魔方的故事

大概是在我小学五年级的时候, 大家开始玩魔方，我们家也买了一个。 我和几个小孩折腾了一会, 没搞出什么名堂。我哥摆弄了好一会,  嘿! 弄出一面一样的颜色。后来我也琢磨出来怎么把一面颜色拼出来。 再后来我才知道魔方有一些模式和一些口诀， 按图索骥, 依口诀而行,  就会从一面玩到一面再加一层， 再到加两层, 然后把最上层四个角的颜色搞对, 然后再按照一两个口诀翻十几下, 六面就做好了!  我玩着玩着就把各种模式和口诀都掌握了。 上初中的时候, 我还在课间表演过, 赢得一些男同学的好评 , 女同学似乎对此不感兴趣。

要在当时, 我的简历上一定会在“技能”一栏写上:

“精通玩魔方”。

后来我就不玩魔方了，这样过了二十多年。

几年以前我在一个实习生的桌上又看到了魔方。 我拿起来，似乎不用想, 当年的口诀就在手上. 转啊转，一面, 一层, 两层，那个男实习生露出崇拜的目光。。。 直到最上一层, 嗯, 口诀是什么来着? 我试了几种可能, 好像都不行。我看到周围的女实习生似乎不感兴趣, 那就算了吧。

看来我的简历要改写成:  

“精通玩魔方到第二层”。

后来我想, 把第二层拼好, 我只知道找到某个模式, 按照某个口诀执行即可。 但是我并不了解为什么这个口诀能把第二层拼好, 同时又不打乱第一层的结果。 我更不知道如果在执行中走错了几步， 如何随机应变, 挽回局面。离开了口诀的话, 我只能把魔方的一面拼出来。从这点看来, 我的魔方技能应该是 

 “能够还原一面, 其他看口诀可搞定”。

那我的这真实的“技能”还值得写上简历么? 看样子是上不了台面了,  那什么是“技能”呢?

 

要知道技能, 谁能告诉我技能的反面是什么?  

 

技能的反面

计算机人机交互领域的科学家 Bill Buxton  1995 年的一篇文章提到了 “The Opposite of Skill”:

Before reading on, think for a moment, and tell me what is the opposite of skill? I'll even give you a hint: I'm not looking for "unskilled."

 

The Psychology of Cross Country

Bill Buxton 
 

Introduction

When we hear about the psychology of sport, what generally comes to mind has to do with the mental preparation before a competition. For example, we have all seen books or articles that give techniques on how to "think positive," or how to handle nerves, stress or the excitement that might otherwise have a negative impact on our performance.

What is less known is that there is another area of psychology that can be applied to riding as well. It is known as cognitive psychology. This is the area of psychology concerned with how we think, learn, and solve problems. Understanding some of its basics can provide insights to many of the problems that we encounter in competition. Significantly, we can make use of these insights in adjusting our training regimen so as to avoid those problems in the future.

This article grew out of trying to understand my own riding mistakes (of which there are many). In my non-equestrian life, I am a scientist who studies the problems that people have in learning how to use technologies such as computers, fax machines and photocopiers. My belief is that much of what I observe in my science applies equally to riding.

At this stage, one might as, "How does the process of learning to ride relate to learning a word processor?" At first glance, there is little similarity. But on reflection, what they have in common is that both have to do with the acquisition of a new skill. 
 

Skill and Problem Solving

Riding is a skill. Learning to ride is skill acquisition. But why use such fancy terminology when "learning to ride" seems to do just fine? After all, it is far more down to earth. My main reason is to get a bit of distance from riding per se so that we can concentrate on the learning part.

Generally, if someone tells me they want something, I assume that they know what it is. If you want a bridle, you can probably describe it to me quite clearly. But if you want a skill, can you describe what that means to the same level of detail? Yet isn't that skill at least as important as the bridle? To find out what you do know about skill, let me give you a simple test:

Before reading on, think for a moment, and tell me what is the opposite of skill?

I'll even give you a hint: I'm not looking for "unskilled."

