What left-handed people have that right-handers don’t
Here is a fun fact! Around 10% of the world’s population are left-handed. So, since being a “southpaw” isn’t something common, it has long fascinated experts and ordinary people alike.
Lefties often navigate the world with a unique set of cognitive quirks. While they enjoy some pretty cool perks in certain activities, they also need to deal with the daily annoyance of living in a world built for right-handers. From how their brains are wired to their creative streaks and athletic prowess, left-handedness gives us a front-row seat to how the human brain adapts and succeeds.
The human brain is lateralized, which is a fancy way of saying that certain functions are processed more by one side than the other. For a lot of lefties, the right hemisphere, which we associate with such things as intuition, creativity, and spatial ability, seems to be in charge. According to Dr. Charlotte Reznick, a child educational psychologist and former UCLA professor who is a lefty herself, left-handers seem to have a “knack” for creative activities as opposed to logical ones.
Left-handed people may also process slightly differently by getting both sides of their brain get along better. This can, in turn, help them become more creative thinkers. Scientists believe that this is the exact reason why left-handed people show such unique cognitive behavior.
Pexels
When it comes to the actual intelligence, research show that the numbers are a lot more balanced than the “tortured genius” stereotypes you see in media. A massive meta-analysis published in the Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews journal, which saw data from 19 different databases in which over 16,000 people were included, found that for the average person there is no significant difference in the overall IQ between left-handed and right-handed people. In other words, the hand you write with is not a shortcut to a higher score on a standard intelligence test.
On the other hand, the research did reveal a few intriguing facts about the extremes of the spectrum. The study noted a slightly greater rate of left-handedness in people with intellectual disabilities, indicating that “atypical handedness” can, in a certain sense, be linked to different developmental routes. The study also went against the common stereotype that left-handed people are more likely to be “gifted.” In fact, hight-achieving groups are in fact slightly less likely to be left-handed than the general public.
This change in the narrative means we shouldn’t see left-handedness as either a “superpower” or a “deficit,” but as a neutral biological variation. While lefties may not have a naturally higher IQ compared to the rest of the population, their advantage lies in the way they use their intelligence, especially in what is termed “spatial rotation” or “divergent thinking,” where the right hemisphere of the brain gets a workout.
Pexels
Creativity and artistic ability
One of the most enduring beliefs about left-handed people is that they are more creative than the rest. According to a common psychological theory found on Enviroliteracy, the right hemisphere of the brain, which is used for spatial reasoning and intuition, is said to be more dominant in left-handers, which might give them an advantage in music and art.
Research published in Behavioral and Brain Functions, indicates that left-handed musicians have distinctive structural brain features such as increased gray matter in the auditory cortex which may help with skills such as pitch memory.
However, scientific opinion seems to be shifting to a more nuanced way. A 2025 Cornell University meta-analysis conducted by Owen Morgan and Daniel Casasanto, which reviewed more than 100 years of data and nearly 1,000 studies, found that while leftie do dominate in fields like music and art, they do not actually perform better on standard lab tests that measure “divergent thinking,” which is the ability to come up with more solutions to a single problem. It seems that the “creative lefty” belief only persists because our tendency to notice rare traits like being left-handed and being a genius and assume they somehow just go hand-in-hand.
Pexels
The athletic advantage of left-handers
When to comes to left-handers and sports, it has long been considered that they have strategic advantage over the rest of the people. In “duel” sports like fencing, baseball, and table tennis, lefties are represented at far higher rates than their 10% share of the overall population. A2025 study published in Royal Society Open Science, shows that left-handers are significantly overrepresented in elite fencing—particularly in the foil and épée disciplines—where they make up over 25% of top-ranked male athletes.
This is because of the “Negative Frequency-Dependent Advantage” or “surprise effect.” The overwhelming majority of people, or 90%, are right-handed, and most of them spend their entire lives playing against right-handed opponents. The “southpaw” effect causes their muscle memory to be slightly off because of the angles and spins involved.
However, a newly published research from February 2026 published in the journal Scientific Reports indicates that there is also a psychological element to this phenomenon. Namely, the study shows that left-handers actually have a higher “hyper-competitive orientation” than right-handers. What this means is that lefties are less likely to shy away from a competition due to nervousness or anxiety and are driven by a desire to win. So not only they are harder to predict, but they also have a sharper appetite when it comes to one-on-one combat.
Pexels
Everyday obstacles and adaptation
When you think about it, being a leftie in a world designed for righties isn’t that easy. Everything, from scissors to computer mice is designed with the other 90% in mind.
However, it is these minor frustrations that are great for building character and brainpower. Lefties often end up more ambidextrous and better at problem-solving simply because they have to figure out how to use tools that aren’t meant for them.
