Do you have a "learning style"? Maybe not

[Dan Harriman]

Which of course would be the wrong way to do a real experiment. It does point out the usefulness of repetition in learning. I think the video was mostly useful for finding out about the origin and current thinking about the theory of learning styles.

yes, my 'learning style' relates to thinking for me self. Did not watch yer video - no need to. Other than possibly learning a new language -True Knowledge has very little to do with repetition - or phony reaffirmations from political entities. But I understand ur zest for experimental practices on "Open public" Mr jewett lol. So as yer student of anythin' - probly not - there is nothing i care to learn from u. Honest practice is relevant hear, there are many dishonest people practicing there experiments on society - at the moment eh bob?

 

[BC21]

.......
We wear our physiology, in smiles, frown and underlying postures.
Change the parts and the whole takes on a new persona.
......

I've read some interesting writings by the late psychologist, Robert Zajonc. His theory on facial expressions causing the brain to create emotional reactions has some pretty compelling evidence to support it.

The research indicates this: When we smile we trigger a part of our brain (the limbic cortex), to create certain electrochemical signals (emotions). These signals can affect our mood. The same thing occurs when we frown or make an angry face or a surprised face or a frightened face.

Zajonc's theory suggests that the contracting of various muscles in the face and neck, depending on which facial expression we are making, is what causes our brain to react by creating emotional responses. So smiling might actually make you feel happier. It could keep you calm in stressful or bad situations. A frown or angry face could create negative or stressful emotions, which could make things worse as far as how your body reacts and performs.

Efren Reyes smiles when he makes a mistake. In light of this type of research, that's probably the best thing for any of us to do.

 

[bbb]

I've read some interesting writings by the late psychologist, Robert Zajonc. His theory on facial expressions causing the brain to create emotional reactions has some pretty compelling evidence to support it.

The research indicates this: When we smile we trigger a part of our brain (the limbic cortex), to create certain electrochemical signals (emotions). These signals can affect our mood. The same thing occurs when we frown or make an angry face or a surprised face or a frightened face.

Zajonc's theory suggests that the contracting of various muscles in the face and neck, depending on which facial expression we are making, is what causes our brain to react by creating emotional responses. So smiling might actually make you feel happier. It could keep you calm in stressful or bad situations. A frown or angry face could create negative or stressful emotions, which could make things worse as far as how your body reacts and performs.

Efren Reyes smiles when he makes a mistake. In light of this type of research, that's probably the best thing for any of us to do.

there could be some pavlovian conditioning with this
most time we smile/frown/laugh etc as an internal reaction to an external event
something happens that makes you smile
you interpret that event
your brain produces the signals (neurotransmitters) for the emotions attached and to make the muscles of your face to make a smile
the signal/emotion/neurotransmitters/muscle movement
become a conditioned response
so i can understand that smliling first could elicit the emotions in reverse
ie the neurotransmitters associated with those emotions and facial reactions are inter related

 

[bbb]

I've read some interesting writings by the late psychologist, Robert Zajonc. His theory on facial expressions causing the brain to create emotional reactions has some pretty compelling evidence to support it.

The research indicates this: When we smile we trigger a part of our brain (the limbic cortex), to create certain electrochemical signals (emotions). These signals can affect our mood. The same thing occurs when we frown or make an angry face or a surprised face or a frightened face.

Zajonc's theory suggests that the contracting of various muscles in the face and neck, depending on which facial expression we are making, is what causes our brain to react by creating emotional responses. So smiling might actually make you feel happier. It could keep you calm in stressful or bad situations. A frown or angry face could create negative or stressful emotions, which could make things worse as far as how your body reacts and performs.

Efren Reyes smiles when he makes a mistake. In light of this type of research, that's probably the best thing for any of us to do.

this could be reverse pavovian conditioning
we smile as a response to an external event
that event produces an emotion and facial movement (smile)
the emotion and facial movement is produced by neurotransmitters
this link of specific neurotransmiters producing specific emotions and facial movement get conditioned over time
so its possible that the facial movements could trigger the upstream emotions
my theory with no supportive evidence

 

[Imac007]

there could be some pavlovian conditioning with this
most time we smile/frown/laugh etc as an internal reaction to an external event
something happens that makes you smile
you interpret that event
your brain produces the signals (neurotransmitters) for the emotions attached and to make the muscles of your face to make a smile
the signal/emotion/neurotransmitters/muscle movement
become a conditioned response
so i can understand that smliling first could elicit the emotions in reverse
ie the neurotransmitters associated with those emotions and facial reactions are inter related

A researcher, Paul Ekman, thought along a similar vein to you.
He thought a lot of emotional expression was cultural, given the stoic and volatile natures of different peoples.
He had an Asian wife and firmly believed that her perceived difference in emotional expression, was learned culturally.
He got a chance, with funded research to discover the truth.
To his surprise, emotional reactions were genetic, not learned.

