I tried a little demo on FF today in class. I asked for a student who
believed that s/he had good hand-eye coordination and was willing to do
a demo on FF. A women student volunteered. Her task was to draw two
crossed lines in a circle with the ends of the lines touching the edge
of the drawn circle. I showed her what I wanted her to draw and then
erased the lines I had drawn. She was told that she could practice this
and that she was to pay very close attention to the "fellings of her
hands as she moved the chalk on the board because she was going to asked
to do it again after she practised." She practised four times and after
each time she drew I erased the lines and she did it again. Each time I
reminded her to "pay attention to the feeling of her movements." Then
she said she was able to draw the lines I asked her to do it while I put
a piece of cardboard between the chalk board and her face. She drew the
lines in a crossed manner but they did not reach the edge. I let her look
at what she had drawn and noted how much "in error" it was. I erased the
lines and asked her to do it again. She did better but did not succeed.
Even after two more tries and seeing what she had done between tries she
never could do what she had done when she could see the circle and her
drawing of the lines. Then I finally did the "pin the tail on the donkey
routine" by having her spin around and close her eyes and find the board
to do the drawing. She never even found the board.
Now where is all of this FF using the image of one's action? I must doing
something wrong. Well if it I just had some reinforcers maybe it would work.
***** FROM CHUCK TUCKER 931123 ***** Bill suggested that I post this
for another round of "abstract" comments %-} Chuck
Dear Rick,
I tried a little demo on FF today in class. I asked for a student who
believed that s/he had good hand-eye coordination and was willing to do
a demo on FF. A women student volunteered. Her task was to draw two
crossed lines in a circle with the ends of the lines touching the edge
of the drawn circle.
She practised four times and after
each time she drew I erased the lines and she did it again.
she said she was able to draw the lines I asked her to do it while I put
a piece of cardboard between the chalk board and her face. She drew the
lines in a crossed manner but they did not reach the edge. I let her look
at what she had drawn and noted how much "in error" it was. I erased the
lines and asked her to do it again. She did better but did not succeed.
Then I finally did the "pin the tail on the donkey
routine" by having her spin around and close her eyes and find the board
to do the drawing. She never even found the board.
Try this you will get the same results.
Not necessarily. Some people are naturally good at this sort of thing.
And some people can train themselves to be very good indeed. Such
training of good basic talent is the basis of some feats of
conjuring/dexterity.
And some people are absolutely rotten at this sort of thing. Looks like
you found one of those.
Not necessarily. Some people are naturally good at this sort of thing.
And some people can train themselves to be very good indeed. Such
training of good basic talent is the basis of some feats of
conjuring/dexterity.
And some people are absolutely rotten at this sort of thing. Looks like
you found one of those.
Sounds like overgeneralization from a limited statistical sample to me. ;->
What do you suppose might make the difference of being "naturally good at
this sort of thing", Chris? Hal has suggested the experimentor might be
helpful of misleading. The experimentor's expectations, both consciously
and unconsciously communicated, might influence the subject to perform
well or to "throw the match". Some subjects might be better at
subliminal cues as to when they're getting warmer, such as audience
movements, breathing rates, etc., like clever Hans, the counting horse.
Are you suggesting that some subjects might be better at keeping track of
their orientation as they spin, or might be better at re-orienting a
remembered "map" of their surroundings with respect to heard perceptions
of peoples' locations, etc.? Or is there something else innately
different in them, which must be genetically inherited and cannot be
taught? What are you suggesting? What does your experience of these
differences in people suggest? What actually have your experiences been,
that led to this observation?
Not necessarily. Some people are naturally good at this sort of thing.
And some people can train themselves to be very good indeed. Such
training of good basic talent is the basis of some feats of
conjuring/dexterity.
And some people are absolutely rotten at this sort of thing. Looks like
you found one of those.
Sounds like overgeneralization from a limited statistical sample to me. ;->
What do you suppose might make the difference of being "naturally good at
this sort of thing", Chris?
I don't know. For what it's worth I suggest the two most important
factors are genetic and what skills were developed in early childhood.
What does your experience of these
differences in people suggest? What actually have your experiences been,
that led to this observation?
When I was a young teenager several of us spent a lot of time learning
to throw stones and knives at targets, shoot at targets, hit targets
blindfold from briefly glimpsed positions, hit glimpsed targets after
being blindfolded and spinning round, hitting targets not seen but
heard, and so on. We also used to shut our eyes in a cluttered room and
try to walk to the door and place the hand accurately on the door knob,
and to learn how to move accurately by memory (and sound) in completely
dark places. Some of us discovered we could "hear" walls and doors quite
easily, some found it impossible.
Some found great difficulty in mastering the elementary tasks, e.g.,
simply throwing stones accurately, and found the blindfold tasks
impossible. Some had much longer "blinded" spatial memory than others.
Some had much more accurate "blinded" memories. Some picked up new
skills very rapidly. Some found them impossible to learn. We were all
quite startled by the very extreme range of talent at these kinds of
tasks. It was as though some of us had bits of brain machinery that
others lacked.
( Chris Malcolm Wed, 24 Nov 1993 18:17:09 GMT ) --
It appears to me that you are not challenging a feedback view in favor of
a feedforward view. Those who are unaccountably more adept at these
impressive blind performances are so by controlling non-visual perception
and/or by controlling visual perception in memory and imagination.
Chuck's student's self-assessment as having "good hand-eye coordination"
is not necessarily pertinent in the experimental situation he describes,
though it might well be pertinent given the extended practice and
training that you and your cohorts undertook as young teenagers.
Your way of presenting this information made it seem as though it was
intended as a challenge to the negative feedback view of perceptual
control. I think now that you only intended to challenge the suggestion
in Chuck's post that this one sample was universally representative. But
perhaps you would agree that even the most talented among you and your
friends was not so demonstrably capable before undertaking any of that
practice and training. And that it is the adept who is the statistical
anomaly, and the person who is "absolutely rotten at this sort of thing"
who is overwhelmingly likely to show up for such an experiment. It seems
to me that your point is important and valid, but overstated. Or perhaps
you know how Chuck could have picked an adept "at this sort of thing" out
of the many who were hiding in his class. He has asked for ways of
improving his method. I'm sure he would welcome your suggestions.
( Chris Malcolm Wed, 24 Nov 1993 18:17:09 GMT ) --
Your way of presenting this information made it seem as though it was
intended as a challenge to the negative feedback view of perceptual
control. I think now that you only intended to challenge the suggestion
in Chuck's post that this one sample was universally representative.
You're right.
But
perhaps you would agree that even the most talented among you and your
friends was not so demonstrably capable before undertaking any of that
practice and training.
It's difficult to know what should be counted here as training, but some
were pretty good from the start.
And that it is the adept who is the statistical
anomaly, and the person who is "absolutely rotten at this sort of thing"
who is overwhelmingly likely to show up for such an experiment.
Most likely. Not sure about "overwhelmingly". My `experts' were about
five in number, and came from a school population of about 200, but
because of particular friendships, we probably selected ourselves from
about half of those. The Govt had also selected us all for being bright
(days of IQ streaming).
It seems
to me that your point is important and valid, but overstated. Or perhaps
you know how Chuck could have picked an adept "at this sort of thing" out
of the many who were hiding in his class. He has asked for ways of
improving his method. I'm sure he would welcome your suggestions.
Not sure how reliable it would be, but I'd check out those who moved
gracefully, and those who moved precisely and economically.