This is what physical education was supposed to be about. Unfortunately, it's turned into, at best, an incompetent teacher with a whistle shouting at kids, or, at worst, disappeared altogether. I think we, as a society, are missing out on something pretty big.
I'm really reaching here, but I'm pretty sure that idea goes back to Plato, if not even earlier.
Can we possibly look on this as a liberal accomplishment for the youth of Rome, whom our ancestors trained to stand up straight and throw a javelin, to toss the caber, and manage a horse, and handle weapons? They never used to teach their children anything that could be learned in a reclining posture.
Apparently there is such a thing as PE history: http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dap...
(Ya, I'm surprised too)
"Good genes may account for some of the differences in ability, but even the most genetically well-endowed prodigy clearly needs practice—lots of it—to develop the brain of an athlete. As soon as someone starts to practice a new sport, his brain begins to change, and the changes continue for years."
Another example, with one of the most hilarious pieces of commentary I've ever heard:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EW2d-QrnFgA
An (unscientific) study was conducted by one of the UK Sunday newspapers a few years back regarding footballers (soccer players) intellect. The conclusion was that the reason some players are so gifted on the pitch is that they are quite, ah, dense off it. Reading some quotes from some famous players seemed to back that theory up.
Just a theory, as I have no evidence besides my own experience.
This is the second time this week I've seen something about neuroscience moving from correlation to causation. I can't remember where I saw the other one but it had to do with people making different moral judgments when certain brain regions were stimulated
I think the article's speculation on doping athletes (and perhaps other learners) with electrical stimulation is quite valid... The article links to the research paper, which lists the exact device and method used, and it looks to be cheap, widely available, unregulated, non-invasive, and undetectable. I wonder if there are any long-term side effects?
The tests revealed the fact that Ruth is 90 per cent efficient compared with a human average of 60 per cent.
That his eyes are about 12 per cent faster than those of the average human being.
That his ears function at least 10 per cent faster than those of the ordinary man. That his nerves are steadier than those of 499 out of 500 persons.
That in attention and quickness of perception he rated one and a half times above the human average.
That in intelligence, as demonstrated by the quickness and accuracy of understanding, he is approximately 10 per cent above normal."
Popular Science, 1921
http://www.popsci.com/scitech/article/2006-10/archive-why-ba...
That's an extreme case, but we kind of take it for granted when we simply call this coordination. Coordination is thought of as a physical skill, not necessarily a mental one. But it would be a pretty tough problem to fully model with a pencil and paper.
