BrainMeta'                 

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> WHY DO SOME PEOPLE RESIST SCIENCE?
Culture
post May 30, 2007, 07:39 AM
Post #1


Overlord
****

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 355
Joined: Jan 11, 2006
From: all over the place
Member No.: 4711



It is no secret that many American adults reject some scientific ideas. In a 2005 Pew Trust poll, for instance, 42% of respondents said that they believed that humans and other animals have existed in their present form since the beginning of time. A substantial minority of Americans, then, deny that evolution has even taken place, making them more radical than "Intelligent Design" theorists, who deny only that natural selection can explain complex design. But evolution is not the only domain in which people reject science: Many believe in the efficacy of unproven medical interventions, the mystical nature of out-of-body experiences, the existence of supernatural entities such as ghosts and fairies, and the legitimacy of astrology, ESP, and divination.

There are two common assumptions about the nature of this resistance. First, it is often assumed to be a particularly American problem, explained in terms of the strong religious beliefs of many American citizens and the anti-science leanings of the dominant political party. Second, the problem is often characterized as the result of insufficient exposure to the relevant scientific facts, and hence is best addressed with improved science education.

We believe that these assumptions, while not completely false, reflect a misunderstanding of the nature of this phenomenon. While cultural factors are plainly relevant, American adults' resistance to scientific ideas reflects universal facts about what children know and how children learn. If this is right, then resistance to science cannot be simply addressed through more education; something different is needed.

What children know

The main source of resistance to scientific ideas concerns what children know prior to their exposure to science. The last several decades of developmental psychology has made it abundantly clear that humans do not start off as "blank slates." Rather, even one year-olds possess a rich understanding of both the physical world (a "naïve physics") and the social world (a "naïve psychology"). Babies know that objects are solid, that they persist over time even when they are out of sight, that they fall to the ground if unsupported, and that they do not move unless acted upon. They also understand that people move autonomously in response to social and physical events, that they act and react in accord with their goals, and that they respond with appropriate emotions to different situations.

These intuitions give children a head start when it comes to understanding and learning about objects and people. But these intuitions also sometimes clash with scientific discoveries about the nature of the world, making certain scientific facts difficult to learn. As Susan Carey once put it, the problem with teaching science to children is "not what the student lacks, but what the student has, namely alternative conceptual frameworks for understanding the phenomena covered by the theories we are trying to teach."

Children's belief that unsupported objects fall downwards, for instance, makes it difficult for them to see the world as a sphere — if it were a sphere, the people and things on the other side should fall off. It is not until about eight or nine years of age that children demonstrate a coherent understanding of a spherical Earth, and younger children often distort the scientific understanding in systematic ways. Some deny that people can live all over the Earth's surface, and, when asked to draw the Earth or model it with clay, some children depict it as a sphere with a flattened top or as a hollow sphere that people live inside.

In some cases, there is such resistance to science education that it never entirely sticks, and foundational biases persist into adulthood. A classic study by Michael McCloskey and his colleagues tested college undergraduates' intuitions about basic physical motions, such as the path that a ball will take when released from a curved tube. Many of the undergraduates retained a common-sense Aristotelian theory of object motion; they predicted that the ball would continue to move in a curved motion, choosing B over A below.



An interesting addendum is that while education does not shake this bias, real-world experience can suffice. In another study, undergraduates were asked about the path that water would take out of a curved hose. This corresponds to an event that most people have seen, and few believed that the water would take a curved path.

Our intuitive psychology also contributes to resistance to science. One significant bias is that children naturally see the world in terms of design and purpose. For instance, four year-olds insist that everything has a purpose, including lions ("to go in the zoo") and clouds ("for raining"), a propensity that Deborah Kelemen has dubbed "promiscuous teleology." Additionally, when asked about the origin of animals and people, children spontaneously tend to provide and to prefer creationist explanations.

Just as children's intuitions about the physical world make it difficult for them to accept that the Earth is a sphere, their psychological intuitions about agency and design make it difficult for them to accept the processes of evolution.

One of the most interesting aspects of our common-sense psychology is dualism, the belief that minds are fundamentally different from brains. This belief comes naturally to children. Preschool children will claim that the brain is responsible for some aspects of mental life, typically those involving deliberative mental work, such as solving math problems. But preschoolers will also claim that the brain isn't involved in a host of other activities, such as pretending to be a kangaroo, loving one's brother, or brushing one's teeth. Similarly, when told about a brain transplant from a boy to a pig, they believe that you get a very smart pig, but one with pig beliefs and pig desires. For young children, then, much of mental life is not linked to the brain.

