Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.Th., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), pgs 363-406.
This is also pretty good:
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.).(1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. (see the chapter "Generalizations on talent development")
You are saying that nurture is the only game in town? That's a very good straw-man you are setting up, but no, I never said that. "Nature vs. Nurture" is a false dichotomy. Additionally, I would not use the term nurture (nor would most people these days). However, in terms of learned skills and abilities, practice and experience accounts for the majority of the performance variance between any two people on a given task. This is not my claim, it's the consensus of research in the field.
What if two people, one smarter/more intelligent/*insert 'bigger brain' descriptor here* than the other, but with an identical life story, tried a novel task-
Surely the clever one would be better, despite their identical upbringing?
Of course. Again, I never said otherwise.
However, the difference in performance (providing both individuals are developmentally normal) would be marginal. The between-people performance variance on a given task is much lower than the between-practice variance.
Here are some completely made up numbers to illustrate the concept. Suppose on a scale of 1 to 100 for the measurement of performance on task A, individual differences account for 0-2 points, while practice/experience accounts for 0-98. You need, let's say, an 85 on the measurement of task A to be considered an "expert" at that task (e.g. musician). Individual X has 0 points for individual difference while individual Y has 2 points for individual differences, respectively, they are going to require 85 and 83 points worth of practice/experience to become experts at task A. While individual Y might have a slight advantage over individual X, overall, both of their performances on task A are determined much more by their experience/practice than inherent individual differences.
This debate is called nature vs. nurture, and has raged for centuries. Nobody seriously considers this an actual "debate" anymore. It has been adequately demonstrated that who we are *as people* (our personalities, likes, dislikes, emotional dispositions etc...) is clearly a combination of both nature and nurture - therefore no debate, no need to take sides, answer = both.
If you will take a closer look, you will notice I was clearly speaking in terms of learned skills and abilities. This question has been extensively investigated (by greater minds than ours) and the consensus is that performance on a task or skill is firmly governed by the "nurture" side (if you insist on using such an antiquated term). Nowadays researchers in this area would speak more about "experiences" and "deliberate practice", but I'm sure you catch my understanding here.
There is no such thing as "native ability". The only thing that really matters is amount of practice and motivation. Anyone can be a musician. Anyone can be an engineer.
You may as well have said, everyone is an engineer, and everyone is a musician. Either you are making the terms meaningless, or you are out of touch with reality.
Uhm, no. "everyone is" and "anyone can be" are quite distinct logical propositions. Claiming they are equivalent is patently absurd. Also, nothing in what I have said makes either term meaningless, nor am I forced to conclude that I am "out of touch with reality". Given the requisite time, effort, practice and motivation, any human being can learn to be an engineer or a musician (again - barring some horrible developmental abnormalities). There is no "magical" subset of people that are the only ones capable of becoming engineers, nor is there a "magical" subset of people who are the only ones capable of becoming musicians.
Genetic or innate factors account for a vanishingly small amount of variability on task performance (any task performance, whether it is music or math). So much so that they will only make a real difference if you are in the top 1% in the entire world for the chosen task.
Your ability to measure a vague term, with exactitude and on a global scale, is truly amazing.
Your ability to mis-interpret hyperbole as a rhetorical device is truly amazing. This is not my conclusion, but the consensus of researchers in the field. If you truly insist, I will go dig up some references for you, but they should not be hard to find, just google "Ericsson" (only name that comes to mind off the top of my head) and "expertise".
Well, that's something for a different debate. But regardless, I wasn't talking about genetics.
What else can "native ability" refer to if not genetics? (Ok - there are a limited number of biological developmental factors, such as exposure to toxins in the womb, genetic mutations, chromosomal aberrations etc... which can also affect "native ability", but if you were including such in the meaning, I did not receive that impression from your usage.)
Surely you have witnessed the phenomenon of some people being 'more capable' than others, before any learning (of whatever) has begun? We are not only a product of the lessons we've sat through, surely? I understand what you mean, but it is not really possible to observe people "before any learning (of whatever) has begun". We begin learning the moment we are born (and perhaps earlier if you believe some studies - the debate is still on in that respect).
