4 ms·

I originally learned to 3 balls from the Klutz juggling book as a kid, and still have largely fond memories of it. I have a slight sour taste from the very end

I originally learned to 3 balls from the Klutz juggling book as a kid, and still have largely fond memories of it. I have a slight sour taste from the very end of the book, which discourages people from trying to go to higher numbers such as 5 balls. So after learning 3 balls, I set juggling aside. Much later, after meeting jugglers and seeing what people could do in videos online, I was inspired to learn a lot more... including 5 balls. If you want people to excel, don't tell them they shouldn't expect to be able to do things, and that it's not worth the effort.

jdironman 6y ago
Or sometimes, reverse psychology.
- thevirtuoso1973 6y ago
  I think the reverse psychology approach is most effective as motivation when (A) the task is described as hard, but also (B) there is no direct implication that you can't do it. I was trying to think of some impressive sounding examples when someone-said-I-couldn't-do-something-but-I-did-it-anyway but I can't think of any. It's more common that (A)+(B) occurs for me.
Swizec 6y ago
I remember a Discovery Channel documentary that said it was easier to teach a complete novice how to juggle 5+ balls than it was to take a self-taught 3baller and get them to 5. Something about learning 3 on your own makes it almost impossible to shake the bad habits to get to 5+
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- credit_guy 6y ago
  A lot of people hold this belief that knowing how to do X with an "incorrect form" is worse than not knowing at all, if you want to progress at doing X. In programming we have debugging. You have a program that does X, but with some bugs. You later improve the program by removing the bugs. Why can't we do this in "real life" as well? You learn how to add multi-digit numbers from right to left. You then later relearn that by going from left to right. You learn to swim with your head above the water, then later learn to keep your head in the water, and turn it every two strokes to get a quick breath. In fact, I read about this concept of "debugging" bad habits exactly in the context of juggling. Seymour Papert covers this in Mindstorms [1], p 111. He explains that the most common "bug" that prevents people from performing 3-ball juggling is following one ball with the eyes. Once you are aware of that, you the fix is quite easy: keep your eyes pointed at the apex of the ball's trajectory. In a later chapter he goes on to say that other things can be "debugged" as well; one example is relearning skiing to replace a v-type position to a parallel ski position. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful-Ideas-dp-0465046746/dp/0465046746/ https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerfu...
  - imurray 6y ago
    For juggling in particular, it's also my experience that teaching complete novices is easier. People who've juggled a bit often listen less, and get frustrated with breaking things down, and just go back to doing what they know. At the British Juggling Convention I taught a workshop for absolute beginners to pass 5 clubs following http://passingpedagogy.com/ http://passingpedagogy.com/ . Most of those who'd never picked up a club got on pretty well. Whereas some people who'd passed clubs in a different way were skeptical; you could tell their heart wasn't in it, and then unsurprisingly some of them didn't get it. I do understand the resistance to going back to basics to fix things though. I can hoop (as in "hula-hoop") fairly well, and know some tricks. But I mostly hoop in one direction (counter-clockwise). If I try to do a trick clockwise, it's frustrating and I don't feel like carrying on, so I tend to give up, or go back to hooping counter-clockwise (fortunately one of my favorite tricks involves reversing the direction of the hoop). This weakness of mine was actually really useful (back when I still hooped with people). If I was showing someone else a trick, I could try it clockwise, which was an excellent reminder of how hard the trick really is, and to understand how/where it goes wrong.
  - egypturnash 6y ago
    I am a pro artist and IMHO almost every single artist in the world probably started by learning terrible habits that they had to painfully unlearn. In modern times an astounding number of them (myself included!) have a period where they resist this painful process with cries of "It's my style!".
    - throw1234651234 6y ago
      So, do I learn to draw boxes and rectangles in perspective first and then draw people from boxes as Loomis suggests? Or is that just one of possible approaches? Or does pretty much everyone draw from boxes?
      - egypturnash 6y ago
