Is it a myth that as one ages one tends to learn slower?

[rovis77]

Is it a myth that as one ages one tends to learn slower or this is just a myth?. I read posts of people saying that they even learn music a lot faster when they are older compared to when they are younger. I would like to hear opinions.

[ravelfan07]

To my knowledge, on the extreme end yes
When you’re 60 you’ll learn slower than when you’re 20
But you only learn slower as you age cognitively, in the sense that you’re just getting old

[brogers70]

I would guess that two effects happen simultaneously. First the brain is aging and slowly losing capacity, so that would tend to make you learn more slowly as the years pass. But on the other hand, if you've been practicing during all those passing years, you've been developing skills that make it much easier to learn new pieces. And in general, you may have learned about how to learn. I started learning the Khmer language (definitely not a piece of cake for English speakers) in my 50s, and got to the point where I could give technical lectures in it. It took me less time to acquire proficiency in Khmer in my 50's than it did for me to learn French in my teens.

[keypeg]

YES, it's a myth.  Let's go by our individual experiences - which we can only do if we reach such ages - because we are individuals.  I am learning faster, and there are a few reasons for that.

[rovis77]

YES, it's a myth.  Let's go by our individual experiences - which we can only do if we reach such ages - because we are individuals.  I am learning faster, and there are a few reasons for that.

What is your age?. What are the reasons you learn faster now?

[keypeg]

I'll be 70 in a couple of months.  I learn and achieve faster because I have a handle on efficient learning and doing which I didn't have when I was in my 20s and earlier. Without that, I would be "as fast".  There are some physical setbacks. That means learning to use one's body efficiently at the instrument, and possibly correcting poor habits in everyday life (Feldenkrais, Alexander, Dr. Osar) is a good thing to do.  I learned my 5th or 6th language a decade ago, and have dabbled with the 6th or 7th now.

There is a danger to this belief in "decline" - it is a psychological detriment.  That goes to any blanket statement about supposed weaknesses of any group - history bears it out. We are individuals with individual makeups.  What is an idle curiosity when you're in your thirties, is something different at a later age.  Then it becomes a belief about yourself.

[rovis77]

I'll be 70 in a couple of months.  I learn and achieve faster because I have a handle on efficient learning and doing which I didn't have when I was in my 20s and earlier. Without that, I would be "as fast".  There are some physical setbacks. That means learning to use one's body efficiently at the instrument, and possibly correcting poor habits in everyday life (Feldenkrais, Alexander, Dr. Osar) is a good thing to do.  I learned my 5th or 6th language a decade ago, and have dabbled with the 6th or 7th now.

There is a danger to this belief in "decline" - it is a psychological detriment.  That goes to any blanket statement about supposed weaknesses of any group - history bears it out. We are individuals with individual makeups.  What is an idle curiosity when you're in your thirties, is something different at a later age.  Then it becomes a belief about yourself.

Wow it is great to know you learn faster now compared to your twenties. Your memorization is the same as 50 years ago?

[kosulin]

IMO, when you are older you learn something really new much slower (and sometimes you may even fail), but you would learn a new piece faster if there are no new cognitive or technical/physiological challenges involved. Just because this would be just a repetition of a process you did thousands time before.
But it would be harder, or even sometimes impossible to learn, say, complex polyrhythm (cognitive challenge) or tremolo (physiological one) in an older age if you never played them before. Or to start playing with orchestra.
But learning a new waltz, a twenty third in your career? Piece of cake!
When you are older you recognize and employ well remembered patterns easily, but it is harder to learn new ones.

P.S. Just look at "conservatism" where, say, new music is criticized by older generations as something wrong, terrible, inappropriate, etc. Because it goes against well established patterns all their experience was built on. But when you are young you just easily absorb these new patterns and add them to your universe.

[brogers70]

IMO, when you are older you learn something really new much slower (and sometimes you may even fail), but you would learn a new piece faster if there are no new cognitive or technical/physiological challenges involved. Just because this would be just a repetition of a process you did thousands time before.
But it would be harder, or even sometimes impossible to learn, say, complex polyrhythm (cognitive challenge) or tremolo (physiological one) in an older age if you never played them before. Or to start playing with orchestra.
But learning a new waltz, a twenty third in your career? Piece of cake!
When you are older you recognize and employ well remembered patterns easily, but it is harder to learn new ones.

