Shh Tract

[ctrl y]

The short version is that someone on the internet suggests you skim expert-level textbooks for thirty minutes a day, as quickly as you are able, while blinking several times a second and saying "shh." The idea is that you will forget all of the words, but your "Conceptual Structure" will retain all of the information in wordless form. He claims you will begin to have deep insights at random. The long version is at this link: http://www.shhtract.com/

For some reason, this claim does not seem absolutely insane to me. I'd like anyone who knows something relevant to help me evaluate it. Has anyone tried this? Does anyone know anything about psychology that would tend to cast doubt on it or confirm it? Finally, does anyone buy it?

Thank you.

Edited June 19, 2009 by ctrl y

[Jill]

Shhh!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

The short version is that someone on the internet suggests you skim expert-level textbooks for thirty minutes a day, as quickly as you are able, while blinking several times a second and saying "shh." The idea is that you will forget all of the words, but your "Conceptual Structure" will retain all of the information in wordless form.

I think it is possible to "upload" information into one's subconscious, as he is suggesting, but that it isn't knowledge until one can bring it under conscious control. In other words, yes the words will be in there, because your mind will "absorb" things on the subconscious level, but it is not the same thing as understanding something rationally. You pick up on things all the time on the subconscious level, because that is what the subconscious is for -- it's an integrating mechanism for experience. But of what use is it to have all that data inputted onto one's hard drive if one cannot figure out how to access it on the conscious level? It needs to be thought through and rationally integrated for it to be knowledge.

[Eiuol]

"Continue reading and ignore the fact that the idea apparently did not "register";"

I actually do this. At the time when I'm reading the words, I definitely process them and make sense of them, sometimes slowing down a little. But overall I read at the same pace, even when something is a little confusing. I read the Romantic Manifesto in this manner. The only thing I can quote is the definition of art. I have an idea of everything it was saying in my own words, not "Rand was saying X". This is just like part 3 is explaining. An explicit understanding of the arguments employed is not always necessary to understand new things. If you understand the essential information and the essential conclusions, you'll be fine. And this is possible even without full, undivided focus.

edit:

However, this sort of reading style requires "learning by doing". Since your understanding is not based on explicit understanding and notes that you take, concepts may be loosely integrated and you might only have a notion of what you read. It is likely to only be a floating abstraction. Thus you need to actually put the concepts to use in order to connect them to reality. If you read RM like I did (since I'm very art/creative oriented), but your profession is mathematician, you won't have the same understanding that I do. You'd have to use a different reading technique.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Eiuol

[eficazpensador]

This sounds like B.S. to me. How can you learn any subject if you've learned it in wordless form? How do you bring it to your consciousness if it's wordless. Besides, I've found that to understand tough subjects like physics requires me to read slowly and explicitly integrate the ideas I'm reading.

[Eiuol]

How can you learn any subject if you've learned it in wordless form?

Just like anything else you learn in wordless form (like: how to ride a bike). Since books contain information only as words, you only need to be able to process/focus on the words. You don't necessarily have to integrate the information on the spot. I think this is what the author was beginning his thinking from. The author doesn't think it's advisable to focus on any of the words, nor does he even offer anecdotal evidence.

[eficazpensador]

Just like anything else you learn in wordless form (like: how to ride a bike). Since books contain information only as words, you only need to be able to process/focus on the words. You don't necessarily have to integrate the information on the spot.

Riding your bike is a physical action. How would you learn from a history book using this method? The history would simply be stored in your subconscious in wordless form? Of what use is that?

Look, I'm no master of epistemology but this stinks to high heaven. A method of learning that doesn't require thinking is B.S.

[ctrl y]

I think it is possible to "upload" information into one's subconscious, as he is suggesting, but that it isn't knowledge until one can bring it under conscious control. In other words, yes the words will be in there, because your mind will "absorb" things on the subconscious level, but it is not the same thing as understanding something rationally. You pick up on things all the time on the subconscious level, because that is what the subconscious is for -- it's an integrating mechanism for experience. But of what use is it to have all that data inputted onto one's hard drive if one cannot figure out how to access it on the conscious level? It needs to be thought through and rationally integrated for it to be knowledge.