        For programmers, I like to make the analogy that learning to draw is like building a 3d renderer on your wetware. You start by drawing boxes. And balls, and tubes, and eggs, and cones, and prisms, and a bunch of other shapes that are simple enough to describe in a few brief lines of code. Get good at them, learn to draw them from a lot of angles, learn how to think about them as three-dimensional shapes and how light plays across them. Then start laying out rough, crude versions of things using these primitive shapes. What you use for a particular thing depends on what you're drawing and what suits your approach. Cars are big boxy things, maybe big wedge things if they're really areodynamic. People are mostly collections of long tubes, though some parts can get very boxy, eggs are helpful for some ways of constructing skulls too. A lot of people go through a phase where they like to draw stick figures with balls at the joints, I've never really been a fan of that and find it tends to result in stiff figures, but some people love it. Sausage people, box people, ball-and-stick people, there's a lot of ways to approach this and a pro will have played with them all and found out which one works best for them most of the time, and which ones work best for them in situations where their favorite way breaks down. You work out a pose this way, as a bunch of sticks and balls and boxes and whatnot, then you have a solid framework to work on top of and sort of "carve" into a more realistic shape by applying your knowledge of anatomy. Which is a thing that takes multiple years of study to acquire, human bodies are complex things! (Boxes are especially useful because there are some simple tricks you can use to make it easy to take a flat view of something and project it into perspective - if you draw an X from corner to corner on the face of a box in perspective, then you can draw a line that goes through the center of that X and lines up with the same vanishing points the sides are on to divide the face in two in perspective, then use a grid built up that way to transfer a head-on drawing into perspective and work from there.) Eventually, as you progress as an artist, you can do more and more of this in your head. Most of the time I just lay down some really sloppy, loose shapes to plan out a pose, with a lot of parts going pretty quickly to a recognizable caricature of that body part that I can quickly turn into something good-looking when I come back and throw down some loose solid color shapes that I quickly refine into something with an appearance of anatomy, then come back later and add some shadows/highlight to really bring out the forms. I'll put out a little bit of cubes/balls/eggs/cylinders/etc when I really need to think about a weird angle, but every time I do this a little of this lingers in my head for next time, and drawing that angle again becomes something I can kind of... pull out of cache, so to speak, because I remember all the thinking I had to do on the page last time. Loomis' books are super solid and have a lot to teach you. Bridgman is some super useful reference for anatomy too. But the teaching that really helped me the most was a life drawing for animation class whose instructor was working out of the Vilppu drawing manual, that stuff is amazing and will help to keep you thinking about how to instill a sense of life into all your work from the ground up. The same stuff applies to simpler cartoon characters, too. You just use different proportions and don't spend as much time trying to nail down anatomy that isn't absolutely necessary to the story the drawing is telling.
- LanceH 6y ago
  I'm going to say no. The difference between juggling three and five is so large that unlearning any bad habits is trivial compared to the skill needed to juggle five. Maybe with a caveat if they learned to juggle three in a circle, which only taught them throws with one hand and no timing at all. Even then, they would be learning a three ball cascade from scratch. The fundamental jump from three to five is that you now have things which can collide in the air. You are throwing one ball between two others that are airborne. This takes both speed and accuracy and then a lot of practice to discover the timing. Juggling three is so basic in comparison -- only one ball is in the air most of the time -- that there are hardly any bad habits one could have developed. Even if someone were juggling completely "wrong", if they have the ability to make it to five, they surely have the ability to relearn three.
  - thaumasiotes 6y ago
    > The fundamental jump from three to five is that you now have things which can collide in the air. > Juggling three is so basic in comparison -- only one ball is in the air most of the time This makes no sense. Balls colliding in the air is an incredibly common problem for people learning to juggle 3 balls. You have multiple balls in the air every time you throw any ball.
    - LanceH 6y ago
      With three ball, you may have a collision with a ball as it is coming out of your hand. This is an exchange. It really isn't a problem that you have one up in the air and you're hitting it. If that's happening, it's a matter of throwing too soon, not pattern accuracy. Three ball has a simple exchange on both sides that can be extremely slow. Five ball demands accuracy with respect to the pattern in the air. There is no "pattern" in the air with three ball outside the exchange -- it is a single ball while the hand each hold one as well. Five ball has a minimum of 3 in the air and each ball will have to pass between two others from the other side, requiring accuracy and timing not needed in three ball.
- gowld 6y ago
  Most people can brute force themselves to a sloppy 3-ball, where every toss is a challenge. More than 3 requires learning to perform precise rhythm and patterns, where the activity is making the proper motions, not throwing and catching balls, It's like playing a musical instrument properly.

