Slashdot Mirror


Proof That Practice Does Make Perfect

eldavojohn sends us an article about a discovery by Carnegie Mellon researchers that explains why repetitive studying or training is effective. Previous research had suggested the opposite, which ran counter to nearly everyone's personal experience. Scientists hope that this information will help us to learn more about diseases which affect the memory, such as Alzheimer's. From the article: "In a series of experiments the researchers blocked different receptors, including NMDA, to see the receptors' effect on long-term neural stimulation. They found that while the NMDA receptor is required to begin neural strengthening, a second neurotransmitter receptor -- the metabotropic glutamate (mGlu) receptor -- comes into play after this first phase of cellular learning. ...blocking mGlu receptors caused strengthening to stop."

142 comments

  1. Sheesh by SuperKendall · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Keep studying until you get the result that people understand intuitively to be true. Great job researchers!

    Anyone who plays Guitar Hero could have told you what was what in about five seconds.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Sheesh by wizardforce · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The research is a little deeper than you imply, it seems to be showing the biochemical mechanism which causes this phenomenon. knowing that repetition helps learning is simple, knowing exactly why it does so is useful if we ever want to do anything interesting with our brains from a technological standpoint.

      as a bad analogy: knowing that an apple fell and whacked you on the head is obvious, knowing that the Earth curved space in such a way to allow this is something quite different.

      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    2. Re:Sheesh by ScrewMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, but intuition has no scientific validity, and the point here is not to prove that something is the way we all know it is, but to figure out why it works that way.

      It will be interesting to see if this discovery results in some nifty new drugs to improve the efficiency of the learning process. Wouldn't it be cool to be able to absorb vast quantities of information as easily as remembering a phone number? Hell, if popping a pill could give one the effect of an eidetic memory, it would revolutionize everything. Who cares how hard something is to use? Just read the manual. Once.

      Students could graduate from college with the equivalent of a dozen different degrees. Interdisciplinary cross-fertilization of ideas would be dramatically increased, the pace of progress would accelerate ... maybe something like this is what ushers in Vernor Vinge's Singularity.

      Okay, so maybe it's not such a good idea after all. I'd still like to have a bottle of those pills handy though.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re:Sheesh by Faylone · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, but I doubt most Guitar Hero players could, can, or will be able to explain the biochemistry of why practice helps you improve your skills. Furthermore, it doesn't quite matter if their search was due to common sense, uncommon sense, or total senselessness, as long as the method they obtained the data is scientifically sound, this is quite an interesting discovery.

    4. Re:Sheesh by ComaVN · · Score: 5, Funny

      knowing that the Earth curved space in such a way to allow this is something quite different
      That's only a (flawed) theory. Intelligent falling is a much more plausible explanation.
      --
      Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
    5. Re:Sheesh by sakari · · Score: 4, Informative

      Anyone who actually read the article might tell you that was not the point of the article. They were wondering why the brain seems at first to weaken the synapses in parts of your brain after the initial learning phase. Now they discovered that actually the opposite happens in different parts of the brain after this initial process.

    6. Re:Sheesh by martin-boundary · · Score: 1

      That theory is nonsense! Everyone knows that it's bananas that make people fall. Look up the early experiments by Chaplin, Keaton and Lloyd, or the followups by Larry, Curly et al. in Hollywood Review D.

    7. Re:Sheesh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      So you believe in unintelligent falling? It certinly has something to recommend it, since I've observed that people having even a modest level of brainpower can often manage to walk upright and remain that way for moderate periods of time.

      Perhaps Carnegie Mellon will do a study into that, following up with an investigation into the potential cognitive overload of ambulatory motion performed in parallel with the mastication of latex-like substances.

      P.S. Film at ten.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    8. Re:Sheesh by 19061969 · · Score: 1

      "So you believe in unintelligent falling? It certinly has something to recommend it, since I've observed that people having even a modest level of brainpower can often manage to walk upright and remain that way for moderate periods of time." Unintelligent falling sounds so 1980s so I've decided that it's an invalid theory. Stuff scientific consensus - if the ID crowd can do it, then my wacky notions are just as valid. I hereby propose instead the theory of drunken falling: that objects are naturally drunk and fall over to the ground. Therefore, the way to fly is to drink massive amounts of coffee. But we still need to understand this theory more by subjecting people to differing levels of tasty alcoholic drinks to see the effect on falling. This must be tested immediately. I volunteer to be a subject.

      --
      bang goes my karma... again...
    9. Re:Sheesh by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      May your wish come true -- living with every friggin' memory of every friggin' thing you've ever experienced. After a couple of years of that, come back and we'll charge you an arm and a leg to undo it.

    10. Re:Sheesh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I imagine there'd be a good market for a memory eraser that specifically targets goatse.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    11. Re:Sheesh by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Is the human brain the same as a mouse's brain?
      Are we talking about yours or mine?
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    12. Re:Sheesh by charlieman · · Score: 1
    13. Re:Sheesh by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

      There's a group of people who are living with varying levels of that now. I can't say it's all bad either. Sure made certain aspects of school easier, while non-intuitively making later portions harder. (Something about study habits that were never developed...)

      I personally like "the limited bucket theory", where you remember everything until the bucket overflows. Different people have different size buckets. There's also the quality of what's in the bucket.

      --
      The cesspool just got a check and balance.
    14. Re:Sheesh by Alioth · · Score: 1

      Or the other way around. I find vast amounts of information are often easier to remember than phone numbers, especially if the information is interesting. So... how about "imagine if a phone number was as easy to remember as a vast amount of information" :-)

    15. Re:Sheesh by sorak · · Score: 1

      The research is a little deeper than you imply, it seems to be showing the biochemical mechanism which causes this phenomenon. knowing that repetition helps learning is simple, knowing exactly why it does so is useful if we ever want to do anything interesting with our brains from a technological standpoint.

      Yeah, I figured that part out halfway through a Danzig song

    16. Re:Sheesh by Bazouel · · Score: 1

      Just one thing: remembering != understanding. Learning is much more about the later.

