leave Africa, and are no longer even found there, except in the African Sivapithicus-type fossil record (Benefit and McCrossin, 1997).  Sivapithicoid remains are been found in Turkey (Alpagut, Andrews, Fortelius, Kappelman, Temizsoy, Celebi and Lindsay, 1996), the Caucasus (Balter and Gibbons, 2000), and India, reappearing in even farther east in Java.  Borneo and Sumatra are now the only location of wild Orangutans, whose mean cranial capacity exceeds that of the three other living higher primates (321cm3 chimps, 336 cm3 bonobos, 425 cm3 gorilla, 443 cm3 orangutans, Semendeferi, Demasio, 2000).  The well-known Java-Man skull and associated fossils from Indonesia are among the oldest known hominid remains outside Africa (Swisher, Rink, Anton, Schwarcz, Curtis, Suprijo, Widiasmoro, 1996).  These Haremic primates appear to have moved north to another very ancient cave site near Peking, China (Culotta, 1995).  Nearby, the Yellow River “cradle of civilization” developed.   From thence, much later, this stock, as well as possibly others, migrated into the Western Hemisphere and a New World.  Parenthetically, it would not be unexpected for the yellow-red races of the Orient and New World uniquely to share the pigment of their orange primate ancestors.  This includes the redhead mummies wearing plaid wool clothing, found at ancient Taklimakan Desert sites in western China.


Among the next to leave Africa were the black, straight-haired, Bonobo-type Orgeic matripolars who settled first to in the Indus River, forming a second “cradle of civilization” then expanding eastward into the Indian subcontinent, with significant spreading and blending into the Southeast Orient, and more recently on to Melanesia.


It appears that Lowland Gorilla-type Haremics, crossing at Gibralter,  next penetrated into Western Europe, to become the Neaderthal Tutons.  In contrast, Mountain Gorilla-type Neanderthal Haremics settled in the Middle East, forming a third “cradle of civilization” in the Tigris and Euphrates River valleys, expanding eastward into Afghanistan (Trinkhaus and Shipmann, 1992).  There, further expansion may have been blocked by preexistent Bonoboid populations.  Possibly earlier, a wave of Neanderthal-type migrants did continue eastward on to Haremic aboriginal Australasia, and quite recently expanded into Polynesia.


Fifth, relatives of the Pale-Faced Chimpanzees migrated from West Africa north at Gibralter into Western Europe, as Orgeic Cro-Magnons, while not mixing with the Haremic Neanderthals already present.  The Cro-Magnons continued to expand northward so as to occupy parts of the southern British Isles and some of Scandinavia.  Last, Black-Faced Chimpanzee derivatives migrated beyond the Congo into the Orgeic fourth “cradle of civilization” of the Nile River-Delta on the Mediterranean Sea.  These darker Orgeic Slavic races expanded upward into Eastern Europe and on into Russia.


In the current human populations of Africa, both Haremics and Orgeics continue to exist.  Because of their fierceness, the tall Haremic, patripolar Nilotic hunters, such as the Watutsi warriors (Tutsi), are not as well represented in European and the American slave stock. Instead, slaves were taken from Orgeic (Hutu-like) West African matripolar gatherer-agriculturalists.


7.  Contrasts in Courtship and Family Life between the True-Breeding Human Polarities:      See (Personality Differences in Families of the Two Polarities)


7.1.1.  Matripolar-Orgeic Pair Bonding:

As a stereotype, Orgeic human males (L-boms) are highly attracted to dominant females (R-bofs), especially if they have beautiful bodies and faces.   These are the males who court females by using displays of personal wealth (fancy cars, etc.) or by doing outrageous, ostentatious acts to attract the attention hopefully of models, beauty queens, or movie stars.  The Orgeic males intensely compete against one another to win the targeted females attention through acts of courtship, they “climb the highest mountain, swim the deepest sea, etc., as a demonstration of future devotion.


Orgeic females (R-bofs) do not court males, either by promising or providing service.  Instead, in competition against other females, they use sexual attractiveness and seduction to gain the male’s allegiance and service to them.  This often includes at least one involuntary arching of the back with stretching, sometimes at a distance, while in full view of their prospect:  the involuntary breast display.  Then, each winning female selects from the best of her crop of males, based upon the males potential for wealth, devotion, and service.


7.1.2.  The Human Matripolar Orgeic Family:

Orgeic females are found to be right brained, big-picture oriented, maritally dominant, with a large corpus callosum.  Orgeic males are left brain, important detail-oriented, maritally supportive, with a smaller corpus callosum (Morton, 2000i).  Daughters are born right brain-oriented, and Sons left brain-oriented, also like their parents (Morton, 2000j).  Mothers are matriarchal, dominant, charismatic, love conditionally, set standards and live them as role models.  Even if non-violent, Orgeic mothers are instinctively respected, obeyed, and feared by their children.  Fathers, as inherently the least dominant family member, are not feared.  Thus alone they may not succeed in teaching their children obedience without the mother’s enforcement of her standards.  These gentle but highly accomplished fathers love other family members unconditionally, and are supportive, patient and tolerant.  They are in turn loved, needed, endlessly used for practice, and can even be abused by their children who confide anything to them without fear of rejection. 


It is helpful if the Orgeic male likes to cook and clean, because the Orgeic female may prefer not to.  However, she does tend to be neat and orderly, unlike the Orgeic male whose personal surrounding are notoriously disorderly, i.e., “dont touch my desk, youll jam my system.  It is almost as if being able to provide rapid service to the female (or the boss) takes priority over the time-consuming work of neatness.  Fortunately, most L-bops have a superior memory for details.


7.2.1.  Human Patripolar Haremic Pair Bonding:

As a generality, Haremic human females (L-bofs) are highly attracted to winning males, especially if they are “tall, dark, and handsome”.  These are the females, some of whom while courting males, shriek and swoon at the front of rock concerts, or use ostentatious displays of adornment (or lack of it) in attempts to be noticed, hopefully, by sports stars, movie stars, or at least by men of means.  They intensely compete against each other to win the targeted males attention.


Haremic males (R-boms) do not court females, either by promising or providing service.  They attract females to serve them instead, by winning in direct competition against other males.  Then, the winning male selects the best of his crop of adoring females, based upon their beauty and potential for devotion and service.


7.2.2.   The Human Patripolar Haremic Family:

Haremic males are found to be right brain, big picture-oriented, maritally dominant, with a larger corpus callosum.  Haremic females are left brain, important details-oriented, maritally supportive, with a smaller corpus callosum (Morton, 2000i).  Sons are born as rights, Daughters as lefts like their parents (Morton, 2000j).  Fathers are patriarchal, dominant, charismatic, love conditionally, set standards and live them as role models.  Even if non-violent, Haremic fathers are instinctively respected, obeyed, and feared by their children.  Mothers, as inherently the least dominant family member, are not feared at all.  Thus, alone she may not succeed in teaching obedience to her inherently more dominant children without the father’s active enforcement of his standards.  These gentle but adored highly intelligent mothers love others unconditionally, and are supportive, patient, and tolerant.  In turn they are loved, needed, endlessly used for practice, and can even be abused by their children, who can confide anything to them without fear of rejection. 


