This is an interesting paper coming out from HBR about the “science of learning”. The conflict of interest isn’t mentioned here so I am assuming it is likely to a “plant”. However, I am not missing the woods for the trees.
This also has implications in medical training where emulation is encouraged rather than thinking. Emulation does ensure the “safety” of the patients but leads to a restrictive mindset where you can’t question the thought process behind the established “rationale”. For example, why do we persist with the “standard fractionation” as we call it anyway? What leads to a breakthrough in fractionation schema, ultimately.
Notice the hash tags in the introduction? Well, that’s for better discovery on Twitter. Happy Reading!
This general property of our brains implies that if we want people to learn something, we should induce them to focus on it and consider its nature and implications. There are many ways to accomplish this, which grow out of specific principles of learning that reflect particular ways to focus on and process information. For example, one is called the Principle of Desirable Difficulty, which states that people learn best when challenged not so much so that they get frustrated, and not so little that they are bored — but rather at just the right level, the so-called “Goldilocks Spot.” Getting people to the Goldilocks Spot means that we induce them to pay attention and process as much as they can, thereby enhancing the amount of learning.
But here’s a problem: What counts as the “just right” level of challenge differs for different people. What’s too hard for Sam may be too easy for Sally. And it’s worse than that: What counts as the right level varies for the same person, depending on the subject matter — in general, the more you know about something, the more difficult the material can be before you are challenged beyond your capacity to process effectively.