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."
... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
... maybe something like this is what ushers in Vernor Vinge's Singularity.
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
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.
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.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
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.
GeoKone.NET
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.
Practice more....
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.
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.
expandfairuse.org
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.
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"?
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.
... comes out that "proves" the opposite
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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/
Perfect practice makes perfect. Without method you are simply forming bad habits...
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........
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.
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.
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.
What does Carnegie Hall have common with the Carnegie Mellon University, aside from a part of the name and the founder?
Ezekiel 23:20
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.
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)
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.
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.
That's just a theory. The truth is in .
Hmm.... Let me try.... "All Americans suck because they fall for
How'd I do???
-Mike
I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
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
Actually, it's rarely Americans that fall for it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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."
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
"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...
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.
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.
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."
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
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!
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.
So grinding works?
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.
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" :-)
Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
Yeah, I figured that part out halfway through a Danzig song
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.
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.
:p
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.
She: I'm perfect! ...I think I saw this in Voo Doo, MIT's humor magazine, in the 1960s, but it's probably much older than that.
He: I'm practice!
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Just one thing: remembering != understanding. Learning is much more about the later.
Intelligence shared is intelligence squared.
"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?
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.
http://saveie6.com/
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?
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.
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.
... 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.
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.
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.
Sure. You should read it like this: ...
...bla to stop"
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
Duh!
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.
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.
Too bad most schools haven't figured that out yet.
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.
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.
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! ;)
TCP/IP for your brain.
Sigs are too short to say anything truly profound so read the above post instead.
Coffee isn't strong enough. However, repeated clinical trials have proven that Red Bull does in fact aid in unassisted human flight.
Even so, as long as there's no long term effect I'd be happy to drink a PowerMem(TM)
... you'll forget you ever knew how to forget!
And if you're up late studying for that early-morning final exam, try new extra-strength CRAMboost
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
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.
That's alright, I think I understood you better the second time.
Just -1, Troll talking to another.
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.
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.
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.
It isn't new knowledge.
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.
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.