It is helpful if the female likes to cook and clean, because the haremic male often prefers not to.  However, he does tend to be neat and orderly, unlike haremic females.  Thus, the towns and countrysides of regions where Haremics males predominate are neat and orderly, for example Germany, or Japan, as contrasted with France or Thailand where Orgeic female interior elegance reigns supreme.


8.  Culture and Religion Follow the Biology of the Polarity


8.1.  Development of Polaric Cultures:

Matripolar Orgeic races with their dominant females apparently became gatherers, growers, and farmers, abundantly supported by their cooperative left brain-oriented males.  These traditions appeared to have flowered into the art-intensive, so-called cooperator cultures, the last of which appears to have been the female-dominant Minoan civilization.  However, later these Orgeic civilizations became partly based upon the repeated domestication of different crop plants by their competitors, the Neanderthals in the Middle East (Lev-Yadun, Gopher, and Abbo, 2000). 


In contrast, Patripolar Haremics with larger-stronger dominant males became the first big game hunters, ultimately successively over-hunting their game northward into extinction.  In the process, they domesticated some of their prey to become the first horsemen, herdsmen, cowboys, ranchers, and dairymen (Zender and Hesse, 2000).  Via horse-given mobility, they became the first polarity to acquire the ability to conquer large land areas (Diamond, 1991).


8.2.  Development of the Polar Religions:

Today, Islam, Protestant Christianity, and Confucianism compete for the loyalty of patriarchal Haremic families.  That is, in Western Europe and America, Protestantism is preferred by Haremics, Confucianism by Haremics in the Orient, while in the rest of the Haremic world Islam reigns supreme.  In contrast, Catholicism, Hinduism, and Buddhism attract the loyalty of matriarchal Orgeic families today as they have for millenia.


8.2.1.  Origins of Judiasm:

The case of Judaism is paradoxical.  Neanderthals expanding with their herds from ancient Ur of Iraq into a temporarily wetter Palestine (Sandweiss, Maasch, and Anderson, 1999), brought their patriarchal religion with them.  Early Judaism was derivative of the earlier Sumerian religion from Neanderthal Tigris-Euphrates river valley.  This ancient religion contained the Tale of Gilgamish with its flood story (apparently derived from the catastrophically rapid filling of the Black Sea 7500 years ago, Kerr, 2000) , the Law of Hammurabi with its similarity to the decalogue, and other patriarchal elements.


The return of the Palestine to a dryer weather type (Sandweiss, et al., 1999) resulted in famine and the starvation of the Levantine Neanderthal flocks.  The sons of Abraham evacuated to the Egyptian Nile, where apparently Haremic Joseph, a former Palestinian slave-turned Prime Minister, had set up a vast grain storage system.  During the eight generations of the Jewish sojourn in Egypt they became slaves.  As a result, interbreeding converted a patriarchal people, but not their religion, into the present Orgeic right-brain female-dominant matriarchal (Jewish Mother) family style.  Consequently, we continue to see the eternal conflict between the now Orgeic sons of Abraham and those still-Haremic sons of brother Ishmael, the Arab who didnt go down into Egypt.  Due to their now biologically opposite polarities, the two artificially but forcibly combined groups act as if they were from different planets.  Either Israel is a failed social experiment of endless global consequences, unwittingly created out of ignorance of human polarity, or quite the opposite, an insertion designed to permanently distract Haremic unity.


8.2.2  Origins of Christianity:

Geneologic investigations of the genetics of interpolar reproduction indicate that for offspring of R-R parents, the Haremic phenotype is genetically dominant over the Orgeic phenotype (Morton, 2000j).  Thus, Orgeic Mary, Jesus, and his denied Haremic father were each right brain-oriented persons.  That Jesus was not the usual L-bom son which he would have been, had he been a normal Jewish boy, is confirmed by his typical R-bom behavior.  He was different.  His atypical right brain-orientation is what accounts for the cosmological skill he demonstrated at age of seven to the priests in the temple (fairly common in right brain boys of seven today, Morton, 2000j); for his emphasis on God the Fathers love; for his many right brain-generated metaphorical parables (Morton, 2000h); for his emphasis on humility in the Sermon on the Mount, including the Lords Prayer; for his driving of the money-changers out of the temple; and last but not least, for his continuing appeal to fundamentalistic patripolar Haremic Christians (Morton, 2000j).


By the time of the Aryan Controversy (about the divinity of Jesus) and of the adaptation of  Christianity as the official church of Orgeic Rome by fourth century Constantine, Mary had become The Mother of God.  More than a millenium later the sixteenth century Protestant Reformation began, initiating the modern era.  It was begun in Germany by Martin Luther, a Haremic male,.  Among other things, Luther protested the demasculinization of Christianity and the emphasis of Maryolatry.  His protest led to a reformation of Christian church, and ultimately into the many Protestant denominations.  Protestantism has had the strongest appeal in Haremic population centers such as Germany, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and now in within Republican United States (Morton, 2000j).

The more recent emergence of even more virulent patripolar modes of Protestantism have led to the modern travails of Haremics at the hands of unsympathetic Orgeics, such as in the cases of the Puritans, Pilgrims, Quakers, Confederates, Mormons, Baptists, Seventh-day Adventists, and Branch-Davidians (Morton, 2000j). 


9.  Matter vs. Antimatter: the Collision of Polaric Cultures

First attempts at world conquest occurred when Patripolar barbarians domesticated horses and elephants and repeatedly swept out of Mongolia and the East, ultimately into Western Europe.   Portending much later Islamic conquests, these Haremics imposed their “surrender-or-die”, dominator culture upon all they subdued, destroying the Orgeic cooperator cultures and their cultural artifacts in the process.  By so doing, it has been suggested that the surviving matriarchal males were themselves converted to the male-domination ethic of their conquerors (Eisler, 1987).  After the Haremics dispersed, these now “enlightened” Orgeic L-boms became the rulers of their later cultures.  There, until quite recently, matripolar male might has prevailed over female wiles, except within the Orgeic home itself where matriarchs rightly continue to rule.


That the two human polarities continue to resist interbreeding even in the present is indicated by the specific locations of repeated global unrest, violence, and genocide.  These are usually found at immiscible interfaces between two biologically different populations of opposed polarities (Morton, 2000j).  In many cases, they have been sites of violent conflict for centuries, sometimes millennia.  Eighteen recent examples of such sites of biological conflict follow:

  1. Between the Orgeic French and Haremic Germans,

  2.  Between Germanic Tutons from the fatherland and the Russian and other Slavs from the motherland.  Haremic sons died on the battlefield crying out for their fathers while mortally wounded Orgeic sons screamed for their mothers.

  3.  between the Harmic Germans and the Orgeic Jews resulting in the holocaust,

  4. Vicious fighting between the Germanic Scots and the Orgeic English,

  5.  Continuing unrest between Haremic Scotch-Irish and the Orgeic Southern Irish,

  6.  Between the patriarchal Sicilians (the family) and the matriarchal Italians (the prima donna).  As used in polarity, the terms such as patriarchal do not refer to local government (as in Matriarchy) but to nuclear family dominance structure (as in matriarchal).

