6 ms·

No, it does not work that way. Tactile dexterity depends greatly on developing a 'feel' for what you are doing. It means developing: 1) heightened sensitivit

by toss1 8y ago

No, it does not work that way. Tactile dexterity depends greatly on developing a 'feel' for what you are doing. It means developing: 1) heightened sensitivity to the inputs of all the nerves, joints, and muscles, 2) delicate and highly tuned muscle activation, coordination among muscles, and hand-eye-object coordination, 3) refined expectations about the behavior of your materials, 4) deep and subtle integration of all those skills. Neuroscience studies show that experts in a field can develop 10x the sensitivity of ordinary healthy people in relevant perceptual disciplines. E.g., if the ordinary person can distinguish a pressure difference of 1g on his fingertip, a pianist or surgeon would be able to distinguish 0.1g pressure. This kind of tuned neuromuscular system does not develop from simply taking a set of courses. It takes years or decades of training. It may even be the case that if not developed during the more plastic stages of brain/neuromuscular development, it will be close to impossible, or at least substantially more difficult. To obtain real professional-level dexterity takes decades of learning, understanding, & integrating many subtleties and sub-skills before fluency is achieved. A closer analogy would be literacy. The professors certainly have a specific need that their students be literate. Yet I wouldn't expect anyone, even a highly intelligent person, who had not learned to read and developed extensive and solid note-taking skills to arrive at Med school and expect that the professors teach him/her to read, write, and take notes. This is because it takes decades of learning, understanding, & integrating many subtleties and sub-skills before fluency is achieved. edit:clarity & #4