      --
      Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
    17. Re:Sheesh by BarkingPumpkin · · Score: 1

      "Hell, if popping a pill could give one the effect of an eidetic memory, it would revolutionize everything. Who cares how hard something is to use? Just read the manual. Once. "

      You'd have to wait for (more than) half the technical writers of the world to crack a few books first. Have you seen the quality of manuals lately?

    18. Re:Sheesh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like my car, DVD player and computer *fell together* unintelligently... right. Intelligent falling is not even in the same boat, it is nowhere near the outlandish claims of evolutionary theory, that claims you can get sophisticated technology that self-organizes and self-programs sophisticated technological machines if you simply wait long enough.

      That's quite the claim. Getting sophisticated technology in life, like this from non intelligence is a claim no one can prove nor disprove, our science isn't even proto-science yet, ou science is nowhere near complete so comparing the theory that their is an intelligence (be it aliens or something else) that gives birth to technology like such below (in a bacterial nano-machine), to one that claims no intelligence is responsible, when the science is too primitive to answer such queestions is just bluster... We've found life is nano-techonology, paley was correct that life was sosphiticated machinery nad darwin was correct that organisms self-modified and changed over time, seems to me both are true.

      One does not rule out the other, that's a false dichotomy.

      Sophisticated technology in life:
      http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/n.gif

    19. Re:Sheesh by Jasin+Natael · · Score: 1

      Wait. Isn't that what people thought about methamphetamines thirty-odd years ago? Color me skeptical, but excited and hopeful in spite of better judgement.

      --
      True science means that when you re-evaluate the evidence, you re-evaluate your faith.
    20. Re:Sheesh by genner · · Score: 1

      Too bad most schools haven't figured that out yet.

    21. Re:Sheesh by SoupIsGoodFood_42 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not yet, but given how little we still know on the subject, I don't see why intuition should be regarded as something not scientifically valid simply because there currently may not be much research on it specifically.

    22. Re:Sheesh by WgT2 · · Score: 1

      Don't listen to your detractors: doctors and lawyers have to 'practice' their profession - why not researchers/scientists?

      In this case, they practiced their research and got it perfectly right! ;)

    23. Re:Sheesh by wizardforce · · Score: 1

      Just like my car, DVD player and computer *fell together* unintelligently... right.
      genetic programming is being used to "design" more complicated machinery than that by computers using evolutionary theory as a guide. already, it has produced alloys rivaling or exceeding the properties of alloys that we've designed and worked around patents as well as produce more efficient electronics [now being researched and used by NASA] and proteins that do things that have never been observed in nature.

      Getting sophisticated technology in life, like this from non intelligence is a claim no one can prove nor disprove, our science isn't even proto-science yet, ou science is nowhere near complete so comparing the theory that their is an intelligence
      evidence is the currency of science not magical thinking. you observe phenomena, propose a hypothesis, make predictions, revise your hypothesis if needed and rinse repeat until you find something that makes no sense under the current hypothesis and experiment to find out why. that's a far cry from what intelligent design does, ID starts from the position that there *is* a designer and to hell with the evidence to the contrary or lack of evidnece in favor of ID. basically science goes like this: see>>question>>hypothesize>>test>>question>>hypothesize>>test... while religion [intelligent design] goes like this: read holy book>>ignore evidence>>keep idea forever>>prophet!
      --
      Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
    24. Re:Sheesh by The_mad_linguist · · Score: 1

      Coffee isn't strong enough. However, repeated clinical trials have proven that Red Bull does in fact aid in unassisted human flight.

  2. I think they're looking at this the wrong way ... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... blocking mGlu receptors caused strengthening to stop.

    What I want to know is, how many people block their own mGlu receptors? I mean, there are an awful lot of people that just do not seem capable of learning from experience. Maybe they should be concentrating on finding a drug that will unstick those people's mGlu's.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  3. maybe not by User+956 · · Score: 1

    Carnegie Mellon researchers that explains why repetitive studying or training is effective. Previous research had suggested the opposite

    Previous researchers? You mean like Pavlov? Oh wait

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:maybe not by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Previous researchers? You mean like Pavlov?
      That name rings a bell. But then so does Quasimodo.

      Don't forget to tip your waitress!
      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    2. Re:maybe not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pavlov....that name rings a bell....

    3. Re:maybe not by mr_mischief · · Score: 1

      Jan Hammer's bells are, like, totally Tubular.

    4. Re:maybe not by angus_rg · · Score: 1

      The sad thing is, they probably proved it with Mathematical induction rather then common sense.

  4. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by User+956 · · Score: 5, Funny

    What I want to know is, how many people block their own mGlu receptors? I mean, there are an awful lot of people that just do not seem capable of learning from experience.

    So *that* explains the 2004 election. It all makes sense now.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
  5. Stating the obvious? by forgotten_my_nick · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The article is kind of stating the obvious. What really helps you learn though is having an interest in the subject matter.

    Reading something over and over that is boring takes longer to learn but you learn. Your brain pretty much goes "Hey this stuff is boring and doesn't look important, but he keeps repeating it so it must be important".

    What would be nice is more information on metacognition. This is art of studying how to study.

    1. Re:Stating the obvious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In order to get more information on metacognition, someone is going to have to study metacognition - that is, they'll have to study the study of how to study.

      In order to get more information on metametacognition, someone is going to have to study metametacognition - that is, they'll have to study the study of the study of how to study.

      In order to get more information on metametametacognition...

    2. Re:Stating the obvious? by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      There is...its called mega memory, the tools u need for learning to remember, a lot of people without chemical imbalance can quite easily force themselves to have good memory, only those with poor diet or diabetes suffer possible memory loss. After we know Alzheimer's is a 4th type of diabetes, then we can know memory is directly linked to good food.