What you mean (correct me if I am wrong), is for example the phenomenon of one child in grade 1 being better (and quicker at picking up) math than another child in grade 1 - the very first time they attempt it, neither of which has ever received any formal mathematical training. However, if you were to examine these respective children's histories, you would most likely discover that the one had early childhood experiences and environments which had stimulated their visual-spatial abilities, whereas the other had not (or at least to a lesser degree).
I assure you, I am not saying we are solely the product of the lessons we have sat through, but, other than some gross biological and anatomical features, in terms of the skills and abilities we learn, we are the product of our experiences.
There is no such thing as "native ability". The only thing that really matters is amount of practice and motivation. Anyone can be a musician. Anyone can be an engineer.
Genetic or innate factors account for a vanishingly small amount of variability on task performance (any task performance, whether it is music or math). So much so that they will only make a real difference if you are in the top 1% in the entire world for the chosen task.
However, some tasks (such as engineering) are undoubtedly harder (and therefore take more time and effort to master) than others (such as film studies or humanities). The real difference here is a person's willingness to put in the required time and effort, not their "natural ability". Those "slackers" in film studies could be engineers if they so chose (i.e. put in the required time and effort), but perhaps they realised how difficult and time consuming engineering is and chose an easier route. Or perhaps they chose something other than engineering because they enjoyed it more. Conversely, there may be many people in engineering who would much rather be doing art history, but who have been motivated by other factors (parental pressure, job opportunities/earning potential etc...) and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to become an engineer.
The bottom line is, choosing not to do something difficult does not make you less capable and deliberately choosing to do something difficult does not make you more capable. It's about the choices you make, not innate ability.
The human mind congeals around age 30 Actually that's an urban legend. I'm a Master's student in cognitive psych. and while there is some evidence that measures of "fluid" intelligence start to fall off (slowly I might add) after 30, regular mental exercise (i.e. use your brain, don't watch TV all day) can maintain those levels of "fluid" intelligence well into your old age. There is no evidence that the human mind "congeals" at 30. Saying so is simply inane. Just think Andrew Wiles.
To argue intelligence/mental-talent is entirely social is to argue that mind is not body, and body is not mind. That is not so
But that's not the argument that's being made. The argument being made (or the position supported by available evidence if you will) is that hard work and training are a larger factor in becoming an expert in a field than is innate ability or intelligence.
With enough training, I'm pretty sure someone of Forrest Gump's intelligence could become a good chess player (I doubt a grandmaster though), however, from what I understood of the article, they were not discussing the extremes, but the norms.
In that case, the argument would be that someone of average innate chess talent, given 10 years of training, will be a far better player than someone of superior innate chess talent with only a bit of training.
Re:The science says it does.
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
Perhaps what this study is missing, is that "talent" may simply be the ability to focus on X subject.
The ability to focus on something is not an innate ability, it's also learned behaviour (unless you have ADD in which case the inability to focus is a psychological disorder). People learn how to focus, it's part of metalearning and one of the basic things we are taught in grade school.
It's easy to focus on things we like. It takes an active effort to focus on things we might not like. This is where the "effortful learning" bit comes in.
Unfortunately, today's north american society is geared towards producing people with an external locus of control. They are trained by popular culture not to actively direct their attention.
no amount of training will make me an expert at calculus because my mind wanders off instantly
The problem here is not that you can't learn calculus, it's that your learning method is not working. If you wanted to learn calculus you would first have to make a concerted effort on learning how to control your own attention (meditation is good for that). A different approach other than simply reading the text book from end-to-end might also help. Things like making flash-cards (a technique taught to ADD kids to help them "chunk" information so they can focus more easily by learning small bits at a time), finding practial applications for the math, making informative analogies, paraphrasing in your own words etc...
Re:Hard work does not guarantee amazing results
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
My problem is that there is a strong implication in that statement that anyone else could have done so if only they'd chosen to work that hard. This is simply not true.
