> I’m not an expert on how the brain works, but I can say that,

Aaaaaand time to tune out.

burkaman 3 hours ago | parent | next [-]

The rest of that sentence:

> I can say that, when writing by hand, one is continually solving a series of small problems having to do with the spacing of words, how letters are connected, the crossing of the letter t (sometimes more than one in the same word) and the dotting of the letters i and j, and how to accomplish all of those things through coordinated movements not just of the fingers but of the whole arm.

Do you think he needs to be a neuroscientist to make this claim?

	▲	kstenerud 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		The non-sequiturs that follow do.

▲

voidnullvalue 3 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Appeal to Authority is a logical fallacy. Perverse incentives exist in every domain, and you cannot discount the human factor. The experts can be wrong.

▲

rendaw 31 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I don't think this is appeal to authority (or the reverse, I guess). Neuroscience is complex, being a scientist/doctor is one signal that the observations here would be based on/reflective of a large body of knowledge. Probably GP's unstated point is that the author isn't a scientist/doctor and they also haven't studied/read up on their own either.

▲

kstenerud 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

And in this case, Van der Meer's experiment showing more "elaborate" brain activity during handwriting was correlational. The conclusion that this leads to better learning outcomes does not follow.

More to your point: calling "appeal to authority" does not license argument from ignorance. Furthermore, appeal to authority only refers to an authority who is not authoritative in the domain in question.

▲

austinthetaco 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

The experts in the sciences usually back their claims up using citations, and can be disproven through the normal methods of disproving citations. not through "vibes"

▲

jmalicki 3 hours ago | parent [-]

And he said "I'm not an expert" just after citing evidence.

	▲	kstenerud 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Except that he didn't actually cite evidence that supported his claim. He merely reposted a blog's incorrect conclusion.

▲

rendaw 36 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

You've been downvoted to oblivion, but I figured I'll use you as a meat shield since there isn't a single other reply of criticality here AFAICT.

The study talks about connections and frequency, but that seems like a very coarse measure for something as complex as the brain.

> Increased connectivity within the theta (3.5–7.5 Hz) and alpha (8–12.5 Hz) frequency bands has been linked to mechanisms underlying sensorimotor integration (). As increased connectivity in the brain was observed only when writing by hand and not when simply pressing keys on the keyboard, our findings can be taken as evidence that handwriting promotes learning.

Can you? The linked paper appears to be stating association, not causation.

The alternative hypothesis is that the brain activates more because writing by hand is harder, and that by writing by hand you just get better at writing by hand.

My thought is, write in whichever medium you feel you work best in. Maybe try them both. And if you're not productive maybe don't use that medium.

This feels like a lot of grasping to try to justify some retroism (why does it need justification?).