Family issues

In a recent article from the New York Times, a study about knee injuries was reviewed. The hypothesis was that there is a genetic factor in knee injuries. It seems scientists have found something that they can correlate, and are beginning to investigate more deeply.

There may well be a useful genetic marker for knee vulnerability. But much more significant is the reality that we learn to move from our families. We have the largely same strengths, and the same weaknesses in our movement habits. These habits form our bodies. Without bio-kinetic input, i.e. movement, genes create nothing.

Gene therapy is fancy and sexy. Politicians are loath to be seen as un-supportive to cancer research, or anything that has a big “wow, gee whiz!” factor. More complex issues are lost, leaving funding under the control of mainstream medical and Big Pharma.

Movement research is pedestrian (pun intended). It is so mundane that it takes a disciplined mind to see the immense value of exploring normal common function. Yet if we change our plan for everyday education, we will effect much more than if we aim at a genetic minority.

I support a balanced spectrum of research. Let the geneticists and the nano-technologists develop their part. Their precision and discipline are marvelous.

But we must simultaneously support the big picture people- the artists and visionaries who drive the culture and push the envelope of human comprehension. Remember that there are people who spend a life-time developing analytic and critical scales for the arts- which are an inherent part of humanity. To devalue that body of knowledge by gross oversight is to undercut the validity of all forms of investigation into human function.

No bio-mechanical analysis will tell us what make a Baryshnikov, a Michael Phelps, or even a Lady Gaga. When the scientifically oriented ignore the rich contributions because their models don’t handle them well, then it is a loss for us all.

http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/09/29/phys-ed-are-bad-knees-in-our-genes/

Good dancers?

A recent article from the Guardian discussed a study that asked what makes men “good dancers” or “bad dancers”. The men were 18-35. They were filmed dancing for 15 seconds to a “basic rhythm”. Motion capture was used to create avatars- digital images designed to eliminate biases due to the men’s appearance.

The judges were straight women 18-35. The women were asked to evaluate the men as good or bad dancers. As far as I can tell, it was all visual, with no audio context. This is an interesting choice, since part of dance is about timing in reference to music.

In the abstract it says “three movement measures were key predictors of dance quality; these were variability and amplitude of movements of the neck and trunk, and speed of movements of the right knee. ” Tough grammar there. I think they mean to take neck and trunk together, and call amplitude and variability the two measures. I didn’t see the avatar in the Guardian show any neck isolations.

The right knee speed measure intrigues me. What made the scientists look for that? I’d love to know what the other measures were. If speed, variability and amplitude were possibilities, what anatomical references were chosen? Would those choices vary according to culture, gender, dance background, or other factors? And would the perception of which were significant also vary culturally, etc.?

All the measures were about shape and time. Space and effort are conspicuously absent. Would the results be different if the models could show more in relation to space, both interpersonal space and environmental space? This seems like a huge factor in sexual communication! And effort is also clearly a factor, surely perceived even by those who have no language for it.

The scientists hypothesized that better dancers are more sexually attractive. My friends in the dance world will likely be pleased. But the scientists also note that they don’t know really which movements are significant, and that the sample size is very small.

It is still a very good addition to movement science. Motion capture allows some very interesting possibilities. Hopefully, some of the scientists will think to talk to some of the dancers about experimental design.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/sep/08/psychologists-killer-dance-moves-men

http://rsbl.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/early/2010/09/06/rsbl.2010.0619

Self Validation

Seth Godin recently bogged about how validation is over rated. He is referring to validation from others. I agree. We get pulled away from our own experience. We invest in the words and actions of others. We divest from our own actions.

Self validation is the important one. Others will have opinions. Since there are a lot of others out there, there will be a lot of opinions. My opinion about me is primary for me. Your opinion about you is primary to you. My opinion about you is secondary to you. Outside opinions can be very useful, but only as a reflection or contrast to your own opinion.

Children need external validation. It is part of a teaching process. Good teachers (we are all responsible for teaching the children!) work to make themselves obsolete.

My choice for teaching is through bodily experience- somatics. The truth of internal reality can be felt via the body. This is a path that disallows intellectually or socially imposed constructs. They are replaced by direct sensation. There is then a shift from the child model of other directed reality, to an adult model of personal validity.

We can accept social pressure to depend on approval. Disapproval can bring great fear- fear of being cast out from the tribe and left alone to die. But our social reality is that we are millions of tribes intermingling. We no longer need the validation of those geographically close to us to survive.

Modern communication also presents us with opinions from a multitude of distant sources. TV and news media re-enforce the alleged value of external authority. This has changed drastically in just a few decades. It is relatively new to be bathed in this ocean of opinions, so a new urgency has arisen for filtering out toxic input.

There are many strategies for reducing input. One of the most effective is to direct perception toward internal phenomena. Choosing to pay attention to the self attenuates the reception and impact of the external. Self exploration is more engaging and more profitable than reacting to the information storm of contemporary culture.

In a society where youth is exalted without regard for inherent foolishness, the voice of authority is childish and naive. Going against the current is wise and necessary. Attend to your physical reality and your personal sensations. They are your truth. Validate your self. It’s the adult thing to do.