P.S. Just look at "conservatism" where, say, new music is criticized by older generations as something wrong, terrible, inappropriate, etc. Because it goes against well established patterns all their experience was built on. But when you are young you just easily absorb these new patterns and add them to your universe.

I'm not sure I'd limit it that way. I started piano at 40, gave my first recital (small, of course) at 60, and it's only at 65 that I've gotten fast, smooth scales and trills. The advantages of age are motivation (Time's winged chariot hurrying near), nothing left to lose, and plenty of experience figuring out how to learn new skills. You never know what you can learn until you try, and I think it's always a bad idea to assume it's just going to be too hard at this age or any age.

[keypeg]

IMO, when you are older you learn something really new much slower ....

I dislike all general statements of this kind, encompassing all people in a given group.  You may say "As I got older ...." or "friends told me that as they got older ...."  I do not learn "slower" and definitely not "much slower".  I know a few people on either side of 80 (i.e. older than me) who also do not have that experience.

But it would be harder, or even sometimes impossible to learn, say, complex polyrhythm (cognitive challenge) or tremolo (physiological one) in an older age if you never played them before. 

In fact, I went after polyrhythm for the first time two years ago, starting with 2 against 3 and vice versa, and then expanding to 3 against 4.  I will be going on to more complex ones.  Tremolo for the first time also two years ago.  The deciding factor was approach each time, and along the way there were some bad ones or ones that didn't work - then other approaches that did work.

When you are older you recognize and employ well remembered patterns easily, but it is harder to learn new ones.

If that were actually true, then I should give up right now and not touch music again, because it is precisely new patterns, new skills, and new ways that interest me and keeps me going.

P.S. Just look at "conservatism" where, say, new music is criticized by older generations as something wrong, terrible, inappropriate, etc. Because it goes against well established patterns all their experience was built on. But when you are young you just easily absorb these new patterns and add them to your universe.

Also a stereotype, going two ways.  There are "conservative" (close-minded) young people, and there are curious, open-minded, experimental old people.

The worst thing, when you are a student, is being pigeon-holed by a teacher according to what "your kind" is like, wants to learn, is capable of etc., and teaching accordingly.  We are individuals.

[lostinidlewonder]

I've taught a number of people 70+, even more 60+, and one that was 90+. We must treat everyone as individual. The 90-year-old I taught actually learned lots of new subjects even at her late age. She studied languages, participated in different exercise courses, learned new arts and craft and probably more skills she did not tell me about! She actively engaged her brain to learn new things and she thoroughly enjoyed it. How did she do in piano? I wouldn't say that much worse than beginners I've taught in the past, she played simple tunes with two hands and was content.

I currently teach two over 70s, one is better than the other but both do well and enjoy their work and progress. Would it have been faster if they were younger? Perhaps but it's impossible to tell really, plus it is utterly irrelevant.

I taught many years ago a lady in her 60s who never played piano before and within a year or two she was playing at diploma levels playing works like Chopin concertos and mid/late Beethoven sonatas! She was a super talent where age did not restrict her. She even took up drawing and painting and did photo realistic works!

So we need to take each person individually and I don't think that speed but the journey has really much relevance. From my experience coming across young children who are super interested and dedicated to piano is a rarity, older adults with longer-term motivation to learn piano tend to be more common by comparison.

[timothy42b]

I'm in my early 70s.
I learn just as fast.

But forgetting is the problem.  I forget much faster, sometimes so fast I have to relearn every time. 

[ranjit]

I'm in my early 70s.
I learn just as fast.

But forgetting is the problem.  I forget much faster, sometimes so fast I have to relearn every time.

I'm rather concerned this might be the case for me too. I learn faster than I ever have, but I wonder if I forget easier. In the past, especially during childhood, I would sometimes listen to pieces of music which I would then remember after years of not having heard them. I'm not sure to what extent I still have that ability. But on the uptake, I'm as fast as I've ever been.

[keypeg]

I've taught a number of people 70+, even more 60+, and one that was 90+. We must treat everyone as individual. ..........

Thank you for this, and everything after.

It is refreshing to hear from someone who has worked with people, rather than read theoretical ideas about people.