The intended answer is, "problem solving." Now if that was your response, then you probably don't need to read this article. On the other hand, if this seems like a strange reply, then stick around - what follows may be of use to you. 
 

Automatic and Attentive Behaviour

The most important characteristic of any skilled performance, be it equestrian, musical or mathematical, is that it is automatic. That is to say, the person performing the task has done it so many times before that they literally don't have to concentrate on it while doing it. As we shall see even more later, the most important consequence of this is that the mind is therefore freed to concentrate on other things (for example, rather than thinking "are my heels down, eyes up, ...?" the mind is free to think about, "where is the best line to the next jump?").

A good way to test if someone is really skilled at a task is to see if they can do something else at the same time. A favorite example some of riding instructors is to have a student recite something difficult (such as multiplication tables or spelling their name backwards) while going over a jump. This is an excellent test. If the student is skilled at jumping, the mind will be free to focus on the recitation. If not, the two tasks will interfere with one another, and either or both will suffer.

Performing a task in which we are unskilled requires attentive behaviour. We have to think of all of the little steps that it takes to get through the task. Remember when you were unskilled at rising trot? It took all of your concentration to stay balanced and on the horse. It wasn't until this became automatic that your mind was sufficiently freed up to enable you to begin to pay attention to what diagonal you were on. And now, you don't even have to think of your diagonal. It too is automatic. It's your rhythm and pace that you're concentrating on. As skill develops, what previously required attention (and problem solving) now becomes automatic. Thus, the mind is freed so that it can attend to a new set of problems (which themselves will become automatic with practice). 
 

The Power Law of Practice

For me, I think that the most frustrating thing about acquiring a new skill, such as riding, is that I know intellectually what I am supposed to do. I read all the books, magazines and watch the top riders. But when I get on a horse, I just can't put it all together.

This is just a round about way of saying that acquiring any skill is hard. And if there is anything that we know about leaning a new skill, it is that the only way to develop it and keep it is to practice: do it over and over and over again, then do it some more. Recognizing this leads us to one of the keys to a good instructor: someone who can have you do something over an over again while keeping it fresh, interesting and challenging (for you and your horse - who is also acquiring new skills).

Now when I say over and over again, just how many "overs" do I mean? Well, this is expressed in something called the power law of practice. Simply stated, this says that if it takes 2 hours to get one step, it will take 4 hours to get two steps, 8 hours to get three steps, 16 hours to get 4 steps, etc. Of course this is a generalization. The message to take away is that those riders on the Olympic team have put in an unbelievable number of hours, and at that level, every incremental improvement in technique comes at the cost of a large number of hours of practice. 
 

Task Interference, and its Avoidance

"Interference" is the term that I used earlier to describe the cause of any degradation in performance that results from an attempt to perform one task at the same time as another. Interference results when different tasks compete for the same limited resources, or attention, of the brain. Remember, if I'm unskilled at a task, its performance demands attentive problem solving. Consequently, there is likely not enough processing power left to simultaneously perform the additional problem solving required by some other task in which I am also unskilled.

Now let us see how this affects us in an equestrian activity, such as riding a jump on a cross country course. In this case, one could argue that we need to perform at least three different tasks:

1. Basic equitation: Simply put, we need to stay on our horse in a balanced position, while galloping over uneven and unfamiliar terrain.
2. Answer the question demanded each specific jump: In a well designed course, each jump is designed to ask a specific question of the rider - a question whose difficulty is determined by the level of competition.
3. Navigate the course: We need to remember the course and the specific line which we plan to follow, and all of us have made mistakes in this department.

The potential for task interference here is immense. If I am preoccupied with staying on my horse, I won't be prepared to deal with the specific problem of the next jump when I get there. And if I'm not thinking about where I go next while going over the jump (because I'm preoccupied with riding the jump itself), I will be well beyond it before I get my mind back to riding my planned course. And because I consequently found myself off of my planned course after the jump, the problem of adjusting my plan is introduced, which takes my mind off of basic equitation, which means I get to the next jump off balance. And the cycle continues - hopefully without a fall.

