My mind is going in a thousand places at once at the moment, but I feel like I should put down a little of this on paper/electronic bits.
So, as I've said before, my undergrad background is in philosophy & religion and psychology. I'm in grad school now for a masters in religious studies, but am splitting my time between that and cognitive sciences, as I'm pursuing a Ph.D. in cognitive sciences, probably cognitive psychology, but I'm looking at places where most professors are in the field of neuroscience, as that's the area I'm interested in, and cognitive psychology and neuroscience are trending towards merger anyway.
The areas I'm primarily interested in are perception and memory. These are intimately linked fields, and also tend to go hand-in-hand with issues of learning. Cognitive psychologists since Hermann Ebbinghaus have studied memory (often by rigorous self experimentation), and have come to some surprising conclusions - the spacing effect being one that interests me a great deal. Basically, this is an important combination of experimental knowledge about the learning curve and forgetting curve. This tells us something very important about how best we learn. Combined with the insights of other cognitive psychologists like Elizabeth Loftus and Robert A. Bjork, we should by now have actually implemented some of what we have learned in our methods of teaching.
Have we? Oh, hell no.
You see, cognitive psychologists, historically, have lost out. We haven't been listened to all that much. Part of the problem is that while we have excellent experimental evidence of how best to learn and retain information (remember just before you forget something), it is impractical (or at least incredibly hard) to do this outside of a laboratory setting. "Just before you forget it" sounds like a very vague statement, and is indeed difficult, at first, to quantify. Ebbinghaus paved the way, and we've refined it since then. The answer to our problem, as it has been often before, is to use computers. A complex algorithm can calculate this curve for an individual relatively easily. At that point, it is merely a problem of sticking to a regimented schedule.
Now, briefly, I want to clarify what I mean by "learning" and "knowledge". Knowledge is a thorny topic, as I'm sure The Rooster can tell you. Here, I'm going to avoid the problems of the word itself and simply refer to any facts/procedures/information that you take in. Thus, in this case, knowledge need not be "true." It is simply information which you are interested in taking in, storing, and recalling. In case you're wondering, that's basically what I mean by learning here - effectively taking in information, storing it for as long as need be, and then being able to recall it at will. Now, let us think about this...
Most people have little problem with taking in information. In the absence of learning disabilities, such as dyslexia, we have hardly any problem with taking in information like addition tables, multiplication rules, grammar rules, etc. Storing information was thought for a while to be possibly a problem...however, we know are getting increasing evidence that the actual storage capacity of the brain is not something we need to be concerned about. It is not infinite, by any means, but large enough so that we needed be concerned with it. This has largely to do with the way that the brain forms connections between neurons - something that we call long-term potentiation. Increasingly, we are seeing that there is an interaction between patterns of firing and specific neurons firing. This is incredibly over-simplified, as I don't want to get into the neuroscience of memory or recognition at this moment, and would rather stay at the more abstract psychological level.
So, our problem is really recalling information (isn't it always?) It is unlikely that once something is actually committed to long-term memory (this is a psychological short hand for a lot of complicated neurobiological activities) that we lose that storage. Instead, we lose the ability to recall the information (again, psychological shorthand. This is why in the modern day, you really have to study both to speak with any kind of knowledge about the subject, and design some very interesting studies). Now, long-term potentiation depends upon the repeated simultaneous activation of communication between neurons, so, obviously, repetition helps. We know, however, that pure repetition is not enough. Constant repetition is merely keeping the information in your working memory (this usually involves a different brain region), the way you repeat a phone number to yourself before you dial it. If anything interrupts you, for even a second, you may completely lose the number. Long-term memory is different, though teasing the two apart, and how exactly something gets from short-term memory to long-term memory is quite a complicated process. Look up the history of this type of work, it's fascinating.
So...we have been almost blasted fools in our teaching methods for years. We know that cramming doesn't work. We know that with a careful schedule, we can use the spacing effect to our benefit, but it's hard. It takes dedicated and individualized effort, but it's possible. Most teachers do not do this, because it is so impractical and hard to implement. And it takes a lot of individual effort on the part of the student. Also, there is a huge movement to say that "mere memorization" is nothing. Here's where you can take an interesting tack - memorization is learning in quite a few situations, and forms the bedrock upon which more important theories and creativity can be built. For example, you have to memorize the alphabet and a certain amount of words in your vocabulary to be able to read. If you did not, you would have to look up every letter and every word to process this post. Let's be thankful for that memorization, at least. When you memorize something in this form, it becomes almost automatic in recall. It is important to differentiate between spoken and written language in this case - different neuroanatomy comes into play. Likewise, mathematics becomes an automatic skill. The further you progress in math, and the more you use it (the same with reading), the more automatic it becomes. It is the same with just about any body of knowledge. The less you use it, the more it fades into a state that is difficult to retrieve.
For instance, I know Latin, Hebrew, a little Greek, and am learning German. I find if I take a month off from reading anything in these languages, it takes quite a while to get back into any sort of fluency. If I take a summer off, then I have to go back to remind myself of some basic grammar rules before I can read them. A year, and they seem quite impenetrable without further reflection. Wouldn't it be wonderful to just be able to recall anything at will within a few months.
