So I was disatisfied with my vague description of synapses. Here's a better one:
Quote:
Does learning slow down during the course of your life? The simple answer is yes. It takes significant [biological] resources to forge new synaptic connections—genes have to be turned on, proteins created, synapses fired, blood vessels built—and nature is not in the habit of wasting resources unnecesarily. Consequently, once connections have been forged, your brain is designed to protect these connections by insulating them with a substance called myelin. This protection ensures that you don't have to keep relearning things you've already learned, such as eye-hand coordination or the name of your mother. But this myelin coating is not without its costs. It actively hinders synaptic growth. This is why a very young monkey, whose left eye has been covered with a patch, can regain the use of the covered eye when the patch is removed, but an adult monkey cannot. [I feel for those poor testing monkeys, but I'm making assumptions.] It is also why brain injuries suffered in adulthood prove much more persistent than those suffered in childhood, and why learning a foreign language is much easier at five than it is at thirty-five.
This is not to say that all synaptic connecting stops after adolescence. In a series of famos experiemnts, people who became blind as adults and who had to learn Braille were found to have significant synaptic growth in the areas of their brain dealing with touch and synaptic depleetion in those areas dealing with sight. But it does mean that, when you reach adulthood, your brain is much less malleable than it was in childhood, and therefor that, when it comes to learning, your adult brain will always be looking for the least biologically costly way to forge new connections.
— Page 241–242, The One Thing You Need to Know by Marcus Buckingham.
|
Now my questions would be:
Why does the myelin coating hinder connections?
If it is biologically more cost-effective to build on existing connections, how do the connections actually form? (Or something like that. Marcus implies that it's better to use existing connections, but he doesn't go into detail about why or how new synpases are created without running into the myelin coating issue. I need to know that so I can conceptualise into a mental model.)
Those are things I'd like to look into, just like one day months ago I asked "what is talent? What is a strength? What is the difference between a talent and a strength? What role does personality play in all of this?".
For now, I choose to trust Marcus. I'm sure he's done his research. I've done well using this approach of "give experts who seem to have proven success in their field some credit and trust that what they're saying is accurate in pointing to effectiveness, even if their definitions and the science of it could be improved, and try out things for myself."
Explanations are good, but science is always incomplete. I'm interested in learning more, then considering how it might be possible (but since there's so much to learn, I tend to be busy with the "learning more" part, heh; it's also a better fit for my "input" talent theme). We're always gaining new perspective, and there's a chance that new "territory" is being created every day, so I don't worry too much about having an accurate explanation.
I'm interested in the effectiveness part of this. In general, I'm more interested in finding people who have results, then finding out how they get them, then perhaps trying to figure out the mechanics underneath it. In general though, I prefer to get the results first, then worry about the mechanics.
(This part might appeal to you, Brutha.) All of the Gallup work on talents started by first asking something along the lines of "why are certain teams more effective than others?" After a long study, they noticed certain teams were more engaged (and "engaged" is a term from Marcus Buckingham's language; I'm not using it in the general sense of the word; no need to define it--keep reading), and they learned the source of this engagement came from the fact that they were using their talents.
It'll require far too many words to explain what's actually happening when you're using your talents, but to put it very simply: you're aligning with your biological resources as best you can and making use of them.
Right now, few people make use of them, which is a huge waste of potential. I feel such a strong draw to a utilising potential that I'm very interested in how to do it effectively, holistically, easily, sustainably, and consistently.
Explaining the specific mechanics, while I would like to know them because I like to soak up information (which comes from my Input talent theme), in terms of my Strategic and Maximiser talent themes, it isn't too important to me. (I know those naturally drawn to seeking accuracy will cringe at hearing that, heh.)
Postscript
From taking the StrengthsFinder 2.0 test--a test that really targeted my instinctive draw towards certain themes of behaviour, thought, and feeling, much more than my StrengthsFinder 1.0 test did--I learned that my draw to using potential has to do with my Maximiser talent theme. My Achiever and Activator talent themes aren't helping much, either, heh.
What's I love about my StrengthsFinder 2.0 results is that, prior to the test, I didn't even know that I naturally did this to the degree I did. I knew I was drawn to improvement, but I was so close to the figurative "lens" of my talents that I didn't see how much I was drawn to improvement.
As a rule, you know you've hit on an innate talent when (A) you didn't even realise you were drawn to a certain type of thought, feeling, or behaviour as much as you are, and (B) it blows your mind that other people aren't as interested in something (such as improvement) as you are (which is a sure sign you're working with a talent, since your talent creates that "hidden in plain sight" quality that biases your perspective).
I'm sure this postscript will confuse a bunch of people. It's mostly a nod to those who know the talent theme language of StrengthsFinder, as well as a nudge to those who don't to "learn the language" (which has nothing to do with learning the language, and everything to do with being able to describe your talents and being aware of what your specific talents actually are).