According to research, left-handed students tend to be more skilled in mental rotation and in solving puzzles in weird ways. The struggle is real for even the smallest things such as spiral notebooks, kitchen gadgets, and three-ring binders. Lefties learn to adjust their grip and find “workarounds” constantly, which probably improves their spatial reasoning and cognitive flexibility over time.
Pexels
Health considerations
While the research on health and handedness is mix, certain data do suggest that there is a bit of increased risk of conditions such as dyslexia and ADHD in left-handed people. The thing to remember, though, is that correlation does not mean causation, and most left-handed people lead completely healthy lives without ever having to deal with any of these issues.
There has been some research done on whether or not being left-handed affects how long you live or whether or not you have a stronger immune system, but the evidence is pretty inconclusive, and experts say that being left-handed is not a “health predictor,” lifestyle, genetics, and environmental factors all play much more significant roles.
What makes left-handedness interesting
Being a lefty is a package deal: you get a whole list of awesome advantages and frustrating disadvantages. Left-handed people excel in sports and creative activities, but they also have to continually work at adapting their world.
Plus, learning about left-handedness can also help us understand the brain in general. By learning how left-handed people process information, we can also learn more about the brain’s plasticity and how we can be so flexible in our thinking.
There is also an interesting history involved here. For example, for a very long time, lefties were forced to write with their right hands, and this possibly affected how whole generations learned to deal with and overcome problems. If we look at all this, it helps us see how both biology and environment contribute to who we are.
Pexels
Final Thoughts
At the end of the day, being left-handed is not just about which hand you use to hold a pen with, but it is a celebration of the diversity of the human brain.
Whether it’s sports heroes or musical masterminds, left-handers bring something unique to the table. They may have trouble with scissors once in a while, but their flexibility and uniqueness are incredibly valuable.
As we continue to explore, we will likely learn more ways in which handedness affects our lives. By embracing these differences, we can make the world a more ergonomic and accommodating place for all people, regardless of whether they’re left-handed or right-handed.
Please SHARE this article with your family and friends on Facebook.
Iran’s ‘Friendly Nations’ List Gives Way to Shifting Access in Strait of Hormuz
Iran’s first move through the Strait of Hormuz looked hard, deliberate, and politically selective. After the late February strikes, Tehran signaled that some countries could still move through the waterway. Reuters reported on March 27 that Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi named friendly nations, including China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan. That message suggested Iran was dividing passage by politics, pressure, and wartime interest. At that stage, the Strait of Hormuz looked less like an open trade route and more like a channel Iran would manage on its own terms.
Yet the policy did not remain that narrow for long. Within days, Iraq received an exemption, vessels carrying essential goods won access, and Malaysia-linked ships were cleared. Reuters also reported recent crossings by ships linked to Oman, France, and Japan, provided they had no U.S. or Israeli ties. Shipowners, insurers, and governments are now reading every Iranian signal for signs of a wider reopening or a harder squeeze. A handful of tankers have passed, but the route is still dangerous and commercially strained. What began as a short list has become a shifting system of exemptions, conditions, and calculated leverage across the Strait of Hormuz. This article traces the latest updates to that initial list, examines how Iran’s position has changed, and looks at where passage through the Strait of Hormuz stands now.
How the original list took shape
Iran’s early passage policy appeared to favor a small group of politically aligned countries, yet severe security risks quickly showed that access was never truly guaranteed. Image Credit: Pexels
The early version of the story had a clear internal logic. That is why the headline spread so fast. Iran had answered the late February strikes by restricting movement through the Strait of Hormuz. It then signalled that some countries could still pass. Reuters reported on March 27 that Foreign Minister Abbas Araqchi named friendly nations permitted through. The countries included China, Russia, India, Iraq, and Pakistan. That statement gave editors a usable frame. It suggested Iran was dividing shipping by politics. The idea also matched Tehran’s wider message. Iran had already told the International Maritime Organization that certain states lacked innocent passage rights. It named the United States, Israel and other participants in the attacks. Shipping, therefore, looked split into hostile and acceptable groups.
Reuters also reported that China was pressing Iran over crude and Qatari LNG cargoes. Ship-tracking data showed one vessel moving after marking itself “China-owner.” That detail strengthened the first impression. Tehran seemed to reward states it viewed as useful. It also seemed ready to punish states tied to the war effort. For a breaking headline, that looked tidy and convincing. Yet even the first reports showed strain below the surface. Reuters said two Chinese container ships halted their attempt to leave the Gulf despite Iran’s assurances. A named country, then, did not receive a guaranteed corridor. It received a chance. That distinction matters. The first list was real as a political signal. It was never stable enough to explain the whole situation. The operational backdrop made that weakness harder to ignore.