jdironman 6y ago

Or sometimes, reverse psychology.

thevirtuoso1973 6y ago
I think the reverse psychology approach is most effective as motivation when (A) the task is described as hard, but also (B) there is no direct implication that you can't do it. I was trying to think of some impressive sounding examples when someone-said-I-couldn't-do-something-but-I-did-it-anyway but I can't think of any. It's more common that (A)+(B) occurs for me.

Swizec 6y ago

I remember a Discovery Channel documentary that said it was easier to teach a complete novice how to juggle 5+ balls than it was to take a self-taught 3baller and get them to 5. Something about learning 3 on your own makes it almost impossible to shake the bad habits to get to 5+

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
credit_guy 6y ago
A lot of people hold this belief that knowing how to do X with an "incorrect form" is worse than not knowing at all, if you want to progress at doing X. In programming we have debugging. You have a program that does X, but with some bugs. You later improve the program by removing the bugs. Why can't we do this in "real life" as well? You learn how to add multi-digit numbers from right to left. You then later relearn that by going from left to right. You learn to swim with your head above the water, then later learn to keep your head in the water, and turn it every two strokes to get a quick breath. In fact, I read about this concept of "debugging" bad habits exactly in the context of juggling. Seymour Papert covers this in Mindstorms [1], p 111. He explains that the most common "bug" that prevents people from performing 3-ball juggling is following one ball with the eyes. Once you are aware of that, you the fix is quite easy: keep your eyes pointed at the apex of the ball's trajectory. In a later chapter he goes on to say that other things can be "debugged" as well; one example is relearning skiing to replace a v-type position to a parallel ski position. [1] https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerful-Ideas-dp-0465046746/dp/0465046746/ https://www.amazon.com/Mindstorms-Children-Computers-Powerfu...
- imurray 6y ago
  For juggling in particular, it's also my experience that teaching complete novices is easier. People who've juggled a bit often listen less, and get frustrated with breaking things down, and just go back to doing what they know. At the British Juggling Convention I taught a workshop for absolute beginners to pass 5 clubs following http://passingpedagogy.com/ http://passingpedagogy.com/ . Most of those who'd never picked up a club got on pretty well. Whereas some people who'd passed clubs in a different way were skeptical; you could tell their heart wasn't in it, and then unsurprisingly some of them didn't get it. I do understand the resistance to going back to basics to fix things though. I can hoop (as in "hula-hoop") fairly well, and know some tricks. But I mostly hoop in one direction (counter-clockwise). If I try to do a trick clockwise, it's frustrating and I don't feel like carrying on, so I tend to give up, or go back to hooping counter-clockwise (fortunately one of my favorite tricks involves reversing the direction of the hoop). This weakness of mine was actually really useful (back when I still hooped with people). If I was showing someone else a trick, I could try it clockwise, which was an excellent reminder of how hard the trick really is, and to understand how/where it goes wrong.
- egypturnash 6y ago
  I am a pro artist and IMHO almost every single artist in the world probably started by learning terrible habits that they had to painfully unlearn. In modern times an astounding number of them (myself included!) have a period where they resist this painful process with cries of "It's my style!".
  - throw1234651234 6y ago
    So, do I learn to draw boxes and rectangles in perspective first and then draw people from boxes as Loomis suggests? Or is that just one of possible approaches? Or does pretty much everyone draw from boxes?
    - egypturnash 6y ago
      For programmers, I like to make the analogy that learning to draw is like building a 3d renderer on your wetware. You start by drawing boxes. And balls, and tubes, and eggs, and cones, and prisms, and a bunch of other shapes that are simple enough to describe in a few brief lines of code. Get good at them, learn to draw them from a lot of angles, learn how to think about them as three-dimensional shapes and how light plays across them. Then start laying out rough, crude versions of things using these primitive shapes. What you use for a particular thing depends on what you're drawing and what suits your approach. Cars are big boxy things, maybe big wedge things if they're really areodynamic. People are mostly collections of long tubes, though some parts can get very boxy, eggs are helpful for some ways of constructing skulls too. A lot of people go through a phase where they like to draw stick figures with balls at the joints, I've never really been a