Doesn't affect them, either.
The article is typical of sloppy reporting, or at least sloppy writing. After citing various scientific sources, in which nothing more is claimed than that there are detectable differences in the brain regarding motor functions, the article then leaps to a flat assertion, with no supporting evidence.
"The fact that they must do daily tasks in a society that caters to people with a different dominant hand makes them think differently in everyday life."
It rhetorically, but not factually, reinforces that with a typically ambiguous sentence
"Creative thinking is necessary when living life as a left-hander, which may lead to better adaptability and problem-solving skills in professional life."
The conditional "may" is of course key. But by this point in the article, those readers disposed to think left-handedness does indeed affect creativity will read this as an actual assertion.
Next comes a revealing case of using sources improperly. The article cites another article, this one in a business magazine called Fast Company. That article in turn cites a psychologist names Yvonne Thomas, who makes some assertions that both magazines quote without any supporting material. The assertion of lefty creativity isn't even anecdotal, it's just something Thomas said. This is not a good use of sources, still less use of evidence, but here's the revealing bit.
The next paragraph opens with this: "These left-handed statistics paint a fascinating picture of what handedness can influence. Left-handed people facts suggest that their unique perspective on the world leads to different behaviors and strengths."
While "left-handed people facts" is an amusing phrase, note that we have now leaped over to "statistics". Oooh, statistics. It must be true! Oh, just ignore the conditional "can" in the sentence. Statistics! Other than the item about what percentage of the population is left-handed, there haven't been any statistics. The article closes with nothing more than a suggestion, but the rhetorical tone sounds totally scientific. Totally.
But let's leave all that aside. Once in a while the history professor in me comes out from his cave and can be, I admit, a little snarly. I really ought to give him a term paper to grade once in a while, just to help him sleep.
Leaving aside the writing critique, I don't care for the tendency to reduce humans to left-brain vs right-brain, creative vs analytical, or other polar divisions. As the old adage says, the world can be divided into two types of people: those who divide the world into two types of people, and those who don't.
As a writer (and a historian, I suppose), I focus on the fascinating variety of humans, our panoply rather than our poles. What are we always telling each other? Avoid stereotypes! Here's my creative-type character and oh looks, they're left-handed. We wouldn't even let that one in the door.
In other words, I don't want any of that to be true. I want people to be people. Some use their left hand, some their right, some both, and some don't even have hands. The ways in which they face (or don't face) challenges are myriad and fascinating and peculiar to each individual.
(Back to your cave, professor. Scoot!)