The Lost Art Of Writing

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

>Faulty premise. The above is true only during the skills acquisition stage of learning. As anyone >who ever learned to type would tell you, you don't learn to type t-h-e, you learn to type "the."

 

I type 80+ words per minute, and experience each keystroke as separate: in other words, I decidedly do type "t-h-e."(I simply have learned to do it very fast — but must do it consciously: how much soever I practice anything fine-motor, it never gets unconscious.) This may partly reflect the fact that I'm neurologically below average, in ways that affect motor patterns ... but then, by definition 50% of any group is below average on whatever's being measured. (Surely that 50% is not to be left without a reasonable means of handwriting ... )

 

For me — as for many whom I've had to teach —, there is simply no such thing as experiencing an automatized unconscious "gestalt" of voluntary motor sequences, no matter how one trains: the motions must be planned, and planned so that they'll be accident-resistant and can therefore be CONSCIOUSLY sped up without bad results

 ... Even for you more fortunate folks whose neurology works as the textbooks say it should, a decision that was made unconsciously (as in automatized habit) is still a decision that is MADE -- the path taken by the pen from the end of one letter to the beginning of the next is the same path whether it is traversed consciously or otherwise. (When a dog or horse follows a familiar route home, the route has the same twists and turns irrespective of the animal's state of consciouness at the time.) Unconscious, habitual decisions are still decisions.

 

Re:

 

>Learned physical actions are not transmitted to muscles item by item" ...

...

Except for those of us who find perforce that, with some tasks, they ARE. To get any automaticity at all in joining out of b/o/v/w (or in other elements of joining within writing), my practice had to aim at the simplest and most invariant method of producing the letters that these joins would aim toward and into.

"The toad beneath the harrow knows

Exactly where each tooth-point goes —

The butterfly above the road

Preaches contentment to the toad." — Kipling

(Or in your case, you are a butterfly preaching the glories of flight.)

 

Re:

> ... unless you are doing a drawn hand,

 

I write by hand at 130-160 legible letters per minute; I'll leave it to you to decide if that's so slow as to be "drawn," or if it reveals undue conern with nything but writing legibly at a practical rate.

 

Re:

 

> At this point the inherent physical efficiencies of cursive would win out.

 

... Except that, for many of us, they don't.

Certain joins are indeed faster than pen-lifts — certain others, though, are slower than lifting the pen where the join would otherwise occur. Using the former, and avoiding only the latter (which is what I do, rather than "print" as it seems you've assumed) is at least as fast as using the slow joins right along with the fat ones.

 

Re:

>It is not necessary to know the meaning of "Mxyzptlk" to learn how to write it as a one or two gestures, rather than 8.

 

Writing that series of letters, or any other series of comparable length, requires far more than 8 gestures whether you are conscious of the fact or not. Using just 1or 2 gestures would produce just a scrawl — which I am sure you do not produce.

I promise, though, to search out and read Dr. Libet's work. Meanwhile, please explain to me how a decision made by the unconscious parts of the nervous system (either before, or after, some form of habit-training is given to it) is anything other than a decision nonetheless.

 

Re:

>My cursive certainly does have gaps here and there (pen lifts) and from a straw poll of those around me today, I imagine that the vast majority of cursive user's ordinary daily writing does so too. ... Because my script has lifts, would this disqualify it as cursive to anyone?

 

In the USA (unlike most other English-speaking nations), one normally is told that writing with pen-lifts isn't cursive and therefore is wrong if the instrutios are to use cursive — there is simply no name in common use, in the USA, for semi-joined writing: it's all lumped together with printing (as if joining sometimes, or often, equaled never joining & should therefore be forbidden if the aim is to write in cursive ...)

 

Re:

 

>>Re the question of speed -- when I observe cursive writing and other writing >>(done at the same size and by people of similar ages and with a similar length >>of study/experience as hand writers), the non-users of cursive generally write >>about 1.5 times as fast as equally legible cursive users.

 

... and ...

 

>I imagine that must be just a matter of practice, no? 

 

— I am speaking of situations where the amount of teaching/practice had been documentably similar across styles.

