Standard Form 592 T: Fill & Download for Free

1st, definition of handedness, 2nd, psychological trait differences associated with handedness, 3rd and finally, technical problems associated with studies of handedness.Definition of handednessChirality from the Greek 'cheir' or hand is synonym for handedness. 'Chiral' is the property of any object that cannot be superimposed on its mirror image, such as our hands.Are psychological trait differences associated with handedness?This is a rather profound question. Are our abstract thoughts really abstract or more rooted in our physical selves?Language abounds in examples that show our body contributes to our abstract thoughts.Examples such as 'right-hand person', 'given the cold shoulder', 'out in left field', 'two left feet'.Language also suggests that we ascribe positive virtue to our dominant side.Since more of us are right-handed, our language reflects this bias.For example, 'left' is associated with inadequacy in French ('gauche'), bad in Latin and Italian ('sinistra'), derived from the word 'lyft' or broken in English (1).In Russian, 'levja' (maybe misspelled in original; left-handed) implies deceptive or untrustworthy (2).In the Chichewa language in Malawi, 'left' implies inferior, weaker while the right hand is often called the male hand (3, 4).In Mandarin Chinese, 'zou', the character for left implies weird, unorthodox, wrong, incorrect, different, contrary or opposite while the Mandarin character for right suggests to eat with the right hand (5).How we experience and use our body contributes to our mental metaphors. This idea is called Embodied or Grounded Cognition. Our physical experience of the world influences how we think about it and how we remember it (6).Daniel Casasanto, currently at the University of Chicago, studied whether handedness influences abstract mental constructs such as 'goodness and badness, victory and loss, deceit and honesty' (7).In his 2009 study (7), Casasanto compared responses of left- and right-handed volunteers to Fribbles (alien creatures created by Michael J. Tarr, Brown University, www.tarrlab.org), arranged as binary choices.In each choice, was the one on the left or on the right a better representative of a given quality, say intelligence, happiness, honesty or attractiveness?Of 286 participants, 65% of left-handers 'attributed positive characteristics more often to Fribbles on the left of the page, whereas a small majority of right-handers (54%) attributed positive characteristics more often to Fribbles on the right of the page'.According to Casasanto, 'lefties [tend to] think left is good, righties [tend to] think right is good' (8).Casasanto's fMRI studies suggested body-specific associations underpin our abstract concepts.Casasanto interprets 'People tend to understand verbs as referring to actions they would perform with their particular bodies— not to a Platonic ideal of the action or to the action as it is performed by the majority of language users. In this sense, people with different bodies understand the same verbs to mean something different' (9).Calling this the Body-Specificity Hypothesis, Casasanto suggests that we develop certain abstract concepts corresponding to dominant physical traits, i.e. lefties imbue the left side with positive emotional, intellectual and moral attributes while righties do the same with the right side.Could other researchers show similar differences between left- and right-handers in other tests?Response to words: Linguistic StimuliTwo studies from researchers at the University of Tubingen, Germany.1st, how do left- and right-handers classify positive and negative words (10)?Native German speakers asked to press a key to positive words with the right hand and to negative with the left in the 1st half of the experiment, and the other way around in the 2nd half of the experiment.20 each left- and right-handers tested.Right-handers responded faster to positive words with their right hand compared to their left hand, and faster to negative words with their left hand compared to their right handLeft-handers responded faster to positive words with their left hand to positive stimuli, and with their right hand to negative words.Data support Embodied or Grounded Cognition.Side corresponding to the dominant hand represents positive things while the side corresponding to the non-dominant hand represents negative things.This bias happens even with linguistic stimuli.2nd, does such bias also extend to foot usage (11)?37 native German speakers tested; all right-footed.Participants were shown positive and negative words. They were asked to respond by pressing a key with their left or right foot.As their title says, 'strong right-footers responded faster with their right foot to positive words, and with their left foot to negative words'.Remembering and Mapping Positive and Negative EventsAnother group at Tuft's University (12) 1st showed participants a map of fictitious positive and negative events, then asked them to recall these locations on the map.Right-handers tended to remember positive events too far to the right (25/36; 69%) and negative events too far to the left (20/36; 56%)Left-handers tended to remember positive events too far to the left (20/36; 56%) and negative events too far to the right (19/36; 53%).Caveats to these studiesSmall numbers of participants. Can they be safely extrapolated to entire populations? Open question.Shoddy statistics: many use standard error of the mean to minimize variability within groups and thereby enhance differences between groups.Most of them used Hand Preference tests such as the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (EHI), as opposed to Hand Performance tests. The former self-identifies left- and right-handed people while the latter identifies them based on comparison of performance of certain [uni-]manual tasks using either hand.Technical problems associated with studies of handednessStudy of handedness is a little mired in confusion, especially between two linked attributes, Hand Preference and Hand Performance.Hand Preference: Assessed How?Questionnaires such as the EHI (13) assess an individual's subjective preference for 20 different manual tasks such as writing, drawing, throwing, scissors, comb, toothbrush, knife and spoon for eating, hammer, screw-driver, tennis racket, knife with fork, cricket bat, golf club, broom, rake, striking match, opening box, dealing cards, and threading needle.A lateralization quotient (LQ) uses the formula LQ = [(R-L)/(R+L)]*100, where R indicates activities where right hand is preferentially used, and L the left hand. LQ ranges from -100 to +100.Negative values indicate greater left-hand preferences.Positive values greater right-hand preferences.Hand Performance: Assessed How?Usually assessed through motor task such as the peg board task (14, 15, 16).The peg board task assesses the time it takes a person to move a row of 10 pegs from one side of a board to another.Compares reaction times for left and right hands.Other tests include placing dots in a circle (Dot Test) or squares on a sheet of paper as quickly as possible (17, 18).Pick up 20 matches from a table as quickly as possible (17).Hand Preference and Hand Performance test results are significantly different (19, 20).Hand Preference: The DataHas a J-shaped distribution, i.e. it's bi-modal.Many strongly right-handed.Fewer strongly left-handed.Still fewer ambidextrous.Considered a dichotomous attribute by many researchers (21).Hand Performance: The DataDistribution depends on the assessment method used.For example, peg board task more unimodal, with shift towards the right.OTOH, the Dot Test shows a more bi-modal distribution (22).Thus, Hand Preference and Hand Performance measure different attributes and derive different conclusions.Bottomline, handedness could be mis-identified depending on the test. In practical terms, this means that left- and right-handed definition is not clear-cut, and their psychological basis may be more flexible than studies suggest.Science is only as good as the methods used to study it and when the methods are imprecise so are the resulting data. Ergo, interpret these data as suggestive and not typical of left- and right-handers in general, at least until confirmed by many more studies using many more people, and every time comparing equal or similar numbers of left- and right-handed people.BibliographyMcManus, Chris. Right hand, left hand: The origins of asymmetry in brains, bodies, atoms and cultures. Harvard University Press, 2004.Coren, Stanley. The left-hander syndrome: The causes and consequences of left-handedness. Simon and Schuster, 2012.Stapleton, Walter H. "The Terms for" Right Hand" and" Left Hand" in the Bantu Languages." Journal of the Royal African Society 4.16 (1905): 431-433.Werner, Alice. "Note on the terms used for" right hand" and" left hand" in the Bantu languages." Journal of the Royal African Society 4.13 (1904): 112-116.Kushner, Howard I. "Why are there (almost) no left-handers in China?." Endeavour 37.2 (2013): 71-81.Barsalou, Lawrence W. "Grounded cognition." Annu. Rev. Psychol. 