UKMTO’s Joint Maritime Information Center said on March 6 that no formal legal closure had been declared. It also said, “the operational environment continues to reflect active kinetic hazard conditions.” The advisory warned mariners to “continue to exercise extreme caution.” It said attacks against commercial shipping still posed a high risk. Traffic data in that note showed how badly the route had tightened. Historically, daily transit averaged about 138 vessels. Recent reviews found only 4 confirmed commercial transits in the previous 24 hours. JMIC called that a near-total temporary pause in routine traffic. Reuters added the commercial picture. Analysts at Kpler and Vortexa said about 300 oil tankers remained inside the Strait. They were waiting for clarity that never truly arrived.
Kpler analyst Rebecca Gerdes told Reuters that safe passage “could not be guaranteed.” That short quote says more than the original list did. A government could name a friendly state. Owners still had to judge missile risk, insurance cost, crew safety, and the chance of reversal. Energy and trade bodies show why this mattered so widely. The IEA says nearly 15 million barrels a day of crude passed through Hormuz in 2025. That was about 34% of the global crude oil trade. UNCTAD says the Strait carries around one quarter of global seaborne oil trade. It also carries major LNG and fertilizer flows. Set beside the early Reuters reporting, the first headline starts to look incomplete. It captured the first diplomatic sorting. It did not capture the severe conditions shaping each transit decision.
How the list widened and changed
The first big change came when exemptions spread beyond the states named in the initial reporting. On April 2, Reuters said Manila had received assurances on Philippine passage. The assurance covered Philippine ships and fuel supply through the Strait of Hormuz. The Philippines had not appeared in the early Reuters list tied to Araqchi’s statement. That alone showed the framework was expanding. Two days later, Reuters reported that Iran was allowing vessels carrying essential goods to Iranian ports through the waterway. Those ships had to coordinate with Iranian authorities and follow set procedures. Passage was no longer tied only to nationality. It also depended on cargo and Iran’s own domestic needs. Iraq then pushed the story further. Reuters reported on April 4 that Iran had exempted Iraq from restrictions on transit through the Strait.
On April 6, Reuters reported that Iraq’s state oil marketer SOMO told buyers to submit lifting schedules within 24 hours. SOMO said its loading terminals were fully operational and ready to execute contracts without limitation. That language matters because it showed confidence returning on paper, even if shipowners still hesitated in practice. The policy was becoming more elastic. Iran was no longer simply naming friends. It was deciding when to relax pressure, where to relax pressure and which trade flows served its interests best. That shift is central to the article’s update. It turns the story from a list into a moving policy. Actual vessel movements then made the shift impossible to dismiss. Reuters reported on April 5 that the tanker Ocean Thunder passed through Hormuz with Iraqi crude.
It carried about 1 million barrels of Basrah Heavy. The same Reuters report said the vessel was among 7 Malaysia-linked ships cleared by Iran. That detail changed the meaning of 7 in later coverage. It did not describe a final club of 7 friendly nations. It referred to Malaysia-linked vessels receiving clearance after diplomatic talks. Reuters said Malaysian Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim confirmed that Iranian officials had agreed to let Malaysian vessels pass toll-free. Reuters also reported that ships linked to Oman, France, and Japan had crossed in recent days. Another Reuters dispatch said Iran would allow passage for vessels without U.S. or Israeli links. That is a broader and more fluid standard. It is still coercive because it excludes large parts of global shipping.
Yet it is no longer a fixed national whitelist. It is a conditional system shaped by diplomacy, cargo, ownership links, and Tehran’s immediate bargaining needs. UNCTAD’s March assessment helps explain why that flexibility matters beyond oil headlines. It warned that disruption in Hormuz affects crude, LNG, fertilizers, food costs, and vulnerable import-dependent economies. Once those wider trade effects are included, the old “7 friendly nations” angle becomes too narrow. Iran began with a politically useful list. It then moved into selective and evolving exemptions as pressure built. That is the cleaner frame now for any updated article or headline going forward this week. More exemptions may emerge as diplomacy and conflict continue colliding.
Where the Strait of Hormuz stands now
None of these crossings means the Strait is functioning normally. The latest official warnings still describe a dangerous operating picture. UKMTO’s Joint Maritime Information Center said the maritime security situation continued to reflect critical kinetic risk. It said attacks remained likely and conditions were still highly hazardous for commercial shipping. The advisory also said no formal legal closure had been declared. Yet it stressed that commercial operators still faced a restricted and highly sensitive transit environment. IMO has echoed that danger in humanitarian terms. It says around 20,000 seafarers, along with port workers and offshore crews, have been affected in the region. In a briefing published on April 2, the IMO Secretary-General issued a blunt warning. He said, “Fragmented responses are no longer sufficient.”
