"Two minutes after I started the first drawing, I was instructed to try again. After another two minutes, I tried a third cat, and then in due course a fourth. Then the experiment was over, and the electrodes were removed. I looked down at my work. The first felines were boxy and stiffly unconvincing. But after I had been subjected to about 10 minutes of transcranial magnetic stimulation, their tails had grown more vibrant, more nervous; their faces were personable and convincing. They were even beginning to wear clever expressions. I could hardly recognize them as my own drawings, though I had watched myself render each one, in all its loving detail. Somehow over the course of a very few minutes, and with no additional instruction, I had gone from an incompetent draftsman to a very impressive artist of the feline form."
I would think a more convincing experiment would be to start with the machine turned on for the full "10 minutes", the cat drawing made, then the machine turned off and another made. If this is correct then the second should actually be worse than the first.
The idea that the ability to draw better cats improves as you practice doesn't seem terribly startling.
Actually, a more controlled version of the experiment would have had the author make successive attempts at drawing a cat *before* the machine was turned on.
Then, 45 days later (or whatever the minimum time period is required for fixing an experience into memory), repeat the experiment with the machine one.
As noted above, the demonstration makes no control for level of artistic ability or that the process of drawing and its attendant visualization may naturally produce drawings of successively better qu
I can think of all sorts of variations on this experiment. I really want one of these machines!
For example, do the experiment they did on one group. Do a control group. Then do a pre-treatment on both groups (control and experimental). Does the machine actually cause you to learn faster? Can the author actually draw at a vastly superior level now that he not connected to the machine?
Or does the machine provide temporary amplification. I imagine that it is something in between. Often, when I have studied a problem, I gain a huge amount of insight into it. Afterwards, I look back upon the work I have done, am *very* surprised that it turned out so well, but end up at a higher level of skill overall.
If this machine is anything like the way it is described, I'll trade a kidney for one.
I would mod you down, but instead I'll just say that if you had read the article with the pictures, you'll see that there was a fourth drawing done after the machine was off.
They aren't that dumb, and everyone knows that kind of basic science principle.
They aren't that dumb, and everyone knows that kind of basic science principle.
In a perfect world perhaps, but I've seen a depressing number of studies that started from what in retrospect was an obviously flawed assumption. Researchers are just as human as anyone else, and can just as easily make a tragic oversight when carried away with an interesting study.
The odd thing about the drawings in the article is that they were of DOGS, not cats, and the text of the article never mentions doing a cat drawing after the machine was off. If those were supposed to be cats then all of the drawings were horrible.
The Experiment in Reverse (Score:5, Insightful)
I would think a more convincing experiment would be to start with the machine turned on for the full "10 minutes", the cat drawing made, then the machine turned off and another made. If this is correct then the second should actually be worse than the first.
The idea that the ability to draw better cats improves as you practice doesn't seem terribly startling.
Re:The Experiment in Reverse (Score:1)
Then, 45 days later (or whatever the minimum time period is required for fixing an experience into memory), repeat the experiment with the machine one.
As noted above, the demonstration makes no control for level of artistic ability or that the process of drawing and its attendant visualization may naturally produce drawings of successively better qu
Re:The Experiment in Reverse (Score:4, Insightful)
For example, do the experiment they did on one group. Do a control group. Then do a pre-treatment on both groups (control and experimental). Does the machine actually cause you to learn faster? Can the author actually draw at a vastly superior level now that he not connected to the machine?
Or does the machine provide temporary amplification. I imagine that it is something in between. Often, when I have studied a problem, I gain a huge amount of insight into it. Afterwards, I look back upon the work I have done, am *very* surprised that it turned out so well, but end up at a higher level of skill overall.
If this machine is anything like the way it is described, I'll trade a kidney for one.
Re:The Experiment in Reverse (Score:2)
Make that a cerebral lobe and you've got a deal!
-
Re:The Experiment in Reverse (Score:2)
They aren't that dumb, and everyone knows that kind of basic science principle.
Re:The Experiment in Reverse (Score:1)
In a perfect world perhaps, but I've seen a depressing number of studies that started from what in retrospect was an obviously flawed assumption. Researchers are just as human as anyone else, and can just as easily make a tragic oversight when carried away with an interesting study.
Re:The Experiment in Reverse (Score:2)
Re:The Experiment in Reverse (Score:0)