59 (2008): 617-645. Page on ucsd.eduCasasanto, Daniel. "Embodiment of abstract concepts: good and bad in right-and left-handers." Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 138.3 (2009): 351. Page on mpdl.mpg.deAnanthaswamy, Anil. "Bodily minds: how we think outside the brain." New Scientist 205.2753 (2010): 8-9.Casasanto, Daniel. "Different bodies, different minds the body specificity of language and thought." Current Directions in Psychological Science 20.6 (2011): 378-383. Page on mpdl.mpg.de)de la Vega, Irmgard, et al. "Emotional valence and physical space: Limits of interaction." Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance 38.2 (2012): 375. Page on bibliographie.uni-tuebingen.dede la Vega, Irmgard, et al. "Starting off on the right foot: strong right-footers respond faster with the right foot to positive words and with the left foot to negative words." Frontiers in psychology 6 (2015). Starting off on the right foot: strong right-footers respond faster with the right foot to positive words and with the left foot to negative wordsBrunyé, Tad T., et al. "Body-specific representations of spatial location." Cognition 123.2 (2012): 229-239. Page on tufts.eduEdinburgh Handedness Inventory) (Oldfield, Richard C. "The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory." Neuropsychologia 9.1 (1971): 97-113. Page on psy.ku.dkAnnett, Marian. Left, right, hand and brain: The right shift theory. Psychology Press, 1985.Annett, Marian. Handedness and brain asymmetry: The right shift theory. Psychology Press, 2013.Scerri, Thomas S., et al. "PCSK6 is associated with handedness in individuals with dyslexia." Human molecular genetics (2010): ddq475. PCSK6 is associated with handedness in individuals with dyslexiaMcManus, I. C. "Right‐and left‐hand skill: Failure of the right shift model." British Journal of Psychology 76.1 (1985): 1-16. Page on ucl.ac.ukTapley, S. M., and M. P. Bryden. "A group test for the assessment of performance between the hands." Neuropsychologia 23.2 (1985): 215-221.Peters, Michael, and Bruce M. Durding. "Handedness measured by finger tapping: a continuous variable." Canadian Journal of Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie 32.4 (1978): 257.Nicholls, Michael ER, et al. "The relationship between hand preference, hand performance, and general cognitive ability." Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society 16.04 (2010): 585-592. Page on squarespace.comCorballis, Michael C., Gjurgjica Badzakova‐Trajkov, and Isabelle S. Häberling. "Right hand, left brain: genetic and evolutionary bases of cerebral asymmetries for language and manual action." Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science 3.1 (2012): 1-17. Page on researchgate.netTapley, S. M., and M. P. Bryden. "A group test for the assessment of performance between the hands." Neuropsychologia 23.2 (1985): 215-221.

The Al-Khalid is essentially a hybrid tank design with systems, armament and subsystems originating from a variety of global sources though the tank system itself, as a whole, is a locally-produced product native to Pakistan. Its indirect lineage can be traced back to the Soviet Cold War-era T-54 series while its direct lineage stems from the Chinese NORINCO Type 90-II main battle tank. Additionally, engines are of Ukrainian origin while production is handled within Pakistan. In most respects, the Al-Khalid can be viewed as the "ultimate" evolution of the successful Soviet T-54 system.Design on the Al-Khalid ran through most of the 1990's to which the system was then known as the "MBT 2000". Design was handled on both the part of NORINCO Factory 617 of China and Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT) of Pakistan with a partnership officially inked in January of 1990. Prototypes appeared the following year and went into evaluation. At the core of the new tank design was to be ease-of-production, a system that could readily accept the use of foreign powerpacks.There appeared four major prototypes designated simply as P1, P2, P3 and P4. Each was differentiated mainly by their selection of powerplants. The P1 sported the German-based MTU-396 diesel engine mated to an LSG-3000 automatic transmission while fielding a Chinese-made 125mm main gun, fire-control system and autoloader. The P2 was similar in scope but with a Perkins