      I learned how to remember things on purpose, and advanced a technique to the point of being 98% in speed reading classes. I combined the power memory techniques ( yes i bought the kit for 59.99
      late one evening...) and tied that with my reading and found that i could do so much more then before, my alertness for situations and how to deal with them, improved a 1000 fold, however i still suck in judging people as I am quite gullible sometimes.

      Anyways, forcing a traumatic near shocking experience works every time, watch a movie with something that is shocking , and you will never forget those scenes, couple that with something u need to remember for the next day, and bingo.

      I also think repetitive memory exists at the cellular level, making something like a 2nd or 3rd generation in a filed to be a way of increasing the effectiveness in that field ( that field being wrestler, lawyer, doctor etc...) which would indicate that the genes pass on some sort of imprinting in the cells. :p

  6. The importance of this can't be lost on everyone.. by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Granted I'm a layperson and may have misunderstood what I just read but could I really be the only one googling for a readily available, safe, fast acting, and short lived mGlu inhibitor. Granted you probably don't want to pick any neuro chemicals to do without but inhibiting mGlu during short term study sessions.

    By all means correct me if I am misunderstanding or better yet, if you know of that inhibitor.

  7. Re:I can't believe I am doing this. by RuBLed · · Score: 2, Funny

    Practice more....

  8. Re:The importance of this can't be lost on everyon by shaitand · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Granted I'm a layperson and may have misunderstood what I just read but could I really be the only one googling for a readily available, safe, fast acting, and short lived mGlu inhibitor. Granted you probably don't want to pick any neuro chemicals to do without but inhibiting mGlu during short term study sessions.

    By all means correct me if I am misunderstanding or better yet, if you know of that inhibitor. Scratch that, reverse it all. Otherwise I stand firmly by my statement.
  9. just training by rastoboy29 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anyone who's ever  had to rely in a serious way on their training can tell you this is true.

    Say you buy a gun for protection, but you don't practice with it, never think about it.  How well do you think you're going to do when you need it in a life threatening situation?  Frankly, you'd be better off without a gun at all because as likely as not the assailant would take it away from you and use it against you.

    I think "most people's intuition" is that rote learning doesn't work well, not repetition.

    1. Re:just training by ZeroExistenZ · · Score: 1

      Who associates "intuition", "study" and "learning" with guns?
      You must be one of these American macho cowboys. (I'm one of these pantsy Europeans)

      I'd expect a car-analogy for slashdot, or a reference to absense of sexual activity and masturbation.

      --
      I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
    2. Re:just training by digitalhermit · · Score: 3, Funny

      I hate the move "The Karate Kid" for many reasons, but there was one true thing. After practicing for (supposedly) hours, at the end of the movie the kid was able to block or hit someone because he'd learned a particular move through repetition. After taking a year of karate, I was joking around with a friend and sparring in the office. He did some feints, aborted punches, almost kicks... I did the same. Then at one point time seemed to stand still. I felt - rather than knew - that he was about to throw a punch. It's almost as if I was playing a video game where the bad guy did the same thing over and over again. He threw the punch....

      And while trying to block it, I knocked my glasses of my head with own hand and sent them hurtling to the ground...

      And still in slow motion I tried to catch them...

      And fell...

      The fall seemed to last forever.

      And of course there was a cute girl watching.

      In my mind I'd gone over a hundred times what would happen if I had to defend myself against a bunch of ruthless thugs while she was there. But for some reason it didn't happen. Instead of some Matrix-like martial arts sequences that I'd rehearsed a thousand times in my mind, I fell on my ass and almost broke my glasses and it looked like I'd punched myself to cause it.

    3. Re:just training by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      "After taking a year of karate, ..."

      That, chum, is the basic definition of sophomore.

  10. Buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo ... by arotenbe · · Score: 0, Redundant

    So, researchers were repetitively studying repetitive studying?

    Did you know that learning by repetition is being studied repetitively by researchers?

    Recently, researchers have been repetitively studying how knowledge is acquired via repetition.

    --
    Tomato wedge sperm darts that are Republican.
  11. This isn't as obvious as it looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Most people will agree that practice makes perfect. If you ask them which is more important, practice or talent, they will say that talent determines the degree of ultimate achievement. This, and other recent research, says they're wrong. Talent is highly over rated. Studies of experts and expert behavior show that a certain kind of practice produces talent.

    Just doing something a lot doesn't necessarily produce better ability. For instance one may play an hour of chess every day for years and never get much better. What is needed is 'deliberate practice'. Deliberate practice is methodical and involves learning from feedback. It is reflected in the old adage: "Practice doesn't make perfect; perfect practice makes perfect."

    http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ768512&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=no&accno=EJ768512

    Ericsson cites a study of musicians studying at university. Their professors were asked to rate the students' chances of making it as a symphony musician. The correlation with previous practice was very strong. Those who would become symphony musicians had practiced 10,000 hours before they got to university. The second group, who wouldn't likely make it had practiced 7500 hours or less. A third group who would become music teachers had only practiced around 2500 hours.

    Ericsson gives many examples of research that point out that deliberate practice is by far more important than 'talent'. Most people having trouble believing that.

    1. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by theheadlessrabbit · · Score: 2, Interesting

      i must say, I agree with that 100% what we call 'talent' is the end result of practice.

      I am an artist, (abstract painter) and based on my recent critical and commercial success, I am led to be believe that I am a rather good artist.

      people will often come up and say to me, "oh, I wish I had your talent..."

      but, I grew up on a rough street, I couldn't go outside without being beaten senseless. My parents couldn't afford video games or computers, so I stayed inside and drew and painted all the time. But I didn't just do art to waste time, I was always striving to blow my self away with how good my latest piece was.

      Now, when I'm at a show, and people praise my talent, I always think to my self, "of course I am a better painter than you are, I've practised 6 hours a day for the last 20 years! That's 43,848 hours of practice! after that much time, I had damn well better be a better painter than you are!" (of course, I can never actually say this, 'natural god given talent' is one of the illusions that keeps art so valuable.)

      plus when I was at art school, my friends spent 90% of their time stoned off their ass. I spent my time actually working on stuff... its not hard to exceed when your competition sucks. and the only reason they suck is due to their lack of practice.

      if this research leads to 'learning pills' hitting the market, i'm screwed!