Except that's not what the article or the science says. A great deal of evidence is being gathered that shows that "innate ability" is the least factor in the difference between an amateur and an expert. What really matters is hard work and training.
The myth that it 'only' takes hard work to get the most outstanding results is a corrosive and unpleasant put-down for the vast majority of us who toil away for modest results
I think the truely corrosive and unpleasant put-down is the myth that some people (barring developmental difficulties) are just incapable of learning something or that some people are just inherently better than others.
I'm much more comfortable thinking that I could have been a chess grandmaster if I had dedicated 10 years of my life to it than thinking I just have no ability to play chess at all. The first though means that, if I feel like it, I can learn chess when I retire and be a decent player. The second thought means it would be a waste of time to even try and I should just spend my retirement watching tv or going to the casino.
Re:There is evidence it does apply to adults as we
on
The Expert Mind
·
· Score: 1
It isn't true to say that other languages cannot be learned later in life either,
But that's not the issue with the critical period of learning for language. The problem is that if you don't learn *ANY* language during the critical period (before 7 I believe) you will *NEVER* be able to learn a language.
Even if you only learn a single language during the critical period (sign language counts) you will then be able to learn multiple languages as an adult by bootstrapping off of your first one.
A COMPUTER can play chess. The rules and strategies are almost all worked out,
Except that computers don't play chess the same way we do. All the best chess computers in the world are pretty much just brute force machines with some clever pruning algorithmns. They don't really take advantage of the "rules" and strategies of chess the same way people do.
People learn both chess and go the same way, but because of the different structures of the games, go is not amenable to the brute force approach, so go computers are still playing at a beginner level (because they are forced to make them try to learn go the same way we do).
Whether or not a computer can do something tells you nothing about whether people can, or how good that subject is as a measure of human learning.
I remember learning about the "10-year theory" of genius in a graduate course in psychology (that it takes around 10 years of practice to make an expert, not innate talent). It was portrayed as a 'radical' theory...
Funny, I learned it in Psych 101 and it was taught as accepted canon. When/where did you go to school?
Stories are also the tools of entire civilizations for effectively communicating ideas. Should I just shut up and never share any experiences which might prove enlightening to somebody simply because I can only provide myself as a footnote?
That's not what I was saying at all. Telling stories to pass on culture, values and ideas is one thing, and is perfectly fine. Using unsupported anecdotal stories to support a certain viewpoint is something else entirely. Simply put, anecdotes are not evidence. I can scream at everyone I meet until I'm blue in the face that I saw bigfoot, but that doesn't mean he exists. Now if I had further corroborating evidence it would be a different matter. That said, I have no problem with you using stories about bigfoot to effectively communicate ideas.
Occam was a 12th century monk who came up with his logical razor to prove the existence of God. His logical argument is useful for proving any point whatsoever depending on the starting belief about what is and is not more likely to be possible.
Not true (well yes, he was a 1th century monk), Occam's razor cannot be used to prove any point you like depending on your starting belief. You can do away with Occam himself completely if the background makes you uncomfortable, it doesn't make the principle wrong. Basically, the person positing extra entities (objects, forces, energies or what have you) has the burden of proof. Neither explanation I have posited (either floaters or migraine headaches) constitutes extra entities, as there is ample evidence for both of them. However, your explanation requires additional entities (i.e. psychic abilities) for which there is no evidence (since anecdotes don't count).
because 'energy' as I accept it is a fundamental element of reality, therefore quite common. Given those starting parameters, which way would Occam spin,
Still towards my argument as you have again provided no evidence. Your own personal belief about 'energy' is fine as a personal belief. You can believe whatever you like. However, there's no evidence to support it and it is not in line with the traditional (i.e. physics) definition of energy, which does have a vast body of evidence to support it. So again, you are positing extra entities; Occam's razor cannot be used to support your argument.
it IS entirely possible that my brain was reacting on a physiological level. So what?... how does a successful placebo effect negate the possibility of energy being linked to the change of state?
