Remote Ready Biology Learning Activities

Greetings .... Name: Paul Grobstein Date: 2006-05-10 14:27:07 Link to this Comment: 19301

Welcome to the on line forum for continuing discussion of "Getting It Less Wrong". Like all Serendip forums, this is a place to find thoughts that others have had that might be useful to you, and to leave thoughts of your own that might be useful to others. And maybe even more obviously than is the case for other Serendip forums, it is not at all a place for final words but rather a place for thoughts in progress. How useful is the "getting it less wrong" idea? How could it be modified to make it more useful still? Join in, and let's see where we can go ....

getting it less wrong in chemistry Name: Sharon Burgmayer Date: 2006-05-22 19:34:12 Link to this Comment: 19415

Although Paul's mission to replace 'getting it right' with the approach of "getting it less wrong" was well known to me, I was quite surprised to find this idea appear in two of the essays written by students in Inorganic Chemistry (CHEM231) this year. Both students noted a parallel between my teaching them to navigate the myriad approaches available to study Inorganic Chemistry and the 'less wrong' perspective.

One wrote:

"... the guidelines for building a model to describe an inorganic system are not the typical black-and-white "scientific method" taught in middle school, a hypothesis proved untrue in one situation need not be completely eliminated. Rather, the defining criterion for a "good" or "bad" chemical model is whether the model is useful and efficient, or not. Again, I cannot help but think back to the Beauty course and something Paul Grobstein said during the course: "Not only science, but life itself, stands as a testimonial to the reality that there is nothing at all defeatist or second best about becoming 'progressively less wrong'. That is precisely what science is about, and is the very core of all social and technological 'progress'." which was echoed by what another wrote: "an overriding theme of the course has been what Bryn Mawr Biology Professor Paul Grobstein calls "getting it less wrong". I was forced to accept that with many things, one way of describing and understanding a molecule was not necessarily the only way, that the applicability of a concept was always relative and that although the answers were there, they were never unconditional." And one concluded her essay by asserting the 'less wrong'' perspective is what she most gained from the course: "If asked to leave a parting thought on what I learned specifically about inorganic chemistry I would say, "I may not be always right or have mastered all the concepts, but at least I've learned to approach chemical problems in a way that is less wrong."

re: getting it less wrong in chemistry Name: Beth Diamo Date: 2006-05-27 20:51:49 Link to this Comment: 19429

I think it's very encouraging that students in all disciplines of science (and I do have a bias—I’m a biology major!) can find value in the "less wrong" idea. I think, in fact, that more professors should try and integrate the theme into their teaching, as Dr. Burgmayer has done. I’m very glad to hear that more people are accepting the idea of science as a process of knowledge (which is what it should be), and not so much of a way to “prove” anything.

One thing I wanted to add—and this is something I feel strongly about—was about how your inorganic chemistry student mentioned the “black-and-white ‘scientific method’ taught in middle school”. That reminded me well of my own days in elementary/middle school science classes, cobbling together a science-fair poster board with a clear “conclusion” in the lower right corner—though of course, now I know better that there really wasn’t a clear conclusion, and there ought to have been further research to answer remaining questions. My question now is, why don’t the primary schools feel the need to mention this in the science classes? That is, why do they only tell the students that the point of an experiment is to come to some definable answer, and no further? I should think that the students would benefit from knowing that an experiment does not have to work the first time around, nor should they always strive to fulfill their defined hypothesis at the outset. Unexpected, or “wrong” results could lead them in a new direction entirely, but for whatever reason, this process of discovery is never emphasized in schools. Can anyone tell me why?? It’s really rather frustrating, but more than anything, it’s the students who are being cheated. I myself didn’t really think on proper scientific method or “getting things less wrong” until my freshman year here, when I took Dr. Grobstein’s Neurobiology class.

getting less wrong less wrong? Name: Paul Grobstein Date: 2006-06-04 19:48:48 Link to this Comment: 19463

I'm delighted (of course) that "getting it less wrong" resonates with some people, and particularly so that it does with some "science" students. As Beth notes in her essay, that is not however the case for all science students, at least some of whom want/like something more ... certain (cf "The way Science is taught" by a student in a philosophy of science course). And others of whom question the logical coherence of aspiring to be "less wrong" while at the same time asserting that there is no way to be "right" (cf "throwing logic to the wind").