[KateGladstone]

Re:

 

>Faulty premise. The above is true only during the skills acquisition stage of learning. As anyone >who ever learned to type would tell you, you don't learn to type t-h-e, you learn to type "the."

 

I type 80+ words per minute, and experience each keystroke as separate: in other words, I decidedly do type "t-h-e."(I simply have learned to do it very fast — but must do it consciously: how much soever I practice anything fine-motor, it never gets unconscious.) This may partly reflect the fact that I'm neurologically below average, in ways that affect motor patterns ... but then, by definition 50% of any group is below average on whatever's being measured. (Surely that 50% is not to be left without a reasonable means of handwriting ... )

 

For me — as for many whom I've had to teach —, there is simply no such thing as experiencing an automatized unconscious "gestalt" of voluntary motor sequences, no matter how one trains: the motions must be planned, and planned so that they'll be accident-resistant and can therefore be CONSCIOUSLY sped up without bad results

 ... Even for you more fortunate folks whose neurology works as the textbooks say it should, a decision that was made unconsciously (as in automatized habit) is still a decision that is MADE -- the path taken by the pen from the end of one letter to the beginning of the next is the same path whether it is traversed consciously or otherwise. (When a dog or horse follows a familiar route home, the route has the same twists and turns irrespective of the animal's state of consciouness at the time.) Unconscious, habitual decisions are still decisions.

 

Re:

 

>Learned physical actions are not transmitted to muscles item by item" ...

...

Except for those of us who find perforce that, with some tasks, they ARE. To get any automaticity at all in joining out of b/o/v/w (or in other elements of joining within writing), my practice had to aim at the simplest and most invariant method of producing the letters that these joins would aim toward and into.

"The toad beneath the harrow knows

Exactly where each tooth-point goes —

The butterfly above the road

Preaches contentment to the toad." — Kipling

(Or in your case, you are a butterfly preaching the glories of flight.)

 

Re:

> ... unless you are doing a drawn hand,

 

I write by hand at 130-160 legible letters per minute; I'll leave it to you to decide if that's so slow as to be "drawn," or if it reveals undue conern with nything but writing legibly at a practical rate.

 

Re:

 

> At this point the inherent physical efficiencies of cursive would win out.

 

... Except that, for many of us, they don't.

Certain joins are indeed faster than pen-lifts — certain others, though, are slower than lifting the pen where the join would otherwise occur. Using the former, and avoiding only the latter (which is what I do, rather than "print" as it seems you've assumed) is at least as fast as using the slow joins right along with the fat ones.

 

Re:

>It is not necessary to know the meaning of "Mxyzptlk" to learn how to write it as a one or two gestures, rather than 8.

 

Writing that series of letters, or any other series of comparable length, requires far more than 8 gestures whether you are conscious of the fact or not. Using just 1or 2 gestures would produce just a scrawl — which I am sure you do not produce.

I promise, though, to search out and read Dr. Libet's work. Meanwhile, please explain to me how a decision made by the unconscious parts of the nervous system (either before, or after, some form of habit-training is given to it) is anything other than a decision nonetheless.

 

Re:

>My cursive certainly does have gaps here and there (pen lifts) and from a straw poll of those around me today, I imagine that the vast majority of cursive user's ordinary daily writing does so too. ... Because my script has lifts, would this disqualify it as cursive to anyone?

 

In the USA (unlike most other English-speaking nations), one normally is told that writing with pen-lifts isn't cursive and therefore is wrong if the instrutios are to use cursive — there is simply no name in common use, in the USA, for semi-joined writing: it's all lumped together with printing (as if joining sometimes, or often, equaled never joining & should therefore be forbidden if the aim is to write in cursive ...)

 

Re:

 

>>Re the question of speed -- when I observe cursive writing and other writing >>(done at the same size and by people of similar ages and with a similar length >>of study/experience as hand writers), the non-users of cursive generally write >>about 1.5 times as fast as equally legible cursive users.

 

... and ...

 

>I imagine that must be just a matter of practice, no? 

 

— I am speaking of situations where the amount of teaching/practice had been documentably similar across styles.

[andru]

Kate you did done double posted there.

 

Anyone have trouble with their quills skipping?

[The Good Captain]

I've noticed a few posts on different forums reappearing after the site went down, sometimes more than once.