[rovis77]

I'm not sure I'd limit it that way. I started piano at 40, gave my first recital (small, of course) at 60, and it's only at 65 that I've gotten fast, smooth scales and trills. The advantages of age are motivation (Time's winged chariot hurrying near), nothing left to lose, and plenty of experience figuring out how to learn new skills. You never know what you can learn until you try, and I think it's always a bad idea to assume it's just going to be too hard at this age or any age.

Do you find yourself learning faster now than 25 years ago when you started piano?

[rovis77]

I dislike all general statements of this kind, encompassing all people in a given group.  You may say "As I got older ...." or "friends told me that as they got older ...."  I do not learn "slower" and definitely not "much slower".  I know a few people on either side of 80 (i.e. older than me) who also do not have that experience.

In fact, I went after polyrhythm for the first time two years ago, starting with 2 against 3 and vice versa, and then expanding to 3 against 4.  I will be going on to more complex ones.  Tremolo for the first time also two years ago.  The deciding factor was approach each time, and along the way there were some bad ones or ones that didn't work - then other approaches that did work.

If that were actually true, then I should give up right now and not touch music again, because it is precisely new patterns, new skills, and new ways that interest me and keeps me going.

Also a stereotype, going two ways.  There are "conservative" (close-minded) young people, and there are curious, open-minded, experimental old people.

The worst thing, when you are a student, is being pigeon-holed by a teacher according to what "your kind" is like, wants to learn, is capable of etc., and teaching accordingly.  We are individuals.

Totally true, stereotypes ruin people´s motivation. So do you find yourself memorizing and learning things faster at the piano now compared to when you were younger?

[rovis77]

I've taught a number of people 70+, even more 60+, and one that was 90+. We must treat everyone as individual. The 90-year-old I taught actually learned lots of new subjects even at her late age. She studied languages, participated in different exercise courses, learned new arts and craft and probably more skills she did tell me about! She actively engaged her brain to learn new things and she thoroughly enjoyed it. How did she do in piano? I wouldn't say that much worse than beginners I've taught in the past, she played simple tunes with two hands and was content.

I currently teach two over 70s, one is better than the other but both do well and enjoy their work and progress. Would it have been faster if they were younger? Perhaps but it's impossible to tell really.

I taught many years ago a lady in her 60s who never played piano before and within a year or two she was playing at diploma levels playing works like Chopin concertos and mid/late Beethoven sonatas! She was a super talent where age did not restrict her. She even took up drawing and painting and did photo realistic works!

So we need to take each person individually and I don't think that speed but the journey has really much relevance. From my experience coming across young children who are super interested and dedicated to piano is a rarity, older adults with longer-term motivation to learn piano tend to be more common by comparison.

Nice post!. So can we assume that someone who has been playing the piano for many years can still learn as fast in old age compared to when he was young?

[brogers70]

Do you find yourself learning faster now than 25 years ago when you started piano?

Absolutely; I learn much faster now than I did when I started. I have much better ideas about how to practice efficiently, I've solved a lot of problems with my technique that were holding me back and slowing me down, I've a better kinesthetic sense of how the keyboard lies and where all the notes are, I've hard some years now working on sight reading. It's definitely faster and easier for me to learn new music than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

[rovis77]

Absolutely; I learn much faster now than I did when I started. I have much better ideas about how to practice efficiently, I've solved a lot of problems with my technique that were holding me back and slowing me down, I've a better kinesthetic sense of how the keyboard lies and where all the notes are, I've hard some years now working on sight reading. It's definitely faster and easier for me to learn new music than it was 10 or 20 years ago.

It is great to know that you learn faster now at 65 than in your younger days applying more efficient practice methods. Do you still memorize as good as in your younger days?

[brogers70]

It is great to know that you learn faster now at 65 than in your younger days applying more efficient practice methods. Do you still memorize as good as in your younger days?

I've been lucky never to have any trouble memorizing, then or now. By the time I've worked on a piece for a couple of weeks, it's pretty well memorized. As for how long it will last without playing it once in a while, I haven't tested that. I used to play classical guitar as a teenager. After twenty years without touching a guitar, somebody at party said "I heard you used to play the guitar, can you still play anything?" and I went through a Villa Lobos Choros and a Bach fugue by memory just fine. I don't think I've imprinted anything that deeply as an older person, but then I haven't tested it either.

[lostinidlewonder]

Thank you for this, and everything after.

It is refreshing to hear from someone who has worked with people, rather than read theoretical ideas about people.

