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."
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.
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.
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.
"Practice makes permanent" is another one I've heard.
Starbucks, Harbuckle of Breath.
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.
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.
;-p
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
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.
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.