  7.  Between the patriarchal Albanians and the matriarchal Slavic Serbs,

  8.  Between the patriarchal Chechnians and the matriarchal Slavic Russians,

  9.  Between the Orgeic Jews and the many Haremic families of Arabs,

 10.  Between the Haremic Moors and the Orgeic Spaniards.

 11.  Between the patriarchal Pakistanis and the matriarchal Indians,

 12.  Between Haremic Sieks and Orgeic Indians.

 13.  Between the Harmeic Turks and Orgeic Armenians,

 14. Genocide of the Haremic Tutsis by the Orgeic Hutu,

 15. The genocide of Haremic Khmers by Orgeics in Cambodia.

  16. The conflicts in between Haremic North Vietnam and Orgeic South Vietnam.

  17. Conflicts between Harmic North Korea and Orgeic South Korea.

  18.  Perpetual unrest in the Caucasus, where true-breeding, look-alike matripolar Orgeic and patripolar Haremic Caucasians have avoided mixing blood for thousands of years by generously spilling it instead.


10.   Polarity in the Workplace: Feminism and Other Conflicts

The great success of the book series based upon “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus” (Gray, 1992) was based in part upon its excellent characterization of the differences between matripolar Orgeic males and matripolar Orgeic females.  However, as individual hemisphericity determinations show (Morton, 2000g), the very large number of exceptions to those Mars-Venus descriptions do not occur because of unwillingness of these individuals to confront their mixed sexuality, as their author, John Gray suggests.  Rather, it arises because these gender-independent, dyadic characterizations originate from hemisphericity itself, the only other “either-or” individuality phenomenon besides sex.


For many patripolar Haremics, simply reversing the pronouns in that book is all that is needed to convert seemingly-bizarre sexual identity comments into poignant familiar expressions of personal conflict, although the incorrect sex is identified.   That is, not only just Orgeic “females” (right brain), but also most Haremic males (also right brain) wear their feelings on their shirt-sleeves, must talk to resolve conflicts, and tend to bump into glass ceilings.  Not only just Orgeic “males”(left brain), but also most Haremic females (also left brain) are silent but effective, uncomfortable in discussing feelings, prefer to withdraw to their “caves” after conflict, etc.  The existence of polarity unifies these previously inexplicable differences between and within the sexes.  Clearly, Feminism, will need to be redrafted to accommodate these findings (Tannen, 1994). 


In workplace situations where R-bops are in the minority, they are often excluded by the local L-bop Rhesus monkey-type of gang which has usually developed into a competitive win-lose hierarchy based upon symbolic fighting for status.  Often the very existence of this cliquish exclusiveness surprises and disheartens cooperation-oriented R-bops.  They tend to feel that after completing their apprenticeship or training and successfully being awarded the job, that they automatically have won family membership within the company or organization.  They are enthusiastic to cooperatively contribute to their new family, and expect other members will support their efforts as equals.  They resent and are often unwilling to revert to an alien status and again battle for membership within a partisan insider group. Consistent with the double-standard properties inherent in the dual-brain model (Morton, 2000h), R-bops view it as a compromise to their personal honor to be forced to use their considerable left brain, competitive “win-lose” guile and force internally against others who are already designated as family members, not external aliens.  However if forced to fight, they become uncontrollably violent and may attempt to destroy the entire L-bop alien clique.


Similarly, L-bops in the minority may be isolated by cooperative R-bops who are unwilling to tolerate L-bop use of left brain competitive guile and force in transacting what the majority R-bops view are agreements based upon personal honor and acceptance with another equal family member.  Repeated violation of this honor code usually results in the exclusion of the L-bop from the R-bop family member list, something which of course the L-bop had assumed from the start.


11.   Romeo and Juliet: Interbreeding and Crossed Polarities

For the last several million years, the robust and gracile hominid populations appear to have remained separate.  A provocative question is, could they successfully be caused to interbreed today, possibly even producing expressions of “hybrid-vigor”?  Or, would such offspring, like those of other closely-related species, such as horse and donkey, be placid and exhibit prenatal failures in sexual-reproductive development, including sterility?  In this era of globalization with its great translocations of peoples and consequent inadvertent mixing together of populations from both polarities, many such experiments have unknowingly been done.  In fact, they are presently being carried out, often within families on our own block.  That is, the spouse hemisphericity distribution study indicated that there are many right-right, and also left-left family pairs, even though these non-complimentary polarity crosses are still in the minority (Morton, 2000j).


In terms of courtship, another familiar form of the double standard is seen.  From one standard “hunks”, or “babes” are chosen for “predatory” dating for fun.  Quite another standard is applied for that  ideal” person we wish to marry.  Both R-boms and R-bofs biologically, are the partners who tend to have an eternally roving eye.  At times, some of these can be sexually aggressive conquistadors.  In contrast most L-bops, once married, remain faithful.  Thus, R-R combinations can make for white- hot affairs, but often explode as the least stable of marriages.  L-L combinations tend to be more platonic as affairs, but can be lead to the most stable, if unexciting of marriages.  Unfortunately, as will be seen next, both combinations have disastrous effects upon the pre- and postnatal development of their offspring. 


The genetics of trans-polarity crosses has been studied by preparing many three to five generation family genealogies.  From these, a coherent Mendelian genetic pattern has been recognized (Morton, 2000j).  Some interesting and perhaps surprising outlines are beginning to emerge.


11.1.1.  Disappearance of the Same Sex Hemisphericity between Parent and Child:

The first polarity crossbreeding difference found was the following: Crossing of a R-bom with a R-bof no longer guarantees that the same-sex child of a parent will have the same hemisphericity as the parent.  Unlike the offspring between parents of the complimentary hemisphericities, children of crossed polarity families can be either right or left males, or right or left females, based upon specific sorting rules (Morton, 2000j).


11.1.2.  RR Crossed R-bop Offspring: Dyslexia

A second difference found was that those offspring of a right-right pair who turned out to be R-bops, tended to be dyslexic, whether male or female.  In fact, this situation appears to have sprouted a new remedial education industry.  By understanding the physical basis of hemisphericity (Morton, 2000h), the probable mechanism causing this dyslexia becomes apparent.  These crossed R-bops are developmentally missing the working memory-viewing screen (mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, Peterides, 2000) on their right side from which their right brain executive can visualize words and images.


Without this screen, they cannot directly see how a word is spelled or automatically have a detailed image in their minds eye of an object from memory which they could copy.  Instead, they must compensate by using laborious rote-memorization to write or say their answers.  Because of this, they obtain such indirect information more slowly and less reliably.  In fact, this compensation may depend upon their right brain executive somehow indirectly accessing the left brain working memory viewing screen, this providing reversed, that is, dyslexic, mirror-image information to their right-sided executive.


Similarly, they also must draw memorized stereotyped, formulaic cartoons in order to generate objects they wish to depict, objects which normally could be copied directly from a right brain mental screen.  The occasional dramatic improvement in realism occurring when drawing is done with the non-dominant hand (Edwards, 1993) further supports this mechanism.


These often highly intelligent individuals suffer greatly because they naturally assume their brains are connected normally.  Therefore, because others can do these things so much easier and better than they, they attack their self image internally as being no good,  Or, or for egoistic reasons, they may attack external targets, turning against book learning as irrelevant and seeking other subcultural or antisocial means of personal validation.   Actually, it takes less intelligence to copy the spelling of a word in plain view on the screen of the minds eye, than it takes to remember it blind because ones screen is incomplete or malfunctional.   These individuals may also have related problems both in hearing and producing accurate musical rhythms and timings, as Albert Einsteins music-making companions attested.


