The human brain

What is the "phonics" system of reading?

What is the "look/say" system of reading?

> Even the
> brightest among us use less than 10% of
> their brain's potential.

Where did you hear/see/read this?

I am yet to find any scientific evidence that a test was carried out to determine how much brain we use. Let alone a test which was conducted which concluded we only use less than 10% - or even 10%.

To my knowledge the 10% thing was an off-handed comment made some 60 odd years or more ago, which was publicised by the media and which has since been proclaimed as gospel.

Michael Ross

>> Even the
>> brightest among us use less than 10% of
>> their brain's potential.

>Where did you hear/see/read this?

Actually even I read about it - I think in a psychology101 book. They found out that only 10% of brain illuminated under some brain scanner. Dont remember the details.

But even though only 10% of the brain was illuminated, it still consumed 40% of all oxygen we breathe. So its not possible to start using more than 10% of the brain at one time.

I have heard that some people who do yoga know some way of breathing in and out slowly that reduces the amount of oxygen brain uses and so we can use more than 10% of our brains at one time. But am not sure if that is a rumour or if meditation and yoga helps. Haven't seen any scientific proof yet.

I too would like to know what phonics system of reading is.

I want "hard data"

Not... vague recollections of where you (anyone) thinks they may or may not have read something.

We have all read - over and over - claims that we only use 10% (or less) of our brains. It is bandied about as common knowledge. Something that everyone "just knows." But NO-ONE can tell me WHERE they discovered this info-byte.

Where did you learn your 9 times tables? You can tell me. Where do you learn about the two opposing Axis in WWI? You can tell me. Where did you disect a frog? You can tell me?

Where did you learn we only use 10% of our brains? When was this "test" conducted and who conducted it? Where were their findings published? No-one can tell me.

Which raises an interesting point...

How easy is it to pass on false information as if it is true, and have everyone accept it without question?

Michael Ross

PS. Harry Tasker is a character in a movie (True Lies). Harry's boss is Charlton Heston. When Harry presented his findings to his boss, his boss said... "You're not blowing my skirt up... Harry, do you have any HARD DATA?"


We Swear This Brain Stimulant Contains No Illegal Drugs

> How easy is it to pass on false information
> as if it is true, and have everyone accept
> it without question?

I don't know about the 10% figure, Tasker, but I was thinking this exact same question while reading a news story about a researcher who claims that the position we sleep in is linked to our attitudes. I thought it was very interesting but very general and probably not done with enough subjects to make any hard conclusions.

Who knows (I don't yet)? But really, can anyone really sleep on their back like a tin soldier all night?

Going to sleep soon on my side,

Erik

> I don't know about the 10% figure, Tasker,
> but I was thinking this exact same question
> while reading a news story about a
> researcher who claims that the position we
> sleep in is linked to our attitudes. I
> thought it was very interesting but very
> general and probably not done with enough
> subjects to make any hard conclusions.

> Who knows (I don't yet)? But really, can
> anyone really sleep on their back like a tin
> soldier all night?

> Going to sleep soon on my side,

> Erik

Glad to answer the questions. About the 10%. I learned it straight out of my Psychology Studies textbooks. If you care to go back about 40 years you might be able to find the textbook. :o)

About Phonics. Phonics is the old-fashioned style of learning to read by sounding out letters and combinations. Accuracy is higher, as is retention and comprehension according to tests done by several universities when the controversy occurred over the 'new' (old actually) method of look-say teaching of reading occurred.

Phonics is the 'natural reader' method that people who self-teach themselves to read use unconsciously. I taught myself to read at age 2-1/2 years since I had already learned, like most children do, the sounds of the letters "A is like apple". It's a simple step to put sounds together and read.

Look-say is just what it says it is. The student is supposed to recognize words by their over all shape. I was investigating look-say vs Phonics years ago when I was trying to find a proper school for a youngster who wasn't doing so well in the public school system.

One teacher sat down and drew a bunch of triangles upside down and right-side up interspersed with a bunch of circles and told me what it 'said'. I asked her to explain and she couldn't. She said 'we just teach them to know what it says'. I asked what they did if they came across an unfamiliar word and she said they figure it out in context. Uh-huh. No, thanks!

My husband was taught look-say method and he often does not read what something actually does say despite the fact that he has come a long way since he's been trying phonics. Yes, you can teach an old dog new tricks but the real trick is to undo the habits of a lifetime.

An interesting point: in the post-cold war era it came out that both the United States and Russia had been doing experiments in ESP. The Russians began before the USA did and had progressed to doing lots of things like telekinesis and mind-reading experiments both with people and other animals.

Many Russians (and some US citizens) had been taught how to do certain types of extrasensory perception things. Even at the height of this the tests indicated that the brain was very minimally involved compared to its potential.

Oddly, the more highly developed the primitive centers of the brain are, the more accomplished people are at remote viewing, telekinesis, healing, and so on.

