Ronda Rousey's Estimated Earnings: Math Check for UFC 190 Fight

[DiracPool]

No one's disputing a hemispheric dichotomy. What's being disputed is the notion that creativity is a right hemisphere function. No one can seem to find any evidence to support that.

There's tons of evidence supporting that. Are you kidding? Review the hemispheric lateralization literature. You can start with these two books:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0716731118/?tag=pfamazon01-20

And my boy, Michael Gazzaniga:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060892897/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[zoobyshoe]

There's tons of evidence supporting that. Are you kidding? Review the hemispheric lateralization literature. You can start with these two books:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0716731118/?tag=pfamazon01-20

I can't find any digest of the book that has any assertion the right hemisphere is the creative one. Not going to read a whole book.

And my boy, Michael Gazzaniga:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0060892897/?tag=pfamazon01-20

This author, Gazzaniga, seems to be saying the opposite of what you think he says:

But insight is just one type of creativity. Telling stories is another. One of the most fascinating insights from the split-brain studies was the way the left hemisphere made up stories to explain what the right hemisphere was up to – what Gazzaniga dubbed the “interpreter phenomenon”. For example, in one study, a patient completing a picture-matching task used their left hand (controlled by the right hemisphere) to match up a shovel with an image of a snow storm (shown only to the right hemisphere). The patient was then asked why he’d done this. But his left hemisphere (the source of speech) didn’t admit to not knowing. Instead, it confabulated, saying that he’d reached for the shovel to clear out the chicken coop (the picture shown to the left hemisphere was of a bird’s foot).

Writing an overview of the split-brain research in a 2002 article for Scientific American (http://courses.dce.harvard.edu/~phils4/splitbrain.pdf), Gazzaniga concluded, based on the interpreter phenomenon and other findings, that the left hemisphere is “inventive and interpreting”, whilst the right brain is “truthful and literal.” This seems at odds with the myth invoked by Rabbi Sacks and many others.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blo...rain-right-brain-myth-will-probably-never-die
Ramachandran asserts the same thing, that it is the left hemisphere that is "inventive and interpreting," that creates rationalizations out of thin air to explain things it doesn't understand. His finding is that the right hemisphere is quite literal and uncreative.

 

[DiracPool]

His finding is that the right hemisphere is quite literal and uncreative.

Well, I disagree with this. Lateralization in the human brain is most likely linked to preferred "handedness." This doesn't seem to be a property of nonhuman mammalian brains in general. The left brain is where language is processed in the majority of humans, particularly right-handers, of course. Langauge doesn't begin and end with the spoken word, it really defines everything that makes us human. It's the "grammer" of the language areas that is responsible for our ability to do mathematics, to dance, to write and perform songs, to create art, to be social butterflies, and of course, to talk. The left brain is all about hierarchical sequential structuring of data manipulation. That is what it does. The right brain does not have this rigidness to it. It is freed to accommodate abstraction, which the left hemisphere may use or not use as it sees fit.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Well, I disagree with this.

You disagree with your own linked source?

Gazzaniga says the right hemisphere is "literal and truthful," not creative. And he calls the left hemisphere "inventive and interpreting," i.e. creative. Pretty much the opposite of what you claim.

So, why did you even link to that book?

 

[DiracPool]

Gazzaniga says the right hemisphere is "literal and truthful," not creative.

I don't remember Gazzaniga stating that the right hemisphere is not creative. Can you quote the statement? I don't have the book handy.

