Accelerated learning (was RE: TOP 2 IQ Percentile Re: [extropy-chat]Seven cents an hour?)

[Herb Martin]

> -----Original Message-----
> --- Herb Martin <HerbM at learnquick.com> wrote:
> > The off-scale intelligent tend to be able to CHANGE
> > their personality type to fit the context, audience,
> > or problem also.
> 
> Actors can do this too, to play the many different roles they get.  It
> is a skill that one can learn.

Yes, but seldom does anyone state it so clearly.

It is a definite skill, and yes it is both related
to acting and teachable/learnable through repeatable
methods.

Modeling is the general term for the primary technique
but one can just consciously apply many of the techniques
of acting to implement such methods with great success.

> > This is also true of the NLP modalities:  visual, 
> > auditory, kinesthetic:  A really good understanding
> > will include a representation in two or more modalities
> > and preferably all three (and some variations on the
> > themes.)
> > 
> > Those who would really know something know it from
> > many perspectives and using various methods.
> 
> While these various perspectives and methods can in theory be learned
> in advance, I wonder...could it be the case that this rarely happens
> while "book learning" (or any other sort of learning short of actually
> doing the activity in question), and that almost always these 
> alternate

No, except perhaps if you mean 'rarely' in pure statistical
terms including those who don't understand such methods.

Yes, it is rare, but among those who know and teach the
techniques the ability to model consciously even from
books, lectures, or other supposedly passive learning
makes such almost as effective as doing -- in fact, when
the time spent is considered such methods may be more
effective since they involve much less time as long as
your "expert" (who you model) is able to explain the
methods used OR you (the learning) are fully versed in
the expert systems techniques for extracting the key
elements the expert uses.

> modes and methods are only encountered when the skill is actually
> applied (often in not-quite-textbook cases, as is the nature of real
> situations), which is then the main cause for why "book learning" can
> often be (and is) justifiably dismissed as not really 
> "knowing" a skill
> set or field of knowledge?

Indeed, there are some things that require the actual building
of 'muscles' (a la weight lifting) or the development of new
neural networks (speed reading) but even then proper application
of modeling techniques leads to much faster skill acquisition.

Oddly enough, learning speed reading is almost precisely a
direct analogy of weight lifting -- I use this analogy explicitly
when teaching speed reading.

It is almost literally the same rather than a mere analogy.

> If this is the case, then would it remedy this lack of value of "book
> learning", at least to a significant degree, to incorporate those
> different modes and methods, rather than avoiding them and
> concentrating on only the simplest mode and method to 
> optimize for cost
> (as often naturally happens in any prepared activity)?

Not sure what you mean here, but if you intend to apply the
methods you already seem to understand to the task of learning
from books and listening then yes, it works -- and almost as
well in many cases.

> Sorry for the run-on sentences.  I hope at least the idea was clear
> enough.  ^_^;
> 
> > (If you care, I make my living by delivering accelerated
> > training that allows even those who don't think of 
> > themselves as particularly smart to learn about as much
> > each day as they would with anyone else in a week.)
> 
> Checking your Web site - http://LearnQuick.com/ - you seem to focus on
> low-level technical skills.  

Depends on what you mean by "low level" -- while teaching
much memorization and technical details, I slip in a deep
course in troubleshooting, accelerated learning itself, and
problem solving in general.

I do this both to meet my primary promise directly (success
in the technical details) but also to make sure my students
are generally successful and respected (on average) so that
they become my sales force and best advertisement.

> I wonder if a similar approach could be
> used on a grander scale, say to compress multi-year college physics
> courses into a single year?  Or how about teaching the usual K-12

Yes.

> cirriculum in only ten years, to even average children?  (Not

Easily if the teachers were FIRST properly trained and the 
curriculum were developed.

One of the fellows who taught me much of what I know about modeling
and teaching with these methods, has suggested building superior
curriculum materials using producers such as Steven Spielberg and
the be comedy writers and artists to produce truly compelling 
learning materials -- then hiring people who GENUINELY enjoy
hanging out with young people to mediate the classes and coach
them through the exercises.

He seriously intends an effort comparable to "a man on the moon
within 10 years" -- we really don't need to have the curriculum
change every 5-10 years if we build really great materials that
are compelling, funny, entertaining and clearly indicate the
required knowledge.

> necessarily to those of significantly lower than average ability, but
> those are already recognized as "special needs" and in many 
> places have
> existing programs to serve them.)

Glen Doman and the folks at the "Institute for Human Potential" (I 
think that is correct) were consistently able to help even brain
damaged children, not just to 'catch up' but many times to excel.

--
Herb