Reservations about the "less wrong" notion are not, of course, restricted to science students. And it is, of course, inherent in the "less wrong" idea that it itself is challengeable, will have some appeal in terms of solving older problems while simultaneously creating new problems. So reservations, of whatever sort and from whomever, are to be taken seriously.

Whether logical consistency is, or ought to be, the ultimate test of the usefulness of particular ideas ("a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" ... Ralph Waldo Emerson) is (for me at least) an open question, but the challenge of testing coherence can certainly be productive of new understandings in its own right, and so it has been with the issue of whether one can have "less wrong" without "more right". If one defines terms carefully, "less wrong" and "more right" do not in fact require one another, and so there is no logical incoherence in using the former without the latter. The basic argument is that one can be "less wrong" simply by noticing and correcting a mismatch between some prediction based on one's current understanding and a new observation. "More right" requires, in addition, the presumptions that there is a single best way to describe something and that that something is itself fixed/invariant. In short, one CAN specify what is "wrong" without appealing to a concept of "rightness". And one can change in a "less wrong" direction without appealing to any even hidden assumption that there is a fixed/invariant "right" one.

What about the wish for certainty that "getting it less wrong" seems to challenge? There are, of course, contexts within which there ARE "right" answers. Math tests, and standardized examinations in general, are a good example. And it is fine for people who take pleasure and pride in being "right" to prefer to work in such contexts. But it needs to be clearly understood that those are quite distinctive contexts, deliberately structured by humans with a particular set of rules that assure the existence of a pre-existing "right". And that such contexts are not at all representative of the challenges that most humans face in most of their lives. While one may prefer certainty and so choose to work and live primarily in contexts in which "right" is achievable, "getting it less wrong" DOES challenge the wish for certainty in general. And intentionally so. In fact, it is the non-transferability of expectations developed in particular contexts (created to make "right" important) to life in general that "getting it less wrong" is intended to highlight. Being "right" is not a prerequisite for action in general and the need to be "certain" before acting may even inhibit action (to say nothing of generating conflicts with others who have a different "right" about which they are equally certain). Its enough (and perhaps even better than enough) to act in "less wrong" ways, with the understanding that the experience one gains will be helpful in future actions.

Some other other expressed concerns about the "getting it less wrong" phrase have less to do with the idea it expresses than with the tone of the expression and with the desirability of adding some features. Some of this was actually anticipated in the original 1993 letter that used the phrase ...

Wanting to be "progressively less wrong" rather than "right" is, however, by itself a tough pill for many people to swallow. This is not only because of the words (we could, perhaps should, come up with something that sounds less negative), but because the underlying ideas themselves are alien and disturbing to many people, who have the feeling they know how to be "right" but have no idea at all how to be "less wrong," and for whom the whole thing sounds defeatist, to be settling for second best. This is the place where I think science has a very special role to play ... Not only science, but life itself, stands as testimonial to the reality that there is nothing at all either defeatist or second best about becoming "progressively less wrong." That is precisely what science is about, and is the very core of all social and technological "progress." More importantly, being "progressively less wrong" is the very essence of the biological concept of evolution, whose capacity to generate enormously complex and effective organizations has yet to show a limit, and still far exceeds anything of which humans are capable alone. But there is more worth thinking about ...