For all those who think space is the final frontier, you might like to look a little closer to home. What we DON'T understand about the human body, and the brain in particular, would fill a library and then some.

Hope this clarifies a few things. I don't have time or inclination to spend looking up very old references or even new ones but if you feel so inclined, please share with the rest of us.

Sandi

Hmm, when Micheal asked the question, I remembered a doco I saw on hydrocphelics who had full function with only 10% of the brain intact. A quick google search turned up:
http://www.h2net.net/p/nslade/Papers/how.html
Hardly authoritive, and the fact it is 30 year old research does not inspire much confidence.

> Glad to answer the questions. About the 10%.
> I learned it straight out of my Psychology
> Studies textbooks. If you care to go back
> about 40 years you might be able to find the
> textbook. :o)

> About Phonics. Phonics is the old-fashioned
> style of learning to read by sounding out
> letters and combinations. Accuracy is
> higher, as is retention and comprehension
> according to tests done by several
> universities when the controversy occurred
> over the 'new' (old actually) method of
> look-say teaching of reading occurred.

> Phonics is the 'natural reader' method that
> people who self-teach themselves to read use
> unconsciously. I taught myself to read at
> age 2-1/2 years since I had already learned,
> like most children do, the sounds of the
> letters "A is like apple". It's a
> simple step to put sounds together and read.

> Look-say is just what it says it is. The
> student is supposed to recognize words by
> their over all shape. I was investigating
> look-say vs Phonics years ago when I was
> trying to find a proper school for a
> youngster who wasn't doing so well in the
> public school system.

> One teacher sat down and drew a bunch of
> triangles upside down and right-side up
> interspersed with a bunch of circles and
> told me what it 'said'. I asked her to
> explain and she couldn't. She said 'we just
> teach them to know what it says'. I asked
> what they did if they came across an
> unfamiliar word and she said they figure it
> out in context. Uh-huh. No, thanks!

> My husband was taught look-say method and he
> often does not read what something actually
> does say despite the fact that he has come a
> long way since he's been trying phonics.
> Yes, you can teach an old dog new tricks but
> the real trick is to undo the habits of a
> lifetime.

> An interesting point: in the post-cold war
> era it came out that both the United States
> and Russia had been doing experiments in
> ESP. The Russians began before the USA did
> and had progressed to doing lots of things
> like telekinesis and mind-reading
> experiments both with people and other
> animals.

> Many Russians (and some US citizens) had
> been taught how to do certain types of
> extrasensory perception things. Even at the
> height of this the tests indicated that the
> brain was very minimally involved compared
> to its potential.

> Oddly, the more highly developed the
> primitive centers of the brain are, the more
> accomplished people are at remote viewing,
> telekinesis, healing, and so on.

> For all those who think space is the final
> frontier, you might like to look a little
> closer to home. What we DON'T understand
> about the human body, and the brain in
> particular, would fill a library and then
> some.

> Hope this clarifies a few things. I don't
> have time or inclination to spend looking up
> very old references or even new ones but if
> you feel so inclined, please share with the
> rest of us.

> Sandi

Hi:

> About Phonics. Phonics is the old-fashioned style of learning to read by sounding out
> letters and combinations. Accuracy is higher, as is retention and comprehension
> according to tests done by several universities when the controversy occurred
> over the 'new' (old actually) method of look-say teaching of reading occurred.

Thanks to the "Hooked on Phonics" ads, I think most people are probably familiar with the return of phonetic reading.

I was taught phonetic english, too, and had NO trouble reading the "Cambridge University" tidbit.

It's just my humble opinion, but I think that the "look say" way of teaching was just a bone headed way of trying to rush people through the process.

Many people that were taught phonetic English DO, indeed, read with full word recognition instead of looking at each letter. Hence the ability of many people to read that letter and laugh because it WAS so easy to read.

But full word absorption is a stage you get to - not a stage to start at.

I know many people that learned phonetic english and still struggle with reading and comprehension. Know what else I notice? Those people don't read all that much.

Just my belief, but I believe it has more to do with whether the person reads regularly than with the teaching method.

Take playing the piano as an example. The more you practice, the better you get. The same applies to hockey, or soccer or tennis... or reading.

Progression of ability improves with comfort and familiarity derived from repetition.

The same could be applied to reading. A person that reads two books a week is going to be a more fluent reader than someone who might pick up one book a year - regardless of how they were taught.

Use it or lose it? Does that apply to the brain? You bet it does.

Interesting tidbit from an article called "Use it or Lose it"

• Though most of the research providing information on the plasticity of the brain comes from animal studies, recent experiments from the Brain Research Institute at UCLA have shown similar results in human brains. In Wernicke's area, which deals with word understanding, the nerve cells have more dendrites in college-educated people than in people with only a high school education.
  http://www.newhorizons.org/neuro/diamond_use.htm

And here's another tidbit to chew on.