If it was a physiological response then there's no need to posit psychic phenomenon in order to explain it. This does not negate the possibility, it just makes it less likely as a probable explanation. But again we are back to Occam. If you have two possible explanations for a given phenomenon (your visual disturbances) and one of them involves physiological processes and another involves physiological processes + psychic phenomenon, which is more likely to be correct? Since the whole thing can be explained physiologically, why posit something extra? It's unecessary, which makes the simpler hypothesis more likely.
It's also possible that you are a brain floating in a tank experiencing the world as an elaborate simulation. --My point being that at some point one must decide which parts of the world to take on faith as real.
Agreed, if there was no such point we would all descend into some kind of catatonic skeptical nihilism. However, our perceptions can and do play tricks on us, our contact with the world is filtered and reconstructed for us through various neurological processes that constitute our "reality interface". So far, the scientific method has proven itself as the most reliable way of determining which parts of our experience of the world we should take on faith as real.
Try this: hold up one finger in front of a neutral background (for convenience) and look at the surrounding half inch of spac
Well, since I am the only one I need to convince in order to further my own understanding of the universe, it hardly matters.
True enough, you are entitled to believe whatever you like.
I can only share them in hopes that they might prove useful to others who are also seeking.
This is where you get into trouble though. You are presenting anecdotes as evidence in order to convince other people of something. However, anecdotes are not a valid form of evidence. They are the tools of hucksters and charlatans. If you want to convince someone that a particular phenomenon is real, then you must present valid, empirical evidence.
Actually, I read your link and it doesn't sound like 'floaters' even a tiny bit.
Two things:
1) It's more likely to be an odd form of floaters that deviates more from the norm than actual psychic phenomenon. Application of Occam's razor says that if there is a simple, plausible explanation that doesn't require confabulation or the multiplication of entities, it is more likely to be correct.
2) You carefully avoided the question of whether or not it could be a migraine headache. Now that I think about it, it seems more likely that you are experiencing painless migraines than floaters, but Occam's razor still applies. Migraines are more likely than psychic phenomenon. Here's a comparison from your description and descriptions of migraine "auras" on wikipedia:
yours:
in the center of my vision a strange visual distortion. --It looks like a piece of clear crystal with a crack in it and the light being refracted in odd ways. The distortion pulsates and objects on the other side of it are obscured.
wikipedia:
Visual aura is the most common of the neurological events. There is a disturbance of vision consisting usually of unformed flashes of white or rarely of multicolored lights (photopsia) or formations of dazzling zigzag lines (arranged like the battlements of a castle, hence the term fortification spectra or teichopsia). Some patients complain of blurred or shimmering or cloudy vision
Looks pretty damn close to me...
as I explained, the phenomenon promptly vanished with the application of a little energy manipulation.
Again, there's a perfectly normal explanation for this. It's simply the placebo effect. You believed your friend was manipulating your energy and making you feel better, which activated your body's own healing abilities. This sort of thing is very well documented.
As for why your friend would have spontaneously reached into the air to manipulate your energy, you described your friend as someone "who is very energy aware". This leads me to guess that he is actively trying to cultivate an eccentricity. I would bet he's done lots of other strange things like that before, with lots of other people. The only reason this particular incident sticks out in your mind is because it happened to coincide with your migraine.
Psychologically, we know that your brain places more emphasis on, and stores stronger memories of, events where there appears to be a pattern or correlation (even if this is not the case). It's a built in selection bias; your brain pays attention to novel events and discards ones that don't appear to have any significant meaning. There are probably dozens of instances where your friend has done something similar and was totally wrong, with no actual correlation to reality going on. You just don't remember those incidents because they were not significant.
Try to read more carefully in the future.
I don't believe the problem here is any reading comprehension on my part.
Also, I am not a doctor, but I really do think you ought to go see one. I have no idea who you are, but I think it would be terrible if you died of a brain tumour because you thought all the symptoms were psychic phenomenon.