11.1.3.  Failures in Brain Sexual Differentiation: Sexual Self-Identity Reversals in RR Crossed L-bop Offspring:

A third difference has been noted in the offspring of R-bom and R-bop parents.  Crossed L-bop progeny were not found to be dyslexic like their crossed R-bop siblings were.  Their left executive has direct access to a functional left-brain working memory screen from which it can easily see and quickly copy words and detailed images.  Instead, apparently all of these L-bop crossed offspring become arrested in a prenatal sexual developmental stage required to achieve standard sexual identity.  Although they were in normal in terms of their attraction to the opposite sex, their own personal sexual identity was the opposite of that of their body sex.  These male and female crossed L-bop individuals are here named trans-heterosexuals, where -cis refers to having the same mental sexual identity as ones body sex, while in -trans cases it is opposite to one’s body sex, as in organic chemistry.


That is, when the crossed L-bom’s body was male, they were both heterosexual and highly attracted to females, making good lovers, mates and parents.  Yet, when observed from a distance they tended to show stereotypic cultural and biological manifestations of femininity, for example often wearing longer hair-styles, softer, more colorful clothes, sometimes sandals, showing feminine speech inflections and body postural mannerisms.  Further, when asked to assess of their own gender identity, they made questionnaire choices such as:  androgynous, sensitive, receptive, artistic, ambivalent, as well as some making frank statements of female identity (Morton, 2000j).  Although certain people might call these men “Wimps”, it must be emphasized that they are heterosexual and often highly functional and talented.


Similarly, when the crossed L-bop offspring’s body was female, they were heterosexual, both highly attracted to males, making good lovers, mates, and parents.  Yet, when observed from afar, they tended to show stereotypic cultural and biological manifestations of masculinity, for example often wearing shorter hair styles, rougher, less florid clothes, sometimes boots, showing masculine speech inflections and body postural mannerisms.  When surveyed regarding their own assessment of their gender identity, they made such choices as: preferring the superior position in intercourse, preference for maleness, or having masculine feelings (Morton, 2000j).  Although some might call such individuals “Jocks”, it must be emphasized that, while not choosing a very feminine presentation, these women were still heterosexual, often highly talented, and productive.


Furthermore, these L-bop offspring from R-bom and R-bof couples, besides being trans-heterosexual, were found to have two additional unusual features.  First, the emotion generating side of their brain was found to be located the left side, unlike uncrossed offspring where it resides on the right (Morton, 2000c).  Secondly, it was found that in a mirror-tracing task, right-handed, crossed polarity offspring did best when using the hand opposite to that which was fastest for individuals with right-handed uncrossed polarity-individuals (Morton, 2000c).


Thus, because certain required elements in brain development normally contributed by the missing L-bop parent are absent, the expression “two rights make it all wrong” may literally apply for the offspring of right-right couples.  That is, these crossed offspring somehow sustain brain laterality crossover failures, in either the right brain working memory screen in the case of R-bop offspring, or in sexual identity differentiation in L-bop offspring which are somehow coupled with reversal in the side of the brain producing emotions and also to a reversal of mirror-tracing hand skills (not dyslexia).  Yet, these incomplete but often highly intelligent crossed polarity offspring (RRcrosspols) are capable of interbreeding and having families of their own.  It remains to be determined whether it is possible that some offspring of crossed parents might to revert to the more toti-functional wild-type forms.


11.2.  Failures in Sexual Differentiation: Reversals in Partner Preference Sex in LL Crosses

Regarding the offspring of the other possible crossed mating pattern, that between offspring from L-bom and L-bof parent pairs, few data have been gathered.  However, from what little that has been observed, here it appears that absence of an R-bop parent can result in a different type of sexual differentiation arrest, one producing homosexuality (Morton, 2000j).  That is, quite independent from one’s own sexual identity, one’s sex partner preference is a second separate prenatal brain sexual development step.  Here, the term “heterosexual” refers to those for whom the body sex of their preferred sex partner is opposite to their own, while “homosexual” strictly refers only to those individuals preferring partners whose body sex is the same as theirs.  Although often confused with, these terms have no bearing on the independent property of cis- or trans-personal sexual identity.


Thus, sons of both Haremic and Orgeic uncrossed polarities are always heterosexual-cis males (Men).  If, however, because of cross polarity interbreeding only one or the other of the two independent sexual differentiation steps fail, the offspring will either be heterosexual-trans males (Wimps) or homosexual-cis males (Gays).  If both critical stage steps fail, homosexual-trans males (Queens) result.  Similarly, daughters of both Haremic and Orgeic uncrossed polarities are always heterosexual cis-female progeny (Women).  If one or the other sexual development steps fail, then either the offspring will be heterosexual trans females (Jocks) or homosexual-cis females (Lesbians).  Homosexual-trans women (Dykes) are the offspring resulting from arrests in both stages of brain sexual differentiation. That all of these valuable and talented types of humans occur in about ten percent of some populations is not inconsistent with the relative mixing predicted to be occurring between the polarities.   Because of ignorance of polarity, the level of inner and interpersonal suffering of these offspring is considerably elevated over that of uncrossed offspring.


Furthermore, regardless of original polarity, considerable reproductive confusion results when, instead of the original “boy meets girl”, one has now to have to select between 16 different types of individuals varying in sexual identity and partner preference, not counting the dyslexics.  Overall, this crossed polarity biology appears to be an important factor in the destabilization of marriage and the family as institutions.  This is especially seen at population interfaces between the polarities and also in the new global melting-pot cities but which also occurred anciently, as in the decline and fall of Rome.  This poses a massive and interesting challenge to the human genome project, which in theory should be able ultimately to clarify all of these issues.


11.3.  Crossed Polarity Families:  Infant Traumatization and Arresting of Critical Periods of Psychosocial Brain Development: 

Non only has cross polarity interbreeding added to the destabilization of marriage by causing developmental failures in-utero, it inevitably leads to major postnatal developmental traumatization of infants and young children, this, in spite of the best intentions and efforts of their concerned parents.  It is becoming clear that closure of many if not most of the critical periods of psychosocial brain development occurs by the third year of childhood.  Thwarting of the completion of these critical periods for gaining control over mental operations before their windows close can lead to permanent arresting and failure.  This can be caused by the reversal of parental dominance roles in early and later childhood (Morton, 2000j).  Unfortunately, this traumatization has life-long, socially disabling consequences. 


For example, biologically, a L-bom son needs a subdominant L-bom father to unconditionally support him as his assistant.  If his father is a R-bom instead, such an inherently dominant and standards-demanding father can never let his son disobey him.  In fact all his parental instincts will oppose this and he will attempt to force obediance from the boy at all costs.  However, due to the sons L-bom biology, this is impossible, something he would rather die than permit.  While escalated demands of obedience from his mismatched father are ultimately met with overt rebellion, the cooperation of the L-bom son is easily obtained by his R-bof mother.  Endless conflicts of parental polarity mismatches over time appear to have led to the emergence of bipolar disorder (Morton, 2000j), multiple personality disorder, anorexia, and other mental illness syndromes apparently unique to modern culture (Castillo, 1997).  However, if the above son were a R-bom, out of respect and admiration he might willingly and easily have been able to honor his R-bom father’s requests without complaint, in fact, with pleasure.  However, he may not obey his L-bof mother.  A mismatched R-bom son will endlessly struggle for dominance over his R-bof mother.  However, this is something which biologically she cannot allow, to the long-term misery of both.  A reversed scenario exists for daughters.


