Hemispheric and Facial Asymmetry: Faces of Academe

¶ … Hemispheric and Facial Asymmetry: Faces of Academe" (1998), researcher William A. Smith examines the correlation between facial symmetry and cognition. Facedness, which he describes as facial asymmetry, exists in all faces. This asymmetry is usually divided upon the hemispheres of the human face: north and south, west and east. These hemispheres are called, logically enough, hemifaces. No person's face will be perfectly symmetrical. If it were, the effect of perfect balance of features would give someone an unnatural appearance. He is not trying to determine whether or not asymmetry exists because it is a given in his experimentation. Smith also considers the fact that brains are asymmetrical as a given. Brain asymmetry, Smith states, will determine what a person's cognitive speculation will be. Smith points to several research experiments that were performed in recent years to locate correlation between brain asymmetry and cognitive specialty, if any did indeed exist (Smith 1998,-page 664). Facial asymmetry, he argues, can have a direct correlation to the asymmetry of a person's brain. Further, if this experiment proves true, a person's cognitive specialty could be determined in childhood based upon the asymmetry of their facial features.

For his experimentation, Smith took educators from different departments at Dartmouth College. This included people from humanities, math and physics, psychology, and a group of random individuals as well. Smith's stated hypothesis is that the people from different departments will be able to be characterized by the symmetry of their faces. He says, "Faculty members in the humanities were found on average to be right faced, whereas those faculty members in mathematics and physics were found to be left faced. The group of psychologists and the group of randomly selected individuals showed no bias in facedness" (Smith 1998,-page 665). Smith states that his initial theories were confirmed through his experimentation, but that does not mean they were accurate.

Critique:

The piece is flawed in several important ways. First of all, his experimentation is performed under the assumption that a lot of what he needs to prove is already accepted information. He claims that science has already proved a correlation between brain asymmetry and cognitive preference. Perhaps part of the issue with the research is that Smith is too close to the topic. Under acknowledgements, the author states that the researcher he looked at regarding the correlation between brain asymmetry and cognitive preference was performed by his brother. This relationship prevents him from having an objective attitude to the subject or to the former research's findings. Yet, he has not provided information as to the experiments which tested this theory.

Another major issue with the article is that it does not fit the format of a proper research or discussion of findings. Rather than write the article in the proper order, Smith places the introduction to his research first and then writes about his findings. The results portion of the paper is supposed to be towards the end of the paper and then followed by Discussion. However, before a discussion of results, the writer usually explains the purpose for the experimentation and how the researcher went about investigating the guiding question. By doing so, the author completely disrupts the proper flow of the argument that they are trying to present. Not only is it improper, but it leads the reader to feel that that author is not the authority figure on the topic which he believes him or herself to be. Moving the results before the discussion of the experimentation itself is showing those who read such documents, that the individual does not possess the proper understanding of how research is supposed to be conducted nor of the potential consequences for that action. It is a ploy to convince the reader of their correctness even when there is no evidence to follow that statement.