From Barry Bickmore, a colleague in Geology at Brigham Young University who shares my interest in science as story telling

I challenged your use of the phrase "less wrong," but now that you have explained your usage a little more fully, I think I like it. It seems to me that when you say "less wrong," you might mean something very similar to what I mean when I say, "more useful." We can say a story is "less wrong" in the sense of explaining more data or being more generative - i.e., "more useful" - rather than in the sense of being closer to "The Truth." ... you point out that my negative reading of the word "skepticism" goes beyond what you meant. The word "humility" sounds much better to me, and perhaps I would expand it to "questioning humility." And from Judie McCoyd, a colleague in Social Work at Rutgers, who emailed me (3 June 2006) the following as part of a discussion of the significance of "belief" I still really love the getting it less wrong concept, and I agree that humility is a necessary condition for the exploration of other's ideas in an open way, but the curiosity issue still needs to be addressed since I think it may be a necessary precondition. There are certainly humble people who may even have an interest in "getting it less wrong", but who are so lacking in curiosity that it never really becomes an issue because they have no real motivation (the curiosity) to explore things unless they fall into their laps. Certainly we all know (and our country has elected) a person who fails to exhibit both of these preconditions. I still think that "getting it less wrong" is a tough pill to swallow for many quite appropriate reasons but agree that as a phrase to describe ongoing inquiry it is incomplete and may be harsher than necessary. Yes, I had in mind something that includes both the positive features of "useful" and "generative", that presumed a wealth of "curiosity", and that expressed in practice a very deep "humility" (an inclination to treat one's own understandings at any given time with as much skepticism as one treats those of others).

Words are inevitably a shorthand for thoughts, both recognized and inchoate, and have different meanings for different people at different times. For me, "getting it less wrong" remains for the moment a useful (and generative) touchstone, as much for the challenges it provokes in some and the subsequent rethinkings those require on my part as for the resonances it generates in others. Thanks to all for both. Looking forward to seeing what uses the phrase has in the future, and what new thoughts it generates.

a new way to say/see it? Name: Paul Grobstein Date: 2006-07-02 10:18:19 Link to this Comment: 19635

See Bad? news/good news. Maybe this can inspire/combine my "profound skepticism", Judie's "passionate curiosity" and Barry's "questioning humility"?

Thanks to Lucy Kerman for sending me the original "report" circulating on the internet.

some additional voices ... Name: Paul Grobstein Date: 2006-07-06 13:55:45 Link to this Comment: 19648

See recent thoughts of some high school students about the science as getting it less wrong perspective.

All Models are Wrong Name: Floyd Demm Date: 2006-10-03 00:45:49 Link to this Comment: 20574

An old saw in statistics states that "All models are wrong, but some are useful." The concept of "less wrong" is just a realization of the fact that there is no completed state of knowledge. It's always in flux because we can assume there will always be more detail that we never would have imagined. What made the answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything (= 42) funny in the Hitchhikers Guide was that it reduced the answer to such a simple, precise term. Of course it's not so simple, nor is an absolute value likely to be absolute.

My dad used to tell the story of how his high school physics teacher taught students about exponential decay. He had two students (pick your own combo of genders) move toward each other in increments of half the distance between them each time. He noted "They will never occupy the exact same space by this method, but will become close enough for all intents and purposes." (They certainly were more wry in the 40's.) At some point we are "right enough" to obtain an acceptable result (by current expectations). Acceptance of not being "completely right" is acknowledgment that we are leaving money on the table and that we are content with that fact.

Science in the real world of industry is always a compromise between the "right answer" and what time and available resources
allow us to to divine. Some industries allow greater resources and time than others to determining the "right answer" because the margin of error is less. "Less wrong" becomes a function of consequences in this view. If one works in an industry in which a picogram is important, "less wrong" has a different meaning than a system where plus/minus a kilogram is considered good. The true, unique right answer is typically unknown, and, even if it is known, may be irrelevant for daily operations. We need not be as concerned with the concept of "Less Wrong" as with the definition of how wrong we can afford to be.