      --
      -I only code in BASIC.-
    2. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Don't denigrate yourself. You have an innate talent and you practiced with a deliberate intent. You didn't sit and contentedly draw stick figures for 44K hours. I too am an artist, although I sculpt. There are those who will never in their lifetimes, regardless of the hours put in, be able to sculpt well. They simply don't have the innate spatial abilities. That's what talent is, underlying abilities.

      You have them, otherwise you'd be drawing extremely fine stick figures.

    3. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by Arnonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Similar results have been found in Chess Grandmasters, Mathematicians (Gustin 1985), and world-class athletes (Helsen et al 1998). Many people look at the greats like Euler, Newton, Bobby Fischer, Ronaldinho*, etc, and think "oh, they did what they did because of such great natural talent," but in reality those guys worked HARD. Certainly some people are incapable of their achievement - mentally retarded people, or those who have developed a learned helplesness in the face of tough problems - but after some point all human brains are in some sense "turing equivalent". At the high levels pure speed of thought is less important than thorough understanding - most prodigious mental calculators and memory savants fail to make good mathematicians. I would hypothesize that most readers of this site, if they dedicated 10 hours per day to directed practice from age 15** for 40 years straight***, would do similarly amazing things. * Soccer is a sport where physical genetic characteristics appear to have little effect on achievement at the highest level, and mental training (game tactics, decision making, and muscle coordination) is of key importance. Tall, short, heavyset, lanky, even people with physical deformities (eg: Garrincha) have risen to the top level of the game. Apparently soccer is deep enough to allow a role for people of different body types, whereas natural gifts like height would render my argument false for a game like basketball. ** Start at age 10 and continue for 25 years for athletes *** not just trying the same failed strategies again and again but actually making effort to understand and learn at every step

    4. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by Arnonymous+Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Whoops, reposting with correct formatting:

      Similar results have been found in Chess Grandmasters, Mathematicians (Gustin 1985), and world-class athletes (Helsen et al 1998).

      Many people look at the greats like Euler, Newton, Bobby Fischer, Ronaldinho*, etc, and think "oh, they did what they did because of such great natural talent," but in reality those guys worked HARD. Certainly some people are incapable of their achievement - mentally retarded people, or those who have developed a learned helplesness in the face of tough problems - but after some point all human brains are in some sense "turing equivalent". At the high levels pure speed of thought is less important than thorough understanding - most prodigious mental calculators and memory savants fail to make good mathematicians.

      I would hypothesize that most readers of this site, if they dedicated 10 hours per day to directed practice from age 15** for 40 years straight***, would do similarly amazing things.

      * Soccer is a sport where physical genetic characteristics appear to have little effect on achievement at the highest level, and mental training (game tactics, decision making, and muscle coordination) is of key importance. Tall, short, heavyset, lanky, even people with physical deformities (eg: Garrincha) have risen to the top level of the game. Apparently soccer is deep enough to allow a role for people of different body types, whereas natural gifts like height would render my argument false for a game like basketball.

      ** Start at age 10 and continue for 25 years for athletes

      *** not just trying the same failed strategies again and again but actually making effort to understand and learn at every step

    5. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No clue where I learned this phrase..

      Practice makes permanent.

      Meaning if you practice wrong you just get 'better' at wrong. How and what is practiced is just as important as the practice itself.

    6. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by Kazrath · · Score: 1

      I disagree with your assessment. It is pretty safe to say that not every person is created equal. Some have natural biological advantages in their physical and/or mental capacities. Practice or Training will allow a person to reach their maximum potential but it will not allow a non-talented person to achieve greatness. Your theory in effect would dictate that there be no professional level sports players or everyone in school taking the same classes would always end up with the same scores. Obviously, this is not the case. Even though a huge amount of people put in the same effort only the ones talented at that specific aspect reach the top percentile. Everyone has talent in some way, it just is not always useful. Practice does make perfect, but only as perfect as your talent allows for.

    7. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by mattwarden · · Score: 1

      You are taking something on the level of a neuron and using that as evidence of something macroscopic. It just doesn't work like that. "Talent" is something that would involve many brain areas working together. This evidence does not support what you are suggesting.

      Something like "learning to playing chess" has no business being discussed on the neuronal level.

      This evidence doesn't even support what the summary is suggesting. Learning (in the popular -- not neuroscientific -- sense) does not make any sense on the level of a neuron. It is a system level idea that we believe strongly has neuron pathway strengthening as its fundamental mechanism.

      As for your Ericsson case study, be careful how you interpret the results. Someone who is talented is more likely to practice more hours than someone who is not talented. That is the problem with pseudoscientific/correlational studies. That's also the problem with nature v nurture debates like this: the answer is always wrong.

    8. Re:This isn't as obvious as it looks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a very young performing artist (only 2.5 years of training) I must say that talent is a pointless thing to fixate on. For the past year in particular, I have been working with a teacher who is a master of his craft; his ability to guide his students is far superior to anything I have come across from any other acting teacher and my meager abilities in this craft have grown exponentially due to his superior teaching.

      And related to the lazy artist thing, I find it hysterical that all these people I've taken classes believe that they can take a few classes, none of which teach the real craft, and suddenly be as good as Brando or Paccino.

      Mastery takes twenty years.

  12. I didn't doubt these new results for a second, but by PhetusPolice · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Previous research had suggested the opposite, which ran counter to nearly everyone's personal experience.

    What could have possibly have contradicted a learning curve such as "the more I play, the better I get"?

  13. Obligitory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Practice makes perfect.

  14. No, It Does Not by Bios_Hakr · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Practice does not make perfect. Perfect practice makes perfect.

    If you do the same bad thing over and over, all you get is a bad habit. If you record, analyze, correct, and repeat all your actions, you will get better.