The strong intuitive pull of dualism makes it difficult for people to accept what Francis Crick called "the astonishing hypothesis." Dualism is mistaken — mental life emerges from physical processes. People resist the astonishing hypothesis in ways that can have considerable social implications. For one thing, debates about the moral status of embryos, fetuses, stem cells, and non-human animals are sometimes framed in terms of whether or not these entities possess immaterial souls. For instance, in their 2003 report (Being Human: Readings from the President's Council on Bioethics), the President's Council described people as follows: "We have both corporeal and noncorporeal aspects. We are embodied spirits and inspirited bodies (or, if you will, embodied minds and minded bodies)."

In addition, certain proposals about the role of imaging data in criminal trials assume a strong form of Cartesian dualism. Some have argued that if one could show that a person's brain is involved in an act, then the person himself or herself is not responsible, an excuse that Michael Gazzaniga dubbed "My brain made me do it." This belief that some of our decisions have nothing to do with our brains reflects a profound resistance to findings from psychology and neuroscience.

One reason why people resist certain scientific findings, then, is that many of these findings are unnatural and unintuitive. But there is more to the story than this. After all, some unintuitive scientific facts come to be broadly accepted. Even though children may initially find it hard to understand that objects are made of tiny particles or that the Earth isn't flat, most everyone comes to accept that these things are true. How does this happen?

Also, there are cultural factors that need to be explained. Americans are not more resistant to science in general. For instance, 1 in 5 American adults believe that the Sun revolves around the Earth, which is somewhat shocking—but the same proportion holds for Germany and Great Britain. But Americans really are special when it comes to certain scientific ideas—and, in particular, with regard to evolutionary theory. The relevant data are shown below, from a 2006 survey published in Science. What explains this culture-specific resistance to evolution?



How children learn

Part of the explanation for resistance to science lies in how children and adults process different sorts of information.

Some culture-specific information is not associated with any particular source. It is "common knowledge." As such, learning of this type of information generally bypasses critical analysis. A prototypical example is that of word meanings. Everyone uses the word "dog" to refer to dogs, so children easily learn that this is what they are called. Other examples include belief in germs and electricity. Their existence is generally assumed in day-to-day conversation and is not marked as uncertain; nobody says that they "believe in electricity." Hence even children and adults with little scientific background believe that these invisible entities really exist, a topic explored in detail by Paul Harris and his colleagues.

Science is not special here. Geographic information and historical information is also typically assumed, which is how an American child comes to believe that there is a faraway place called Africa and that there was a man who lived long ago named Abraham Lincoln. And, in some cultures, certain religious beliefs can be assumed as well. For instance, if the existence of supernatural entities like gods, karma, and ancestor spirits is never questioned by adults in the community, the existence of such entities will be unquestioningly accepted by children.

Other information, however, is explicitly asserted. Such information is associated with certain sources. A child might note that science teachers make surprising claims about the origin of human beings, for instance, while their parents do not. Furthermore, the tentative status of this information is sometimes explicitly marked; people will assert that they "believe in evolution."

When faced with this kind of asserted information, one can occasionally evaluate its truth directly. But in some domains, including much of science, direct evaluation is difficult or impossible. Few of us are qualified to assess claims about the merits of string theory, the role in mercury in the etiology of autism, or the existence of repressed memories. So rather than evaluating the asserted claim itself, we instead evaluate the claim's source. If the source is deemed trustworthy, people will believe the claim, often without really understanding it. As our colleague Frank Keil has discussed, this sort of division of cognitive labor is essential in any complex society, where any single individuals will lack the resources to evaluate all the claims that he or she hears.

This is the case for most scientific beliefs. Consider, for example, that most adults who claim to believe that natural selection can explain the evolution of species are confused about what natural selection actually is—when pressed, they often describe it as a Lamarckian process in which animals somehow give birth to offspring that are better adapted to their environments. Their belief in natural selection, then, is not rooted in an appreciation of the evidence and arguments. Rather, this scientifically credulous sub-population are deferring to the people who say that this is how evolution works. They trust the scientists.

This deference to authority isn't limited to science; the same process holds for certain religious, moral, and political beliefs as well. In an illustrative recent study, subjects were asked their opinion about a social welfare policy, which was described as being endorsed either by Democrats or by Republicans. Although the subjects sincerely believed that their responses were based on the objective merits of the policy, the major determinant of what they thought of the policy was in fact whether or not their favored political party was said to endorse it. More generally, many of the specific moral intuitions held by members of a society appear to be the consequence, not of personal moral contemplation, but of deference to the views of the community.