Could this be the case here? There was an ink comment about a red/pink colour that comes to mind. It suddenly reappeared yesterday having 'gone' on Sunday or so.

[Nonsensical]

As I was taught to write in cursive during primary school (that, and the fact that I often had to decipher my friend's writing, I was one of the few people who could actually read her cursive, beautiful and even as it was), I am able to read cursive.

 

I write using a mix of cursive and print, and one of my friends is determined to call it cursive, whilst I believe it is mainly print...however, I am not able to write as fast as I would like. I can only achieve perhaps...40 wpm whilst writing? Maybe 50, if I'm lucky(Just tested myself, 190 letters per minute BARELY LEGIBLE THOUGH). Typing, on the other hand, 90wpm easily (500+ letters), and a maximum speed of 110wpm when I'm concentrating(and very lucky). Different times call for different measures. :roflmho:

 

I do, however see the need for people to learn to read cursive, however strange an idea that is to most high school students these days. At my University, I have yet to come across a single person who writes using cursive, yet 20% of the students take notes using a laptop...it is a dying art. :ph34r:

Edited June 2, 2011 by Nonsensical

[Mickey]

  On 6/2/2011 at 7:57 AM, KateGladstone said:

Re:

 

>Faulty premise. The above is true only during the skills acquisition stage of learning. As anyone >who ever learned to type would tell you, you don't learn to type t-h-e, you learn to type "the."

 

I type 80+ words per minute, and experience each keystroke as separate: in other words, I decidedly do type "t-h-e."(I simply have learned to do it very fast — but must do it consciously: how much soever I practice anything fine-motor, it never gets unconscious.) This may partly reflect the fact that I'm neurologically below average, in ways that affect motor patterns ... but then, by definition 50% of any group is below average on whatever's being measured. (Surely that 50% is not to be left without a reasonable means of handwriting ... )

 

 

You didn't follow my suggestion and do any reading in neurophysiology, kinesiology, and consciousness, did you? What you experience is fairly irrelevant to how your body executes routine activities. Perception of events lags between 1/8 and 1/4 of a second behind the actual event. So it's quite possible for you to "experience each keystroke individually" without actually propagating the nerve impulse responsible for them in the same manner. There is also a profound difference between perceiving pulses and discriminating one pulse from another.

 

Here's a thought experiment for you. Look at the paragraph above and read each character individually. Don't worry about recognizing words or discerning meaning, just recognize each individual character. Time yourself and I believe you will see that your kinesthetic / neurological model is faulty.

 

The whole point of practice is to organize (canalize) individual nerve impulse into groups of impulses, gestures, if you will, which in turn can be fused into more complex gestures. Under your understanding of kinesiology and neurology, this doesn't happen and there is no point in practice.

 

Sorry, the premise still falls.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Mickey

[Nonsensical]

  On 6/2/2011 at 1:57 PM, Mickey said:

.....

Perception of events lags between 1/8 and 1/4 of a second behind the actual event. So it's quite possible for you to "experience each keystroke individually" without actually propagating the nerve impulse responsible for them in the same manner. There is also a profound difference between perceiving pulses and discriminating one pulse from another.

I'm inclined to agree with you on this point, as it takes time for the brain to send the signal to our muscles, and then for the sensory neurons to send the signal back to the brain...

That and experience tells me that whilst typing (I do not look at the keyboard when typing, nor do I touch type), that 90% of the time I will hit the right key, 9% of the time I will realise that I have hit the wrong key immediately, and correct myself, and the last 1%, well I AM human. :roflmho:

[KateGladstone]

To Mickey -- I frequently read books on the subjects you mention (have done so throughout the decadesnof my interet in handwriting) and am always happy to add to my reading list in those subjects. Since my limitations do not affect reading, only motor planning of the type used in handwriting and some other skills, the fact that I read as anyone ele does isn't germane. (Analogy: a deaf man may have perfect vision — this does not disprove the fact that he is still deaf.)