By looking at facial expressions across all races, they all showed the exact same expressions for emotions like fear, disgust, anger, surprise etc..
People born blind, or from remote cultures without external exposure, all had the same sets of muscles expressing the same collage of defined emotions, universally.
Personal pleasures, however, were identified as individual, not really what we consider emotions.

Ekman and the Dalai Lama co-wrote a book on emotional awareness.
Ekman’s work and consulting expertise were the basis for a tv drama series called Lie To Me.
Ekman did consulting, for law enforcement, reading potential terrorists, during interrogation.
He produced an Atlas of emotional expression.
Micro-expressions, fleeting glimpses of what lies behind the cultural masks, reveal true emotions and video playback plus analytics, catch even the best, from hiding their true emotions.

I do believe that changing our physiology can change our inner and outer climate.
Method actors often tap into emotions in just that way.
What the research you read tells us is more on producing the effects, than on reading inborn reaction, harnessing emotions.
EQ or emotional intelligence, is about our choices, when we choose not to get on the roller coaster, that unchecked responses would take us on.

 

[BC21]

there could be some pavlovian conditioning with this
most time we smile/frown/laugh etc as an internal reaction to an external event
something happens that makes you smile
you interpret that event
your brain produces the signals (neurotransmitters) for the emotions attached and to make the muscles of your face to make a smile
the signal/emotion/neurotransmitters/muscle movement
become a conditioned response
so i can understand that smliling first could elicit the emotions in reverse
ie the neurotransmitters associated with those emotions and facial reactions are inter related

The research experiments conducted had participants bite down on an object (can't remember, but like a horse bit or small stick) and hold the object with their teeth, activating the same facial muscles that produce a smile. For a frown there was another piece they used to make the corners of the mouth droop down.

Participants then simply looked at pictures of various things and had to select whether or not an image made them feel happy/positive or unhappy/negative. A group of German psychologists conducted similar experiments and got similar results.

Zajonc's theory is that facial muscles cause slight changes in blood flow to the brain, particularly the part of the brain that controls emotional responses, the hypothalamus, which is also responsible for regulating body temperature. The small changes in blood flow caused by different facial expressions is believed to affect the temperature regulating job of the hypothalamus, causing it to take neccessary steps to counter the temperature fluctuations, and it calls on the limbic cortex to create certain emotional responses.

It's interesting stuff. But I've always been an optimistic person, so I am probably a little biased when it comes to the possible effects of positive facial expressions on mood or emotional state of mind.

 

[Imac007]

There is too much information here for me to read, especially since it is without supporting facts. Anyone can throw out data without proof. Now it's my turn. Information does not alway flow from the body to the brain like you wrote. Not at all. Do some research. The brain takes in information from outside stimuli or from itself and creates a command for the body to perform, like a movement, for example. The body does not move and then send that information to the brain. It's quite the opposite, and the point of origin for that information is the opposite of where you say. If the body is injured I don't know how the information processes and flows and it's probably one example where the brain gets information from the body, but it doesn't always react that way like you are trying to make everyone believe.

Like every perspective here, there is that element of truth, limited to specific viewpoints.
Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow, identified the instantaneous response decision making that allows you to duck without conscious thought and as opposed to slower types of decision making, as you are referencing.
Emotions are those initial tic second body impressions of a situation, not reasoned responses, instinctive.

 

[Imac007]

There is too much information here for me to read, especially since it is without supporting facts. Anyone can throw out data without proof. Now it's my turn. Information does not alway flow from the body to the brain like you wrote. Not at all. Do some research. The brain takes in information from outside stimuli or from itself and creates a command for the body to perform, like a movement, for example. The body does not move and then send that information to the brain. It's quite the opposite, and the point of origin for that information is the opposite of where you say. If the body is injured I don't know how the information processes and flows and it's probably one example where the brain gets information from the body, but it doesn't always react that way like you are trying to make everyone believe.