"Literal and truthful" is not mutually exclusive with creativity.From: http://psychology.about.com/od/cognitivepsychology/a/left-brain-right-brain.htm
The Right Brain

According to the left-brain, right-brain dominance theory, the right side of the brain is best at expressive and creative tasks. Some of the abilities popularly associated with the right side of the brain include:

• Recognizing faces
• Expressing emotions
• Music
• Reading emotions
• Color
• Images
• Intuition
• Creativity

The Left Brain

The left-side of the brain is considered to be adept at tasks that involve logic, language, and analytical thinking. The left-brain is described as being better at:

• Language
• Logic
• Critical thinking
• Numbers
• Reasoning

What's the purpose in challenging this classical reasoning? Even though the authors of this article do What's it going to tell you? As I've said in many posts before, if you're looking for an anomaly in whatever pursuit you're after, you're likely to find one. So the contemporary "vogue" in neuroscience may be to challenge the left-brain right-brain dichotomy. In the old days, guys like Roger Sperry, Norman Geshwind, and yes, Michael Gazzaniga just told it as it is, and didn't pull any punches. These days, everybody wants to play it safe and dilute everything.

The bottom line is that language functions are lateralized (in most people) to the left side of the brain. The left brain functions as the analytical, hierarchical sequential processor of information. The right brain is not under such constraint. So it is free to wax abstraction. Does that mean that the left hemisphere in no way participates in the creative process? Of course not. This is splitting hairs. If you sever the corpus collosum, the left brain can talk to you, the right brain can't. You can inject anesthesia selectively into the left or right hemisphere and shut it down. What do you get? You get a left brain that can talk to you and a right brain that can't.

Again, as I said in an earlier post, challenging a standard dogma is a popular attraction to neophytes in a field trying to make a name for themselves. But sometimes the classical dogma is accurate, as it is in this case

 

[zoobyshoe]

Again, as I said in an earlier post, challenging a standard dogma is a popular attraction to neophytes in a field trying to make a name for themselves. But sometimes the classical dogma is accurate, as it is in this case

I need you to link me to papers that establish with brain scans that "creativity" is lateralized to the right hemisphere. Because the fact seems to be that brain scans of people engaged in "creative" mental activities demonstrate the use of both hemispheres. That is certainly sufficient reason to challenge the dogma.

 

[DiracPool]

Here's a couple studies for you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026701/
"...alpha synchronization at parietal sites of the right hemisphere seems to play an important role in creating ideas with high originality. In previous studies, stronger alpha synchronization at right parietal sites was found in higher creative individuals compared to less creative individuals."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26150204
"Both cortical volume and thickness of the right precuneus were positively associated with individual verbal creativity and its dimensions. Moreover, originality was negatively correlated with functional homogeneity in the left superior frontal gyrus and positively correlated with functional homogeneity in the right occipito-temporal gyrus."

I can find many more studies, but as I stated in an earlier post, you will probably find what you are searching for.

 

[DiracPool]

I need you to link me to papers that establish with brain scans that "creativity" is lateralized to the right hemisphere. Because the fact seems to be that brain scans of people engaged in "creative" mental activities demonstrate the use of both hemispheres. That is certainly sufficient reason to challenge the dogma.

See above.

 

[zoobyshoe]

Here's a couple studies for you:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4026701/
"...alpha synchronization at parietal sites of the right hemisphere seems to play an important role in creating ideas with high originality. In previous studies, stronger alpha synchronization at right parietal sites was found in higher creative individuals compared to less creative individuals."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26150204
"Both cortical volume and thickness of the right precuneus were positively associated with individual verbal creativity and its dimensions. Moreover, originality was negatively correlated with functional homogeneity in the left superior frontal gyrus and positively correlated with functional homogeneity in the right occipito-temporal gyrus."

I can find many more studies, but as I stated in an earlier post, you will probably find what you are searching for.

These two studies are good. The more you have the more it will make your case. What you have to convince me (or anyone) of is the existence of "creative, right brained" individuals.

 

[Enigman]

This article gives some rather interesting insight into Roussey:
http://themighty.com/2015/08/when-we-asked-ronda-rousey-if-she-had1-apraxia-of-speech/

 

[Astronuc]

Ronda Rousey responds to Marine who asked her to Marine Corps Ball
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-c...d-her-to-marine-corps-ball-020246744-mma.html

She just made his day. I think she'll be a big hit at the Marine Corps Ball on December 11.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2015/09/01/ronda-rousey-accepts-marines-invitation-marine-corps-ball/71525362/

 

[DiracPool]

Ronda Rousey responds to Marine who asked her to Marine Corps Ball

From the article Astronuc posted: http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/mma-c...d-her-to-marine-corps-ball-020246744-mma.html"They say if you’re looking for a date, your best bet is to ask 100 girls out because even if 99 say no, all you need is that special one to say yes."