"all models are wrong" Name: Paul Grobstein Date: 2006-10-04 09:40:26 Link to this Comment: 20587

Very glad to have Floyd's input from "the real world of industry." I agree very much that in day to day life the critical issue is always "useful" rather than the "completed state of knowledge", that one might, with more time/money, come up with a still "less wrong" answer in any given case, and hence that we generally need to be comfortable acknowledging "that we are leaving money on the table and that we are content with that".

Some people (both scientists and non-scientists) think "science" is different, that there really are "true, unique answers" and that "scientists", unlike people in industry or day to day life, actually achieve (or at least aspire to achieve) them (cf The Nature of Science). My own feeling (cf Getting It Less Wrong: The Brain's Way and Science as Story Telling and Story Revising) is that there is no such sharp division between "science" and industry/day to day life. In science, as elsewhere, one needs to acknowldge that we are always "leaving money on the table" and always will be. Contentedly or not.

do our minds trick us in that we alter information Name: Date: 2006-10-05 21:19:00 Link to this Comment: 20626

Name: (salem)
Date: 10/04/2006 04:41
Link to this Comment: 20586

hi all

i would like to know if there is any explanation to the fact that when you have a set of information that you heard from your English teacher a year a go, for example, then if happaned that a classmate, a year later, told you that this information was not taught by our english teacher but rather by our psychologist. then by time you will suddenly find yourself accepting this folse claim by your classmate and then your mind will work accordingly, meaning that your mind will convince you that a psychologist not an english teacher who told you this information.

my question is how our mind tricks us and please if there is any article about it, let me know

thanks

salem

Laws of statistics and averages.. Name: Jeremy Date: 2006-10-06 01:58:36 Link to this Comment: 20628

I first noticed, the getting it less wrong, philosophy, in the, I am, I think, Therefore, forum here. Or something like that :) Nice to see so many comments from Paul, there always in-sightful and introspective. Very refreshing...

I think there may be another slant on the 'getting it less wrong' aproache. Attitude, seems that when 'we all are on the same page' There is more moving forward and less debate.

Just would like to touch on the 'idea' that if we accept, the idea- that we dont know, what we don't know.- Then all, are receptive to all's ideas, yet there is a system of constraits/boundrys/parameters(that is accepted). I believe in the industry, this is called infinite resolution. How ironic that the mere hinting of the idea, that all,, can be known(range), defeats it's own exception. In other words, if a range can be specified, why does it have infinite resolution within itself.

curiosity vs. skepticism Name: Ann Date: 2006-10-20 13:55:25 Link to this Comment: 20707

I much prefer "curiosity" to "skepticism," as a way to describe the pursuit of developing new ideas, paths, processes, ways of knowing, and understandings. To me, the difference is that "curiosity" is about being open to new ideas and experiences vs. closing off those ideas and experiences. They are different attitudes towards questioning.

hyperdimensional chemistry Name: b Date: 2006-12-18 03:14:03 Link to this Comment: 21339

The new chemistry revisions the inadequacies of classic nucleonic chemistry to elemental parton configurations, a post-modernists quantum physical chemistry in the relativistic continuem. Rather than visualizing a spherical nucleon, imagine a hyperdimensional pre-spatial configuration which is function of passing energy composites(the partons) which can briefly occupy the same 3-d + t space simultaneously known as quark confinement. This changes the dimensional nature of the space into a transitional hypergeomety, a reconfiguring topology, that contains the degrees of freedom of the relativistic universe we inhabit. Thus kinetic and intra-bond vibratory behavior, or quantum fluxuations for that matter, are discretized statistical manifestations of what is really happening but beyond the capture of our mammalian nervous systems. Yes mathematically we can measure and predict things within confidence intervals, but we are not able to visualize the absolute topologies, ergo, the advent of differential geometry.
In essence, something radically different is "really going on" than our current understanding of chemistry would imply. In short, in our time, we will be vastly reworking the very precepts of current thinking in physical chemistry and this will show large divergents in bonding theory and group thermodynamics(einstein-bose photon condensate pairings) especially in the collapse of reconfiguring geometries into robust manifold operators.
This is where the fields of elementary particle physics, quantum electrodynamics, string supersymmetry topologies, relativistic mechanics, and statistics all come together in field particulate dynamics. This will be the new photonics from which the next leap foward in physics will coccur. The key concept here is that field paticulates are boundry interactions of fluctuating field vertices of the virtual sea. This is where mammalian mathematics and hyperfield geometrics meets the road. In effect the first task will be to show why heisenbergs uncertainty principle is as wrong as the bohr model of the hydrogen atom.