Condor 1,200 horsepower diesel engine (used in the successful British Challenger MBT series), a French SESM ESM500 (ala the Le Clerc MBT) and western-based fire-control system. The P3 sported a Ukrainian 6TD-2 1,200 horsepower engine but essentially the P2 prototype. The P4 was given the NATO-standard 120mm main gun tied into a western-based fire-control system along with a German-based MTU-871/TCM AVDS-1790 diesel engine with LSG-3000 automatic transmission. The P4 was intended to become an export product for Pakistan to produce, operate and sell to other prospective global buyers.P2's Challenger-based engine proved too temperamental for the rigors of desert warfare and was ultimately too expensive for a long-term powerpack solution. The P4 saw its demise when an arms embargo was placed against Pakistan for their testing of a nuclear weapon in 1998. As such, the P3 with her Ukrainian powerplant proved the best for both cost and operations in the hot Pakistani climate. The new tank system was born under the Chinese designation of "Type 90-IIM" (showcasing its obvious lineage to the NORINCO Type 90-II model) along with an export designation of "MBT 2000". In Pakistan, the tank took on the name of "Al-Khalid".Pakistan received much experience in its two major Indo-Pak Wars against India resulting in a nation that was now more or less knowledgeable about what it wanted in their next main battle tank. Pakistan had already been granted license-production rights to the Chinese Type 85-IIAP series and manufactured the type through Heavy Industries Taxila (HIT), to which the experience in this type of industrial-size, heavy duty manufacturing proved priceless to Pakistan's future within localized production of armored vehicles. As such, HIT was tabbed for producing the new Al-Khalid and the tank entered service with the Pakistani Army in 2001 with local Pakistani production continuing even today. It is expected that some 600 total Al-Khalids will be delivered to the Pakistani Army by production's end.Externally, the Al-Khalid shares a conventional design consistent with most modern main battle tanks. It offers up a low profile thanks to its rather short turret height. The glacis plate is very shallow and side armor is augmented through the use if skirts. Six road wheels are fitted to a side. Crew accommodations amount to three personnel as the loader position is done away with. The driver is seated in the center of the forward hull while the gunner and tank commander take their positions in the turret. Armor is composite in construction and is expanded to include Explosive Reactive Armor for increased protection.The engine is mounted at the rear and consists of a Ukrainian-based KMDB 6TD-2 6-cylinder diesel-fueled engine delivering up to 1,200 horsepower. The engine provides a top speed of 70 kilometers-per-hour with a range of 400 kilometers. The powerplant is tied to a SESM ESM500-series 5-speed transmission system. Suspension is accomplished through a torsion bar and hydraulic damper arrangement.Primary armament of the Al-Khalid centers around the powerful 125mm smoothbore main gun nestled into the center of the turret face. Consistent with Russian tank designs throughout recent history, the Al-Khalid does away with the main gun loader as a crewmember and instead employs a complicated but effective automatic loader in his place. Anti-aircraft support is handled by the tank commander through an externally-operated 12.7mm heavy machine gun mounted on the turret roof. A 7.62mm anti-infantry machine gun is mounted co-axially on the turret face next to the main gun. Six smoke grenade dischargers are fitted to either turret side and a capable laser range finder, laser detection system and NBC protection are all standard to base Al-Khalids.As of this writing, over 600 examples of the Al-Khalid have been produced. The primary production model is the Al-Khalid based on the NORINCO prototype fitting the Ukrainian KMDB 6TD-2 diesel engine (P3). The Al-Khalid I represents an upgraded model with revised systems, engine, autoloader, and armor scheme as well as the ability to fire KOMBAT anti-tank guided missiles. Al-Khalid II is an upgraded variant with reivsed turret, upgraded armor package, improved projectiles and sensor equipment, increased situational awareness, increased combat weight, and new engine.The Al-Khalid is named after the Muslim hero-general Khalid ibn al-Walid (592-642 AD), Muhammad's successful and legendary military commander.