Well, I think that this is slowly becoming possible. Check out this site, SuperMemo, a program created by Piotr Wozniak. Wozniak has undertaken an extreme form of self-experimentation, in the form of Ebbinghaus. And does it work? If you stick to the schedule, yes...with amazing results. Check out the May 2008 (16.05) edition of Wired Magazine for a treatment of the subject.
Wozniak has made a breakthrough of sorts - the realization that the brain operates in a way similar to computer networks (vastly more complicated, and neurons are not really like semiconductors, but they do perform some complicated integration functions and can operate like complex networks of boolean gates). By breaking down the learning process to an algorithm, and using a computerized helper, you can train yourself to learn better. By giving yourself up to the algorithm, you can take use the mechanical interactions of your brain to your advantage. This sounds mildly religious (in the John Dewey sense), and in that way, it probably is. You have to give significant time and ritual to it, if you want it to work. The problem is that this will significantly destroy your chance of ever having a "normal" social life.
This is a departure from what most people thought computer-aided learning would be. The idea was that we would use machines to store all the information that was trivial to us and free up space in our brains for real learning. The problem is - what are we using that space for now? Not much, in most people's estimation. Computers have freed up our time, but we haven't progressed much in learning, unfortunately. Wozniak wants to turn this around - use the computer to boost our own natural abilities, our own brains. Once you accept that the mind and the brain are really the same thing in basically every "conscious mind" process you want to talk about, then you can learn to use this to your advantage - all the messy, mechanical brain processes that contribute to our consciousness and learning.
It takes dedication and effort, but it is possible...if you're willing to give up on other elements of your life.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Giving Yourself to the Algorithm
Thursday, August 7, 2008
Audio-visual synesthetes
Do you hear sound corresponding to movement, even when you know that it must be just in your head (i.e., watching a television with the sound muted)? You may have a rather interesting form of synesthesia.
Check out this video for an interesting demonstration.
Synesthesia is a very strange but fascinating condition, one that I would like to spend time studying as part of a cognitive psych/neuroscience degree. Crossed sensory pathways...a very provocative idea.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Some cool research.
Alright, so I've been hellaciously busy these past few weeks, what with finals and all. I also presented at the SRA (Society for Research of Adolescents) conference here in Chicago a week ago. It was quite nice. I got a lot of good response to my presentation (personality correlates of video game players), and am planning on expanding the database when I can get to work with my adviser. I want to focus mostly on MMORPGs and the kind of social persona that people create while in these environments. I'll probably detail this more later.
There was a helluva lot of good psychology-related science going on at this conference! It was so refreshing to get out of the classroom and talk with actual researchers who are doing really, really interesting stuff. I'm getting in touch with some of them, and I'll update you on some of the findings, especially in regards to a few poster-session presentations that I saw while there. A lot of people are doing some really great stuff right now, especially in the cognitive neuroscience field. There's an ongoing argument about how much genetics/biology affects human behavior, and depending on exactly what you mean by "genetics or biology," I can understand either side of the argument. I'm one who would favor a deeper and better understanding of the biological aspects of behavior, and I'll explain why in a future post. I feel like I've been falling down on my general "spread the science!" mission, so, some related science articles below the fold...
Virtual Gaming is no replacement for real exercise. This one actually answers a question I was thinking about while I was at the SRA conference. I was wondering if anyone had done work on the physicality of some new Wii games, and apparently these people have. What's striking is the suggestion that only 60 to 70 calories are burned during some of these games. I know I usually burn around 600 in about a 45 minute period on a cross-trainer, or, at least, however accurately those things calculate such things. The question I have is what kind of games or level of activity are these kids engaged in, and does it depend on social situation? That is to say, I know I've watched friends playing Wii games, and if they're playing single player, most of the time they just sit there and hardly make any movements at all. As soon as you load up Wii boxing or something, though, everyone gets up and starts really throwing punches. Something to think about.
Reasoning abilities in bots in Second Life. Okay, I'm going to admit. This sounds pretty cool. And I use that heavily. Sounds. I'm not sure how much I buy it. Maybe I'm just an old fohgey and stodgy on AI in general, but I'm not entirely sure that I buy the argument that this is actual reasoning ability. If you want some (rather uninformative) videos, you can check them out here. I wonder how much of this is independent thinking and how much is programed, i.e. "you know where the gun is, but say the other one." Of course, I'm sure some AI proponent will say "well, what's the difference between that and the way the brain works? Programming versus neurons? Etc..." Let me say, I love the idea of AI, and I hope there's real progress in strong AI in the near future. It's just, I remain unimpressed by what I've seen.
Neural networks linked to contemplation are stronger in adults than children. I suppose this shouldn't be terribly surprising, but I do find it interesting, and, of course, I have a soft spot in my heart (brain) for cognitive neuroscience. The abstract is a little soft on actual findings and interpretations, heavy on method and discussion of future areas of research. That's okay, but, I really want to dig into the meat of this article. Now that I'm done with classes, I'll look it up. If there's anything good there, I'll post on it later.
Two very interesting articles on the social brain and the development of language. Looks like some promising areas of continuing research. A lot of articles are being published now about songbirds and language, it seems. Dig around on Science Daily. And, to go along with this, an interesting article on the level of meaning conveyed by primate signaling.
Lastly, for your science fix, the hand can't be fooled! It's too bad about the eyes though.
Lastly, two comics that really kind of sum up my feelings at the moment.
First, that moment of perspective we all have felt in class:
And secondly, would it really be so bad?
Posts