[KateGladstone]

Re practice -- my experience is that practice improves some things, fails to improve others, and worsens still others. At school, I had to be removed from certain exercises and other activities in gym class because it became glaringly evident that my hard work and prolonged practice on certain of the " simple" tasks such as jumping rope or throwing/catching a ball had no result except to make my performance even less fluent over time. No MD (then or later) found anything to explain why, though they easily confirmed that this was and is the case ... Mickey, since you are expert on neurology, have you any idea what was going on and how it fits within your premises?

[KateGladstone]

Re reading cursive -- this remains vital, and fortunately can be taught (in an hour or, usually, less time) to anyone who can read (whether or not he can write at all: I have taught five-year-olds who could read ordinary type to read cursive as well).In my experience and observation, the quickest way to teach anyone to read cursive is to demonstrate for the student how each cursive letter-form originated from an earlier and simpler version that the student can already read: e.g., how the 2-shaped cursive capital Q originated from a one-stroke version of the Q that the student is already familiar with.

[Mickey]

  On 6/2/2011 at 8:48 PM, KateGladstone said:

Re practice -- my experience is that practice improves some things, fails to improve others, and worsens still others. At school, I had to be removed from certain exercises and other activities in gym class because it became glaringly evident that my hard work and prolonged practice on certain of the " simple" tasks such as jumping rope or throwing/catching a ball had no result except to make my performance even less fluent over time. No MD (then or later) found anything to explain why, though they easily confirmed that this was and is the case ... Mickey, since you are expert on neurology, have you any idea what was going on and how it fits within your premises?

 

Not an expert in neurology, generally, just well read in areas germane to my former profession. As luck would have it, the same issues apply to many other activities, such as writing. You might enjoy reading about Benjamin Libet's work. I've supplied a link to an overview article.

 

http://www.conscious...s.com/libet.htm

 

The article does go rather over board discussing possible implications, but the main thing I wanted to point out was the temporal overhead accrued by direct control of even fairly simple activities, the compensation for which had to be built into his experiments. Put simply, our conscious perception of activities or events, even those we initiate ourselves, occur a substantial interval after the events or activities themselves.

 

Added: the point of my thought experiment was to point out the overhead in dealing with complex objects, such as words, by their component parts rather than as gestalts.

Edited June 2, 2011 by Mickey

[Chevalier]

Copying instantly what we see is one of the natural human skills. Doing something, and watching somebody doing the same thing, activates the same areas in the brain. Everything beyond that point is practice, used to refine the skills we aquired. They should indeed become subconcious, granted enough time, to repeat it often enough, to internalize it completely. We aren't conciously aware of most skills we have.

 

I spupoes you aer albe to reda tihs. Tihs is a sbucnoicuos wrko of yuor brian arleayd. We think we are reading words on a concious level, but this isn't true. Our brain is "compressing" the data, just like it does when it comes to remembering faces. Most people slow themselves down when it comes to reading and writing, but this isn't necessary. We don't need to read every letter, not even a single word. The "speaking in mind" (subvocalization) is an acquired behaviour, that helps during the learning period. There are tons of material about "speed reading" (I hate this term), too much to mention here.

 

You see, we are constantly underestimating the abilities of our brain. The tricky part is ... there's only one way to bring out the true potential of our brain, we need to stimulate it constantly. Not learning something we could is a plain sin (and pretty much self-punishment).

[KateGladstone]

To Mickey — I promise to keep reading your letter and the article until I understand them and see what implications (if any) these have for handwriting.To Chevalier, re "I spupoes you aer ... " — you've left me confused. I wish you'd type more carefully, or use a spell-checker.

[beak]

Poeple relaly shuold teka mroe crae, btoh with tyipng and redaing. :hmm1:

Edited June 4, 2011 by beak

[The penner]

A month or so ago I was called to give a witness account of some violent occurences in my school. The big cheese said that I was 'one of the last people alive that knows how to write.' It really is one of the best compliments you can get

[ckpj99]

Neurological debates aside, I think this "dying art" thing is more symptomatic of generational changes in culture. (Some study neurology, some study anthropology, lol).

 

I consider myself a tweener at the current moment. I'm 27, so the beginning of my education was before computers, but I had the internet in my house by the time I was 15.

 

I was required to write in cursive until 6th grade, when after years of intense battling, my teacher just said "Listen, seriously, write in print. Your cursive is terrible. I can't read it." I just never got it, and I LOVED (and still love) to write... with pens... by hand.