IMO also said it had confirmed 21 attacks on commercial ships since February 28. It reported 10 seafarer fatalities and several injuries. Those figures explain why limited crossings do not equal normal trade. A vessel may pass and still prove nothing about wider confidence. One successful transit does not rebuild schedules or reduce insurance costs. It also does not persuade every owner to send another ship into the Gulf. Reuters reflected that caution after Iraq’s exemption. Some market participants said it remained unclear whether shipowners would return while the war continued. That hesitation is one of the clearest markers of the present moment. Access exists, but confidence does not. The route is usable in fragments, not in a stable commercial sense.
The wider energy picture shows why even partial disruption still matters. The IEA says nearly 15 million barrels a day of crude passed through Hormuz in 2025. That was about 34% of the global crude oil trade. It also says only Saudi Arabia and the UAE can reroute some crude away from the Strait. Even then, bypass capacity is limited. The EIA likewise describes Hormuz as one of the world’s most important oil chokepoints. UNCTAD says the Strait carries about one quarter of global seaborne oil trade. It also carries significant LNG and fertilizer flows. Those numbers explain the pressure building around governments, importers, and markets. Reuters reported on April 1 that IEA Executive Director Fatih Birol described losses above 12 million barrels.
He warned, “We are heading to a major, major disruption.” Reuters also reported that April losses could double March losses. On April 5, Reuters said Brent was near $110 a barrel while WTI was around $111. Those prices followed sharp weekly gains. Refiners had begun seeking alternatives from the United States and Britain, yet those shifts can only soften the blow. They do not reopen Hormuz. So the current position is best described as selective movement under severe stress. Some ships are crossing. Some states are receiving exemptions. Yet the lane remains strategically choked, commercially impaired, and dangerous enough that every transit still looks exceptional instead of routine. That is where the Strait of Hormuz stands right now in practical terms. Insurance fears and military risk still shadow every attempted transit.
What experts think may happen next
Experts expect Iran to keep using the Strait as leverage while any wider reopening depends on fragile diplomacy and security guarantees. Image Credit: Pexels
Most expert analysis now points away from a clean military fix. It points instead toward a long negotiation over access, deterrence, and postwar leverage. Reuters reported on April 3 that recent U.S. intelligence assessments suggested Iran was unlikely to ease its grip soon. The reason was strategic, not only tactical. The Strait gives Tehran rare leverage over Washington and over energy-dependent states far beyond the region. Ali Vaez of the International Crisis Group framed that leverage in stark language. He told Reuters, “The U.S. handed Iran a weapon of mass disruption.” That quote has travelled because it captures the scale of the shift. Iran is no longer threatening only through missiles and proxies. It is also threatened by trade disruption, freight risk, and oil market stress.
Reuters cited one source familiar with the intelligence assessment. The source said Iran had now tasted its power over the waterway. It was therefore unlikely to surrender that leverage soon. That view fits the traffic pattern seen so far. Tehran has allowed narrow movement at chosen moments. Yet it has not given up the broader power to frighten markets, pressure governments, and extract concessions. That means the next phase may turn on bargaining, not reopening alone. Any temporary passage deal could still leave Iran room to tighten access again. That risk grows if talks stall or fresh strikes occur. Diplomatic reporting points in the same direction. Reuters reported on April 2 that about 40 countries discussed ways to reopen the waterway. No concrete operational agreement emerged. President Emmanuel Macron called a military move to force the Strait open “unrealistic.”
He said ships would face Guard attacks and ballistic missiles. Reuters later reported that former CIA Director Bill Burns saw specific Iranian demands ahead. He said Tehran would seek “long-term deterrence and security guarantees” in any settlement. Burns also said Iran would want direct material benefits. On April 6, Reuters reported that UAE adviser Anwar Gargash said the use of Hormuz must be guaranteed. He said that a guarantee should form part of any U.S.-Iran deal. Reuters also reported today that the United States and Iran had received a peace proposal. Iran, however, rejected reopening the Strait as part of a temporary ceasefire. Taken together, those reports suggest three realistic paths. Iran could widen exemptions for countries or cargoes it sees as useful.
It could accept a negotiated reopening tied to sanctions, security guarantees, and wider settlement terms. Or it could tighten access again if diplomacy breaks down or force returns to the center of policy. The common thread is uncertainty. That is why the article should open with the original list, then move into the harder truth. The list mattered at the start. It no longer explains the current state of the Strait of Hormuz on its own. That is also why the next headline needs more room than the first one did this week, especially as exemptions keep shifting and diplomacy stays unsettled for now. Markets, diplomats, and shippers are bracing for further sudden shifts.
