A Bolt from the Blue in Berlin

Under the veil of science and selected research, Dr David Anderson dropped a bombshell into the midst of the Alexander community - and no one noticed.

Clever David.

What is the bombshell?

Well, bear with me because there’s a well-researched and circuitous scientific route to arrive at these common-sense findings. And a caveat: David has nothing to do with my post - I was polite enough to inform him I wrote it - but this is all me, not David.

As always. Get your tomatoes ready to throw…

The Guidance Hypothesis describes how scientists imagine one way we best support motor learning - with or without ‘augmented feedback’ to use their jargon. Who learns new motor skills? Trainees on Alexander Training Courses, of course. 

Have I got your attention now?

Firstly, ‘augmented feedback’ refers to information coming from outside: a teacher or coach. For example, the teacher explains a procedure: using their hands and guiding a trainee towards a specified goal - such as standing up to make a lunge for a chair to do hands-on-back-of-it while whispering an AH and sitting down again. 

Something like that.

Secondly, scientists also refer to a second class of information available for motor learning* as ‘task-intrinsic feedback’ - i.e. you see, hear, experience and touch from your direct knowledge of the process as it occurs. This more aptly describes the process FM put himself through, as Marjory Barlow oft-quoted him saying:

“Anyone can do what I do if they will do what I did, but none of you want to do anything mental.” ±

Because FM mostly utilized task-intrinsic feedback - relying on his mental acuity - I’d wager he understood the Alexander Technique better than us. Anyone want to dispute that? It is a crucial aspect of the Guidance Hypothesis that FM partly succeeded because he relied on very little augmented feedback. 

To put it another way: FM got no ‘hands-on’ from anyone.

However, FM's three mirrors were a form of augmented feedback - because he could not rely on them while performing i.e. they were not task-intrinsic feedback mechanisms. Ironically, this serves to prove the Guidance Hypothesis.

Which sets the scene for David’s concluding remarks [with my cheeky comments in brackets]:

***

“The guidance hypothesis says that you usually need some degree of augmented feedback [hands-on] to guide you towards the goal of the task [standing up from a chair] but too much augmented feedback - or augmented feedback that is too easy to use [put me on the table honey!] - can be detrimental for learning [how did you do that?!] because it develops a dependency [when’s my next lesson?]; 

“Well, the learner develops a dependency on it. 

“They develop a dependency because they haven’t processed critical sources of task-intrinsic feedback [oh yuk, mental work!] that can support performance and so therefore, the augmented feedback becomes an integral part of the task itself [Alexandroids].”

***

Hmm…

David wasn’t done yet, but I will leave you with that to consider, and get back to his Congress presentation later because it gets worse. Or better, depending on your perspective and practices.

Remember folks, this is not some guy in a bar ranting over a beer - this is the science of motor learning.

*Many factors influence motor learning, not simply feedback.

± In Marjory Barlow’s ‘Think more Do less' on page 30. Also, something familiar is mentioned in The annual F.M.Alexander Memorial Lecture given by Marjory Barlow on 9 November 1965 at The Medical Society of London: “Alexander used to say, ‘Everyone must do the real work for themselves. The teacher can show the way, but cannot get inside the pupil’s brain and control his reactions for him. Each person must apply it for himself.’ ”