    I fly RC helis and airplanes. When doing pattern flying, I equip my birds with a GPS (garmin forerunner). After a practice session, I import the data into Google Earth and try and find out why my loops aren't round or why my vertical lines are not straight.

    Lots of golfers record themselves at the driving range. After, they can overlay their swing with that of the Club Pro or another golfer and see exactly what they are doing wrong.

    --
    I'd rather you do it wrong, than for me to have to do it at all.
    1. Re:No, It Does Not by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Practising same thing over and over 'might' makes you perfect to some extent. But definition of perfect would be "knowing inside out". So, doing something routinely does help in 'perfecting the routine', not the overall thing.

      To elaborate this more, when I was a school/college student, I usually studied theory and application inside out, such that, in any kinda question format, I can provide a satisfactory answer. Most of my parallels are past-paper freak, they just do papers 5-6 years back in time and adjust them selves to the routine of questions can pop up in the exam.

      Good part is, I can show satisfactory marks even the paper-format changes
      Bad part is, in case of repeating questions, my fellow mates score better than me
      Ugly part is, most of my parallels are now in good jobs than me with their great score cards

      So.. CMU has kinda tapped into the point "routine training helps in achieving perfect stuff". But at research/new-development point of view.. this is bad in all ways.. because it needs considerable amount of breaking from the routines and challenge the existing ideas.

    2. Re:No, It Does Not by foobsr · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perfect practice makes perfect.

      Which implies that something that deserves the attribute 'perfect' does exist, which I doubt. Thus I would rather opt for 'Good practice gives you a chance to improve'.

      After, they can overlay their swing with that of the Club Pro or another golfer and see exactly what they are doing wrong.

      Though I apply a similar feedback-technique in order to improve (not for golf, but that is not relevant), I doubt (and I am also told so) that this is very effective, as it introduces (too much) thinking, which is too slow when you actually perform. The trick seems to immediately perceive 'what is' and then let the machine do 'what is right' intuitively. The conclusion is that you have to practice the same sequences over and over again in order to improve while never getting 'perfect'. On a side note, this also seems to imply that storage/memory modes for tasks involving body movement need to be much more distributed and 'localized',

      CC.

      --
      TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  15. Meh... wait until another study.... by mark-t · · Score: 1

    ... comes out that "proves" the opposite

  16. Perfect hmm.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I am perfect in logging into my email account or slashdot ...

  17. Intuition and Logic by duggi · · Score: 1

    Yes, but intuition has no scientific validity ...
    I am not quite sure of that.Every theory has some axioms behind it, or has a theory that has axioms behind it. Axioms are necessarily common denominator intuitions, accepted by all, and well tested. This research comes under the category of proving an axiom using a different model, something like proving 0+0=0 using group theory or something. Group theory(In this case, biomed) in turn can be used to prove or establish many other interesting theories (or invent your popping pills), but this particular research , if anything , should prove that biomed is a valid way of finding out more. Not otherwise.
    I might be missing some of your other questions(Why, and How are important, for ex.) but they can be thought of as independent to this research. With quite few other areas being explored in this field, this experiment looks kinda dull.
    Simply put, much ado over nothing.
    --
    http://monkeynesianeconomics.blogspot.com/
    1. Re:Intuition and Logic by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Intuition has no scientific validity, no matter what you call it. Intuition, gut feeling, subconscious processing, whatever. To that way of thinking, your typical Creationist's belief system would have scientific validity because his intuition tells him so. It just doesn't work that way.

      Now, that doesn't mean that intuition doesn't play a vital role in science: an experienced researcher uses his intuitive awareness of the subjects he studies to suggest different test models, new lines of research. But my original statement is correct: intuition does not have any scientific validity whatsoever. Usefulness, yes, but not validity.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  18. WRONG! as my cello teacher used to say.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Perfect practice makes perfect. Without method you are simply forming bad habits...

    1. Re:WRONG! as my cello teacher used to say.... by Martian_Kyo · · Score: 1

      I often go back to what someone once said,
      Practice makes permanent

    2. Re:WRONG! as my cello teacher used to say.... by initialE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Practice makes permanent" is another one I've heard.

      --
      Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
    3. Re:WRONG! as my cello teacher used to say.... by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      While I love your oft used cliche, I prefer, "focused practice makes perfect". I'm a semi-pro musician (I make money, but only as secondary income) and I can tell you practicing perfectly with no goal in sight is wasted practice.

  19. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by SacredByte · · Score: 1
    This is a bit offtopic, but...

    So *that* explains the 2004 election. It all makes sense now.

    I think you just proved your parent comment's sig....

    Oh the irony.

    Back on-topic; The difference between scientists and politicians is that, by and large, when the result doesn't match the hypothesis, the scientist will retool the experiment around a different hypothesis, while the politician will just stubbornly and hardheadedly insist that the result is non-typical and change nothing.

    I'm going to assume also, that you were insinuating that this explains the *Democrats* putting forward an un-electable candidate after they tried it in 2000........
  20. Genius Gene by shawn443 · · Score: 1

    How do I attain the Perfect Mind? Where is my Zen? Repetition? Innate or God Given? I will gladly suffer schizophrenia to out nerd you.

    1. Re:Genius Gene by shawn443 · · Score: 1

      My 3'rd person told me I'm not replying to myself. It also said I'm correct and awesome.

    2. Re:Genius Gene by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Answers Freely Given:

      1.) You don't attain perfect mind. You go to Soviet Russia, where perfect mind attains you.
      2.) Your Zen is in the garden, where you left it.
      3.) Repeat repetition in eight God Given times.
      4.) Schizophrenia does not give you nerd-like powers.

  21. Tagged as 'duh'? Really? by Skrapion · · Score: 4, Funny

    Could everybody who tagged this as 'duh' explain to me exactly how you felt it was obvious that while the NMDA receptor is required to begin neural strengthening, the mGlu receptor causes strengthening to stop?

