Posted by dwwoelfel 17 hours ago
Aaaaaand time to tune out.
> I can say that, when writing by hand, one is continually solving a series of small problems having to do with the spacing of words, how letters are connected, the crossing of the letter t (sometimes more than one in the same word) and the dotting of the letters i and j, and how to accomplish all of those things through coordinated movements not just of the fingers but of the whole arm.
Do you think he needs to be a neuroscientist to make this claim?
More to your point: calling "appeal to authority" does not license argument from ignorance. Furthermore, appeal to authority only refers to an authority who is not authoritative in the domain in question.
The study talks about connections and frequency, but that seems like a very coarse measure for something as complex as the brain.
> Increased connectivity within the theta (3.5–7.5 Hz) and alpha (8–12.5 Hz) frequency bands has been linked to mechanisms underlying sensorimotor integration (). As increased connectivity in the brain was observed only when writing by hand and not when simply pressing keys on the keyboard, our findings can be taken as evidence that handwriting promotes learning.
Can you? The linked paper appears to be stating association, not causation.
The alternative hypothesis is that the brain activates more because writing by hand is harder, and that by writing by hand you just get better at writing by hand.
My thought is, write in whichever medium you feel you work best in. Maybe try them both. And if you're not productive maybe don't use that medium.
This feels like a lot of grasping to try to justify some retroism (why does it need justification?).
There are a lot of citations in the paper backing up the idea that handwriting promotes learning, though (or at least spelling, memory, recall, and letter recognition/understanding). It reads to me like an attempt to explain an observed phenomenon: "given that handwriting appears to promote learning, what could be a mechanism for that?" It isn't in a vacuum just claiming that "these brain signals clearly prove that learning is happening".
The "general discussion" section also covers why the specific connectivity they looked at might be related to learning.
The EEG measurement is the only real thing in the study, but there was no actual learning task anywhere at all.
Meanwhile, mr "I’m not an expert on how the brain works, but..." blithely goes on with his non-expert opinion, even talking about fountain pens and the various pen tip qualities in a manner smacking of audiophile.
And so the article reaches #1 on HN (supposedly the place of reason), and stays there for hours as everyone ignores the elephant in the room.
This is how junk science is born.
No notes.