fan of that and find it tends to result in stiff figures, but some people love it. Sausage people, box people, ball-and-stick people, there's a lot of ways to approach this and a pro will have played with them all and found out which one works best for them most of the time, and which ones work best for them in situations where their favorite way breaks down. You work out a pose this way, as a bunch of sticks and balls and boxes and whatnot, then you have a solid framework to work on top of and sort of "carve" into a more realistic shape by applying your knowledge of anatomy. Which is a thing that takes multiple years of study to acquire, human bodies are complex things! (Boxes are especially useful because there are some simple tricks you can use to make it easy to take a flat view of something and project it into perspective - if you draw an X from corner to corner on the face of a box in perspective, then you can draw a line that goes through the center of that X and lines up with the same vanishing points the sides are on to divide the face in two in perspective, then use a grid built up that way to transfer a head-on drawing into perspective and work from there.) Eventually, as you progress as an artist, you can do more and more of this in your head. Most of the time I just lay down some really sloppy, loose shapes to plan out a pose, with a lot of parts going pretty quickly to a recognizable caricature of that body part that I can quickly turn into something good-looking when I come back and throw down some loose solid color shapes that I quickly refine into something with an appearance of anatomy, then come back later and add some shadows/highlight to really bring out the forms. I'll put out a little bit of cubes/balls/eggs/cylinders/etc when I really need to think about a weird angle, but every time I do this a little of this lingers in my head for next time, and drawing that angle again becomes something I can kind of... pull out of cache, so to speak, because I remember all the thinking I had to do on the page last time. Loomis' books are super solid and have a lot to teach you. Bridgman is some super useful reference for anatomy too. But the teaching that really helped me the most was a life drawing for animation class whose instructor was working out of the Vilppu drawing manual, that stuff is amazing and will help to keep you thinking about how to instill a sense of life into all your work from the ground up. The same stuff applies to simpler cartoon characters, too. You just use different proportions and don't spend as much time trying to nail down anatomy that isn't absolutely necessary to the story the drawing is telling.
LanceH 6y ago
I'm going to say no. The difference between juggling three and five is so large that unlearning any bad habits is trivial compared to the skill needed to juggle five. Maybe with a caveat if they learned to juggle three in a circle, which only taught them throws with one hand and no timing at all. Even then, they would be learning a three ball cascade from scratch. The fundamental jump from three to five is that you now have things which can collide in the air. You are throwing one ball between two others that are airborne. This takes both speed and accuracy and then a lot of practice to discover the timing. Juggling three is so basic in comparison -- only one ball is in the air most of the time -- that there are hardly any bad habits one could have developed. Even if someone were juggling completely "wrong", if they have the ability to make it to five, they surely have the ability to relearn three.
- thaumasiotes 6y ago
  > The fundamental jump from three to five is that you now have things which can collide in the air. > Juggling three is so basic in comparison -- only one ball is in the air most of the time This makes no sense. Balls colliding in the air is an incredibly common problem for people learning to juggle 3 balls. You have multiple balls in the air every time you throw any ball.
  - LanceH 6y ago
    With three ball, you may have a collision with a ball as it is coming out of your hand. This is an exchange. It really isn't a problem that you have one up in the air and you're hitting it. If that's happening, it's a matter of throwing too soon, not pattern accuracy. Three ball has a simple exchange on both sides that can be extremely slow. Five ball demands accuracy with respect to the pattern in the air. There is no "pattern" in the air with three ball outside the exchange -- it is a single ball while the hand each hold one as well. Five ball has a minimum of 3 in the air and each ball will have to pass between two others from the other side, requiring accuracy and timing not needed in three ball.
gowld 6y ago
Most people can brute force themselves to a sloppy 3-ball, where every toss is a challenge. More than 3 requires learning to perform precise rhythm and patterns, where the activity is making the proper motions, not throwing and catching balls, It's like playing a musical instrument properly.