These developmental arrests block the attainment of the social control skills required for amicable nuclear family and later effective social interactions.  This automatically impairs and deteriorates the later outcomes of education, mate, and vocational choice, employment, supportive family and community participation, as well as harming emotional and physical health.  These maladies of cross polarity families add to the generalized dysphoria and alienation of modern culture.  Thus, ignorance of the pre and postnatal developmental-arresting effects of cross-polar breeding is adding unnecessary suffering to life, both intra-personally, interpersonally, between families, within communities, culturally and politically and directly weakening the institutions of marriage and the extended family, are quite severe.  A peaceful cooperative marriage and extended family are genetically essential to provide the sheltering, stability, and support required for optimal emotional growth and success in the psychosocial development of offspring.  Parenthetically, the relationship of crossed-polarity matches to other issues, such as bisexuality, self-mutilative display, or other non-mainstream social behaviors is unknown.


On the other hand, without Albert Einstein’s struggle to surmount dyslexia, would he have been stimulated to inquire as deeply into the whys of life and the universe as he did?  Or, without the suffering produced by trans- or homosexuality, would some of the world’s greatest artists have arisen to express their angst?  These are small, but to some, significant consolations. 


Finally, it must be emphasized here that race issues are quite separate from those of polarity, as indicated by the following.  Pure polarity families, even between partners of totally different races, appear not only to avoid dyslexia and sexuality deficits, but also avoid psychosocial developmental arrests, even in their mixed-race children (Morton, 2000j).  In contrast, the above genetic and developmental problems automatically appear in the offspring crossed polarity families within the same race, be it black, brown, yellow, or white. 


12.  Polarity and Government: Autocracy vs. Democracy

Fundamental political differences between the naturally different power structures of the two polarities are a major obstacle to the achievement of a stabile mixed society.  In the past, patriarchal Haremic males not only settled their reproductive rights by physical combat, but also their political leadership.  The Haremic male extreme, autocracy, let us say represents the classical initial dialectical thesis.  It was accomplished is as follows.  Anciently, the winner of individual combat and consequently the harem leader regularly demanded acts of physical submission from each formerly excluded male who he allowed to join his camp.  In some modern primates, a submissive genuflection of the subordinate before the alpha male’s erect penis is required (McLean, 1978).


Anciently, as a not too far-fetched exaggeration, this essential loyalty step brought the benefits of added male partnership while securely protecting the leader’s breeding rights by the establishment of an early form of the death penalty.  Later, acts of obeisance, that is, pledges of absolute obedience were demanded of all male followers.  These then became oaths of allegiance, whereby the follower would swear literally upon the loss of his testicles if he were to disobey the orders of the leader, and that his “testi”mony was true.  Such laws and “testi”ments were followed implicitly as long as the leader was in power in the fatherland.  Spontaneous “test”s of submission, were commonly administered by the leader to his followers.


The current existence among educated and intelligent modern Haremic males of a powerful underlying dominance psychology has been abundantly demonstrated by the extraordinarily-powerful patriarchal top-down autocracies of Adolph Hitler, Mohindas Gandhi, and Saddam Hussein.  Their followers followed orders as if their life depended upon it.  Moralistic criticism on past cases notwithstanding, under such circumstances it would be unthinkable on many levels to disobey, and indeed such almost never happened.


The Orgeic path to (and style of) male leadership can be seen as exactly opposite that of the Haremic pattern.  Thus, Orgeic culture is basically a matripolar and non-violent democratic commune, the dialectic antithesis of patripolarity, where leadership, age, and wisdom are revered.  Originally all males in the camp competed against each other in their courtship for the reproductively dominant female.  She selected and retained each of them only after receiving their individual submission and pledge undying love to her and her children in the motherland.  Because each male had sex with all of females bearing offspring into the clan, each child could have been his own.  Thus, he was also blood-bonded to the troupe by family loyalty.


While the queen attended to global details such as the long-range movement of the camp, the important details were entrusted to a prime minister consort, the temporarily dominant alpha-male.  He arrived at his tentative conclusions by robust competition with the ideas of the other males and factions in his parliamentary gang.  This was an early form of bottom-up democracy.  However here, all votes were not equal, but instead each weighted by the member’s personal status within the troupe.


Operating alone, either the patriarchal and matriarchal systems of government are incredibly effective.  Both are right and neither is wrong.  However, in the last few millennia since the polarities have begun to come together, attempts to interface have historically been disastrous dialectically explosive mismatches.  Experimentation with potential solutions to this cross-polarity governmental problem, both in ancient Greece and more recently during the Social Revolutions in Western Europe has led to the construction of hybrid governments of a type most effectively represented by the two-party presidential government of the United States of America.  This Republican Democracy has been the most successful dialectic synthesis of opposing thesis and antithesis extremes of the top down and bottom up motifs of power and control so that both polarities can live together in peace and harmony.


As the dialectic left “thesis”, the citizens and society are represented in the U.S.A. by the predominantly L-bop Democratic Party, while at the dialectic right “antithesis”, wealthy land owners, businesses, and other vested power interests are represented by the predominantly R-bop Republican Party.  Both of these totally legitimate political party orientations fight vigorously for the advantage of their own interests.  However, in the long run they can only be led to a useful compromise by the authority of the president and his vice-president .  This compromise represents the dialectic “synthesis”, the golden mean, whereby the nation is guided down the middle road of optimal survival. In a recent period of unparalleled prosperity, charismatic president Bill Clinton was a R-bom and Vice-president Al Gore was a L-bom, thus inherently non-charismatic.


 When L-bom Democrat Jimmy Carter was the US president, his emphasis was leftward, focusing on the legitimate important details of human dignity and core social services, regardless of the cost.  As a result of the open-ended expenses inherent in such a priority, the economy became inflated as interest rates rose acutely.  Then the pendulum swinging to the other extreme, R-bop Republican leaders in essence said that we had better get our head out of our isolationist, local-detail sand and notice the global big picture.  That is, that we had better pay off our national debt soon or we won’t be able to afford social services at all.  Because of these efforts, there is now (1999) a budget surplus, but many fewer of the socially disadvantaged are being supported by welfare.


In the American form of democracy, all votes are equal and including those of the females. This golden mean deviates both from the Orgeic hierarchal style of status where no one is equal, and the Haremic style of dominance where womens votes are fused with their husbands.  Relevant to the latter is the case of L-bom former president Jimmy Carter, who with his R-bof wife, Rosalyn, has threatened to leave the Baptist Church because of their belief that women are not naturally subservient to men.  This is absolutely so for Orgeics.  But, since most Protestants are of the opposite polarity (and Republican), many Baptist men and, interestingly, their women feel the reverse is true.


Occasionally it is advantageous to be a rare crossover from the opposite side.  Thus, R-bop child-Jesus talking with the L-bop temple scholars was unusual, as was R-bom Gandhi as a Hindu, the charismatic R-bom Kennedy’s as Catholics, non-charismatic L-bom Jimmy Carter as a Baptist, and especially charismatic R-bom Bill Clinton as a Democrat, stealing fire from the R-bop Republicans.  Furthermore, to have a charismatic R-bom leader includes implicit acceptance of the Haremic inherently polygamous biology of a harem leader.  There often will be adoring women to contend with.  In this regard, beloved R-bof president Kennedy (in spite of his lovely L-bof wife) said, he just couldn’t help his infidelity.  On the other hand, the US presidents who have been rated as best historically usually are charismatic R-boms (Morton, 2000j).


