Maintaining and improving plasticity

[RITFencing]

I think that one of (if not the) biggest factors in determining how far a fencer will go is their plasticity, by which I mean their ability to learn new things and make fundamental changes to their technique, tactics, outlook, training methods, etc. Almost every fencer seems to reach a point where they consider their game to be mature, and go from working on new things and changing things up to refining what they already have.

Here I should point out that the learning process, at least IMHO, is nowhere near as binary as this; everyone goes through cycles of learning new things, refining, improving and incorporating them, making changes to older things, etc. It's just that when taken as a whole, there seems to be a point in most, but not all fencing careers, there comes a point where the fencer becomes more and more resistant to major changes. This could be because they like where they are, it could be that they no longer wish to invest the time and energy needed to improve, it could be for any number of other reasons as well.

However, especially in a sport like fencing, in which tactics and technique are constantly evolving and there are always new fencers coming up the ranks hungry for wins, this sort of stagnation seems to lead to a fencer's career either plateauing or dropping off. They become just one more rung in the ladder, stuck at whatever level they are at now and watching as all the people they used to beat improve and start to trump them.

This is not endemic to fencing, either. Whenever I have the privilege of dealing with someone at the top of their field, be it fencing, coaching, teaching, engineering/science, or whatever, they are always eager to learn more. They LOVE learning new things, and display a high level of motivation to constantly improve themselves. I am becoming more and more convinced that this motivation to continue learning and growing is what brought these people to the places where they are now. Instead of spending 5 years growing and another 5, 10, 15 or whatever standing in place, they spend 10, 15, 20 or more steadily improving. It doesn't take an educational expert to see how this sort of attitude can account for great improvement over long periods of time.

However, when I speak with coaches about this, even high level ones, they seem to think that once your student loses their plasticity, you just need to accept it and deal with maintaining and polishing their game and stop making large, fundamental changes to it.

My questions, then, are as follows:

1) Are there ways to keep the period of high plasticity alive longer in students? I've thought about just encouraging them learn new things outside of fencing to keep that sense of learning a growing, or introducing new concepts or just generally trying to impart a love of learning, but I'm coming up short with other ways to make it last as long as possible.

2) Is there any way to recover lost plasticity? When a student goes from their learning state to a refinement state and starts to become more or less complacent, is there any way to get them moving again? I realize that nothing will have a 100% success rate, and that there will be some, or maybe even most students who just reach the area they are happy with and get to a point where the work needed to make serious improvements is not worth the gain, but every little bit helps, and if I can get something that helps even one fencer reach that next level, then I will be very happy.

3) What is it that causes people to lose their plasticity? Is it what I said before, where the work needed for improvement is no longer worth the gain? Is it a case of reaching an area where they are just complacent? Is it (more likely) a combination of many possible things whose exact details differ from person to person?

[RITFencing]

Now that I think about it, I talked about motivation being linked to plasticity... has anyone else found that the two occur together, or have people found that they are more or less independent of each other?

If they are linked, is it possible to prolong periods of high plasticity by keeping motivational levels high?

It's a good idea to make fencers as motivated as possible anyway; keeping them working hard and working happily just about always yields positive results. I'm just wondering if there is also a link here.

[keith]

So you might want to take this from a different (non fencing angle). Did a quick google and found the following you might want to peruse;

http://eduscapes.com/tap/topic43.htm

[Jason]

Anyone can learn. Give them a reason to.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by Jason

Anyone can learn.

The truth is that anyone CAN learn, but some are much more driven in their curiosity.

There is something a little strange in the way this question is being asked, but I can assure everyone that the answer involves a combination of genetic predisposition with a sprinkle of social factors.

I guess I really don't understand what RIT is getting at in his question? You may want to try defining what you mean by "plasticity". IIRC, plasticity, in the general usage, usually refers to a physical change in the brain.

I can think of several examples of highly successful fencers who were extremely proficient at a handful of things, and never never never changed up. When their shtick worked, they won. When it didn't, they went home early.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

I guess I really don't understand what RIT is getting at in his question? You may want to try defining what you mean by "plasticity". IIRC, plasticity, in the general usage, usually refers to a physical change in the brain.

What I mean by plasticity is the ability to learn new things and make changes to existing ones. High plasticity means that learning and changes are done quickly and easily, low plasticity means that they are done with more time and difficulty.