Embodied cognition has its roots in the early 20th century and is part of mainstream philosophy and psychology today.
Since my writing style is not to your liking I’m posting a link to a different author on embodied cognition.
https://blogs.scientificamerican.co...mbodied-cognition-why-you-are-not-your-brain/

 

[Island Drive]

yes, my 'learning style' relates to thinking for me self. Did not watch yer video - no need to. Other than possibly learning a new language -True Knowledge has very little to do with repetition - or phony reaffirmations from political entities. But I understand ur zest for experimental practices on "Open public" Mr jewett lol. So as yer student of anythin' - probly not - there is nothing i care to learn from u. Honest practice is relevant hear, there are many dishonest people practicing there experiments on society - at the moment eh bob?

Chill, lifes too short.

 

[Pin]

The other sensory information isn’t turned off, it just becomes the background and part of peripheral awareness....
This is about finding the natural ebb and flow of sensory awareness that triggers your best game.

This ties in to something ShootingArts was telling me in the main forum recently. His 'zone' model (from another book) has 3 levels: (1) normal (not zone) play, (2) enhanced concentration but with conscious internal involvement, and (3) full zone where internal awareness is lost.
(This uses broadbrush categories, so let's allow that closer examination would presumably find degrees of internal-awareness thought processes. But in practical terms I think the categories are helpful and legitimate.)

My everyday zone is level 2, using the conscious internal in a constructive way. I'm not aware of anyone who's been able to go in and out of full zone at will (other than second hand anecdotal accounts, occasionally), level 3 still seems to be a happy accident, even to people who use sports psychology. But what ShootingArts was saying got me thinking about the distinction between levels 2 and 3. By having a deliberate role for conscious internal thought, perhaps you activate it so much that you'll never accidentally find yourself in full zone.

If this is the case, Lee and I are both limiting our depth because we don't give the conscious processes enough opportunity to ebb.

I'm very happy with my results, but the difference to level 3 is still there.

The separation of mind and body is an old one, more on a computer model, digital, input from the mind running the machinery, the body.
The modern take is more integrated, in what they call embodied cognition....
An emotion only crosses the awareness threshold into consciousness, more an after the moment reporting to “head”quarters....
By the time it is in our awareness, we had no conscious decision making input.

Thank you, I've heard/read stuff about the physiological causes of emotions before, but none going as far as the conclusion that emotion and kinesthetic info could be treated as a single system in this way. It's really interesting the paradigm shifts you have to make sometimes!

 

[BC21]

Like every perspective here, there is that element of truth, limited to specific viewpoints.
Daniel Kahneman, author of Thinking, Fast and Slow, identified the instantaneous response decision making that allows you to duck without conscious thought and as opposed to slower types of decision making, as you are referencing.
Emotions are those initial tic second body impressions of a situation, not reasoned responses, instinctive.

Another great book for understanding how our minds function when it comes to thinking and doing. Kahneman dives a little too deep into economic science, which is what he won a Pulitzer prize for, and I found those pages a bit boring and unnecessary or unrelated to the main theme of the book. Other than that, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is a book that ranks high on my list of recommended reading for anyone interested in how our mind works when it comes to how we think and process information.

 

[Imac007]

Another great book for understanding how our minds function when it comes to thinking and doing. Kahneman dives a little too deep into economic science, which is what he won a Pulitzer prize for, and I found those pages a bit boring and unnecessary or unrelated to the main theme of the book. Other than that, "Thinking, Fast and Slow" is a book that ranks high on my list of recommended reading for anyone interested in how our mind works when it comes to how we think and process information.

Kahneman and Tversky, are psychologists who won a Nobel Prize in Economics, because of the importance of their work on decision making.
Most of it was about how logic is often not the factor in uncertainty, but how risk/reward is perceived in the process.

When used as an analogy for shot decision making some interesting parallels emerge.
Kahneman introduced the idea of social priming, environmental influences, in the fast/slow book.
That said, he has since backed off from his conclusions because cited small studies were given too much weight.
We make risk reward decisions, on the table, every time we play, so any insight into faulty thinking will likely help.

As with anything, unused data is just more noise.
If we can take something positive, from the findings, that we can use, it’s knowledge.
If we understand when and where to use it, that’s wisdom.

Their works on heuristics and biases is relevant to pool decision making.
Heuristics are basically, rules of thumb, we use, they categorized three types.

Many YouTube videos on playing position reveal an heuristic, using follow, has better speed control than draw.
Biases, relate to tendencies, preferences.

As an ex-snooker player, I tend to use more stun and draw for a perceived tighter rein on the cue ball.
My bias is for shorter distances to position.
Each are part of our decision making and other factor weigh in tipping choices in different directions.