13.   Polarity Differences:  Health and Well-Being

Imagine if veterinarians combined all chimpanzees, orangutans, gorillas, and bonobos medical data into one primate standard from which to make all ape diagnosis and treatment decisions.  Such would appear to be much less appropriate than making separate more accurate medical standards for each species.  Yet, due to ignorance of human polarity, the former is exactly what human medicine does today.  Because, a large number of differences between the four types of humans, namely R-boms, L-boms, R-bofs, and L-bofs, can be distinguished, as illustrated below (Morton, 2000j), separate medical compendiums of each of the four human subtypes would appear to be highly desirable.  (See: Glossary of Terms)


13.1.       Diet and Obesity:  Possibly because Orgeics may have originally been gatherers, growers, and farmers, there appears to be is a tendency for Orgeics to be vegetarian in orientation.  In contrast, perhaps because of their big game hunter, herdsmen, rancher origins, Haremics tend to be “meat and potatoes-oriented.  Not only robust R-boms, but also some thin L-bofs, feel they cannot meet their dietary survival requirements without meat, or at least dairy products in their daily fare.


Further, R-bops, even when vegetarian, tend to have higher blood cholesterol levels than L-bops, and to require more aggressive cholesterol-lowering measures, to bring it under the magic 200 mg% line.  However, R-bops also appear to be less vulnerable to atherosclerosis than L-bops, suggesting that a perhaps for L-bops the threshold for dangerous cholesterol levels should be lowered to 150 mg%, while for R-bops raising it to 250 mg% might be more realistic.  Lastly, recalling the old Orgeic truism that “Jack Sprat could eat no fat, his wife could eat no lean”, overall, L-bops of both sexes are indeed significantly less obese than R-bops (Morton, 2000j).  They also show different fat distribution patterns in obesity. 


13.2.  Anxiety Level Differences:  In general R-bops tend to be more fearless and physically daring when out in nature than their L-bop partners whose higher anxiety and caution compliments and restrains their mates wild exuberance (Morton, 2000j).  This difference in anxiety level has significant consequences.  L-bops are over-represented in people showing the type-A behavioral style with its cardiovascular liabilities, and also as Alexithymics having a relative lack of awareness of their own feelings or those of others (Morton, 2000j).


Because of their higher anxiety, L-bops, tend preferentially to self medicate with alcohol, thus more commonly falling prey to alcoholism (Morton, 2000j).  Unlike R-bops who tend to be binge-drinkers, L-bops need daily doses of alcohol to suppress their unending anxiety.  Furthermore, L-bops are more prone to internalize their stress that to express it outwardly.  This suppression tends to weaken their immune system, thus their resistance, making them victims to ever-present opportunistic illnesses such as colds, gastritis, common herpes,  flu, etc.  In contrast, R-bops are rarely ill.


13.3.  Drug Seeking and Drug Sensitivity Differences:   L-bops are also highly sensitive to odors and flavors.  They often avoid aromatic cut flowers and highly seasoned foods, unlike R-bops who love both.  Similarly, L-bops and R-bops also differ in terms of drug seeking behaviors.  The sensitive and overexcited L-bops seek the calming and fear inhibition provided, not only by alcohol, but also by marijuana, barbiturates, and minor tranquillizers, such as Valium.  Like meditation in silence, such inhibitor-relaxants can bring high-strung L-bops down into a more comfortable operating range.  If they sink too low, cocaine is their favored stimulant.


R-bops, who naturally tend to be somewhat un-sensitive physically and to be slowed down behaviorally, can be further depressed into amnesia-induced inaction by use of L-bop- favored inhibitory compounds, especially cannabis, and they often avoid them.  In contrast, R-bops tend to find that stimulants, such caffeine, and especially amphetamine, temporarily to bring them up into a more functional range of high intensity that is their forte. However, under conditions of stimulant abuse, R-bops they may overshoot into mania and violence and then again sink into depression.  Because of their lower basal anxiety and sensitivity, R-Bops can also deal with the ego-disrupting, transcendent effects of hallucinogens better than L-bops, who tend, even at much lower doses, to experience the extreme fear inherent in a “bad trip”, sometimes causing them to seek medical intervention.


15.   Polarity, Complimentarity, and the Future of Humanity

From within humanity’s present ignorance of Polarity, well meaning L-bops and R-bops, tend to misunderstand each other and, because of opposite value systems, commonly disagree, sometimes violently.  For, example, the 1978 Bonn Summit Meetings were held between L-bop, Jimmy Carter and R-bop, Helmut Schmidt to settle issues of mutual interest between the US and Germany.  Returning from each meeting, reporters on both sides released the debriefing information to the press in their respective countries.  Both the Carter and Schmidt teams were found to have claimed quite different outcomes resulting from the same meeting.  So different, that some of these men became inflamed, calling each other liars.  By the time the meetings were concluded, these individuals, if not nations, had grown to hold each other in deepest distrust.  Yet, they both were teams of sincere, well-meaning allies, each aligned toward much the same goals.


This illustrates the destabilizing effects which unrecognized polarity differences can produce even in peacetime during international government interactions.  If by accident, R-bop Bill Clinton had represented the US at that time, the outcome no doubt would have been much more positive, as it was for R-bop Kennedy,  not because Clinton is any better than Carter, but because the polarities of the two leaders would have matched, not crossed.  They would have been speaking the same language, R-bopese! 


In earlier less stable situations, such matter-anti matter contacts have led to repeated annihilations.  In fact, most of written world history centers around these polaric conflagrations.  Such remained as relatively local events of human misery, until the advent of the industrial revolution and the beginnings of war technology.  From then, wars became increasingly massive slaughters on increasingly global levels, leading to the advent of the World Wars.  In the first world war, Haremic Germany, Austro-Hungary, and Turkey took on Orgeic Britain, France, and Russia in clashes of higher mortality than the earth had yet seen.


After these two Giants picked themselves up and licked their million wounds, Round 2, the Second World War followed between with self-same Haremics giants against their same European Orgeic mortal enemies.  But this time the chaos expanded.  While the Europeans Titans were preoccupied in mutual annihilation, Haremic Japan went on a rampage of conquest and subjugation Orgeic Southeast Asia.  Fortunately, for the outcomes of both of the world war rounds, a successfully governed, mixed-polarity country was able to neutralize the Champions, but at great cost.  Clearly, bringing a permanent solution to these escalating dialectic battles between universal Ying and Yang is of the highest priority.  With the explosion of technology and the addition of Islamic and Northern Oriental Haremics to the conflagration, a Round 3 Armageddon could sterilize all primates from the planet.


So, should all R-boms and L-boms, or all Haremics and Orgeics be separated from each other and isolated in the eastern and western hemispheres?  Hardly!  Rather, by understanding the nature of hemisphericity and polarity, we can now recognize that, as in the brain, both top-down and bottom-up orientations are right, and neither is wrong.  Instead, they are complimentary to the highest degree, as they are in the nuclear family for another example.  Both are absolutely needed to provide the golden mean required for survival within this ever changing, ever the same, dialectic universe.  Just as R-bop cosmologist astronomers couldn’t work without L-bop instrumentalist astronomers, and L-bop biochemists are critically oriented by R-bop, wall chart-producing, metabolic-integrator biochemists, humanity needs all polarity types for its optimal survival.