    --
    The details are trivial and useless; The reasons, as always, purely human ones.
  22. Re:I didn't doubt these new results for a second, by He-Ja · · Score: 0

    tunnel vision for example.

  23. Re:Carnegie Mellon? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    What does Carnegie Hall have common with the Carnegie Mellon University, aside from a part of the name and the founder?

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  24. Re:Sheesh's Sig by b1gp0pp4 · · Score: 1

    I may have just reached this conclusion prematurely, but I always thought that it was high schoolers who think they know everything undergrads know they know nothing...etc. phds know a lot about a subject but then realize it's only the tip of the iceberg.

    Your sig has been bothering me for awhile, and I must appeal for you to consider my view.

    --
    A whopping 120 characters to take your mind off topic. Tested in MS Word.
  25. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by foobsr · · Score: 1

    the scientist will retool the experiment around a different hypothesis

    More like 'transform the data to make it fit to the hypothesis', not only for mundane reasons like timelines, general pressure etc. .

    For a broader scope, read KUHN, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'.

    CC.

    --
    TaijiQuan (Huang, 5 loosenings)
  26. Don't mess with Glue... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forgetting how to learn new things all the time might be a good thing...

    New born infants for example can not "see" their surroundings as grown ups do. They have to "learn" how to interpret the input to the visual cortex. This is done once and for all. "Unlearning" this visual knowledge might be like having visual hallucinations where visual input is misinterpreted...

    Likewise, "common sense" is what is learned during development of the brain while interacting with the environment. Continued plasticity of these "hard wired" parts of the brain might lead to development of "uncommon sense" aka schizophrenia...

    It is not surprising that NMDA and mGlu are implicated in schizophrenia and autism and that PCP is generally considered bad for your mental health...

  27. Blast Insightful. -5! by b1gp0pp4 · · Score: 4, Informative

    The researchers aren't explaining metaphysically "Why?" we learn by repetition,
    The researchers aren't stating "Repetition works, you should try it sometime because it's a brand new discovery!!"
    The only point of this experiment is that the researchers found the neurotransmitter and receptor sites that were shown to cause repetition to work, all we learn is that the chemical (mGlu) facilitates long-term learning...
    Long term memory creation is called coding in the psych literature, which may appeal to some of the pretentious and humble nerds alike.
    Now I love you guys, but we need to start moderating these "captain obvious" comments and stop making them in the first place.
    10 Read
    20 Think
    30 React
    40 Goto 10

    --
    A whopping 120 characters to take your mind off topic. Tested in MS Word.
    1. Re:Blast Insightful. -5! by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm not much of a programmer, but your script was perfectly clear to me! Great post!

  28. Quick learning? by Mushdot · · Score: 2, Interesting

    As well as helping understand learning problems, maybe this kind of research could pave the way for increased speed of learning, a bit like in the Matrix where Neo learns Kung Fu.

    1. Re:Quick learning? by nittibang007 · · Score: 1

      So Im gonna have a hole in my head with a 6 inch metal dil-doe looking thing rammed in my brain? Wow sign me up!

  29. bogon by wikinerd · · Score: 1

    Intelligent falling [wikipedia.org] is a much more plausible explanation.

    That's just a theory. The truth is in .

  30. New Treatments by EmotionToilet · · Score: 0

    Actually they're developing mGlu agonists to treat the cognitive deficits found in schizophrenia. They look very promising so far. I dont know what kind of affect it might have on a normal person. It may improve your memory, or it may make you feel dumb. Who knows?

  31. Re:I didn't doubt these new results for a second, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I dunno what the post means by that either, in my cognitive psych classes they spent in my opinion way too much time on those experiments tracking music students that support the idea that pretty much everyone has to do massive amounts of practice to 'master' a skill.

    What you do see is an effect where people tend to suffer in performance in the middle of developing a skill, supposedly due to the beginnings of 'expert', intuitive skill being less reliable than both fully developed expertise and purely attentive, non-intuitive use of the skill. The example of this I'm aware of is that relatively new (which IIRC could mean several years in the study) doctors tend to perform worse than not just experienced doctors, but also interns.

  32. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by MLease · · Score: 1

    Instant +5 Insightful: just say "All Americans suck because {insert generalization here}"


    Hmm.... Let me try.... "All Americans suck because they fall for .sigs like the above."

    How'd I do???

    -Mike
    --
    I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
  33. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by Tesen · · Score: 1

    Is it possible that mGlu receptors can vary between the different areas of the brain? We have parts of the brain (enter proper phrase here, hey I am a CS major...) responsible for sight, hearing etc. What if the MGlu receptors are more efficient in these areas of the brain for top athletes? But for the rest of us, our hand eye coordination (not to mention reflexes etc.) suffer because of the MGlu receptors do not interact with the appropriate neurotransmitter as well? Or am I totally off base here?

    Tes

  34. Duh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To the ones that tagged this story "duh", and to the people who think this is so obvious, have you ever heard of a thing called "hindsight bias"?

    Sure everybody knew that, practice makes perfect, BUT now we know why.

  35. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Actually, it's rarely Americans that fall for it.

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  36. So in other words by Lars+T. · · Score: 1

    Repeatedly doing a research makes the results better.

    --

    Lars T.

    To the guy who modded me down from perfect to terrible Karma - Apple haters still suck

  37. The 30,000 hour test by gelfling · · Score: 3, Informative

    I remember reading that many experts in expertise, if there is such a thing, believe that in order to master something, like a musical instrument or painting or an academic study you need about 30,000 hrs of training and practice. That's about 8 hrs a day for 10 years.

    1. Re:The 30,000 hour test by CodeMunch · · Score: 1

      wow...2 more years and I'll be an expert in UnrealTournament.

    2. Re:The 30,000 hour test by shmlco · · Score: 1

      "He says he's played for eight years. I say that he's played the same year eight times." ~ Vic Braden

      --
      Any sect, cult, or religion will legislate its creed into law if it acquires the political power to do so.
    3. Re:The 30,000 hour test by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      8 hours a day for 10 years....Explains why I'm so good with your mom!

