Peky,
I have not yet submitted my paper to peer review, but would like to. There is no reason not to. It is strongly supported by science, is in keeping with empirical evidence, and is highly logical. I realize that an academician would have submitted the paper first, but that could take many months. I have actively searched for reasons to discredit it myself and have submitted it to a variety of people for feedback. I am confident that I am correct and excited about the potential this revelation has to bring a measure of peace to a troubled world and wanted to get it out to the general public. In addition, I have only recently completed the paper to my satisfaction, having revised the original chart and having added another chart since this article was posted on this site.
As for your comment about it being hypothesis rather than theory, you are largely correct. My editor and I tossed this idea around and chose the simpler word as the paper is really a mixture of both. The bulk of my hypothesis is based on actual theory. It is well accepted that the two hemispheres are radially different in terms of their experience of reality and how that experience differs. It is well accepted that most men are left brain dominant and most women right brain dominant. So the question becomes, what happens to those people whose brain dominance is reversed? No one seems to be looking into this, so I did—and perspective, my speciality, is where one needs to start. In essence, the only thing that I have done that is new, is to speculate as to what happens when a male is directed by a feminine perspective (or a female by a masculine perspective)! And that is not difficult to do. We all use both, it's just a matter of looking at what happens when one dominates and we can see that, both in individuals and in our culture (the male perspective dominants in culture and you can see what that does to culture). My investigation of perspective is the focus of years of work, and my book has won four national awards and received great reviews.
Basically, in the physical world, we respond, based on what we see from our perspective, whether physical or mental. That response can take many directions as it has to be processed though perception according to our experiences, our body of knowledge, and all that entails, a process that is very complex. Fundamentally, the reason my insights have not been widely recognized before now is that perspective, which is relatively simple, has been mixed in with perception, which is highly complex and thus difficult to evaluate. Also, behavioral scientists study perception, not perspective. And they are looking for physical triggers (as some of the comments reflect ). Although my discovery is grounded in the brain, basically, my focus in the mind, an area (since it is non-physical) that science is not well equipped to study and measure. And if you can't provide measurements according to scientific standards, researchers are afraid to publish, fearing a negative response such as I often get. The left brain is highly skeptical and attacks what it does not understand. I know there are others who see what I see, but being unable to prove it, hold off until they have solid proof. But we can find the truth without science. Intuition is an example. I might add that philosophy, my speciality, when properly applied includes science, and as such, is superior to science---though most people don't recognize this.