 

Now on to main point, the trend in the current generation to not "waste time" with things that "they can google," and the like is on one hand completely ridiculous and on the other hand totally understandable.

 

The reason for this, I believe, is two-fold. 1) Everyone gets a trophy, 2) Nothing is guaranteed

 

1) The generation of kids coming up through school now (and even somewhat my generation) gets graded on effort and great lengths are taken not to hurt their self esteem. I hate to say, but if you're a crappy writer, your best efforts are still NOT GOOD. That's just how life works. You can work extra hard at things to make it passable, but that doesn't make you a good writer. When I was in 6th grade, the lowest grade you could possibly get was a 60%. It was an F, but if didn't turn something in, you only got a 60%. If you took a test and got every question wrong = 60%. This was done as a self-esteem building exercise, and too help lazy kids who just didn't do homework pass school. Kids are no longer trained told they aren't good at certain things. Therefore they're not taught to work extra hard at something just to get through it. That's the dying art, not handwriting, not holding the door for ladies, not handling a slide rule.

 

2) On the other hand, 30 years ago things were different. If you graduated high school and then went on to finish college, chances were EXTREMELY high that you would lead a relatively successful life. That is no longer the case. The first point is education expenses. Over the last 30 years, average incomes have increase 80%, but average cost of an average college education has increase 400%. (I forget the exact time period but it was close to 30 years). So you better be damn sure you can get a job once you're out of school. I think that this uncertainty is effecting how teenagers are looking at education. Why would they want to spend their time learning cursive when they know without ANY uncertainty that their cursive will not lead to a job. How many cursive teachers do you know? Of course, you can make arguments about cursive stimulating different parts of the brain and helping with fine motor skills, but those aren't arguments any teenager from any era would listen to.

 

Both of these elements converge to make for some troubling issues, but take solace in this: your grandparents thought your generation sucked, too.

 

On an unrelated note, I'm far more concerned about the quality of writing of high school students these days. I've edited papers for some students in ADVANCED writing classes, and they are horrible. I'm sure there are some standouts, but all the ones I've seen are supremely and unequivocally (bleep). I don't care if your handwriting is bad, but don't make read a paragraph with three sentences that all say the exact same thing three different ways.

 

And finally, for my last point, I'd like to say that mass media, popular culture and the dreaded television have exponentially less to do with how a child thinks and act than how their parents raise them. Parents are so afraid of their kid "not fitting in" or getting made fun of, that they LET them and ENCOURAGE them to consume all the same (bleep) media as the general populations. I've heard even parents say "I don't want my kid to be a nerd." And more importantly, let's not forget that KIDS DON'T SPEND MONEY, parents do. In the U.S., we live in capitalist society. Your dollars hold just as much as weight as your ballot.

 

So basically, if your a parent currently raising kids, it's your generation's fault. And if your of grandparenting age, you were probably too hard on your kids which made them be too soft of their kids. LOL

[KateGladstone]

  On 6/4/2011 at 12:51 AM, beak said:

<br />Poeple relaly shuold teka mroe crae, btoh with tyipng <i>and redaing</i>. <img src='https://www.fountainpennetwork.com/forum/public/style_emoticons/default/hmm1.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt=':hmm1:' /><br />

<br /><br /><br />

 

I don't understand, Beak. Seeing some of the messages here, I am seriously worried that I may have quietly suffered a left-hemisphere stroke interfering with my language ability ... Except that my own typing looks all right (unless maybe that's just some stroke-induced hallucination on my part? Should I be dialing the medics or 911?)

[KateGladstone]

For what it's worth, I similarly have been told I'm "probably the only person in the building who knows how to write." This was at the check-in deck of a Miami hotel shortly after Hurricane Katrina: they had re-opened for business, but their computer was still down, so they had resorted to doing check-ins the old-fashioned way with a great big ledger.

[KateGladstone]

Kids DO spend money -- lots of it, often given to them by their parents ...

[Nonsensical]

  On 6/4/2011 at 2:51 AM, KateGladstone said:

I don't understand, Beak. Seeing some of the messages here, I am seriously worried that I may have quietly suffered a left-hemisphere stroke interfering with my language ability ... Except that my own typing looks all right (unless maybe that's just some stroke-induced hallucination on my part? Should I be dialing the medics or 911?)