Adults thus rely on the trustworthiness of the source when deciding which asserted claims to believe. Do children do the same? Recent studies suggest that they do; children, like adults, have at least some capacity to assess the trustworthiness of their information sources. Four- and five-year-olds, for instance, know that adults know things that other children do not (like the meaning of the word "hypochondriac"), and when given conflicting information about a word's meaning from a child and from an adult, they prefer to learn from the adult. They know that adults have different areas of expertise, that doctors know about fixing broken arms and mechanics know about fixing flat tires. They prefer to learn from a knowledgeable speaker than from an ignorant one, and they prefer a confident source to a tentative one. Finally, when five year-olds hear about a competition whose outcome was unclear, they are more likely to believe a character who claimed that he had lost the race (a statement that goes against his self-interest) than a character who claimed that he had won the race (a statement that goes with his self-interest). In a limited sense, then, they are capable of cynicism.

Implications

In sum, the developmental data suggest that resistance to science will arise in children when scientific claims clash with early emerging, intuitive expectations. This resistance will persist through adulthood if the scientific claims are contested within a society, and will be especially strong if there is a non-scientific alternative that is rooted in common sense and championed by people who are taken as reliable and trustworthy. This is the current situation in the United States with regard to the central tenets of neuroscience and of evolutionary biology. These clash with intuitive beliefs about the immaterial nature of the soul and the purposeful design of humans and other animals — and, in the United States, these intuitive beliefs are particularly likely to be endorsed and transmitted by trusted religious and political authorities. Hence these are among the domains where Americans' resistance to science is the strongest.

We should stress that this failure to defer to scientists in these domains does not necessarily reflect stupidity, ignorance, or malice. In fact, some skepticism toward scientific authority is clearly rational. Scientists have personal biases due to ego or ambition—no reasonable person should ever believe all the claims made in a grant proposal. There are also political and moral biases, particularly in social science research dealing with contentious issues such as the long-term effects of being raised by gay parents or the explanation for gender differences in SAT scores. It would be naïve to ignore all this, and someone who accepted all "scientific" information would be a patsy. The problem is exaggerated when scientists or scientific organizations try to use their authority to make proclamations about controversial social issues. People who disagree with what scientists have to say about these issues might reasonably infer that it is not safe to defer to them more generally.

But this rejection of science would be mistaken in the end. The community of scientists has a legitimate claim to trustworthiness that other social institutions, such as religions and political movements, lack. The structure of scientific inquiry involves procedures, such as experiments and open debate, that are strikingly successful at revealing truths about the world. All other things being equal, a rational person is wise to defer to a geologist about the age of the earth rather than to a priest or to a politician.

Given the role of trust in social learning, it is particularly worrying that national surveys reflect a general decline in the extent to which people trust scientists. To end on a practical note, then, one way to combat resistance to science is to persuade children and adults that the institute of science is, for the most part, worthy of trust.


[This is a modified version of P. Bloom & D. S. Weisberg, "Childhood origins of adult resistance to science", published in Science, May 18, 2007. This article contains citations of the experimental studies discussed here.]
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post May 30, 2007, 08:03 AM
Post #2


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1704
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



very interesting, and disheartening that the US ranks second to last with regard to acceptance of evolution
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post May 30, 2007, 10:44 AM
Post #3


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



It's rather sad that the USA has become such a backwater.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Technologist
post May 30, 2007, 11:54 AM
Post #4


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 213
Joined: Dec 07, 2006
From: NYC
Member No.: 6361



Hey guys, always look on the bright side of life. The great ol' USofA did manage to kick Turkey's butt. Hell, it might even have beaten out Iran and Lebanon...here's to hoping. laugh.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Aug 21, 2007, 06:50 AM
Post #5


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



Haha, I blame all the hill billy's living out in the sticks with no company other than their banjo and their cousin/wife smile.gif I reckon they bring your score down significantly, and ironically they're probably the best evidence that evolution/devolution is at work lol

Another amazing point is that a lot more people believe in selective breeding, crossbreeding etc. and yet are still denying evolution. Someone needs to sit them down and go over the two concepts carefully...
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Aug 21, 2007, 11:41 AM
Post #6


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



The hill billy theory doesn't explain the half of American voters in every state that voted for the Repugligans, twice!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 21, 2007, 05:13 PM
Post #7


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Rick @ May 30, 2007, 10:44 AM) *

It's rather sad that the USA has become such a backwater.