Look at it this way: if it's nothing, no harm done and you can believe what you like. But if it is something serious, wouldn't you rather catch it early?
Slashdot Mirror
Sure. This is a good overview:
Ericsson, K.A., Krampe, R.Th., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993). The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance. Psychological Review, 100(3), pgs 363-406.
This is also pretty good:
Bloom, B.S. (Ed.).(1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine Books. (see the chapter "Generalizations on talent development")
You are saying that nurture is the only game in town? That's a very good straw-man you are setting up, but no, I never said that. "Nature vs. Nurture" is a false dichotomy. Additionally, I would not use the term nurture (nor would most people these days). However, in terms of learned skills and abilities, practice and experience accounts for the majority of the performance variance between any two people on a given task. This is not my claim, it's the consensus of research in the field.
What if two people, one smarter/more intelligent/*insert 'bigger brain' descriptor here* than the other, but with an identical life story, tried a novel task-
Surely the clever one would be better, despite their identical upbringing?
Of course. Again, I never said otherwise.
However, the difference in performance (providing both individuals are developmentally normal) would be marginal. The between-people performance variance on a given task is much lower than the between-practice variance.
Here are some completely made up numbers to illustrate the concept. Suppose on a scale of 1 to 100 for the measurement of performance on task A, individual differences account for 0-2 points, while practice/experience accounts for 0-98. You need, let's say, an 85 on the measurement of task A to be considered an "expert" at that task (e.g. musician). Individual X has 0 points for individual difference while individual Y has 2 points for individual differences, respectively, they are going to require 85 and 83 points worth of practice/experience to become experts at task A. While individual Y might have a slight advantage over individual X, overall, both of their performances on task A are determined much more by their experience/practice than inherent individual differences.
If you will take a closer look, you will notice I was clearly speaking in terms of learned skills and abilities. This question has been extensively investigated (by greater minds than ours) and the consensus is that performance on a task or skill is firmly governed by the "nurture" side (if you insist on using such an antiquated term). Nowadays researchers in this area would speak more about "experiences" and "deliberate practice", but I'm sure you catch my understanding here.
You may as well have said, everyone is an engineer, and everyone is a musician. Either you are making the terms meaningless, or you are out of touch with reality.
Uhm, no. "everyone is" and "anyone can be" are quite distinct logical propositions. Claiming they are equivalent is patently absurd. Also, nothing in what I have said makes either term meaningless, nor am I forced to conclude that I am "out of touch with reality". Given the requisite time, effort, practice and motivation, any human being can learn to be an engineer or a musician (again - barring some horrible developmental abnormalities). There is no "magical" subset of people that are the only ones capable of becoming engineers, nor is there a "magical" subset of people who are the only ones capable of becoming musicians.
Genetic or innate factors account for a vanishingly small amount of variability on task performance (any task performance, whether it is music or math). So much so that they will only make a real difference if you are in the top 1% in the entire world for the chosen task.
Your ability to measure a vague term, with exactitude and on a global scale, is truly amazing.
Your ability to mis-interpret hyperbole as a rhetorical device is truly amazing. This is not my conclusion, but the consensus of researchers in the field. If you truly insist, I will go dig up some references for you, but they should not be hard to find, just google "Ericsson" (only name that comes to mind off the top of my head) and "expertise".
What else can "native ability" refer to if not genetics? (Ok - there are a limited number of biological developmental factors, such as exposure to toxins in the womb, genetic mutations, chromosomal aberrations etc... which can also affect "native ability", but if you were including such in the meaning, I did not receive that impression from your usage.) Surely you have witnessed the phenomenon of some people being 'more capable' than others, before any learning (of whatever) has begun? We are not only a product of the lessons we've sat through, surely? I understand what you mean, but it is not really possible to observe people "before any learning (of whatever) has begun". We begin learning the moment we are born (and perhaps earlier if you believe some studies - the debate is still on in that respect).