A recent post on position revealed a Buddy Hall saying, “why play shape when you already have it?“
Is it a bias or a heuristic?
Regardless of which, does it enter into your decision making?
Part of the heuristics, bias concept is how heuristic short cuts can lead to biases.
Does it result in statistically flawed decisions?

 

[straightline]

yes, my 'learning style' relates to thinking for me self. Did not watch yer video - no need to. Other than possibly learning a new language -True Knowledge has very little to do with repetition - or phony reaffirmations from political entities. But I understand ur zest for experimental practices on "Open public" Mr jewett lol. So as yer student of anythin' - probly not - there is nothing i care to learn from u. Honest practice is relevant hear, there are many dishonest people practicing there experiments on society - at the moment eh bob?

Kinda harsh but after the 526 thread, sounds about right.
Reminds me of the adage we've all heard: An expert is one who learns more and more about less and less until he knows everything there is about nothing at all. Higher (hire) learning is most definitely into the details...
Keep prodding. Causes thinking or something,

 

[FranCrimi]

I stand uncorrected Fran, adjectives not needed in the Midwest.

Same saying. We just say it differntly, is all. Yours is grammatically correct. There's nothing to correct.

 

[FranCrimi]

I've read some interesting writings by the late psychologist, Robert Zajonc. His theory on facial expressions causing the brain to create emotional reactions has some pretty compelling evidence to support it.

The research indicates this: When we smile we trigger a part of our brain (the limbic cortex), to create certain electrochemical signals (emotions). These signals can affect our mood. The same thing occurs when we frown or make an angry face or a surprised face or a frightened face.

Zajonc's theory suggests that the contracting of various muscles in the face and neck, depending on which facial expression we are making, is what causes our brain to react by creating emotional responses. So smiling might actually make you feel happier. It could keep you calm in stressful or bad situations. A frown or angry face could create negative or stressful emotions, which could make things worse as far as how your body reacts and performs.

Efren Reyes smiles when he makes a mistake. In light of this type of research, that's probably the best thing for any of us to do.

Several years ago, I flew to Tampa to study under sports psychologist Jim Loehr. His clients were mainly pro tennis players in the 90's. It was a great course and I learned a lot. One of the most important things I took away from the course was to be as great of an actor as you can be. Act the frame of mind that you want to feel, and by acting, you will become immersed in that frame of mind. That's pretty much what method actors do. They actually turn into the character they're portraying. I saw it when I got to follow Al Pacino around on the set of Carlito's Way. He was Carlito all the time, even when they weren't filming.

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but it's still all being initiated in your brain. It's just that you're triggering a subconscious reaction through a conscious action.

 

[BC21]

Several years ago, I flew to Tampa to study under sports psychologist Jim Loehr. His clients were mainly pro tennis players in the 90's. It was a great course and I learned a lot. One of the most important things I took away from the course was to be as great of an actor as you can be. Act the frame of mind that you want to feel, and by acting, you will become immersed in that frame of mind. That's pretty much what method actors do. They actually turn into the character they're portraying. I saw it when I got to follow Al Pacino around on the set of Carlito's Way. He was Carlito all the time, even when they weren't filming.

Maybe it's just a matter of semantics, but it's still all being initiated in your brain. It's just that you're triggering a subconscious reaction through a conscious action.

That's because, when it comes to learning, research has shown that the mind doesn't know the difference between mentally rehearsing and physically rehearsing.

A study of beginning piano players showed that practicing on an imaginary piano in your mind activities the same areas of the brain as if you were physically practicing on a real piano.

Of course the needed finger dexterity requires practicing on a real piano, but the actual learning process, the firing of neurons and creation of synaptic pathways needed to learn how to play the piano, can be done mentally, all in your head.

This same process applies to every skill or task we want to learn. As far as learning how the balls react for different cb-ob relationships, whether it's aiming cut shots or playing kicks and banks and caroms, simply watching pool on tv, and imagining you are stroking each shot, can activate the same areas of the brain as if you were actually doing it in person.

 

[FranCrimi]

That's because, when it comes to learning, research has shown that the mind doesn't know the difference between mentally rehearsing and physically rehearsing.

A study of beginning piano players showed that practicing on an imaginary piano in your mind activities the same areas of the brain as if you were physically practicing on a real piano.

Of course the needed finger dexterity requires practicing on a real piano, but the actual learning process, the firing of neurons and creation of synaptic pathways needed to learn how to play the piano, can be done mentally, all in your head.