Then, we can again flourish in peace, and ultimately migrate with our crops and flocks upstream in the universal free energy gradient to discover new worlds of greener pastures.  In the mean time we must work together to balance two dialectically critical issues: population growth and economic growth, into the golden mean required for optimized terrestrial survival.  We need to restore and reinforce the ability of earth ecosystems to sustain our own long-term, balanced presence here.  After all, some of our star-hopping, hunter-gatherer children may experience drought in one of their promised lands and need to return home for a fresh start. 


Acknowledgements:  The thousands of individuals who have contributed personal data to these unfunded studies are gratefully appreciated.  I also acknowledge the University of Hawaii for providing an environment that inadvertently fostered the conception and development of this work.  



Alpogut, B., Andrews, P., Fortelius, M.., Kappelman, J., Temizsoy, I, Celebi, H, and Lindsay,

W.(1996).  A new specimen of Ankarapithicus meteai from the Sinap Formation of central Anatolia. Nature, 382, 349-351.

Balter, M. & Gibbons, A. (2000). A glimpse of humans first journey out of Africa.  Science, 288, 948-950.

Beaumont, G., Young, A., and McManus, I.C.  (1984).  Hemisphericity: A critical review.  Cognitive Neuropsychology, 1, 191-212. 

Benefit, B. R. & McCrossin, M. L. (1997). Earliest known Old World monkey skull.  Nature,

388, 368-371.

Bishop, K. M.& Wahlsten, D. (1997). Sex differences in the human corpus callosum: Myth or

reality?  Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 21, 581-601.

Bogen, J. E. (1969).  The other side of the brain.  II.  An appositional mind.  Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 34, 135-162.

Bogen, J. E., DeZure, R., TenHouten, W. D., and Marsh, J. F. (1972).  The other side of the brain. IV.  The A/P ratio.  Bulletin of the Los Angeles Neurological Society, 37, 221-235.

Carter, C. S., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. D. (1999).  The contribution of the anterior

cingulate to executive processes in cognition.  Review of Neuroscience, 10, 49-57.

Castillo, R, J. (1997).  Culture and Mental Illness. Brooks-Cole, Pacific Grove, CA.

Culotta, E. (1995).  Asian hominids grow older.  Science, 270, 1116-1117

Davidson, R. J. & Hugdahl, K. (1995).  Brain Asymmetry, MIT Press.

Dawkins, R. (1990).  The Selfish Gene, Oxford University Press.

De Waal, F. and Lanting, F. (1997). Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape.  University of California Press.

Diamond, J. M. (1991).  The earliest horsemen.  Science, 350, 275-276.

Edwards, B. (1993).  Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain, Harper-Collins.

Eisler, R. (1987).  The Chalise and the Blade. Harper-Collins.

Fink, G. R., Halligan, P. W., Marshall, J. C., Frith, C. D., Frackowiak, R. S. J., & Dolan, R. J. (1996).  Where in the brain does visual attention select the forest and the trees?  Nature, 382, 626-628.

Fossy, D. (1983). Gorillas in the Mist.  Houghton, Williams.

Furuichi, T. (1992).  Prolonged estrus of females and factors influencing mating in a wild group of bonobos (Pan paniscus) in Wamba, Zaire.  In Topics in Primatology, vol 2; Behavioral Ecology and Conservation, ed. N. Itaigowa, Y. Sugiyama, G.P. Sackett, and R.K.R. Thompson, 179-190.   Univeristy of Tokyo Press.

Galdikas, B. M. F. (1995).  Reflections of Eden.  Little and Brown.

Gazzaniga, M. S. (1967).  The Split Brain in Man.  Scientific American, 217, 24-29.

Gibbons, A. (1997).  Bone sizes trace the decline of Man (and Woman).  Science, 276, 896-897.

Goodall, J. (1990).  Through a Window, Houghton, Mifflin.

Gray, J. (1992).  Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.  Harper Collins.

Hasegawa, I., Fukushima, T., Ihara, T. and Miyashita, Y. (1998).   Callosal window between

prefrontal cortices: Cognitive Interaction to retrieve long-term memory.  Science, 281, 814-818.

Henry, J. P., & Wang, S. (1998).  Effects of early stress on affiliative behaivor.

Psychoneuroendocrinology, 23, 863-895.

Holloway, R.I., (1985).  The poor brain of Homosapiens neanderthalensis: See what you please. In: Ancestors: The Hard Evidence, ed. by E. Delson, pp. 319-324, Alan R. Liss.

Kanno, T. (1992).  The Last Ape: Pygmy Chimpanzee Behavior and Ecology.  Stanford University Press.

Kerr, R. (2000).  A victim of the Black Sea Flood found.  Science, 289, 2021.

Lang, J., Ederer, M., (1980). [Shape and size of the corpus callosum and septum pellucidem.]        Gegenbaurs Morphologie Jahrbuch, 126, 949-958.

Lev-Yadun, S., Gopher, A., & Abbo, S. (2000).  The Cradle of Agriculture. Science, 288, 1602-


MacLean, P. D.(1978). Effects of lesions of globus pallidus on species-typical display behavior

of squirrel monkeys. Brain Research, 149, 175-196.

Margulis, L. & Sagan, D. (1991).  Mystery dance: On the evolution of human sexuality.  Simon and Schuster.

Moore, H. D. M., Martin, M. & Birkhead, T. (1999).  No evidence for killer sperm or other selective interactions between human spermatozoa in ejaculates of different males in vitro.  Proceedings of the Royal Society, Section B, 266, 2343.

Morton, B.E. (2000a).   Large individual differences in minor ear output during dichotic

listening. Brain and Cognition, 45, 229-237 (2001).

Morton, B.E. (2000b).  Outcomes of hemisphericity questionnaires correlate with unilateral dichotic deafness.  Cortex, rejected; Brain and Cognition, 48,63-72 (2002).

Morton, B.E. (2000c).  Phased mirror tracing outcomes correlate with several hemisphericity measures. Comprehensive Psychiatry, returned as inappropriate to journal focus; Experimental Brain Research, returned as inappropriate to journal focus; Biological Psychology, rejected; rewritten, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, returned as inappropriate to journal focus, Brain and Cognition, 51, 294-304 (2003).

Morton, B.E. (2000d).  Two-hand line-bisection task outcomes correlate with several measures of hemisphericty. Personality and Individual Differences, rejected; rewritten, Neuropsychiatry, Neuropsychology, and Behavioral Neurology, rejected, Brain and Cognition, 51, 305-316 (2003)

Morton, B.E. (2000e).  Asymmetry questionnaire outcomes correlate with several

hemisphericity measures.  Journal of Personality Assessment, returned as inappropriate to journal focus; Assessment, rejected, Brain and Cognition, 51, 372-374 (2003).

Morton, B.E. (2000f).  Line bisection-based hemisphericity estimates of university students

and professionals: Evidence of sorting during higher education and career selection.  Neuropsychologia, returned as inappropriate to journal focus.  Brain and Cognition, 52, 319-325 (2003).

Morton, B.E. (2000g).  Six-fold Determination of Brain Laterality: Behavioral Correlates.            Cognitive Brain Research, rejected.