What you mean (correct me if I am wrong), is for example the phenomenon of one child in grade 1 being better (and quicker at picking up) math than another child in grade 1 - the very first time they attempt it, neither of which has ever received any formal mathematical training. However, if you were to examine these respective children's histories, you would most likely discover that the one had early childhood experiences and environments which had stimulated their visual-spatial abilities, whereas the other had not (or at least to a lesser degree).
I assure you, I am not saying we are solely the product of the lessons we have sat through, but, other than some gross biological and anatomical features, in terms of the skills and abilities we learn, we are the product of our experiences.
There is no such thing as "native ability". The only thing that really matters is amount of practice and motivation. Anyone can be a musician. Anyone can be an engineer.
Genetic or innate factors account for a vanishingly small amount of variability on task performance (any task performance, whether it is music or math). So much so that they will only make a real difference if you are in the top 1% in the entire world for the chosen task.
However, some tasks (such as engineering) are undoubtedly harder (and therefore take more time and effort to master) than others (such as film studies or humanities). The real difference here is a person's willingness to put in the required time and effort, not their "natural ability". Those "slackers" in film studies could be engineers if they so chose (i.e. put in the required time and effort), but perhaps they realised how difficult and time consuming engineering is and chose an easier route. Or perhaps they chose something other than engineering because they enjoyed it more. Conversely, there may be many people in engineering who would much rather be doing art history, but who have been motivated by other factors (parental pressure, job opportunities/earning potential etc...) and are willing to make the sacrifices necessary to become an engineer.
The bottom line is, choosing not to do something difficult does not make you less capable and deliberately choosing to do something difficult does not make you more capable. It's about the choices you make, not innate ability.
Am I the only one that read this as:
"Comcast Gets Hard On At FCC Meeting"?
before doing a double take...
"This is not the series you are looking for. Move along."
You my friend, must now take a drink!
Ok. 12?
So am I finally going to be able to play holo-chess against a wookie?
It's about time. I mean seriously, who wants to download a movie only to find out it's a cam that some jerk posted?!?
I say jail 'em all!
That way we can be sure the movies we download are genuine DVD rips and not have to worry...
So your argument then is that high temperatures are causing greenhouse gases?
I particularly like this one: http://forum.tubesnow.com/forums/67/ShowThread.asp x#67/
Uhm, what the hell did I just do to my pet duck Quacker then??? Please?
...appropriate console name *EVER*!
To argue intelligence/mental-talent is entirely social is to argue that mind is not body, and body is not mind. That is not so
But that's not the argument that's being made. The argument being made (or the position supported by available evidence if you will) is that hard work and training are a larger factor in becoming an expert in a field than is innate ability or intelligence.
With enough training, I'm pretty sure someone of Forrest Gump's intelligence could become a good chess player (I doubt a grandmaster though), however, from what I understood of the article, they were not discussing the extremes, but the norms.
In that case, the argument would be that someone of average innate chess talent, given 10 years of training, will be a far better player than someone of superior innate chess talent with only a bit of training.
Perhaps what this study is missing, is that "talent" may simply be the ability to focus on X subject.
The ability to focus on something is not an innate ability, it's also learned behaviour (unless you have ADD in which case the inability to focus is a psychological disorder). People learn how to focus, it's part of metalearning and one of the basic things we are taught in grade school.
It's easy to focus on things we like. It takes an active effort to focus on things we might not like. This is where the "effortful learning" bit comes in.
Unfortunately, today's north american society is geared towards producing people with an external locus of control. They are trained by popular culture not to actively direct their attention.
no amount of training will make me an expert at calculus because my mind wanders off instantly
The problem here is not that you can't learn calculus, it's that your learning method is not working. If you wanted to learn calculus you would first have to make a concerted effort on learning how to control your own attention (meditation is good for that). A different approach other than simply reading the text book from end-to-end might also help. Things like making flash-cards (a technique taught to ADD kids to help them "chunk" information so they can focus more easily by learning small bits at a time), finding practial applications for the math, making informative analogies, paraphrasing in your own words etc...
My problem is that there is a strong implication in that statement that anyone else could have done so if only they'd chosen to work that hard. This is simply not true.
