The Alexander Technique is Dead, Long Live Alexander's Discovery.

Ramachandran is the neuro-anatomist who successfully amputated a non-existent arm by using nothing more than a $2 cardboard box and a vertical mirror. I’ve written about him previously here. Not only is he wonderfully inventive, he is a harbinger for a new breed of scientist which gives me hope of a path forward to validate Alexander's discovery.

Ramachandran has a wicked sense of humour coupled with a passion for proving the obvious by doing the simple. My kind of scientist! He argues for a very different experimental model that echoes the methodology adopted by Alexander.

Ramachandran writes:

I think it is fair to say that, in neurology, most of the major discoveries that have withstood the test of time were, in fact, based initially on single case studies and demonstrations. More was learned about memory from a few days of studying a patient called H.M. than was gleaned from previous decades of research averaging data on many subjects.*

You demonstrate the principle in one person: your expert subject.

But there’s a one catch: your experimental “subject” must be a credible expert in providing accurate information around the premise you are seeking to validate or disprove.

In Ramachandran’s case, the “expert subject” is a person with damage to a specific area of their brain. Credibility is established by objective means – a CT, MRI, MEG or other modern medical means – to unequivocally establish the precise nature of the subject’s brain injury.

Based on these two components – the subjective feedback of the “expert subjects” and an objective confirmation of their condition – a series of experiments are creatively imagined to prove or disprove a hypothetically predicted model of behaviour.

Can this be adapted as an experimental protocol to test the premise of Alexander’s observations of human behaviour? If so, what is the nature of a credible subject?

This is where is gets really interesting. Little did I know that my business strategy to niche Alexander’s discovery into specialist activities would dovetail with a scientific method to validate the very premise upon which it is based.

Your “expert subjects” must first be individuals who have accomplished mastery in co-ordinating a highly skilled neuro-muscular activity – a concert pianist, an Olympic runner, a 10-dan black belt Aikido master…

You are looking for a Master within a specific niche. I have been meeting, training and encouraging people in that direction for going on 10 years now. Good “subjects” are hard to come by. Don’t hold your breath waiting for all this to pass. I preach hope, not victory.

And it can’t be just any expert, it must be a highly a credible one. As an example: if you wanted to study the affects of meditation on the brain, how convincing would it be to have the Dalai Lama as your subject?

Our expert also needs the ability to implement Alexander's discovery, i.e. they must have expertise in the conscious cognitive processes that this involves. In summary:

First, you need someone who has spent around 10,000 hours developing mastery in a specific activity. OK, that’s around 10 years.

Second, your subject must then be willing to spend $50,000 and a minimum of 4~10 years of their life becoming proficient at integrating Alexander’s discovery within their chosen mastery.

Third, you need a number of these “expert subjects” to build up a body of case studies.

For this series of case studies, each “subject” needs their own set of protocols – based on the specialist activity they perform. These protocols contribute to demonstrating a set of universal principles (construed from Alexander's discovery) that may be shown to be consistent across all subjects.

A subject’s “subjective” data is linked with relevant “objective” feedback mechanisms that validate their experiences. A credible result emerges that becomes more robust as each new “subject” is taken through the same process. This is the science of “Psycho-physics”.

Ramachandran’s point is that scientific breakthroughs in our understanding of neurological function can be demonstrated through just one case. With the caveat of neuro-plasticity, we are more similar than we are different.

No two arms are the same, yet we are all designed to have two of them. They originate from the from the same blueprint, and our brain is no different. If you can conclusively prove in one case, by implication it is true in every case. That is how the patient HM so quickly advanced our understanding of memory.

Thinking of Alexander’s own process of discovery, can we have any doubts about this premise?

However, what I had failed to recognise was that this insight could function to validate Alexander's discovery by the rigorous standards of scientific research.

No need for millions of dollars and hundreds of people – and thank you anyway Mr Little – just one person will do, a baker’s dozen at most.

Invigorating idea isn’t it?

***

This is an underlying thought that motivates my own urgency in taking Alexander's discovery into the niches. The riches are in the niches, but in this case – scientific enrichment. And it doesn’t stop there…

This is also how we create compelling narratives. This is how we demonstrate the transformative qualities of Alexander's discovery – we do it within cohesive industries.

In as much as I have argued above that this process may move the scientific community, the argument holds true within a niched community. Indeed, I would argue it’s effect is has greater influence, as the standard you must meet has less rigor and restriction.

This is our future. This is how I see our work wiggling out of the vice grip that has had us stumbling about on the edges of mainstream science for a century, still counting.

One niche at a time.

One community at a time.

You start fielding expert “subjects”, and amass overwhelming evidence for the veracity of your work. Teachers can recognise how they will amplify their own credibility through teaching in a niche. This opens doors, the leads to an expanded field of attention – not a narrower one as many still believe…

When you do, you serve your whole community by accelerating the credibility of Alexander's discovery within your community of “experts”. And you have a much better prospect of being able to earn a reasonable income.

You begin by discovering a niche that you are happy to pursue, then commence building your community. Over time you become a recognised expert “subject” and by degrees have a small hand in moving the world closer to adopting the seismic adaptations that Alexander's discovery implies.

I will be in London later this month taching about this very thing. I have two one day workshops on Jan 30th (teaching groups for a niche) and Feb 6th (choosing, building and sustaining your niche). A large group of teachers and trainees will meet together on Friday evening Jan 29th.

My workshops tool you up to enter into this blossoming new movement. It is part of the ATSuccess London Symposium on Building A Successful Practise.

I hope I see you there!

*quoted from Phantoms In The Brain by V.S. Ramachandran, M.D., Ph. D and Sandra Blakeslee, Preface, xiii.