tsumnia 8y ago
I will agree with you as well as the OP. One thing my comment history shows is that I believe a mixture of technical and conceptual literacy is needed for learning. My current research is that students rely on copying and pasting and don't write out code enough to experience syntax errors (the first issue many CS students face). I am currently researching the use of retyping worked example code to help low-performing students. The article very much reads as an editorial "the next generation isn't ready" piece. It blames the lack of dexterity on smartphones, yet there is no research on this, just anecdotal accounts. I'm sure there is merit to the professor's claims, but the article does not back up the claims. That being said and tying to OP's comment, expertise does take time; however, when improve skills that an individual is bad/inadequate at, then deliberate practice [1] can be used. This is what motivates my current research. Someone that is not technically literate is unable to write/debug problem-solving solutions, despite being competent in problem-solving. Therefore, require deliberate practice on where they struggle, in writing syntax. All technical skills need to be ingrains to the point of having a "feeling". Whether total immersion or specific practice is better has not be really researched, though I'm sure it is a combination of the two (with specific practice being deliberate in nature). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del...
- toss1 8y ago
  For sure, both immersion and deliberate practice work -- eventually. The issue is the scale and scope of the remedial project. OP casually shunts off the severely deficient students as an 'invalid concern' and "just [a] transfer of responsibility", as if the schools merely "should teach them". Or, perhaps add an exam that would be solved by some 3rd party exam-cram courses or YouTube videos. OP is wrong in this by orders of magnitude. The training that you propose with immersion and deliberate practice is more, but likely still drastically inadequate. There's little doubt that the surgery professors are observing a new and serious deficiency, even though the article doesn't mention quantifying the observations or research that nails down the exact cause. Moreover, the skill deficit is deceptively simple, and may require years to fix, or even be unfixable in those subjects. Several examples: * A group of monkeys being raised in an indoor arboretum had some injuries, and the scientists installed much more stout sticks and secured the vegetation. No more injuries due to broken branches, but when the monkeys were introduced to the wild, instead of swinging & leaping through the leafy canopies like their wild brothers, they cowered at the trunks. They'd completely failed to learn while young the skills required, and so the release failed for that generation. * Personal experience, in learning a physical skill to an internationally competitive level, starting from being already well-coordinated, it took close to a decade of full immersion & dedication to get to the national team level. Moreover, even having achieved this skill level in certain sports, I've tried to get good at things like juggling and piano, and I have no illusions that even making a similar level of dedication, I'd never get anywhere near a professional level in either -- I didn't build that kind of wiring earlier. * I've made arguments like yours to concert-level musicians, i.e., that simply being dedicated enough and training hard enough would get one to a professional level. Instant response of "NOoooo..." -- they've each seen multiple people pour years of their lives into hard work with top teachers and never get to a professional level, and these weren't people starting with a deficit. * In neuroscience there is observed a period of plasticity for some skills. While it is not absolute, it is phase in brain development where the brain is particularly suited to absorb & learn certain skills. With some skills and animals, it is absolute -- if not exposed during that time, the organism or person will have an unsurmountable lifetime deficit. Languages are like this, where picking up a language between the ages of 4-8yo is almost effortless, but after that... Even if it is a skill that can be overcome in a different period of life, it's much more difficult. Serious professional level manual dexterity and physical skills are not something that can be picked up even with multiple dedicated courses. I'd venture that putting in the courses of immersion & deliberate training you suggest, and at a level of intensity equal to med school itself, might recover 30% of the deficient students in several years, delaying their Med School by the same period. Seems out of scope to me. But the OP's idea of a pre-screening exam is good, not because prep courses would solve it, but because the pre-med students could wash themselves out of contention if they lacked the skills to begin with.
imgabe 8y ago
Then, like the poster above says, the med schools should test for dexterity as a part of the admissions requirement. Instead they focus on taking only the people who have 4.0 GPAs and perfect test scores, so they get applicants who, guess what, spent their youth focusing on getting a 4.0 GPA and perfect test scores. It's not like that leaves you a lot of time for sewing.
- glibgil 8y ago
  > the med schools should test for dexterity Don't you mean they should test for "real professional-level dexterity"?
  - tempestn 8y ago
    What's the distinction you're trying to make? It seems obvious that a suggestion to test for dexterity is a suggestion to test for the relevant sort of dexterity.
- nradov 8y ago
  Many medical specialties don't require high dexterity. Most medical students don't decide whether to go into surgery until they've been in school for a while and assisted on some procedures.
  - nordsieck 8y ago
    >> Then, like the poster above says, the med schools should test for dexterity as a part of the admissions requirement. > Many medical specialties don't require high dexterity. Most medical students don't decide whether to go into surgery until they've been in school for a while and assisted on some procedures. The easy and obvious solution is to test everyone on entrance and only let people choose specialities if they have the necessary dexterity.
    - dagw 8y ago
      Why not have the test when people choose their specialty?
glibgil 8y ago
> heightened > delicate and highly tuned > refined > deep and subtle Ok, Jony Ive
- jacobolus 8y ago
  Without the adjectives these sentences would be tautological. Everyone has “expectations”, uses “muscle activation” and “integrates” movements to achieve physical tasks. Etc. The adjectives emphasize that these are skills in excess of inherent human capabilities, requiring someone with special experience/training. Just because Jony Ive uses adjectives in slickly produced marketing videos doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t use adjectives where appropriate in conversation.
  - glibgil 8y ago
    Nah, the adjectives are hand-wavy and unqualified. They mean nothing
    - theoh 8y ago
      Manual crafts require nuanced involvement with tools and techniques. Typing on a keyboard or a touchscreen interface doesn't. If you don't believe that a skilled craftsperson, musician, etc., has a higher level of judgement and dexterity than the average, is there anything physical that you do think humans can excel at?
    - waterhouse 8y ago
      toss1 gives a precise meaning in the next paragraph: "E.g., if the ordinary person can distinguish a pressure difference of 1g on his fingertip, a pianist or surgeon would be able to distinguish 0.1g pressure." That is an objective test someone could perform and, toss1 says, researchers have performed.
      - toss1 8y ago
        Yes, it is something we studied in several neuroscience classes. What's really cool is that you can have developed such a skill without even realizing it. The professors were demonstrating one of the visual tests of discrimination in a flat light field and I was the subject. The test was a pattern of light/dark bars where the contrast and edges were flattened beyond recognition, presented, then in slow steps distinction restored to the point where you could see a difference. Turns out I could literally see as obvious distinctions that no one else could see as anything but a perfectly flat-light screen. Our conjecture was that it developed from years of looking for the tiniest variations in fields of snow in flat light where a little ripple or angle can make a big difference skiing at 80mph. But until we did that test, I could never have told you that I could distinguish anything better than anyone else. Perceptual neuro guys/gals do these kinds of tests all the time finding the limits of the perceptual/neruo systems, and often find these, ahem, heightened abilities in top level athletes musicians, etc. There's also some fun ones where they expected to find some and didn't (topic for another day)
aj7 8y ago
You are right, and I have speculated that surgery might be subdivided into virtuosos with superb operating skills, and scientist-coach-types, who plan, monitor, and are expert at contingent strategies.
bradknowles 8y ago
The Johnson O’Connor Research Foundation (see <http://www.jocrf.org/home> http://www.jocrf.org/home>) has found that there are several different “aptitudes”, and you need to be really, really good in at least three of them before you are likely to be successful and happy as a surgeon. They’ve got longitudinal studies over several decades with strong statistical methods. If you are ever between jobs, or wondering what things you could be really good at or what careers might be a good choice for you, I highly recommend signing to take their extensive testing procedures, and then following up with them over the decades.
village-idiot 8y ago
And that’s assuming that the only consequence of losing dexterity is in highly specialized skills like piano or surgery, which is a bet I wouldn’t make. The human body and mind are highly dynamic system where minor changes make big differences. A good example is that learning a second language makes you better at learning, it doesn’t just teach you how to use different words. I would bet that lowered dexterity due to less hand usage would result in all kinds of weird developmental changes.