I wonder how these obtuses think we got The Bomb? Through prayer?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
trojan_libido
post Aug 23, 2007, 01:08 AM
Post #8


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1351
Joined: Sep 19, 2006
From: UK
Member No.: 5681



Rick: I think the only explanation is the USA is full of Sadists who just love punishment!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Rick
post Aug 23, 2007, 03:10 PM
Post #9


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 5916
Joined: Jul 23, 2004
From: Sunny Southern California
Member No.: 3068



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Aug 23, 2007, 02:08 AM) *

Rick: I think the only explanation is the USA is full of Sadists who just love punishment!

You just might have something there. Everyone seems to love learning the hard way.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Succubus
post Aug 23, 2007, 10:53 PM
Post #10


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Member No.: 12302



It seams that not everyone is gifted with an open mind, and for those that dont have one it is very hard for them to accept the new and fast moving ideas and tech of the last 100 years and anything else that might take a bit of a gray matter flex, and the old rule goes...
What people dont understand they fear,
What people fear they reject.
Its why witches were burned at the stake.
The loss of knowledge during the dark ages alone with inquistions and fear campains must have been truly staggering, not to mention the rest of history.. Exactly the reason even the intellectually gifted scrached their heads for thousands of years in wonder over stone henge and the pyramids and other devices thats meaning had been made extict to them by knowledge supression or dictation.
I think the problem is the way our whole society is structured around money, greed, indoctrination,
singular positions of power and the mess of lies and evil during the struggle for it.
And the fact that we are actualy teaching ourselves not to use our brains more and more in everyday life!
Not the passing of true and freely maturing knowledge like it should be.
People just need to care more about the big picture.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Aug 24, 2007, 09:46 AM
Post #11


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



Now the real question--does that big picture include technology?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Succubus
post Aug 24, 2007, 06:26 PM
Post #12


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Member No.: 12302



I belive tech is very importent yes, its a part of growing, but it must not be exploited for profit or come at the cost of the Earth. My Question is will everyone wake up in time?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 24, 2007, 07:34 PM
Post #13


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Succubus @ Aug 23, 2007, 10:53 PM) *

It seams that not everyone is gifted with an open mind, and for those that dont have one it is very hard for them to accept the new and fast moving ideas and tech of the last 100 years and anything else that might take a bit of a gray matter flex, and the old rule goes...
What people dont understand they fear,
What people fear they reject.
Its why witches were burned at the stake.
The loss of knowledge during the dark ages alone with inquistions and fear campains must have been truly staggering, not to mention the rest of history.. Exactly the reason even the intellectually gifted scrached their heads for thousands of years in wonder over stone henge and the pyramids and other devices thats meaning had been made extict to them by knowledge supression or dictation.
I think the problem is the way our whole society is structured around money, greed, indoctrination,
singular positions of power and the mess of lies and evil during the struggle for it.
And the fact that we are actualy teaching ourselves not to use our brains more and more in everyday life!
Not the passing of true and freely maturing knowledge like it should be.
People just need to care more about the big picture.

I think it all goes back to The Matrix (the movie) analogy. Humanity in general prefer to live in total denial. In ignorant bliss. They have been given the choice through the technological advances of the last decade to choose between the red and the blue pill and they've chosen the blue one. Most of us prefer to be herded down the path of time oblivious to the fate of others and even to our own fate. It is more comefortable this way, you see. People in general prefer the status quo so long as they are left alone to their daily lives more or less undisturbed. So, "what is wrong to letting the smart people make the big decisions for us"?, they ask.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Succubus
post Aug 24, 2007, 07:47 PM
Post #14


Newbie
*

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 41
Joined: Aug 22, 2007
Member No.: 12302



For those of us that are awake, the mess and likely outcome is very frustrating.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
lucid_dream
post Aug 24, 2007, 09:42 PM
Post #15


God
******

Group: Admin
Posts: 1704
Joined: Jan 20, 2004
Member No.: 956



QUOTE(trojan_libido @ Aug 23, 2007, 02:08 AM) *

Rick: I think the only explanation is the USA is full of Sadists who just love punishment!

hmm... I think you mean "the USA is full of masochists", not sadists, since the former like receiving pain, whereas the latter prefer giving it.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 26, 2007, 09:58 AM
Post #16


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Flex @ Aug 24, 2007, 09:46 AM) *

Now the real question--does that big picture include technology?

