It seems like you should test this approach out more thoroughly. Why don't you test it with a traditional double blind type experiment?
If I thought a standard experiment could validate these principles, I would move to design one.
Proving validity, however, is not simple even in a straightforward test. When complex decisions are introduced, it's easy to declare the questions invalid. Too many alternative explanations can be offered for each choice.
I could spend three years on a standard decision making experiment and still have fuzzy results. At this time I'm sticking with the flexibility poker offers.
I find these ideas valuable and don't think you should give them away for free. Shouldn't the information be in a book that you can sell?
My preference is to find a plastic milk box and stand on a corner preaching about anti-learning techniques. With more efficient teaching methods more people can reach their potential and this translates into better jobs, greater insight, and a higher quality of life. I want to shout the news.
Street corners aren't what they used to be. This site is my soapbox.
Some people prefer books to reading from the screen. I'm working on a print edition due out early next year.
I would have like to see more examples. Any chance of that in the future?
I wanted the Web edition to be a fast, easy read. It would also be nice if the first print edition was a fast, easy read.
But yes, including more examples is a good idea.
I guess I don't believe the results. Convince me.
Have a friend hide a can of peas in your house and time how long it takes to find it. Have them hide it in five different places. Add up the times.
Next, label a cupboard with the sign, "Peas." Find your way to the peas five times. Time yourself.
Compare the times and effort. Those are the results.
I'm an experienced musician, but I'm having trouble learning a new piece. In the past, muscle memory type practice has been a standard part of my routine. My old approach doesn't seem to be working. Is this pattern related?
My first inclination is to say, "Of course it's pattern related. Everything is driven by patterns. Let's start by listing out all possible frameworks and begin testing them."
After a little consideration, however, that doesn't seem correct. Please excuse me I'm very tied up in the pattern chapters and tend to see everything as a pattern problem.
In your musical learning problem, two comments point us in another direction. Since you're an experienced musician, you probably have a broad foundation of playing patterns. Also, we will assume your basic learning framework is sound.
Here is the telling point. You mentioned muscle memory, which points us to sequence learning where overload is the most common problem.
But you're experienced. The new piece shouldn't overload you.
In fact, your experience is probably contributing to the overload problem.
Novice performers must learn in small increments (sequences of seven or less). A new dance move, for example, must be presented as step, bend, move the head, turn the shoulder, turn the hips, and turn the other foot. That's six steps.
A professional dancer, however, sees that move simply as twist. For the pro, it would be tempting to suggest a twist, turn, twirl movement. Those respesent three steps to the pro, but for the novice, those instructions translate into twenty-five steps. That's well into the overload zone.
Like the professional dancer, you may be asking too much, too soon for this particular arrangement. Something about it makes it new for you. As far as this piece goes, you're a novice.
Break the piece into very small segments (less than seven moves) and follow your normal muscle memory learning approach.
For more on the overload issue and for references on the limit of seven items, check out the "Out of Overload" article listed on the AWSS main page.
| AWSS Home | Previous Section | Feedback: James Davis