This same process applies to every skill or task we want to learn. As far as learning how the balls react for different cb-ob relationships, whether it's aiming cut shots or playing kicks and banks and caroms, simply watching pool on tv, and imagining you are stroking each shot, can activate the same areas of the brain as if you were actually doing it in person.

Sometimes I think these studies are lacking in some ways. Maybe it's because certain variables aren't taken into account intentionally because maybe the person conducting the study isn't really being honest and wants the outcome that he's looking for. I don't know if you play the piano or not, but I do. Practicing in your mind is so far from the real thing, that it's practically unhelpful in the long run. Practicing actual feel is essential. It's the same with pool. Feeling the movement is essential to the memorization , and ultimately, growth process, because what you are really memorizing is feel.

 

[BC21]

Sometimes I think these studies are lacking in some ways. Maybe it's because certain variables aren't taken into account intentionally because maybe the person conducting the study isn't really being honest and wants the outcome that he's looking for. I don't know if you play the piano or not, but I do. Practicing in your mind is so far from the real thing, that it's practically unhelpful in the long run. Practicing actual feel is essential. It's the same with pool. Feeling the movement is essential to the memorization , and ultimately, growth process, because what you are really memorizing is feel.

I play piano and a handful of other instruments. When I'm not at the piano or don't have a guitar handy, I can picture the finger pattern of chords and riffs in my mind, and rehearse them over and over, even moving my fingers as they would actually be moving if I were seated at the piano or had a guitar strapped to me.

I agree that the actual feel or sensation of the performance is very much part of the learning experience, but that doesn't mean other aspects of learning need to be hands on.

A great example is when I was learning how to play a banjo. The rolling techniques done with the right hand involve the thumb, index finger, and middle finger. The ring finger and pinky finger rips remain planted together on the banjo head. Anyway, as a lead guitar player I had spent years using a guitar pick, and so the banjo roll with a pick on each finger did not feel natural. But I practiced everyday at work, without a banjo, by simply performing the roll (finger movements) in the air with my planted fingers fixed on my desk or my leg or the counter top at Starbucks or the center console in my car. I didn't need the actual sensation of the strings being plucked to program banjo rolls into my mind. The synaptic pathways needed to develop that muscle memory and coordination were created without having to physically play the banjo.

This same type of mindful method can work with every skill or talent we're interested in learning.

 

[FranCrimi]

I play piano and a handful of other instruments. When I'm not at the piano or don't have a guitar handy, I can picture the finger pattern of chords and riffs in my mind, and rehearse them over and over, even moving my fingers as they would actually be moving if I were seated at the piano or had a guitar strapped to me.

I agree that the actual feel or sensation of the performance is very much part of the learning experience, but that doesn't mean other aspects of learning need to be hands on.

A great example is when I was learning how to play a banjo. The rolling techniques done with the right hand involve the thumb, index finger, and middle finger. The ring finger and pinky finger rips remain planted together on the banjo head. Anyway, as a lead guitar player I had spent years using a guitar pick, and so the banjo roll with a pick on each finger did not feel natural. But I practiced everyday at work, without a banjo, by simply performing the roll (finger movements) in the air with my planted fingers fixed on my desk or my leg or the counter top at Starbucks or the center console in my car. I didn't need the actual sensation of the strings being plucked to program banjo rolls into my mind. The synaptic pathways needed to develop that muscle memory and coordination were created without having to physically play the banjo.

This same type of mindful method can work with every skill or talent we're interested in learning.

Ah, but you see... you were physically moving. That's different. I was referring to no movement at all. Just thinking. Isn't that what the study was? You mentioned, "all in your head." Did I misunderstand?

 

[BC21]

Ah, but you see... you were physically moving. That's different. I was referring to no movement at all. Just thinking. Isn't that what the study was? You mentioned, "all in your head." Did I misunderstand?

Right. The study was all mental.

It sounds unbelievable, but the same neural networks get used whether we are physically doing a task or just thinking about or imagining doing the task. Several studies have been done to validate these findings. We can actually use mental rehearsal as a form of repetition to program the mind.

But there's only so much that can be learned or programmed into the mind in this manner when it comes to hand-eye coordination skills or skills that require feel or physical sensation.

With pool, there are a few things we can practice mentally to improve our game: Aiming, the psr, focus/concentration, stance and stroke, attention, patience, etc... None of things are strictly bound to physical table time. The mind doesn't care if you're looking at real pool shots on a table or looking at snapshot pictures of pool shots....the same neural networks light up and we are able to learn away from the table. But of course this is limited to certain aspects that don't involve feel.