That is a very nice substitute, thank you for sharing your feedback!
89 karma · joined April 28, 2020
But to answer it, could you define how does a "perfect education" looks like for you?
Selecting a country and a cosmodrome will do a cross-filter to show only launches for that country from that cosmodrome.
> Could the inclusion of a university neuroscience course in teacher training counter neuromyths? Plausible, but unfounded. Taking a course would improve neuroscience knowledge among future teachers but likely without reducing their false beliefs.
That is an interesting question that I am asking myself from time to time (I am a software engineer with a keen interest in psychology and neuroscience) and the findings in the linked research paper are very surprising. It seems explaining the principles of brain functioning doesn't do too much in addressing one's beliefs in different myths. I can only hypothesize that debunking these myths should be done by addressing them directly, going through each of them one by one, and asking what are the main pillars upon which their beliefs are based. I've written recently a post on the 10% brain usage myth[0] that addresses specifically that belief.
> from the 100 billion neurons that the brain has at birth
This is something I see frequently, but FYI, the latest plausible estimates are 86B neurons[1] (which might not seem like a big deal, but the difference of 14B is like the brain of a baboon)
Finally, to aid the debunking of the VAK model, it might help explaining the small conscious throughput capacity of human senses and how focusing on only one plane of the VAK model doesn't make sense, since it cuts out precious cognitive capacity[2]
EDIT: your subscription address on the site has an expired certificate.
[0]: https://iuliangulea.com/blog/debunking-the-myth-of-ten-perce...
[1]: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19226510/
[2]: https://iuliangulea.com/blog/how-people-learn-human-senses/
1. I think you and I have different understanding of that myth. I was referring to the fact that people think 90% is not used at all. I might have done a poor job of emphasizing that thing, that's why we are discussing this now.
2. I haven't looked at it that way. It's an instance when the paragraph name interfered with some important concepts in the entire article... The point in "Size Does Not Matter" that I have envisioned is that being a such a small fraction of the body, the brain consumes unproportionately more energy.
The point of Ritalin and Cola is that those increase the blood glucose level, which aids in cognitive processes.
1. I don't really know how to answer this to you other than with "arithmetic."
2. Have you read the entire article? There is the "relative" part. Elephant's brain-to-body mass ratio is 1:560. And yes, brain size is important. Some small birds have 1:12 brain to body ratio, but that doesn't make them smarter than us.
It takes a great deal of self-consciousness to keep an eye on such things that feel like "obvious truths," just because you grew up in an environment that was reinforcing those misconceptions.