sci.physics.foundations Name: Charles Fr Date: 2007-01-15 08:15:40 Link to this Comment: 21394

I just wanted to mention another forum we are starting up, where we can hopefully also learn to get it less wrong, a usenet newsgroup called sci.physics.foundations. In contrast to sci.physics.research we mean to have open discusions in which the group rather than the moderator will try to sift through misconceptions. We all have misconceptions, especially at the deepest levels, so we hope this will also be a useful forum for real research into nature. At the same time we do need moderation to keep out the excessive noise of blatant non-physics and the ill manners of the unmoderated groups.

If like me you find newsgroups a better medium for deep discussion than weblogs, I hope you will join us. The proposed new group is currently in the discussion stage on news.groups.proposals, where you will also find details of the group. Please subscribe and post your support. The more supporting posts we get, the better the chance the group will go ahead. And if you have any good ideas, they can be discussed there too.

More details at http://vacuum-physics.com/spf/

Many Thanks

Charles Francis

Proponent, sci.physics.foundations

less wrong Name: ; Date: 2007-02-15 19:46:09 Link to this Comment: 21467

I stumbled across this artical here on a "wanna be surprised" link.

Well here it is.

"Visual Hallucinations: Another Argument for Brain Equals Behavior
Jennifer Cohen

A hallucination is defined as a sensory perception in the absence of an externally generated stimulus (4). They are different from illusions in that in an illusion an external object actually exists and is perceived, but is misinterpreted by the individual (4). Main forms of hallucinations are be visual, auditory, and olfactory, but since we have been discussing vision and interpretation of reality lately this paper will focus only on those that are visual. And I will attempt through the examination of two different types of visual hallucinations - release hallucinations and those experienced by schizophrenics - to make an argument for brain equals behavior.

Much work has been done to find the exact cause of hallucinations and what is going on in the brain when they occur. Some progress has been made. Charles Bonnet syndrome is the onset of hallucinations in psychologically healthy individuals who have recently become blind or seeing impaired. These are called release hallucinations because it is thought that they are 'released' or instigated by the, "removal of normal visual afferent impute to association cortex"(5). Experiments involving direct stimulation of the temporal lobe, and fMRI's taken during hallucinations have indicated that - at least for complex hallucinations - the cause may be that corresponding visual areas in the brain are activated in the absence of inhibition due to visual input. In other words, this is an example of the chicken with its head cut off - apparently normal visual input to areas of the brain responsible for interpreting different things may be the only thing that keeps us from experiencing hallucinations of this kind (5). An fMRI study of persons with Charles Bonnet syndrome found a very high correlation between the types of hallucinations experienced by these patients and increased activity in the corresponding visual area of their brains. For example, patients hallucinating in color showed activity in an area known to be the color center in the fusiform gyrus while a patient hallucinating in black and white showed activity outside of this region (3). Likewise, activity was found in the middle fusiform gyrus which responds to visual objects in a patient who hallucinated objects, and in the collateral sulcus which responds to visual textures in patients who hallucinated things like fences and brickwork (3). So it seems that whatever is responsible for hallucinations of this sort stimulates them through the same means we use to interpret our visual reality under normal circumstances.