Except that's not what the article or the science says. A great deal of evidence is being gathered that shows that "innate ability" is the least factor in the difference between an amateur and an expert. What really matters is hard work and training.
The myth that it 'only' takes hard work to get the most outstanding results is a corrosive and unpleasant put-down for the vast majority of us who toil away for modest results
I think the truely corrosive and unpleasant put-down is the myth that some people (barring developmental difficulties) are just incapable of learning something or that some people are just inherently better than others.
I'm much more comfortable thinking that I could have been a chess grandmaster if I had dedicated 10 years of my life to it than thinking I just have no ability to play chess at all. The first though means that, if I feel like it, I can learn chess when I retire and be a decent player. The second thought means it would be a waste of time to even try and I should just spend my retirement watching tv or going to the casino.
It isn't true to say that other languages cannot be learned later in life either,
But that's not the issue with the critical period of learning for language. The problem is that if you don't learn *ANY* language during the critical period (before 7 I believe) you will *NEVER* be able to learn a language.
Even if you only learn a single language during the critical period (sign language counts) you will then be able to learn multiple languages as an adult by bootstrapping off of your first one.
A COMPUTER can play chess. The rules and strategies are almost all worked out,
Except that computers don't play chess the same way we do. All the best chess computers in the world are pretty much just brute force machines with some clever pruning algorithmns. They don't really take advantage of the "rules" and strategies of chess the same way people do.
People learn both chess and go the same way, but because of the different structures of the games, go is not amenable to the brute force approach, so go computers are still playing at a beginner level (because they are forced to make them try to learn go the same way we do).
Whether or not a computer can do something tells you nothing about whether people can, or how good that subject is as a measure of human learning.
I remember learning about the "10-year theory" of genius in a graduate course in psychology (that it takes around 10 years of practice to make an expert, not innate talent). It was portrayed as a 'radical' theory...
Funny, I learned it in Psych 101 and it was taught as accepted canon. When/where did you go to school?
Stories are also the tools of entire civilizations for effectively communicating ideas. Should I just shut up and never share any experiences which might prove enlightening to somebody simply because I can only provide myself as a footnote?
... how does a successful placebo effect negate the possibility of energy being linked to the change of state?
That's not what I was saying at all. Telling stories to pass on culture, values and ideas is one thing, and is perfectly fine. Using unsupported anecdotal stories to support a certain viewpoint is something else entirely. Simply put, anecdotes are not evidence. I can scream at everyone I meet until I'm blue in the face that I saw bigfoot, but that doesn't mean he exists. Now if I had further corroborating evidence it would be a different matter. That said, I have no problem with you using stories about bigfoot to effectively communicate ideas.
Occam was a 12th century monk who came up with his logical razor to prove the existence of God. His logical argument is useful for proving any point whatsoever depending on the starting belief about what is and is not more likely to be possible.
Not true (well yes, he was a 1th century monk), Occam's razor cannot be used to prove any point you like depending on your starting belief. You can do away with Occam himself completely if the background makes you uncomfortable, it doesn't make the principle wrong. Basically, the person positing extra entities (objects, forces, energies or what have you) has the burden of proof. Neither explanation I have posited (either floaters or migraine headaches) constitutes extra entities, as there is ample evidence for both of them. However, your explanation requires additional entities (i.e. psychic abilities) for which there is no evidence (since anecdotes don't count).
because 'energy' as I accept it is a fundamental element of reality, therefore quite common. Given those starting parameters, which way would Occam spin,
Still towards my argument as you have again provided no evidence. Your own personal belief about 'energy' is fine as a personal belief. You can believe whatever you like. However, there's no evidence to support it and it is not in line with the traditional (i.e. physics) definition of energy, which does have a vast body of evidence to support it. So again, you are positing extra entities; Occam's razor cannot be used to support your argument.
it IS entirely possible that my brain was reacting on a physiological level. So what?