Sounds good on paper. I used to take this to heart and use it out "in the field" at the local bars. What actually ended up happening, though, is that I would ask only one girl for her phone number and get rejected so I could be re-assured that I was a loser"

 

[Astronuc]

UFC fighter Ronda Rousey is staring in MGM’s reboot of the 1980s cult classic Road House. Rousey will step into the role Patrick Swayze made famous.

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/ronda-rousey-to-star-in-mgms-road-house-reboot-128715494817.html

Well, that will be interesting. Hmmm - why not?

Can I do Sam Elliot's role?

 

[DiracPool]

From:

https://www.yahoo.com/movies/ronda-rousey-to-star-in-mgms-road-house-reboot-128715494817.html

"after a cameo in last year’s The Expendables 3.."

She had much more than a cameo in this movie. She was in a large number of scenes and seemed to have as much of a role as any of the other celebrity "extras."

"appearing in Furious 7"

She was in this movie? I don't remember that. That was probably before I became aware of her celebrity MMA status, though, would be my guess.

 

[dlgoff]

Rousey won't be so rowdy for a while.

Holly Holm shocked the world on Saturday night as she landed a vicious second-round head kick knockout over Ronda Rousey ...

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mma/holly-holm-shocks-the-world-with-head-kick-ko-over-ronda-rousey/ar-BBn0L38

 

[russ_watters]

Looks like some of the criticism here was spot-on: she faced a boxer and couldn't get her submission hold on, so the boxer pummeled her.

 

[Rick21383]

Looks like some of the criticism here was spot-on: she faced a boxer and couldn't get her submission hold on, so the boxer pummeled her.

This re-post by Joe Rogan sums it up pretty well imo:

"Confidence, Hubris and the Frail Veil of Invincibility"

The fantasy = Last night, the World of MMA saw its biggest upset, the invincible, unbeatable, Phenomenal Ronda Rousey was KO'd in spectacular fashion... The world is upside down.
The Reality = somebody with holes in their stand up game lost a prize fight... Happens 50% of the time... 100% of the time.
Guess what? Sunday Came, life goes on. Last night the better prepared fighter won... As she should have...End of Story.

The public reaction of Shock, Awe, Joy, Anger, and Hateful speech is what really led me to post my thoughts.
As humans...one of the only things we love more then worshiping our Heroes and idols ... Is tearing them down So if there is something to learn from... its this ... there is a fine line between "Confidence and Hubris" and NO ONE is invincible... if you fight quality competition long enough you will eventually lose a fight for whatever reason; lack of proper preparation, bad decision, injury, bad style match up, you get caught, your sick, simply a bad day, doesn't matter... In sport somebody loses every single day.

I have been criticized in the past for being too honest with my fighters, for openly talking about the realities of the very real potential that they could lose a fight... for fear that just simply talking about losing will make it a reality.
I've had fighters tell me "that's my belt" or I am going to do this "after I win"... As a coach this bothers me because that's not your belt, you have to fight 5 hard rounds to win that belt. After you do that THEN its your belt. Tell me what you will do after you win... After you actually win ... For me NOTHING is ever guaranteed and to simply play silly word games to bolster your confidence is a sign of weakness... How about I want to win that belt or if I win, This is reality.

Anything else is absolutely ridiculous... if you are so mentally weak that you need to pretend you are invincible eventually it will catch up with you... The truly strong warrior accepts the potential of loss or death and fights anyway

 

[dlgoff]

... the boxer pummeled her.

From some of the "high light" videos I've seen, Holm has a punch to die for; literally.