After our run we inevitably ask ourselves, "What went wrong? How did that happen? I walked the course. I can handle any of the jumps on their own. And I certainly can canter over that terrain!" Of course, all of that may well be true. But what we seem slow to appreciate is that, psychologically, doing all three together is a very different thing than doing each in isolation. The situation is similar to one that many would-be musicians have encountered: they can sing the lyrics and they can play the accompaniment on guitar, but they can't do the two together. In both cases, the problem is classic task interference. 
 

Practice, Preparation and Speed

"Putting it all together," from the psychological perspective means being sufficiently skilled in each of the tasks that there are sufficient cognitive resources to deal with each without interference. Now there are at least three strategies that can be applied to bring us to this state:

1. Practice: This is the obvious strategy. As we have discussed earlier, practice is the key to skill acquisition, and with skill comes the transition from attentive, demanding problem solving to automatic task performance.

2. Preparation: No matter how skilled we are, the unexpected will inevitably occur. Due to heavy rain, you may find yourself on footing unlike anything you or your horse have ever encountered. You may get a run-out in the middle of a combination where you never expected it. In these, and many similar situations, you are (often suddenly) confronted with an "extra" problem. The psychological danger here is that this "unexpected" problem may make extra cognitive demands which interfere with the performance of other ongoing tasks, and have the knock-on effect of causing additional problems.

The key to minimizing interference in these kinds of circumstances lies in appreciating the difference between unexpected and unplanned! Just because the footing or a runnout is unexpected does not mean that we should not have planned for the eventuality. Despite having a cozy indoor arena, periodically we should school dressage, cross country and stadium outside in the most miserable weather. That way, we are prepared to deal with cold fingers, slippery reins, poor visibility and slick footing when the weather is unexpectedly bad. The resulting practice means more skill and less interference when (not if) these same conditions are encountered in competition.

Likewise, when we unexpectedly get a run-out in the middle of a combination or in some other situation, we can minimize the consequences through preparation. Even though we expect to go clear, we should have a "Plan B" (and "C," "D," ...) for each fence. Each is a planned response to a possible problem that we can anticipate. Some of these plans can be practiced at home, others not. This planning is one of your main tasks in walking a course. If you've done your planning well, then when (again, not if) the "unexpected" happens, you will be ready. You will have fewer problems to solve. Consequently, the interference with other tasks will be reduced and the damage will be contained. You can get on and ride the rest of the course without the knock-on effects that might otherwise occur.

3. Speed: Of all of the things that we can do to improve our performance, perhaps slowing down is the one that gives the most gain for the least pain. All novices have heard variations of this theme before, yet excessive speed is still one of the most common causes for problems that one sees on course. Now notice that I said speed was not the problem, but the cause. What is the underlying psychology?

In the physical world, we are used to describing the performance of machines in terms of how much they can do in a given unit of time. Hence, we say that a car can go so many miles per hour, a motor run at so many revolutions per minute, or a generator provide so many kilowatts per hour. For our purposes, let us think of the brain in the same way. Let us say that our brain can answer X questions (or solve X problems) a minute. Let us further assume that in riding between two jumps, we need to answer Y questions. If I get to the second jump without answering all Y questions, I am likely going to have a problem. I can avoid this easily. By stretching out the time between the two jumps, I buy myself time. I therefore arrive at the second jump with all Y questions answered, and am far less likely to make an error. (Recalling all of the alternate plans for the upcoming fence are, of course, some of the questions that are required during the approach.)

Cross country speeds are normally given in metres per second. Of far more value, from the psychological perspective, would be for us to think of it in questions answered per metre. Because of skill, the expert can answer more questions more rapidly, and therefore safely cover the same distance in a shorter time, but having answered at least the same number of questions over the distance! As novices, our goal should be to match the question answering, not the speed, of the expert. This leads not only to more clean rounds, but safer and more enjoyable rounds as well. 
 