These hallucinations are experienced identically to normal seeing, however they are distinguishable from reality because of their content and the fact that they often appear in clearer and greater detail than Charles Bonnet patients (whose visions have been impaired or lost) would naturally see (3). These "release" hallucinations are often not reported to doctors and psychologists because the individuals experiencing them are aware that what they are seeing are hallucinations and are afraid of being judged as crazy by those people that they might tell (5).

These are different from the visual hallucinations experienced by people suffering from schizophrenia because schizophrenics most often cannot differentiate their hallucinations from reality. It was hypothesized that in schizophrenics hallucinations occurred as a result of "confusing external and internal stimulus sources" (2). In a study conducted to test this hypothesis, it was found that hallucinations might be a result of a higher level of vividness of patients' mental imagery. In addition, the more impaired a patient's affinity for reality discrimination, the higher the severity of the hallucinations (2).

This poses another interesting argument for "brain equals behavior". When I first read about Charles Bonnet syndrome I thought I'd found a contradictory example. It seemed to me that if these patients were experiencing hallucinations that are sensorilly identical to seeing and yet are able to distinguish them and not respond as if they were real then they were behaving in opposition to what their brain was trying to tell them.

But what becomes clear when we look at schizophrenic hallucinations is that people suffering from Charles Bonnet syndrome are not acting contrary to their brain function. Rather they have and are still driven by other parts of their brain that tell them that the hallucination isn't real. Schizophrenics cannot do this. Even if they know they hallucinate, they still cannot tell their hallucinations apart from reality (1). Their hallucinations affect their behavior because they have nothing in their brain telling them not to be affected by them. Charles Bonnet sufferers do, and an important thing to remember is that just because they don't respond to their hallucinations as if they were real does not mean that they do not affect their behavior. These people do take notice of their hallucinations; they watch them, spend time interpreting them, and often think about them afterwards. This is behavior different than that which would be exhibited in a non-hallucinating individual and so their altered brain function does indeed influence their behavior.

The most fundamental detail, however, which flew completely over my head when I was first looking at this problem, is that the hallucinations themselves are a behavioral manifestation of brain function. Just as is interpreting reality the way we do. Sight as we know it is a result of neural functioning and so may be thought of as a behavior. By this logic, a deviation in the way we see or perceive also produces perception that is a type of behavior.

So as is shown here by the examples of schizophrenic hallucinations versus those experienced in Charles Bonnet syndrome, you do not have to act as if your hallucinations are real in order to be responding to them behaviorally. Indeed, all you have to do is have them in order to behave as your brain is telling you to. So yet again in an attempt to find an argument for something more I guess I have found one more thing that argues brain does indeed equal behavior.

WWW Sources
1)abcNEWS.com. , New Treatments for Schizophrenia
2)British Journal of Clinical Psychology 2000,Perception, mental imagery, and reality discriminations. . .

3)The Anatomy of Conscious Vision

4)Introduction to Psychopathology

5)Survey of Opthalmology"


What I found most interesting was paragraph #6

But what becomes clear when we look at schizophrenic hallucinations is that people suffering from Charles Bonnet syndrome are not acting contrary to their brain function. Rather they have and are still driven by other parts of their brain that tell them that the hallucination isn't real. Schizophrenics cannot do this. Even if they know they hallucinate, they still cannot tell their hallucinations apart from reality (1). Their hallucinations affect their behavior because they have nothing in their brain telling them not to be affected by them. Charles Bonnet sufferers do, and an important thing to remember is that just because they don't respond to their hallucinations as if they were real does not mean that they do not affect their behavior. These people do take notice of their hallucinations; they watch them, spend time interpreting them, and often think about them afterwards. This is behavior different than that which would be exhibited in a non-hallucinating individual and so their altered brain function does indeed influence their behavior.

For me the/

-Rather they have and are still driven by other parts of their brain that tell them that, the hallucination isn't real.-

/is a part of proper brain function.