Morton, B.E. (2000h).  Hemisphericity Revisited: The Dual Quadbrain Model of Behavioral Laterality.  Completed, but cannot be submitted until publication of earlier foundations.

Morton, B.E. (2000i).  Sex, Human Hemisphericity, and Corpus Callosal Size.  Completed, but  cannot be submitted until publication of earlier foundations.

Morton, B.E. (2000j).  Unpublished datasets.

Petrides, M.. (2000). Dissociable roles of mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and anterior

infero-temporal cortex in visual working memory.  Journal of Neuroscience, 20, 7496-7503.

Sandweiss, D. H, Maasch, K. A., & Anderson, D. G. (1999).  Transitions in the Mid-Holocene.  Science, 283, 499-500.

Semendeferi, K, & Demasio, H. (2000). The brain and its main anatomical subdivisions in living hominoids using magnetic resonance imaging.  Journal of Human Evolution, 38, 317-332.

Shiffer, F. (1996).  Cognitive ability of the right hemisphere: possible contributions to Psychological Function.  Harvard Review of Psychiatry, 4, 126-138.

Short, R.V. (1981).  Sexual selection in man and the great apes. In: Reproductive Biology of the Great Apes, C.E. Graham ed., Academic Press.

Sperry, R. (1982). Some effects on disconnecting the cerebral hemispheres, Science, 217, 1223-6.

Springer, S. P. & Deutch, G.  (1998).  Left brain, right brain: perspectives from cognitive neuroscience. Fifth edition, W.H. Freeman.

Stringer, C. & Gamble, C. (1993).  In Search of the Neanderthals.  Thames and Hudson.

Swisher, C; C., Rink, W. J., Anton, S. C., Schawarcz, H. P., Curtis, G. H., Suprijo, A, & Widiasmoro, N. I. (1996). Latest Homo erectus of Java: Potential contemporaneity with Homo

sapiens in Southeast Asia. Science, 274, 1870-1874.

Tan, U., Tan, M., Polat, P., Ceylan, Y., Suma, S., & Okur, A. (1999).  Magnetic Resonance Imaging Brain Size/IQ Relations in Turkish University Students.  Intelligence, 27, 83-92.

Tannen, D. (1994).  Talking from 9 to 5.  Avon Press.

Trinkhaus, E., & Shipman, P. (1992).  The Neanderthals.  Random House.

Wrangham, R. W. (1997). Subtle, Secret Female Chimpanzees.  Science, 277, 774-775.

Yazgan, M. Y., Wexler, B. E., Kinsbourne, M., Peterson, B., & Leckman, J. F. (1995).  Funct-ional significance of individual variations in callosal area, Neuropsychologia, 33, 769-779l

Zeder, M. A. & Hesse, B. (2000).  The initial domestication of goats (Capra hircus) in the Zagros Mountains 10,000 years ago.  Science, 287, 2254-2257.

Zenhausern, R. (1978).  Imagery, cerebral dominance, and style of thinking: A unified field

          model.  Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 12, 381-384.



Appendix A: Statements from Three Hemisphericity Questionnaires that were Significantly Correlated with Three Biophysical Measures of Brain Laterality (Morton, 2000g, Table 5)


          Left Brain-Oriented Persons                    Right Brain-Oriented Persons


 1. Daydreams are not vivid                                                     Daydreams are vivid

 2. Thinking rarely contains mental images or pictures            Thinking often is of mental images or pictures

 3. Analytical. Stays within the limits of the data.                  Big picture, projects beyond data, predicts

 4. Breaks whole into parts (reductive-reductionistic)            Organizes parts into whole (synthetic, creative)

 5. Quick-acting in dealing with problem, emergency             Methodically solves it by process of elimination

 6. Is comfortable with disorder, and accelerated by it           Is uncomfortable with disorder, and slowed by it

 7. Tends to be more interested in objects and things           Tends to be more interested in people, feelings

 8. More literal-external than internally contemplative           Introspective, self-conscious, and psychological

 9.Tends to be more objective, surface-oriented                   More subjective, seeks larger meanings, intuitive



10. Values tradition, respects authority, resists change         Is innovative, questions authority, seeks change

11. Thrives in the early morning                                              Is alert in the late evening

12. Dresses for success and wear high-status clothing            May create own design of original clothes outfits

13. Uses a serious, all-business approach                                Uses a playful approach to solving problems

14. Is a strong finisher of projects                                           Is a strong starter of projects

15. Thinks and listens quietly, keeps talk to a minimum         Thinks & listens interactively-vocally, talks a lot

16. Tends to be independent, hidden, private, indirect        Can be interdependent, open, public, and direct

17. Does not praise others, nor need praise from others        Praises others, and works for the praise of others

18. Avoids seeking evaluation by others                                 Seeks frank feedback from others



19. Does not read other peoples mind very well                    Very good at knowing what others are thinking

20. Avoids talking about their and others emotions              Often talks about their and others emotions

21. Can tolerate it if their mate defies them in private          Finds it intolerable if mate defies them in private

22. Needs to be alone and quiet when they are upset           Needs closeness & to talk things out when upset

23. Doesnt need a lot of physical contact from mate            Needs lots of physical contact from their mate

24. Likes longer-term, larger rewards of mates love              Likes daily small reassurances of mates love

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

26. Often feels mate talks too much                                        Often feels that mate doesnt talk or listen enough

27. Not a very strict parent-kids tend to defy                         Strict-kids obey and work for his/her approval



Appendix B:  Dual Quadbrain Model of Behavioral Laterality:

Legend:  The cartoon face represents the anatomically symmetric, but functionally contrasting dual systems of the human brain.  In general, the left side of the brain is specialized for self survival, the right for group survival.  Within each side of the dual brains are four evolutionarily layered structural systems with inhibitory and excitatory control sites for each.  1. The pontine brain-stem pairs are the most ancient, producing primitive, competitive-cooperative behavioral repertoire and visceral Id-like instincts and drives.  2. Nearby, paired cerebellar elements produce much more highly elaborated social and antisocial behaviors and associated fine movements.  These bear certain resemblances to Freud’s Superego and Thanatos.  3.  The Executive, which resembles Freud’s Ego, is in the midbrain above and innately tied on one or the other side to the anterior cingulate limbic cortex and associated lateral cerebral working memory elements.  Other limbic system elements produce the social emotions on the right and the Ego defenses of the Id on the left.  4. In the paired cerebral cortices are the engines of Induction (right), tied to holistic visual imagery, and of Deduction (left), tied to the reductive abstracting elements producing symbolic language .  Present in each prefrontal cortex is a working memory element for use of unilateral  Executive Ego in the anterior cingulate cortex. 


Appendix C:  Hemisphericity of Members of 15 Professions and Subprofessions in Hawaii.   (Morton, 2000f, Table 2.)



GROUP                           percent











Left Females










Unsorted College Entrants
















Western Civilization students    62
















Specialist Populations
















Microbiology Professors              74


Biochemistry Professors             95


Physics (particle)Professors      80


Philosophy Professors                73


Mathematics Professors             93








































































Accountancy Professors             75


Law Professors                            83


Art Professors  (vs. Artists)         92


Civil Engineering Professors     89


Clin. Psychologists (yel. pages)75








































































Electrical Engineering Profs.      75


Physicians (Medical Students)   80


Mechanical Engineering Profs.  75


Architecture Professors             100


Astronomy Professors                 66