Chronological vs Perceptual Time

In the arithmetic of the physical world and chronological time, if I only answered half of the questions demanded of me between two fences, the conclusion might be that in order to answer them all, I should cut my speed in half (that is, double the amount of time between jumps). Here is the good news: perceptual time does not follow the rules of chronological time. One of the most interesting things about it is that it only takes about 10% more time, to more-or-less double the available problem solving time! Of course, the opposite is also true: if you speed up by only 10%, you run the risk cutting the number of questions that you can answer in half. A speed increase of about 10% comes close to doubling the difficulty and likelihood of error. Cutting speed by 10% about doubles your chances of going clear. Making the right decision here isn't rocket science: a 10% reduction in speed makes a lot of sense. 
 

Summary

We are all problem solving when riding. (If the amount of problem solving is negligible, then we are competing well below our ability and should move up a level or two.) Where we get into trouble is when we become overloaded, and the mental effort of solving one problem makes demands on the mind which cause interference with solving the problems associated with some other task.

Through practice, we can build up our level of skill in as many areas as possible. In so doing, the performance of those tasks will become automatic. Consequently, they will not interfere with problem solving associated with other tasks.

Through preparation we can anticipate the unexpected. In so doing, we can have a prepared "recipe" for each eventuality that might occur at any point on course. By so doing, we eliminate the need to "make up" the recipe on the fly. By reducing the amount of problem solving demanded by unexpected situations, we reduce the amount of task interference compared to what would otherwise result, and therefore reduce the likelihood of knock-on effects. If something happens, we deal with it according to plan, then get on with the rest of our ride.

Finally, by controlling our speed, we buy ourselves time to answer all of the questions demanded from obstacle to obstacle on course. By recognizing that psychological time is not linear, we can take advantage of the fact that it only requires about a 10% slow-down to double the problem solving time available.

Riding is as much a mental as a physical activity. To ride effectively and safely requires an understanding of both of these components. Hopefully this discussion has shed some light on the mental side, and makes it so that the process of solving all of these problems does not interfere with the most important task of them all: enjoying the sport.

---

Bill Buxton is Head, User Interface Research at Aias | Wavefront, a computer graphics company that - among other things - built the tools which were used to create the dinosaurs in the film, Jurassic Park. He is also Chief Scientist for Siicon Graphics Inc., a computer company specializing in computer graphics systems, and a professor of Computer Science at the University of Toronto. His specialty is the human aspects of technology. He recently began competing at the preliminary level on his 8 year old buckskin clyde/thoroughbred mare, Matinee Performance, and is coached by Ian Roberts and Kelly Plitz of Dreamcrest Equestrian in Port Perry, Ont. 
  

 

Bill 说技能的反面是  ”Problem Solving”  – “解决问题”, 这个听起来有点绕， 我们看看IT 人士熟悉的一个例子吧。  一个IT 专业的大学生来面试,  简历上写 “技能:  精通 Visual Studio C# 编程”。 于是面试官请他实际用VS IDE 写一段程序 (冒泡排序)。 一个 “不精通”的面试者的编程过程实际上就是一个“解决问题”的过程。 例如:

·         嗯, 怎么开始一个C# 的命令行程序呢?  

·         定义数组是怎么弄的?  是 “int [] arr” 还是 “int  arr[]”, 还是 ArrayList， 还是 Array <T>。 哦, 我平时都是上网查的.  哦, 我不知道还有 MSDN 网站。

·         嗯, 为什么编译没过呢,  哦, 这里少一个分号。

·         嗯, 怎么设断点? 怎么定义命令行参数? 额, 我要查一查…

 

你发现他把时间都花在“解决 (低层次) 问题”上了, 你想考察的“算法技能”、 “C#  程序设计技能” 都无暇顾及。注意, 这是在他认为非常精通的编程工具和编程语言中出现这样的问题。 你要这样的员工么?

