On Fri, 24 Aug 2007 19:17:03 -0700, Bill Kerr billkerr@gmail.com wrote:
refined and tested. What does "length of exposure" mean? One hour a day for two years? One hour a week for two years? Here's a brief thought experiment to address this point: I'll bet everyone on this list remembers exactly where they were and what they were doing when they first learned of the 9/11 attacks. That wasn't a very long exposure, yet everyone remembers it. Why?
Again citing Glenn Doman and the IAHP, there are three factors in retention of data: Frequency, intensity and duration. Number of times of exposure, the intensity of that exposure and the length of that exposure.
9/11 was a very intense exposure and, you know what, it was a pretty long one, too. Little else occupied a lot of people's minds for a solid week. Then you have the frequency of subsequent exposure: 9/11, the moon landing, the Kennedy Assassination...I would imagine the firing on Fort Sumter...it's not like these things happen in their brief moment and are never mentioned again.
Some controversy takes place around what the powerful materials are. eg. playing computer games such as World of Warcraft, is that powerful or trivial?
World of Warcraft is extremely powerful. It conveys things that are of highly limited value, but it does so in a very effective fashion. The intensity is probably as high as a virtual environment can get (I'm guessing, I've never played), and it encourages both frequency and duration.
The guys to ask about that, I guess, would be the America's Army guys. They've been giving away their free combat game as a recruitment tool--but it was initially a training tool as well.