It is a fact that when people watch television, within 30 seconds of sitting down in front of the boob tube, the brain goes from predominantly beta waves (alert, conscious) to predominantly alpha waves (unfocused, receptive lack of attention: the state of aimless fantasy and daydreaming below the threshold of consciousness).

Food for thought, indeed. For anyone that's not on vacation in the "alpha" camp, of course. ; )

Linda

There are standard terms and phrases news readers say when reading the news. And there are ways to interpret what they really mean.

"Public opinons shows... insert whatever you want the public to believe here."

The question you need to ask is, WHO are these public who think this? The newsreader's son, daughter, husband, wife, friend, nextdoor neighbor?

"Lastest polls show... insert whatever you want the public to believe here."

When was this poll taken? What was asked? How was it asked (method of polling - in person, phone, etc.) How many people were polled. What is the political demographic of those who were polled?

During the Olympic games in Sydney, the media kept harping on and on and on and on and on about how the country was all goo-goo with that little girl from the opening party.

The reality was... the media were the only ones going on about her. No-one else cared.

"X% of Americans are... insert what you want to scare the public about."

What they should really say is, "X% of the small tiny number of people we survey are..." Of course, because those people were Americans...

Remember that piece of Mars rock with those odd looking things on them? Remember how the media said the scientists reckon it showed proof of life - or some such claim?

The reality was completely different. The scientists NEVER said anything of the sort. They said they did not know what the things were but they did resemble certain bacteria.

The news often does what the current affairs shows do... leave out words and splice together things.

For instance... "The reality was... the things were... certain bacteria."

If you read the above paragraph relating to this quoted comment, you will see the words used and used in the same order. Technically, I said it... but I didn't say it that way.

Splice together. Also they will deliberately take words out of context to help create the impression they want to.

It's for this reason I prefer Fox News. They manipulate the least of all news channels. As they say... we report, YOU decide.

I post, you decide.

Michael Ross

This post is right on. Most modern news shows (at least here in the US) are either biased or incompetently reported (or both). The overall effect is terribly negative on society as a whole -- which they do deliberately because negative news keeps people watching so they can sell more advertising. That's one reason I like getting news from the Internet: I can quickly pick out any events that I may need to know about while limiting my exposure to the negativity.

I find that the more I ignore the news, the happier and more productive I tend to be.

Just $.02

--Phil

> There are standard terms and phrases news
> readers say when reading the news. And there
> are ways to interpret what they really mean.

> "Public opinons shows... insert
> whatever you want the public to believe
> here."

> The question you need to ask is, WHO are
> these public who think this? The
> newsreader's son, daughter, husband, wife,
> friend, nextdoor neighbor?

> "Lastest polls show... insert whatever
> you want the public to believe here."

> When was this poll taken? What was asked?
> How was it asked (method of polling - in
> person, phone, etc.) How many people were
> polled. What is the political demographic of
> those who were polled?

> During the Olympic games in Sydney, the
> media kept harping on and on and on and on
> and on about how the country was all goo-goo
> with that little girl from the opening
> party.

> The reality was... the media were the only
> ones going on about her. No-one else cared.

> "X% of Americans are... insert what you
> want to scare the public about."

> What they should really say is, "X% of
> the small tiny number of people we survey
> are..." Of course, because those people
> were Americans...

> Remember that piece of Mars rock with those
> odd looking things on them? Remember how the
> media said the scientists reckon it showed
> proof of life - or some such claim?

> The reality was completely different. The
> scientists NEVER said anything of the sort.
> They said they did not know what the things
> were but they did resemble certain bacteria.

> The news often does what the current affairs
> shows do... leave out words and splice
> together things.

> For instance... "The reality was... the
> things were... certain bacteria."

> If you read the above paragraph relating to
> this quoted comment, you will see the words
> used and used in the same order.
> Technically, I said it... but I didn't say
> it that way.

> Splice together. Also they will deliberately
> take words out of context to help create the
> impression they want to.

> It's for this reason I prefer Fox News. They
> manipulate the least of all news channels.
> As they say... we report, YOU decide.

> I post, you decide.

> Michael Ross

Phil,

Thanks for ignoring the news brainwashing.

When you ignore the news and current affairs shows, you can't get frustrated. You can't get annoyed at the news for their bad reporting. Can't get heated over WHAT they report. Thus, you can get on with your life without "things eating away at you."

No "negative news thoughts" means you get to be more productive. You can concentrate on the job at hand.

Self-inflicted news-ignorance is bliss.

HA! Reminds me of Sgt Schultz... I know nothing.

Reminds me of the hotdog seller story. Business was fine and dandy until his son told him we were in a recession and thus advertising should be cut back. End result = dead business.

Sky News in Aust report false news for a whole day. Other news services - Fox, CNN, CBS, CNBC, BBC - were all reporting the "true" news as based on live statements from those in authority. Sky kept on with the false news - even after telecasting the live statements. I guess it furthered their agenda. Who knows. (shrug)

Michael Ross