    4. Re:The 30,000 hour test by esldude · · Score: 1

      I believe you have a decimal error here. The articles on this subject I have seen say 3000 hours.

    5. Re:The 30,000 hour test by gelfling · · Score: 1

      Ask a classical musician

    6. Re:The 30,000 hour test by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 1

      Yep - 10,000 hours before you even make it to a prominent musical college! That is why I will keep this piano thing as a hobby that - sometimes - pays for itself.

      --
      Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  38. Frequency of Practice also Key by metamechanical · · Score: 1

    I've tended to notice that for me, how often I practice also has a bearing on my perfecting a task - and then, how often I use said skill in practice. Repetition strengthens specific neural pathways, I think there's no doubt of that - the more often you perform a specific action, the more neurotransmitters flow between specific neurons, the stronger that bond becomes. On the flipside, disuse weakens those pathways, and when you go to access them again, they may not even be there. As an amusing anecdote, when I was younger I taught myself over a period of a few weeks how to tie about a dozen knots so well I could do them without thinking. However, I've only managed to remember which ones I use regularly, and would be hard pressed to come up even with mental images of the rest.

    --
    If I had a nickel for every time I had a nickel, I'd be richcursive!
  39. Practice does NOT make perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Practice makes PERMANENT.

    If you practice something over and over the wrong way, you'll have it down pat, but still wrong.

    Practice only reinforces what you practice, it does not in the least imply that you have got it right.

  40. Re:I didn't doubt these new results for a second, by stewbacca · · Score: 1

    Cognitive sciences go deeper than your simplistic example (not to take away from your otherwise perfectly acceptable premise). It is commonly accepted ("as previous research had suggested") that rote memorization and repitition don't really do a whole lot for cognition. Memorizing and analyzing are two very different skill sets indeed.

  41. Re:So... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See answer below (Practice does NOT make perfect)

  42. Ok... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I for one welcome our practicing overlor...

    No wait...

    Imagine a beowul...

    Nope... erm...

  43. Savory memories by sacremon · · Score: 1

    Glutamate, huh? That would be the G in MSG. Interestingly there has been recent research that has confirmed some long-held beliefs that there is a fifth taste (in addition to sweet, sour, salty and bitter) which has been called 'unami' link

    You wouldn't expect MSG to raise brain glutamate levels, though, as ionized amino acids have a hard time crossing the blood-brain barrier. But I imagine that there are some chemists out there presently working on a food additive that can be marketed as not only making food taste more savory, but improves your memory as well.

    --
    If you can't beat them, embrace and extend them.
  44. Obligatory joke... by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    She: I'm perfect!
    He: I'm practice! ...I think I saw this in Voo Doo, MIT's humor magazine, in the 1960s, but it's probably much older than that.

  45. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "finding a drug that will unstick those people's mGlu's."

    I can see the name of the drug now...umGlued (rx).

  46. Not news for college students by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    For a difficult course I typically read the book, then highlight, then if its really hard make notes on the things I read twice.

    Its time consuming but saved my butt in business law and other courses that requires a vast amount of memorization and knowledge.

    Also when I was a science major I wrote down the period table and lists of ions 10x like spelling in elementary school.

    IT works.

  47. The Only Way I Can Learn Math by aquatone282 · · Score: 1

    I pick up most non-technical subjects easily, but anything that involves mathematics I have to practice, practice, practice.

    I filled notebooks for algebra, geometry, trigonometry, and basic physics classes with example equations and practice problems - it was the only way I could be sure I would remember them at test time.

    And then I would promptly forget them. Although it wouldn't take as long as the first time I learned how to solve a quadratic equation, I couldn't do it unless I had an example to work from.

    English, history, etc., all I had to do was listen in class, take a few notes, and review before a test.

    I really envy folks who are intuitive with mathematics and related subjects like music.

    --
    What?
  48. I just don't need practice for most stuff by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    I can pick up most things just by observing. There are exceptions however like reading music.

    so, educators who like people to "practice" their boring subjects, listen up. busy work and repetition are different.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  49. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by foniksonik · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Before you go off looking to alter the biology before you understand the evolutionary reason for it, first ask the question "why do many people block their own MGlu receptors?"...you may discover that there is one if not many advantages to doing so.

    Personally I don't learn from repetition, at least not of the type described. I learn by applying knowledge, aka experimentation... which is repeatedly using a concept in a variety of ways until enough of it's aspects are internalized that I can make a mental model of it. Then I get creative. When I can teach someone else what the concept is and how it works... that's when I know I've learned it.

    OTOH ask me to tell you someone's name that I've known for years and used repeatedly and it may take me a few seconds to dig for it. Even if they are standing right in front of me. Names, labels, facts just don't stick with me - the upside is that I can tell you all about the concept of viscosity at a moments notice, just wait a sec while I recall the correct terminology ;-p

    SO maybe blocking mGlu receptors allows people to keep things flexible in the brain until a deeper more complex pattern of understanding is achieved.

    Even so, as long as there's no long term effect I'd be happy to drink a PowerMem(TM) right before sitting down to read the Python API, YUI script API, etc - I could finally get rid of all the cheat sheets that litter my desk.

    --
    A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
  50. No kidding by Jerzakie · · Score: 1

    ... So... they proved learning... wow... today I proved my 30 year study that when I turn my eyes towards an object I can see it... what a revelation.

  51. Hebbian Learning by jdagius · · Score: 1

    FYI, so-called "neural network software" has been exploiting this kind of repetitive neural strengthening for years. It's called Hebbian learning, in honor of Donald Hebb, who first described it in 1949. Not everyone believes that neural net software corresponds to anything really happening in the brain, it just works and produces useful results. I suppose this article could be used to motivate the biological "truth" of Hebbian learning.

  52. Re:I can't believe I am doing this. by calebt3 · · Score: 1

    I had this thread open in a tab for at least ten minutes. I clicked "Check for More", and it seemed that there was still no posts.