Now I see more clearly the nature of your question. It's a good question that can only be answered through calculated speculation: It looks pretty grim, doesn't it? We are f*cked!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Aug 26, 2007, 12:46 PM
Post #17


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(code buttons @ Aug 26, 2007, 10:58 AM) *

QUOTE(Flex @ Aug 24, 2007, 09:46 AM) *

Now the real question--does that big picture include technology?

Now I see more clearly the nature of your question. It's a good question that can only be answered through calculated speculation: It looks pretty grim, doesn't it? We are f*cked!


Not so (at least I hope). It is all theoretical, but I believe technology can be used to promote existance, rather than destroy; unfortunately it seems apparent that it is part of human nature to destroy...

I find two philosophies to be most detrimental to humanity: the Golden Rule, and Utilitarianism.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
code buttons
post Aug 27, 2007, 04:11 PM
Post #18


Supreme God
*******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 2450
Joined: Oct 05, 2005
Member No.: 4556



QUOTE(Flex @ Aug 26, 2007, 12:46 PM) *

I... find two philosophies to be most detrimental to humanity: the Golden Rule and Utilitarianism.

Say what! How come?!
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Aug 27, 2007, 04:45 PM
Post #19


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



Utilitarianism--the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Sounds like a reasonable way to live...Well look a little closer. Check out the PBS documentary The Boy in the Bubble, and think "utilitarianism."

The Golden Rule--treat other the way you would like to be treated. Once again sounds reasonable. Once again look closer. Lets create a scenario to test the principles of The Golden Rule.

Characters:
Jim--owner of a hugely sucessful electrical engineering company.
Brian--his son.
Richard--Jims father

In Jim's childhood, he was always interested with gadgets. He would always tinker with electronic appliances around the house. Jim took to electronics very quickly and as he grew older so did his passion. Richard, Jim's father, was a lower middle class school teacher, so when Jim wishes to go to college for electrical engineering, he tell his son, they simply cannot afford it. Jim takes on a job working as an apprentice for a local electrician. Jim saved up enough money to send himself to college and goes on to found a hugely sucessful company.

Jim wants to give his son Brian all of the opportunities he never had. Brian is given a job at his fathers company, and is sent to all of the best schools to study math and science. Once Brian goes away to college, he begins to get terrible grades and goes out on the weekends to party. Jim can not figure out where he went wrong. He had given his son all of the opportunities he had wished his father had given him. What Jim failed to realize is that his son was a very tallented musician; however, Brian was never encouraged to take lessons and focus on his passion. Instead of encouragin his son to pursue HIS passions, Jim imposed what HE would have wanted.

The Golden Rule is greatly flawd. It should read something to the extent of: treat other how you think they would want to be treated. NOT HOW YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED.


User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
kortikal
post Aug 27, 2007, 05:33 PM
Post #20


Awakening
***

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 198
Joined: Jan 21, 2006
Member No.: 4755



I want to be treated like a king. Ready to entertain me, Flex?
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Aug 27, 2007, 08:02 PM
Post #21


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(kortikal @ Aug 27, 2007, 06:33 PM) *

I want to be treated like a king. Ready to entertain me, Flex?


Did not my words do just that wink.gif
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post
Flex
post Aug 27, 2007, 08:13 PM
Post #22


God
******

Group: Basic Member
Posts: 1954
Joined: Oct 17, 2006
From: Bay area CA
Member No.: 5877



QUOTE(Dianah @ Aug 27, 2007, 05:56 PM) *

QUOTE
The Golden Rule is greatly flawd. It should read something to the extent of: treat other how you think they would want to be treated. NOT HOW YOU WOULD WANT TO BE TREATED.


interesting observation flex...gotta a question thou...how is one to know how another wants to be treated?


I know how I base my decisions. First and foremost, I do my best never to compromise my self, and I try to stay away from ego-satisfaction (athough I admit I am often quite guilty of this, I am trying to improve). It is also important that one not put others in a position in which they might be compromised. With these things in mind, I use my knowledge of the person, however limited it may be, to come to some conclusion of how I should treat them. If I had a son and knew he was fond of the violin, I would encourage him to pursue violin. I may suggest that he go to a conservatory rather than college.
User is offlineProfile CardPM
Go to the top of the page
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 31st October 2014 - 02:51 PM


Home     |     About     |    Research     |    Forum     |    Feedback  


Copyright BrainMeta. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use  |  Last Modified Tue Jan 17 2006 12:39 am

Consciousness Expansion · Brain Mapping · Neural Circuits · Connectomics  ·  Neuroscience Forum  ·  Brain Maps Blog