Certainly I think actual experience with many people can  give a different perspective. Many studies don't have a large sample space so you'll get bias, I'm sure if my sample space was different I might have come to different conclusions but I think that individuality in students remains quite consistent even as one ages. Sure I've taught older students who absolutely struggle, those have almost always been those who never had any music skills taught to them during their early childhood development like clapping beats, singing etc. Overall though I've seen older students thrive and enjoy the challenges faced, something all musicians face as well no matter the age.

Nice post!. So can we assume that someone who has been playing the piano for many years can still learn as fast in old age compared to when he was young?

This kind of question is relative to the individual. Personally I learn faster than when I was younger but that's because I've trained my learning skills and improved them over many years. I have several students I've taught 20+ years, most have improved their rate more so than those who have slowed down.

There are many factors that can contribute to this, one of my 70 year old students learns slower due to emotional challenges increasing, loss of spouse, family affairs etc. These of course all impact upon one's ability to learn with freedom of thought which I think is necessary for efficient learning.

It can be frustrating if one feels like they slow down. It is noticeable in disciplines such as chess that the huge amount time to study because difficult to maintain at older ages. We have to realise that our world view also changes as we age, being competitive at a younger age might fall away as you age, being content with what you have might become stronger as you age and realise what loss really is like.

 I think those who study piano for most of their waking hours every day for their whole life really are missing out on what life really is about, that might sound strange coming from a professional musician but I really think we should live a balanced life and not be obsessed with one thing or the other. As one ages I think this becomes clearer and although it may seem we work slower it really is a life style choice.

One of my 70+ year old students studies piano at least 3 hours a day, that's quite an amount that even younger pianists might struggle to maintain. But he loves doing that, it's fine for him, he displays more discipline and focus than many younger than  himself and thus learns at a good rate. I couldn't imagine doing 9 hours a day every day like I did when I was studying piano "seriosuly", it's a waste of life. There's a saying in chess, I forgot who said it but it runs along the lines of " A good chess player is a gentleman, a grandmaster of chess is a wasted life". I think the same holds true for masters of piano, when I look back at it probably I wasted much of my life sitting in front of the 88 keys, I'd likely do it again if I lived my life over but the opportunity cost when pondered over can be frightening.

Sure a dedication to something might be a personal choice in itself too! So those who really want to pour their entire life into one interest should do so. Personally I think life has more to offer than that.

[rovis77]

Certainly I think actual experience with many people can  give a different perspective. Many studies don't have a large sample space so you'll get bias, I'm sure if my sample space was different I might have come to different conclusions but I think that individuality in students remains quite consistent even as one ages. Sure I've taught older students who absolutely struggle, those have almost always been those who never had any music skills taught to them during their early childhood development like clapping beats, singing etc. Overall though I've seen older students thrive and enjoy the challenges faced, something all musicians face as well no matter the age.
This kind of question is relative to the individual. Personally I learn faster than when I was younger but that's because I've trained my learning skills and improved them over many years. I have several students I've taught 20+ years, most have improved their rate more so than those who have slowed down.

There are many factors that can contribute to this, one of my 70 year old students learns slower due to emotional challenges increasing, loss of spouse, family affairs etc. These of course all impact upon one's ability to learn with freedom of thought which I think is necessary for efficient learning.

It can be frustrating if one feels like they slow down. It is noticeable in disciplines such as chess that the huge amount time to study because difficult to maintain at older ages. We have to realise that our world view also changes as we age, being competitive at a younger age might fall away as you age, being content with what you have might become stronger as you age and realise what loss really is like.

 I think those who study piano for most of their waking hours every day for their whole life really are missing out on what life really is about, that might sound strange coming from a professional musician but I really think we should live a balanced life and not be obsessed with one thing or the other. As one ages I think this becomes clearer and although it may seem we work slower it really is a life style choice.

One of my 70+ year old students studies piano at least 3 hours a day, that's quite an amount that even younger pianists might struggle to maintain. But he loves doing that, it's fine for him, he displays more discipline and focus than many younger than  himself and thus learns at a good rate. I couldn't imagine doing 9 hours a day every day like I did when I was studying piano "seriosuly", it's a waste of life. There's a saying in chess, I forgot who said it but it runs along the lines of " A good chess player is a gentleman, a grandmaster of chess is a wasted life". I think the same holds true for masters of piano, when I look back at it probably I wasted much of my life sitting in front of the 88 keys, I'd likely do it again if I lived my life over but the opportunity cost when pondered over can be frightening.