I know the term is used in neuroscience to talk about how quickly a brain or any other nervous tissue can make changes to itself, and while that may or may not be exactly what I'm talking about here, at least one elite level coach I have regular interactions with refers to what I am talking about as plasticity, so I've pretty much adopted the term.

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

What I mean by plasticity is the ability to learn new things and make changes to existing ones. High plasticity means that learning and changes are done quickly and easily, low plasticity means that they are done with more time and difficulty.

I know the term is used in neuroscience to talk about how quickly a brain or any other nervous tissue can make changes to itself, and while that may or may not be exactly what I'm talking about here, at least one elite level coach I have regular interactions with refers to what I am talking about as plasticity, so I've pretty much adopted the term.

Can we, for the sake of clarity, agree to use a word that doesn't already have a specific meaning in a related field? Fencing seems to have more than enough problems with duplicitous terminology.

Couldn't what you are trying to describe be made more clear using the words curiosity and adaptability?

• Individuals who are driven to explore and understand their environment display a high degree of curiosity.
  
• Individuals who are able to successfully change to a changing environment display a high degree of adaptability.

You can even plot these two characteristics on a Cartesian coordinate system, assign fencers to one of four quadrants, and then provide individual ratings within the quadrants.

For the record, I would be willing to bet that any elite level coach who discusses things in terms of "plasticity" is also a German System sycophant. I've got those weird red-flags going up in the back of my mind. Maybe it's just the way I'm reading things today, but there seems to be an underlying assumption about a natural asymmetric communication model between coach and student.

[oiuyt]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

For the record, I would be willing to bet that any elite level coach who discusses things in terms of "plasticity" is also a German System sycophant.

Mmmmm, wonder if you know where RIT works, what elite-level coaches he works with, and whether you're taking a (thinly-veiled) shot at one or more of them.

-B

[Mr Epee]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Mmmmm, wonder if you know where RIT works, what elite-level coaches he works with, and whether you're taking a (thinly-veiled) shot at one or more of them.

-B

I honestly don't have a clue... last I knew he was teaching high-school kids in New Jersey.

I'm off to check his profile for more information.

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by Mr Epee

Can we, for the sake of clarity, agree to use a word that doesn't already have a specific meaning in a related field? Fencing seems to have more than enough problems with duplicitous terminology.

Couldn't what you are trying to describe be made more clear using the words curiosity and adaptability?

• Individuals who are driven to explore and understand their environment display a high degree of curiosity.
  
• Individuals who are able to successfully change to a changing environment display a high degree of adaptability.

You can even plot these two characteristics on a Cartesian coordinate system, assign fencers to one of four quadrants, and then provide individual ratings within the quadrants.

For the record, I would be willing to bet that any elite level coach who discusses things in terms of "plasticity" is also a German System sycophant. I've got those weird red-flags going up in the back of my mind. Maybe it's just the way I'm reading things today, but there seems to be an underlying assumption about a natural asymmetric communication model between coach and student.

Yeah, there are a lot of problems with vocab in fencing, that's a fair complaint.

Your examples are pretty much what I'm talking about, except that in what you list, the catalyst for change seems to be environment driven. First the situation changes, then the individual adapts to it. What I'm talking about is, in addition to the ability to understand and change with the environment is the ability to be highly receptive to and curious about any sort of new learning or information even when the overall environment is largely unchanged.

I know it sounds really nit picky, but I have a feeling that it might be important. To me, this is the difference between being one of the fencers that is able to pick up what the next big thing when other do it and being one of the fencers who helps create the next big thing.

Is that more clear?

[Mr Epee]

Given my two variables it would be extremely simple to cover the situation I think you describe.

1. Curiosity: High, Adaptability: High -- is probably the person actively looking for opportunities to achieve a desired state (even with unorthodox methods) and may have a profound impact on their environment in the process. (Bill Clinton)

2. Curiosity: Low, Adaptability: High -- may become successful, but will probably be more reactive in nature...(G.W. Bush)

3 Curiosity: High, Adaptability: Low ....

4. Curiosity: Low, Adaptability: Low ...


I'm sure you can see how the rest of this would fill out... and how easily these things are personality traits that pop-up in people's approach to fencing, education, and everything else in which they invest themselves. I went back and made presidential examples for two categories. Not as political statement, but just an illustration of successful members of each group.