by toss1 8y ago

tsumnia 8y ago

I will agree with you as well as the OP. One thing my comment history shows is that I believe a mixture of technical and conceptual literacy is needed for learning. My current research is that students rely on copying and pasting and don't write out code enough to experience syntax errors (the first issue many CS students face). I am currently researching the use of retyping worked example code to help low-performing students. The article very much reads as an editorial "the next generation isn't ready" piece. It blames the lack of dexterity on smartphones, yet there is no research on this, just anecdotal accounts. I'm sure there is merit to the professor's claims, but the article does not back up the claims. That being said and tying to OP's comment, expertise does take time; however, when improve skills that an individual is bad/inadequate at, then deliberate practice [1] can be used. This is what motivates my current research. Someone that is not technically literate is unable to write/debug problem-solving solutions, despite being competent in problem-solving. Therefore, require deliberate practice on where they struggle, in writing syntax. All technical skills need to be ingrains to the point of having a "feeling". Whether total immersion or specific practice is better has not be really researched, though I'm sure it is a combination of the two (with specific practice being deliberate in nature). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Deliberate_practice https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Practice_(learning_method)#Del...

toss1 8y ago
For sure, both immersion and deliberate practice work -- eventually. The issue is the scale and scope of the remedial project. OP casually shunts off the severely deficient students as an 'invalid concern' and "just [a] transfer of responsibility", as if the schools merely "should teach them". Or, perhaps add an exam that would be solved by some 3rd party exam-cram courses or YouTube videos. OP is wrong in this by orders of magnitude. The training that you propose with immersion and deliberate practice is more, but likely still drastically inadequate. There's little doubt that the surgery professors are observing a new and serious deficiency, even though the article doesn't mention quantifying the observations or research that nails down the exact cause. Moreover, the skill deficit is deceptively simple, and may require years to fix, or even be unfixable in those subjects. Several examples: * A group of monkeys being raised in an indoor arboretum had some injuries, and the scientists installed much more stout sticks and secured the vegetation. No more injuries due to broken branches, but when the monkeys were introduced to the wild, instead of swinging & leaping through the leafy canopies like their wild brothers, they cowered at the trunks. They'd completely failed to learn while young the skills required, and so the release failed for that generation. * Personal experience, in learning a physical skill to an internationally competitive level, starting from being already well-coordinated, it took close to a decade of full immersion & dedication to get to the national team level. Moreover, even having achieved this skill level in certain sports, I've tried to get good at things like juggling and piano, and I have no illusions that even making a similar level of dedication, I'd never get anywhere near a professional level in either -- I didn't build that kind of wiring earlier. * I've made arguments like yours to concert-level musicians, i.e., that simply being dedicated enough and training hard enough would get one to a professional level. Instant response of "NOoooo..." -- they've each seen multiple people pour years of their lives into hard work with top teachers and never get to a professional level, and these weren't people starting with a deficit. * In neuroscience there is observed a period of plasticity for some skills. While it is not absolute, it is phase in brain development where the brain is particularly suited to absorb & learn certain skills. With some skills and animals, it is absolute -- if not exposed during that time, the organism or person will have an unsurmountable lifetime deficit. Languages are like this, where picking up a language between the ages of 4-8yo is almost effortless, but after that... Even if it is a skill that can be overcome in a different period of life, it's much more difficult. Serious professional level manual dexterity and physical skills are not something that can be picked up even with multiple dedicated courses. I'd venture that putting in the courses of immersion & deliberate training you suggest, and at a level of intensity equal to med school itself, might recover 30% of the deficient students in several years, delaying their Med School by the same period. Seems out of scope to me. But the OP's idea of a pre-screening exam is good, not because prep courses would solve it, but because the pre-med students could wash themselves out of contention if they lacked the skills to begin with.