120 lb. (Note that we do not add s to a unit symbol for a plural form—the same symbol is always to be used for singular and plural. That way you can manipulate the symbol algebraically just like symbols x and y for variables.)Does that contradict what you have been taught? Probably, because most people do not understand the pound as a unit of measurement nor the meaning of weigh(t) in different contexts.Legally, the pound in the UK and the US has been legally defined as a unit of mass, not force. Since 1959 in the US and 1964 in the UK, the pound has been defined as:1 lb = 0.453 592 37 kg.That is an equation, with each side of the equality symbol having an expression, indicating that the two expressions are identical in nature and value. The unit symbol on the right side is kg, meaning kilogram, defined as the base unit of mass in SI—it is definitely not a force. Therefore, the expression of the right side of the equality symbol is a mass, so the expression on the left side of the equality symbol must also be a mass. The unit symbol on the left side is lb, indicating pound, so the pound must be a unit of mass. Prior to 1959 and going back to 1893 in the US, the pound was defined via the Mendenhall Order of 1893, which was also a number of kilograms, slightly different from the new value in 1959 (the purpose of the 1959 change being to make the definition of the pound be identical in Australia, Canada, New Zealand, South Africa, UK, and US, where it had varied slightly by country prior to that). Prior to 1893 in the US and 1964 in the UK, the pound had been defined in terms of the mass of various hunks of metal (just like the kilogram has been for well over a century and will be for roughly one more year.The verb weigh means to find the weight of. Now, the word weight is something that requires a great deal of care to use and understand properly. Physicists would agree with this statement, but for quite a different reason that what I am about to present. In the context of physics, mechanical engineering, and civil engineering weight has meant the gravitational force on a object by some locally dominant astronomical body—a meaning that has been in use in English since just after 1700 (not even 320 years ago). There is a second context, namely, commerce, trade, and law, in which weight has had, and continues to have, a rather different meaning in English for over 1000 years, and that meaning is the amount of material contained in some object as measured by a 2-pan balance. Now, a 2-pan balance measures what physicists have called mass since the early 1700s. The number of people involved in commerce and law far exceeds the number of physicists and engineers, plus the usage of the word weight by practitioners of commerce, trade, and law is centuries older than the usage by physicists and engineers. Thus, the use of weight to mean mass has a far greater following in terms of number of people and far older precedent than does the use of weight to mean a particular kind of force. Because of this the general public has far more exposure to the mass meaning than to the force meaning, so by a wide margin use the mass meaning instead of the force meaning, and, because of the double precedent, it is not wrong to do so. If anybody is in the wrong, it is the physicists who inappropriately tried in the early 1700s to change the usage without excuse contrary to the already long historical precedent; however, given that the physics usage as force has been in place for over 300 years and is firmly in-grained in most of that community, it is not reasonable to try to force the physicists to change their usage, and they should see likewise that it is hypocritical and inappropriate for them to insist that the 1000 year old usage is wrong and used only by some totally uneducated and/or stubborn holdouts.When doctors weigh patients and records their weight, the doctor is interested in how much material is in that body, not how much the local force of gravity pulls on that body, so body weight is an indication of mass, and appropriately measured in kilograms and pounds, both of which are units of mass, as indicated above. Similarly people do not want to pay for 2.01 lb in Barrow Alaska for a bag of sugar labeled as 2 lb nor think they are being cheated by getting only 1.99 lb of sugar at a store on Mauna Kea Hawaiʻi with the same bag of sugar—no, they are getting and paying for 2.00 lb in both places, because it is measured (as NET WT.) based on mass and, therefore, the same everywhere. All of this is recognized by the US National Institute of Standards and Technology Special Publication 811, Section 8.3.Therefore, for the Mercury problem, the fact that lb is used (or had kg been used), 120 lb is using lb, which is a unit of mass and is using the word weigh in its legal sense referring to finding the mass of, and mass does not change whether on Earth or Mercury, so the 120 lb does not change between the two locales. Yes, the gravitational force on the object changes between the two locales, but technically, the wording of the posted question did not ask about that, though it might have intended to.