那怎么提高技能呢?  答案很简单, 通过不断的练习, 把那些低层次的问题都解决了, 变成不用经过大脑的自动操作, 然后才有时间和脑力来解决较高层次的问题。

年轻学生都志向远大, 上了一些课, 就很想解决高层次的问题。我最近碰到一些学生就非常想做高层次的“科研”， 觉得“工程”是基础, 没意思。而且我 “已经知道怎么做了”，

从科研， 或者理论的高度上说, 所有的“技能”都能总结成简单的 ”已经知道怎么做了”:

例如:

下围棋怎么做？ 每一步都占据全局价值最大的一点, 直到终局, 即可获胜。

打乒乓球怎么做？ 把对手打过来的球都打回去, 直到对手的球出界或下网, 即可获胜。

再举一个例子:  我给一些同学出了一个题目：怎样在一年内做好一个博客网站:

北大 《领导力与职业发展》课程同学们的设想:

http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_840494da0100stf7.html

（半年内达到3000万用户,下半年目标达到2亿1千万）

http://blog.csdn.net/jkl_sadly/article/details/6591856

http://blog.csdn.net/zhao_di/article/details/6627665

http://www.cnblogs.com/PkuCL1/archive/2011/07/24/2115378.html

看看几乎同时发布的,  CSDN 项目负责人（8年以上工作经历）在CSDN的一年总结:

http://robbin.iteye.com/blog/1136859   

谁更有“领导力”这一个技能呢?  如果真的把任务交给这些热情高涨的同学们, 他们的第一年恐怕是在“解决(低层次) 问题”中度过。

Bill Buxton 的文章还提到了不少值得深入讨论的观点, 我们暂且按下不表。

 

魔方和模仿

为了玩好魔方而背一些口诀没什么问题, 至少能说明这个人记忆力不错。 最近我在网上看到大家评论一些国内的团队完全拷贝国外网站的设计，例如 “点点” 完全照搬国外的网站的设计。

 

 

有好心人说这些copy/paste作品 是在“微创新”，可以吸引天使来投资等等。  我不同意,  这种 “微创新”论调是对创新的侮辱，对大众智商的鄙视,  对天使的亵渎。  抛开道德和法律方面的问题不谈,  我认为这种模仿的行为其实就是“背口诀”, 希望按照口诀执行之后,  魔方会同样出现一个神奇的结果。

这些 copy/paste 的方法作为自己团队的练习 （参加上面提到的“不断练习”）, 是可以的。  你听说飞人乔丹每天练习1000 次投篮,  而且扣篮的时候吐舌头,  你也每天练习1000 次, 并吐舌头,  这并不犯法。  但是你只凭这个就去找NBA  球探来谈 NBA 选秀的事情， 我觉得不大靠谱。  

练习之后， 如果真想把模仿的产品推向市场,  有两个问题:

a)    口诀是公开的,  你可以抄, 别人也可以抄。 如果都是一个口诀, 大家背得都差不多, 那我们怎么才能竞争过别人呢？ 我的核心竞争力在哪里？我怎么才能比上一个背口诀的人更能说服投资者？  （见上一篇博客）

b)   各地市场和用户需求往往不一样, 按口诀执行之后, 会出偏差。这时候如果能把口诀改改, 解决本地客户的问题, 也是不错的能力。问题是,  有这个能力么?  一位同学举出了背口诀背得水土不服的例子:

 

回到魔方

魔方的技能有哪些层次呢?  下面是我粗浅的看法: 

1.      听说过魔方的玩法, 理论上了解 (已经知道：通过扭动魔方的各个层面， 直到六面出现一样的颜色为止)

2.      对口诀知其然, 能在实践中根据某种口诀玩成六面  (楼主在这里)

3.      对口诀知其所以然,  能够根据情况加以变化

3.      同上,  唯手熟尔。 几十秒就可以搞定的  (学校冠军们在这里)

4.      同上,  但是转得特别特别特别快, 十几秒就能转好的那些人    (世界冠军们在这里)

5.      能够设计出新型的魔方

 

那怎么才能考察出一个人 “精通”魔方呢? 我想了这样一个办法:

a)      给面试者一个各面打乱颜色的魔方

b)      要求他把六面还原

c)      如果还原了, 要求他把魔方恢复成我最初给他那个混乱的局面, 必须一模一样。  

 

精通魔方的同学, 来吧。