Sure a dedication to something might be a personal choice in itself too! So those who really want to pour their entire life into one interest should do so. Personally I think life has more to offer than that.

I did not know that you were a professional pianist. What was your practicing schedule back then?. What methods did you employed to learn a lot faster this days compared to when you were young. Thanks for your great advice in each post you share with us.

[lostinidlewonder]

I did not know that you were a professional pianist. What was your practicing schedule back then?

I had different periods of study when I was younger so it is not just a single way. During my more serious periods I was doing some 9 hours per day for several months, then around 3-5 hours. When I started teaching more full time my own personal practice went to around 0-3 hours a day, but teaching can be practice in itself.

What methods did you employed to learn a lot faster this days compared to when you were young. Thanks for your great advice in each post you share with us.

The synergy between sight reading and memorization has improved considerably over the years. I wouldn't say my reading skills are at a super powerful level but I can play the majority of repertoire at slower tempos without problem which allows me to get my hands around pieces and naturally memorize them and become faster through multiple reads. When I was younger it was more of a step by step memorisation process since my reading skills were not as strong. Today I can play plenty of music at tempo with full expression with zero practice, just using sight reading skills which is empowering.

Also I think reading skills can exist undisturbed far into late age (given your vision allows you to still read), there is a case this man here below who can still sight read even after suffering an extreme condition of the brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing

[keypeg]

Thank you for posting the documentary about Clive Wearing.  I watched it some years ago.  It grabs me every time.

[rovis77]

I had different periods of study when I was younger so it is not just a single way. During my more serious periods I was doing some 9 hours per day for several months, then around 3-5 hours. When I started teaching more full time my own personal practice went to around 0-3 hours a day, but teaching can be practice in itself.
The synergy between sight reading and memorization has improved considerably over the years. I wouldn't say my reading skills are at a super powerful level but I can play the majority of repertoire at slower tempos without problem which allows me to get my hands around pieces and naturally memorize them and become faster through multiple reads. When I was younger it was more of a step by step memorisation process since my reading skills were not as strong. Today I can play plenty of music at tempo with full expression with zero practice, just using sight reading skills which is empowering.

Also I think reading skills can exist undisturbed far into late age (given your vision allows you to still read), there is a case this man here below who can still sight read even after suffering an extreme condition of the brain.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clive_Wearing

What is your age?, I haven't asked that. Do you find it easier to memorize with strong sight reading skills than without them?.

[lostinidlewonder]

What is your age?, I haven't asked that

What does that matter? You can look at my profile.

. Do you find it easier to memorize with strong sight reading skills than without them?.

If you read my previous response I've answered that.

[ted]

It is actually very, very complicated and highly individual, and much more a matter of type than degree.  Do I have the same intensity, drive and obsession at seventy-six that I had for piano playing, music, sports and mathematics fifty years ago ? No, not in the sense of the narrowly directed passion and determination needed to learn and excel in these pursuits; but then excelling and linear comparison and competition of any sort have become grotesquely irrelevant to me anyway. Lostinidlewonder is right as usual in his implication that the importance of specific drives are superseded with age by an immense broadening of mind.

The original question is easy to answer personally. I am lucky and grateful that my memory, mental acuity and, more strangely perhaps, physical technique, seem to be better than they were in my twenties, with far less time and effort and virtually no practice. I do spend and hour or two at the instrument most days but it's close to 95% improvisation and recording, that is to say creation. There is also a deeper moral aspect to all this which, to my detriment, I did not perceive when younger. I am not a good enough creator or player to allow my musical obsession to impede the lives of my family beyond a reasonable level, and even if I were I doubt moral justification exists for doing so. In the end goodness is more important than beauty.

So yes, in the absence of medical causes it is a myth and a most destructive one, but the deeper implications of the question deserve thought.   

[rovis77]

What does that matter? You can look at my profile.
If you read my previous response I've answered that.