To be clear, he is specifically saying that the words will *not* be there. Just the concepts. That's actually a criticism I have of this: if I'm not processing the words, by what means am I getting the concepts?

The whole thing sounds like mysticism cast in Objectivistesque terminology. After all, isn't that their dream? An effortless form of knowledge that transcends language?

And it bothers me that the author does not actually demonstrate knowledge of much outside of Ayn Rand's books. He says that he has been very into this method since college, to the point that he dropped out of a class to explore it better. Could his reliance on this method have stunted his intellectual development?

Still, a priori arguments aside, general policies on the arbitrary aside, I wish there was good evidence one way or the other.

Edited June 21, 2009 by ctrl y

[Eiuol]

Riding your bike is a physical action. How would you learn from a history book using this method? The history would simply be stored in your subconscious in wordless form? Of what use is that?

As clarification, the author does not demonstrate much knowledge about the process of learning anything and seems to prove his ideas with mysticism rather than reason. I disagree with about 90% of what was written.

Riding a bike is a physical action, but most people learn to do it in a wordless form. It would be mechanical learning (learning by doing, to be more specific). You hold concepts in your mind, even if at the time you can't say what the concepts are. Can a similar thing happen when reading? I think so. It is certainly possible to read words before you fully analyze a sentence. I suspect the brain is powerful enough to process written word and form concepts before you have become aware that you formed a concept. If you come across a sentence and say "hmm I should think about that", you don't have to stop and think until you can explicitly integrate the facts. However, that alone is not enough to learn something. Trying to ignore, trying to not focus, as the author suggests, will not aid learning at all. You must use the information that you've read in some relevant way if you read in the manner I suggested (like I mentioned in my first post).

[brian0918]

Riding a bike is a physical action, but most people learn to do it in a wordless form. It would be mechanical learning (learning by doing, to be more specific).

That's exactly the point - you're equivocating on the word "learn".

You hold concepts in your mind, even if at the time you can't say what the concepts are.

What "concepts" am I holding in my mind when I learn to ride a bike? Name them. When I learn how to balance on a beam, what concepts am I holding in my mind? Does it change anything to find out that much of this "learning" occurs in the spine, and not in the brain?

Edited June 22, 2009 by brian0918

[Eiuol]

That's exactly the point - you're equivocating on the word "learn".

What "concepts" am I holding in my mind when I learn to ride a bike? Name them. When I learn how to balance on a beam, what concepts am I holding in my mind? Does it change anything to find out that much of this "learning" occurs in the spine, and not in the brain?

I'm not sure what else I'd call it besides learning. Obviously, no one is born with the ability to ride a bike. How else would you acquire the ability besides learning? Unless you mean to say it isn't explicitly integrating concepts, then I do understand what you mean. When I say "learn to ride a bike", I mean techniques of better bike riding, techniques that a kid would develop rather than professional. Whatever a person isn't simply able to do (keeping balance is something you're born with the ability to do). You'd quickly discover how speed can affect balance, or how faster pedaling makes everything else faster. I'm not exactly sure how those wouldn't be concepts. These concepts would more than likely be understood first in wordless form. That does not mean it cannot be put into word form. Maybe a better way to clarify my meaning is "learning through personal experience and action"

Edited June 22, 2009 by Eiuol

[D'kian]

Just curious, does this system works best if performed while standing on one foot and wearing a tin-foil hat? Or is it better to stand on one's head while wearing leaher gloves?

I'm sorry. The thing is, as has been said, that you can retain information in your subconscious, regardless of how that information was acquired. Back in school I'd sometimes read my notes prior to an exam, not memorizing them nor even trying to memorize them, and that was enough studying for most subjects. My subconscious remembered the gist of things. When I play trivia games sometimes I answer questions correctly without knowing quite how it is I know that information. Natually I know it because I came upon it. I read a lot and ahve a decent memory, but I don't try to memorize information randomly. Anyway, I may forget where I read somethign in particualr, but I remember the information. Anything else is window dressing or hoccus-poccus.

So, sure, try reading through a text you don't understand. You'll likely retain some of it. But snapping your fingers while you do it, or saying random words, or standing on your head adds nothing to the process.