imgabe 8y ago

Then, like the poster above says, the med schools should test for dexterity as a part of the admissions requirement. Instead they focus on taking only the people who have 4.0 GPAs and perfect test scores, so they get applicants who, guess what, spent their youth focusing on getting a 4.0 GPA and perfect test scores. It's not like that leaves you a lot of time for sewing.

glibgil 8y ago
> the med schools should test for dexterity Don't you mean they should test for "real professional-level dexterity"?
- tempestn 8y ago
  What's the distinction you're trying to make? It seems obvious that a suggestion to test for dexterity is a suggestion to test for the relevant sort of dexterity.
nradov 8y ago
Many medical specialties don't require high dexterity. Most medical students don't decide whether to go into surgery until they've been in school for a while and assisted on some procedures.
- nordsieck 8y ago
  >> Then, like the poster above says, the med schools should test for dexterity as a part of the admissions requirement. > Many medical specialties don't require high dexterity. Most medical students don't decide whether to go into surgery until they've been in school for a while and assisted on some procedures. The easy and obvious solution is to test everyone on entrance and only let people choose specialities if they have the necessary dexterity.
  - dagw 8y ago
    Why not have the test when people choose their specialty?

glibgil 8y ago

> heightened > delicate and highly tuned > refined > deep and subtle Ok, Jony Ive

jacobolus 8y ago
Without the adjectives these sentences would be tautological. Everyone has “expectations”, uses “muscle activation” and “integrates” movements to achieve physical tasks. Etc. The adjectives emphasize that these are skills in excess of inherent human capabilities, requiring someone with special experience/training. Just because Jony Ive uses adjectives in slickly produced marketing videos doesn’t mean other people shouldn’t use adjectives where appropriate in conversation.
- glibgil 8y ago
  Nah, the adjectives are hand-wavy and unqualified. They mean nothing
  - theoh 8y ago
    Manual crafts require nuanced involvement with tools and techniques. Typing on a keyboard or a touchscreen interface doesn't. If you don't believe that a skilled craftsperson, musician, etc., has a higher level of judgement and dexterity than the average, is there anything physical that you do think humans can excel at?
  - waterhouse 8y ago
    toss1 gives a precise meaning in the next paragraph: "E.g., if the ordinary person can distinguish a pressure difference of 1g on his fingertip, a pianist or surgeon would be able to distinguish 0.1g pressure." That is an objective test someone could perform and, toss1 says, researchers have performed.
    - toss1 8y ago
      Yes, it is something we studied in several neuroscience classes. What's really cool is that you can have developed such a skill without even realizing it. The professors were demonstrating one of the visual tests of discrimination in a flat light field and I was the subject. The test was a pattern of light/dark bars where the contrast and edges were flattened beyond recognition, presented, then in slow steps distinction restored to the point where you could see a difference. Turns out I could literally see as obvious distinctions that no one else could see as anything but a perfectly flat-light screen. Our conjecture was that it developed from years of looking for the tiniest variations in fields of snow in flat light where a little ripple or angle can make a big difference skiing at 80mph. But until we did that test, I could never have told you that I could distinguish anything better than anyone else. Perceptual neuro guys/gals do these kinds of tests all the time finding the limits of the perceptual/neruo systems, and often find these, ahem, heightened abilities in top level athletes musicians, etc. There's also some fun ones where they expected to find some and didn't (topic for another day)

aj7 8y ago

You are right, and I have speculated that surgery might be subdivided into virtuosos with superb operating skills, and scientist-coach-types, who plan, monitor, and are expert at contingent strategies.

bradknowles 8y ago

The Johnson O’Connor Research Foundation (see <http://www.jocrf.org/home> http://www.jocrf.org/home>) has found that there are several different “aptitudes”, and you need to be really, really good in at least three of them before you are likely to be successful and happy as a surgeon. They’ve got longitudinal studies over several decades with strong statistical methods. If you are ever between jobs, or wondering what things you could be really good at or what careers might be a good choice for you, I highly recommend signing to take their extensive testing procedures, and then following up with them over the decades.

village-idiot 8y ago

And that’s assuming that the only consequence of losing dexterity is in highly specialized skills like piano or surgery, which is a bet I wouldn’t make. The human body and mind are highly dynamic system where minor changes make big differences. A good example is that learning a second language makes you better at learning, it doesn’t just teach you how to use different words. I would bet that lowered dexterity due to less hand usage would result in all kinds of weird developmental changes.