Out of curiosity, where are you working now?

[Allen Evans]

RIT, that's a clearer discription, but I think it steps away from your original question.

ME posted a while ago that one of the most important things for a coach to do was to create an environment in which training could take place (I believe that isn't an exact quote, but close). I wish he had expanded on that idea a little more, because I think it points to the root of RIT's original post.

Allen Evans

[p1nkp4nther]

This is a very interesting topic. I don't know if this will be helpful to the discussion, but I have always found myself experiencing the following cycle when learning:

I usually go through 4 stages in a cyclical manner with the following characteristics,

Stage 1:
Physical truth = I don't have knowledge about the thing to be learnt.
Perception = I am not aware that I have such limited knowledge.
(e.g. before starting studying)

Stage 2:
Physical truth = I still have limited knowledge
Perception = I now realize that I have limited knowledge
(like first year at University)

Stage 3:
Physical truth = I have acquired knowledge
Perception = I feel like I know things
(like the final year at University)

Stage 4:
Physical truth = I have knowledge
Perception = I feel like there is still much to learn
(like post-graduate studies)

=> then the cycle starts over again and hopefully in time one builds upon previous experience and gets better and better.

These cycles I've felt while learning fencing as well, although "knowledge" probably should read "skill"/"technique" then. I've also found that one feels the most confident but ironically also the least willing/able to learn during stage 3. I would say that one's curiosity and adaptability would be low during stage 3. Maybe one could equate it as follows:

Stage 1:
low curiosity, high adaptability
(not aware that one should learn thus not curious), (there is "room" for learning because you don't have knowledge)

Stage 2:
high curiosity, high adaptability

Stage 3:
low curiosity, low adaptability

Stage 4:
high curiosity, low adaptability

If the above is true it actually explains the drive for the cycle because the high curiosity experienced during stage 4 provides incentive (motivation?) to enter stage 1?

If curiosity + adaptability is an indicator for "plasticity" in its new use here, is the plasticity then constant during stage 1 to 4? I think motivation will play an important role!

Don't know if the above scheme is useful, but i'm curious to follow this discussion...

[jBirch]

I'm coming to believe that motivation and curiosity are intrinsic qualities that the coach has absolutely no influence over whatsoever.

So the answer, in my mind at least, is that no, you can't do anything to increase it.

What you can do, though, is to deal most efficiently with what you've got. So students with high plasticity need to be encouraged and directed to learn from other sources. These are students that achieve best with a "laissez-faire" instructional approach. Your job is to simply point them in the right direction and let them go to it. Downside is that they tend to have poor technical skills ('cause they're more interested in learning the cool new technique then in refining what they already have).

Students with low-plasticity need to be given tools to better take advantage of what skills they've already got. These are the ones who will do better with an autocratic system and "robo-lessons".

Finally, I'm not entirely convinced that good fencers are intelligent fencers. To me, well trained fencers (ie// fencers with excellent fencing "reflexes") will trump more intelligent but less well-trained fencers every time. Further, I haven't been able to perceive much performance difference between equally trained fencers where one is more intelligent then the other. In fact, the less intelligent (but still highly trained fencer) often does better (perhaps because the coach is doing the thinking for them??)

[RITFencing]

Originally Posted by jBirch

I'm coming to believe that motivation and curiosity are intrinsic qualities that the coach has absolutely no influence over whatsoever.

I really disagree very much with this. In my own experience as a coach and in all the time I've spent with other coaches of various levels, I've found that coaches have a very high impact on the motivational levels of their fencers. The best coaches I've met were all excellent motivators.

[jBirch]

Originally Posted by RITFencing

I really disagree very much with this. In my own experience as a coach and in all the time I've spent with other coaches of various levels, I've found that coaches have a very high impact on the motivational levels of their fencers. The best coaches I've met were all excellent motivators.

I've found coaches to be very effective DEMOTIVATORS, but to actually motivate the fencer to do something?

Not so sure...

Have you an example of getting a student to sucessfully want to do something that the student initiatially didn't already want to do?

James.

[Mr Epee]

For the record, I am in complete 100% agreement with James.

[fencerX]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Mmmmm, wonder if you know where RIT works, what elite-level coaches he works with, and whether you're taking a (thinly-veiled) shot at one or more of them.

He shoots! He scores!

Even if he didn't know who was standing thataways