If it was a physiological response then there's no need to posit psychic phenomenon in order to explain it. This does not negate the possibility, it just makes it less likely as a probable explanation. But again we are back to Occam. If you have two possible explanations for a given phenomenon (your visual disturbances) and one of them involves physiological processes and another involves physiological processes + psychic phenomenon, which is more likely to be correct? Since the whole thing can be explained physiologically, why posit something extra? It's unecessary, which makes the simpler hypothesis more likely.
It's also possible that you are a brain floating in a tank experiencing the world as an elaborate simulation. --My point being that at some point one must decide which parts of the world to take on faith as real.
Agreed, if there was no such point we would all descend into some kind of catatonic skeptical nihilism. However, our perceptions can and do play tricks on us, our contact with the world is filtered and reconstructed for us through various neurological processes that constitute our "reality interface". So far, the scientific method has proven itself as the most reliable way of determining which parts of our experience of the world we should take on faith as real.
Try this: hold up one finger in front of a neutral background (for convenience) and look at the surrounding half inch of spac
Well, since I am the only one I need to convince in order to further my own understanding of the universe, it hardly matters.
True enough, you are entitled to believe whatever you like.
I can only share them in hopes that they might prove useful to others who are also seeking.
This is where you get into trouble though. You are presenting anecdotes as evidence in order to convince other people of something. However, anecdotes are not a valid form of evidence. They are the tools of hucksters and charlatans. If you want to convince someone that a particular phenomenon is real, then you must present valid, empirical evidence.
Actually, I read your link and it doesn't sound like 'floaters' even a tiny bit.
Two things:
1) It's more likely to be an odd form of floaters that deviates more from the norm than actual psychic phenomenon. Application of Occam's razor says that if there is a simple, plausible explanation that doesn't require confabulation or the multiplication of entities, it is more likely to be correct.
2) You carefully avoided the question of whether or not it could be a migraine headache. Now that I think about it, it seems more likely that you are experiencing painless migraines than floaters, but Occam's razor still applies. Migraines are more likely than psychic phenomenon. Here's a comparison from your description and descriptions of migraine "auras" on wikipedia:
yours:
in the center of my vision a strange visual distortion. --It looks like a piece of clear crystal with a crack in it and the light being refracted in odd ways. The distortion pulsates and objects on the other side of it are obscured.
wikipedia:
Visual aura is the most common of the neurological events. There is a disturbance of vision consisting usually of unformed flashes of white or rarely of multicolored lights (photopsia) or formations of dazzling zigzag lines (arranged like the battlements of a castle, hence the term fortification spectra or teichopsia). Some patients complain of blurred or shimmering or cloudy vision
Looks pretty damn close to me...
as I explained, the phenomenon promptly vanished with the application of a little energy manipulation.
Again, there's a perfectly normal explanation for this. It's simply the placebo effect. You believed your friend was manipulating your energy and making you feel better, which activated your body's own healing abilities. This sort of thing is very well documented.
As for why your friend would have spontaneously reached into the air to manipulate your energy, you described your friend as someone "who is very energy aware". This leads me to guess that he is actively trying to cultivate an eccentricity. I would bet he's done lots of other strange things like that before, with lots of other people. The only reason this particular incident sticks out in your mind is because it happened to coincide with your migraine.
Psychologically, we know that your brain places more emphasis on, and stores stronger memories of, events where there appears to be a pattern or correlation (even if this is not the case). It's a built in selection bias; your brain pays attention to novel events and discards ones that don't appear to have any significant meaning. There are probably dozens of instances where your friend has done something similar and was totally wrong, with no actual correlation to reality going on. You just don't remember those incidents because they were not significant.
Try to read more carefully in the future.
I don't believe the problem here is any reading comprehension on my part.
Also, I am not a doctor, but I really do think you ought to go see one. I have no idea who you are, but I think it would be terrible if you died of a brain tumour because you thought all the symptoms were psychic phenomenon.
Look at it this way: if it's nothing, no harm done and you can believe what you like. But if it is something serious, wouldn't you rather catch it early?