The following statement by the author is interesting, but it has to be considered that he interviewed a select group of people who were successful and how they became successful. It is a criticism of education which is not totally undeserved but which ignores all of those individuals for whom the system provided skills that it was intended to provide and also those individuals similar to those the author interviewed who were not so successful.
Since the Industrial revolution, parents have expected that organized educational systems will tame and modernize their children and “prepare them for life”. Such is the theory. But education – ritualized, formal education, at least – is not an all-purpose solution to the problem of inexperience and mental immaturity among the young. I was completely unprepared for the frequency with which I heard the people whom I interviewed either dismiss or actively denounce the time they had spent in school. Most of my interview subjects, although I never asked them directly, said quite forcefully that they had clarified their own thinking and their lives as a result of what they were doing with their hands. Not only were most of them essentially self-taught, but a few had engineered their personally unique repertoire of skills and experience in open retreat from painful experiences in a school system that had dictated the form and content of their education in order to prepare them for a life modeled on conventional norms of success.
Neocortex size is a reliable predictor of group size because intelligence is mainly social intelligence; the more people there are to keep track of, the greater the complexity of relationships to be kept in mind and orchestrated, and the more time which must be spent maintaining coalitions.
This faculty of searching for the object is slowly acquired in the child: and, in truth, the motions of the eye are made perfect, like those of the hand, in slow degrees. In both organs there is a compound operation: the impression on the nerve of sense is accompanied with an effort of the will, to accommodate the muscular action to it. This is a statement by Charles Bell who was a contemporary of Charles Darwin.
This mode of learning may be common to many forms of acquisition: there will be good days and bad days, with wild and largely unforeseen fluctuations in performance any time a new skill is being learned or an old one is being modified. This seems to be the natural mode of progression in a motor skill. (It may also account for a strong aversion among teachers and students to the analysis of both success and failure, not to mention a strong propensity toward superstitions about study. An actress once said this to me: “You do something very well, try to figure it out, and it goes away. That makes you believe that you shouldn’t think about what you’re doing. Analyzing success just leads to mistakes.)
You will never be able to throw accurately enough to hit a target unless your own internal clock, which controls the timing of the muscle activity, is perfectly calibrated. Based on what we have learned about the normal behavior of babies less than a year old, that clock is not set or calibrated until the head is under control. And when that time comes, the setting and calibration is organized through active movement, including the catching games the child plays. Simple repetition does improve some aspects of performance, but much more is required for expert performance. The development of any high-level skill requires intelligent rehearsal: repetition according to a well-designed plan. Developing a physical skill is primarily a mental activity.
From a professional juggler: The eyes have to stay in practice, too. When I stop for one or two days, there’s no problem with my body, my arms are okay, but my eyes have got to get used to seeing all of it again. The eye thing is very, very important.
We need to question the premise that intelligence is a purely mental phenomenon, that the mind can be educated without the participation of the body.
Parents today tend to be concerned, if not obsessed, with getting a child moving in a certain desired direction as soon as possible. If getting ahead is the new purpose of American life, getting your child ahead of the rest of the kids is its sacramental corollary: the right toys, the right preschool activities, so many hours of this, so many hours of that, somehow beating the timetable of the public school system. In David we see an earlier educational model, one rooted in life’s immediate circumstances, very rich in rewards for self-reliance and invention. David grew up where “farm work: was an open-ended , loosely structured plan providing real-life demands (and real hardships) that produced many branchings, many unexpected experiences, many opportunities for a young child to explore and pursue interests on the basis of native curiosity. Is the model outmoded?
Handedness is uniquely human, ranking with speech and tool use as a distinctive behavioral trait of Homo sapiens. We still know essentially nothing about the history of our special trait or its neurological foundations.
There is a logical division of labor between the two hands. The left hand knows that the right hand is planning and the right hand knows what the left hand just did.
Writing is a complex act because engaged along with forearm and hand muscles, whose job is a sustained contraction, are muscles that must contract and relax over and over again. The solution the brain adopts for overcoming the complexity of these muscular tasks is to automatize them – to create simple micrometric movements, memorize them, and repeat them without variation. Once the movement is learned, very little sensory monitoring is necessary.
The same brain injuries which affect people who communicate through speech affect the communication of those who use sign.
The following is from Moshe Feldenkrais who was a physicist and antimissile defense scientist. Feldenkrais taught us to look for what isn’t there. A big problem is when the teaching is done independent of the child’s subjective reality. Somebody walks into the room to teach something without taking into account in a real way the students who are there. You’re not connecting with anything that matters to them. Our understanding is that in this way we connect to their brain. There needs to be a revolution in comprehending what works in learning. “Teaching and learning are two independent processes, and usually they do not correlate.” And what do they learn? They learn that it’s hard. You know, we learn everything, we don’t just learn what we’re supposed to learn, or what the teacher believes is being taught.
Perception is not something that goes on inside a processor running inside the brain. There is not, and cannot be, anything called perception – including any kind of visual or visuomotor perception – just as there is not and cannot be anything called intelligence, independent of the behavior of the entire organism, or of its entire and exclusive personal history of interactions with the world.
All students learn best and most quickly when self-interest orients and drives the search for information, understanding, and skill.
Teachers need to look at their own understanding of ordinary things which they teach to try to remember what it was like before, when they didn’t know these things. It is very difficult because the memory of not knowing has been wiped out.