I got into a war with this part of my 'self'. I stopped listening to this part of myself. I feared it was bad at all to 'listen'.

Just because something exists, that gives feedback, does not mean that just because its not supposed to be there, it should be there.

-acting contrary to their brain function.-

How is this defined. since

-These people do take notice of their hallucinations; they watch them, spend time interpreting them, and often think about them afterwards.-

-Charles Bonnet sufferers do, and an important thing to remember is that just because they don't respond to their hallucinations as if they were real, does not mean that they do not affect their behavior.-

To me this is an example, of getting it less wrong.

For example, to define wheither something is real, defines comparison to some larger frame of reference. That is obviously in place(intact) at the time in question.(a decision is made)(brain function).

Simple Reaction Time Name: Date: 2007-02-18 15:10:05 Link to this Comment: 21477

Hi!

My name is Faik Bilalovic and I am a radiographer at the St.Olavs Hospital in Trondheim . At the same time I am instructor of martial arts called wing chun and yiquan, which I teach to students at NTNUI. That is the student athletic association at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology.

I've been doing some research on the web when talking about simple reaction time. I've got in contact with Nicholas O'Dwyer who is Head, Discipline of Exercise and Sport Science Faculty of Health Sciences at the University of Sydney. But he could not answer my questions.

When I first time saw the serendip's site i thought that this was a joke. But after some thoroughly reading I changed my mind and said to me I have to give it a try.

But first, let me explain something about I teach. Yiquan (ee chwen) is a martial art for combat and healt preservation. It is also a system of grasping human movement behaviour and its underlying principles. It is not man-made collection of techniques. It is a method of objectively passing the student the basic state of movement.

We know that man's state of movement can be divided into three basic states: A 'relaxed', B 'tense', C 'relaxed -> tense, tense -> relaxed (the interaction of relaxation and tension)'. What we do is coaching the student to intiutive perceive these states into his own body. Once these states are understood or imprinted into students body, it will be later applied to everything one does.I will not discuss all states, but just an example, relaxation should be done when sitting, standing, walking, driving a car, even baseball playing.

Our trainig consist of unconcious response. After totally "understanding" relaxation, tension and interchange between them, the next step is working on our mind's "frame rate", like going from a slow speed webcam to a high speed video camera. When your mind processes more frames in a second, it can also catch that frame where the baseballplayers movement (or the intention, i.e. the preparation to it in the mind, and consequently also in the body) begins and react to it sooner, thus reaching the level where "he sets of first, but you arrive first". To develop this, one must be fully relaxed in the body, while extremely concentrated in the mind.

I think that we in yiquan have developed an effective coaching technique that takes false anticipation to the minimum and gives great benefits to for example baseball players to "predict" a movement faster and process information faster.

What do you think? I would really like to hear your opinion on this subject.

Regards, Faik.

Re: do our minds trick us in that we alter informa Name: Richard Date: 2007-03-27 10:09:46 Link to this Comment: 21600

"i would like to know if there is any explanation to the fact that when you have a set of information that you heard from your English teacher a year a go, for example, then if happaned that a classmate, a year later, told you that this information was not taught by our english teacher but rather by our psychologist. then by time you will suddenly find yourself accepting this folse claim by your classmate and then your mind will work accordingly, meaning that your mind will convince you that a psychologist not an english teacher who told you this information. my question is how our mind tricks us...".

In my opinion answer to your question lies inside psychological portrait of specific personality. It depends on person's experience in many respects as well as to what extent he or she can be influenced. Some individuals will get it less wrong in spite of side information they receive. I think it's not general mind trick in situations like this, but specific person's behaviour.     

Regards,

Richard

Forum Archived Name: Webmaster Date: 2007-04-26 12:23:21 Link to this Comment: 21706

This forum has now been archived and is closed to new postings. If you are interested in continuing the conversation, please contact Serendip.

We like to hear from you.