In response to your query...this follow paragraph has been floating around for some time...on the internet, ofc.

 

Take a look at this paragraph. Can you read what it says? All the letters have been jumbled (mixed). Only the first and last letter of ecah word is in the right place:

 

I cnduo't bvleiee taht I culod aulaclty uesdtannrd waht I was rdnaieg. Unisg the icndeblire pweor of the hmuan mnid, aocdcrnig to rseecrah at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mttaer in waht oderr the lterets in a wrod are, the olny irpoamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rhgit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whoutit a pboerlm. Tihs is bucseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey ltteer by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Aaznmig, huh? Yaeh and I awlyas tghhuot slelinpg was ipmorantt! See if yuor fdreins can raed tihs too.

 

What is being said is this: Our brain recognises the words as a whole. I am quite sure that you are perfectly able to understand the paragraph, with perhaps a little more effort than it would usually take, but not exactly strenuous brain activity.

 

  On 6/4/2011 at 2:46 AM, ckpj99 said:

The reason for this, I believe, is two-fold. 1) Everyone gets a trophy, 2) Nothing is guaranteed

 

1) The generation of kids coming up through school now (and even somewhat my generation) gets graded on effort and great lengths are taken not to hurt their self esteem. I hate to say, but if you're a crappy writer, your best efforts are still NOT GOOD. That's just how life works. You can work extra hard at things to make it passable, but that doesn't make you a good writer. When I was in 6th grade, the lowest grade you could possibly get was a 60%. It was an F, but if didn't turn something in, you only got a 60%. If you took a test and got every question wrong = 60%. This was done as a self-esteem building exercise, and too help lazy kids who just didn't do homework pass school. Kids are no longer trained told they aren't good at certain things. Therefore they're not taught to work extra hard at something just to get through it. That's the dying art, not handwriting, not holding the door for ladies, not handling a slide rule.

 

2) On the other hand, 30 years ago things were different. If you graduated high school and then went on to finish college, chances were EXTREMELY high that you would lead a relatively successful life. That is no longer the case. The first point is education expenses. Over the last 30 years, average incomes have increase 80%, but average cost of an average college education has increase 400%. (I forget the exact time period but it was close to 30 years). So you better be damn sure you can get a job once you're out of school. I think that this uncertainty is effecting how teenagers are looking at education. Why would they want to spend their time learning cursive when they know without ANY uncertainty that their cursive will not lead to a job. How many cursive teachers do you know? Of course, you can make arguments about cursive stimulating different parts of the brain and helping with fine motor skills, but those aren't arguments any teenager from any era would listen to.

 

Both of these elements converge to make for some troubling issues, but take solace in this: your grandparents thought your generation sucked, too.

 

On an unrelated note, I'm far more concerned about the quality of writing of high school students these days. I've edited papers for some students in ADVANCED writing classes, and they are horrible. I'm sure there are some standouts, but all the ones I've seen are supremely and unequivocally (bleep). I don't care if your handwriting is bad, but don't make read a paragraph with three sentences that all say the exact same thing three different ways.

 

And finally, for my last point, I'd like to say that mass media, popular culture and the dreaded television have exponentially less to do with how a child thinks and act than how their parents raise them. Parents are so afraid of their kid "not fitting in" or getting made fun of, that they LET them and ENCOURAGE them to consume all the same (bleep) media as the general populations. I've heard even parents say "I don't want my kid to be a nerd." And more importantly, let's not forget that KIDS DON'T SPEND MONEY, parents do. In the U.S., we live in capitalist society. Your dollars hold just as much as weight as your ballot.

 

So basically, if your a parent currently raising kids, it's your generation's fault. And if your of grandparenting age, you were probably too hard on your kids which made them be too soft of their kids. LOL

 

Gee...I'm starting to rethink my plan to study a postgraduate degree in America...Not that I'll have any money, with the $45k debt I'll have once I finally graduate from University.

 

Sadly, my parents are asian, so in their opinion, it is a given that I should be a nerd. If only I loved studying. :bonk:

Edited June 4, 2011 by Nonsensical