  53. Re:Tagged as 'duh'? Really? by yoprst · · Score: 1

    Sure. You should read it like this:
    eldavojohn sends us an article about a discovery by Carnegie Mellon researchers that explains why repetitive studying or training is effective.....
    From the article:
    "In a series of experiments the researchers bla-bla-bla, bla bla, bla bla ...
    ...bla to stop"

    Duh!

  54. Not perfect...permanent by multimed · · Score: 1

    My old boss, who was a scratch golfer used to remind me as I was hacking away on the course: "Practice doesn't make perfect...practice makes permanent."

    --
    Vote Quimby.
  55. May be Because ... by GNUALMAFUERTE · · Score: 0, Troll

    The USA didn't have the resources to be so big on its own, so they basically destroyed Africa and South America, setting dictatorships that were loyal to the US, stealing their natural resources, and taking people as prisoners taking them to the other side of the world to be your SLAVES?

    --
    WTF am I doing replying to an AC at 5 A.M on a Friday night?
  56. Practice does not make perfect... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As my guitar teacher said:

        Practice does not make perfect. Practice makes permanent

    Make sure that if you're practicing something you're doing it the right way :)

  57. The research doesn't support you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To say that any person has great ability because they practiced hard for many years is hardly denigrating them.

    Follow the links and read the research. There is very little that we call talent that can not be developed with the right kind of teaching and practice.

  58. It's how Propaganda Works by doppleclutch · · Score: 1

    Otherwise, why do some Americans still believe Iraq is involved in 9/11? Or that Iraq has WMD? Or that America has the "best" healthcare system? Ceaseless repetiton by the government and the right-wing media is "practice" for the consumers of the government / mass media swill, and what these consumers "learn" is usually far from the actual facts. And with enough repetition of "Enhanced Interrogation Techniques", half the people at GitMo probably thinks they were part of the 9/11 plot.

  59. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    mGlu receptors have been linked to stress. Pharma companies are working on new anxiolytics that target these receptors. People who are stressed have limited capacity to learn through experience. So the drug you are looking for could be an anxiolytic. In particular, it could be an existing anxiolytic like the beta-blockers. Note that you may not even need a drug at all, just find ways to reduce stress. The point is that you may not need to attack the mGlu receptors directly.

  60. Practice makes Perfect .... in bed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Reminds me of a fortune cookie joke by adding "in bed" to the end of it. Seriously, a person's first is never the best nor the lengthiest.

  61. Ahhhhhh.... Neurochemistry! by g-san · · Score: 1

    TCP/IP for your brain.

  62. NMDA Antagonist for use in aiding learning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so now ketamine not only can cure depression but also aid in long-term memory retention?

  63. Erm ... it's not my theory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Read the research. Human beings are amazingly malleable mentally and physically. With training, people even change their body type. The amount of work necessary to achieve this kind of change is huge. Ten thousand hours is approximately three hours a day for ten years. Put in that kind of deliberate practice and you too can be a violin prodigy or a chess master.

    For a variety of reasons people like to believe in talent. It gives them excuses for all kinds of things.

  64. Re:I think they're looking at this the wrong way . by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

    Even so, as long as there's no long term effect I'd be happy to drink a PowerMem(TM)

    And if you're up late studying for that early-morning final exam, try new extra-strength CRAMboost ... you'll forget you ever knew how to forget!

    --
    The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
  65. Proof that practice makes perfect by Miow · · Score: 1

    The easiest way to learn is by Positive Transference, which is by incorporating what you want to learn into what you already know. If you want to learn French and like music, then listen and sing french songs as against studying french grammar.

  66. Re:petition by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 1

    Scratch that, reverse it all. Otherwise I stand firmly by my statement.
    That's alright, I think I understood you better the second time. ;)
    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  67. Read the comments by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 1

    I wouldn't know, except one of our armchair specialists had a nice comment above (hooray for reading 60+ comments so far, only have of which are repeated!)

    Previous studies have shown that repetitive behavior weakens synaptic pathways in specific parts of the brain (initially). Results like that make you wonder WTF is going on, if someone excels from practice their synapses should have been strengthened.

    This study found that a second compound (later) strengthens specific synaptic pathways (slightly different ones IIRC), which would presumably lead to high cognition in the area of your study.

    Like I said though, I got all that from the comments section - so why not take a few minutes to re-read the +4's and +5's. ;)

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  68. Re:petition by shaitand · · Score: 1

    What is interesting is the best way I found to get a dose of mGlu is to eat msg just before trying to memorize something. Perhaps we have found the secret to Asian memory eh? ;) Course if it's too large a dose it will act as a neurotoxin.

  69. Re:petition by Smordnys+s'regrepsA · · Score: 1

    So... Take out, not all you can eat! I knew I was going wrong somewhere.

    Is there a mGlu-suppressant in double-cheeseburgers? That would explain just about everything.

    --
    Just -1, Troll talking to another.
  70. Re:Tagged as 'duh'? Really? by mattwarden · · Score: 1

    It isn't new knowledge.

  71. Practice by danielpauldavis · · Score: 1

    Most educators can tell you that practice does NOT make perfect; practice makes permanent. Practice only makes "perfect" when one practices what is perfect (or correct.)

    --
    Cranky educator.
  72. So... The old Joke Patrol says: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do you get to Carnegie Hall?

    Practice...Practice..Practice...

    (I didn't see it anywhere yet and it did seem obligatory.

  73. Re:Tagged as 'duh'? Really? by snapdragonflie · · Score: 1
    First of all, the mGlu receptor doesn't cause strengthening to stop. Just the opposite, in fact; it is required for the continued strengthening of the synapses. However, I can see how the wording of the article makes it easy to get confused on this point.

    I believe the "duh" refers more to the title and the implications: practice makes perfect. Basically the science done is showing a molecular basis for why practice does in fact "make perfect" (though I agree it's perfect practice that makes perfect), because repetition leads to solidifying of the connections involved. The science is new, but the implications are not.