Thanks for your valuable responses on the topic

[lostinidlewonder]

It is actually very, very complicated and highly individual, and much more a matter of type than degree.  Do I have the same intensity, drive and obsession at seventy-six that I had for piano playing, music, sports and mathematics fifty years ago ? No, not in the sense of the narrowly directed passion and determination needed to learn and excel in these pursuits; but then excelling and linear comparison and competition of any sort have become grotesquely irrelevant to me anyway

I think this is difficult for those who are younger to really appreciate. One might believe that their world view, their aspirations, their goals, their drive to achieve doesn't change much and that it is merely the physical aspect of age which slows it all down and causes change. Really it is how we percieve life itself that makes changes, our priorities shift, I think if that doesn't occur something is missing, although yes there are people who obsess over something for their whole life and disregard all else, to me that would be a life which hasn't learned much at all and is missing out on a lot, but that is just my personal opinion.

The original question is easy to answer personally. I am lucky and grateful that my memory, mental acuity and, more strangely perhaps, physical technique, seem to be better than they were in my twenties, with far less time and effort and virtually no practice. I do spend and hour or two at the instrument most days but it's close to 95% improvisation and recording, that is to say creation.

I think it is something that everyone younger than you should be envious of. To be able to maintain a relationship with the piano throughout life and to be able to physically/mentally still connect with it is something I hope will also be a part of my whole life too even if the relationship changes.

There is also a deeper moral aspect to all this which, to my detriment, I did not perceive when younger. I am not a good enough creator or player to allow my musical obsession to impede the lives of my family beyond a reasonable level, and even if I were I doubt moral justification exists for doing so. In the end goodness is more important than beauty.

I think you have a balanced approach to something you do love. But there are certainly things in life which trump piano for me and I am sure you also believe the same. Just spending time with our loved ones and appreciating simple things totally blasts piano out of the water, as cheesy as that might sound it is so very true. As much as we like to romanticise piano and music, it is only decoration of time and a method of self expression, the "self" really becomes less and less important as we age, our ego dissolves as we become wiser and older!

So yes, in the absence of medical causes it is a myth and a most destructive one, but the deeper implications of the question deserve thought.   

Totally agree. Although yes there is physical changes with age and some experience it much more severely than others it is not the commanding factor for working slower as we age, it is our perception of life itself.

[geopianoincanada]

Is it a myth that as one ages one tends to learn slower or this is just a myth?. I read posts of people saying that they even learn music a lot faster when they are older compared to when they are younger. I would like to hear opinions.

From my own personal experience having first initiated piano lessons over 20 years ago, being forced to halt them after only a short time then try to pick them back up starting in November of 2018 I can confidently state that yes age definitely negatively impacts not only memory and learning but also eyesight, limbs, hands, fingers.

That old expression "youth is wasted on the young" remains true.

[timothy42b]

Something that occurs to me, from a book I was reading yesterday, is that aging might make improving sightreading more difficult.  Sightreading and memorization are possibly much more closely related than I had thought. 

[keypeg]

...., is that aging might make improving sightreading more difficult.  ....

Did the author of that book teach reading music, and specialize in it?  My sight reading and my reading skills have improved exponentially.  The teacher I study with makes reading skills a priority for all students, and I've not been told of any such problems among older students. 

[timothy42b]

Did the author of that book teach reading music, and specialize in it?  My sight reading and my reading skills have improved exponentially.  The teacher I study with makes reading skills a priority for all students, and I've not been told of any such problems among older students.

Ah.  But are your memorization skills improving? 

No, the book isn't on music, it's on sports.  The Sports Gene by David Epstein.  And very little of it applies to this discussion, but a couple of things caught my attention.  Basically the book talks about which sports attributes appear to be genetic (like tall basketball players, baseball players with 20/11 vision) and which learned (how to read a pitch in 200 msec). 

One item, unrelated at first glance:  10,000 hour meme.  He cited a study of chess players learning masters level skills, which involves memorizing about 300,000 chunks of positions.  They took an average of 11,500 hours, which would seem to support the Gladwell and Erickson statements.  But he points out they didn't include the range.  It turns out while the average is 11,500, the range was 3,000 for the fastest and 23,000 for a slowpoke. 

Beginners think sightreading is all about keyboard geography and plotting a 3D trajectory from current finger position to correct key.  But at higher levels most of it is retrieval of learned patterns.  Great sightreaders don't read note by note, they recognize chunks like the chess players do.  (Grandmasters level chess players can completely reproduce a chess board layout from a 3 second glance, as long as it's from a game.  With random layouts they do no better than the rest of us.) 

The other item was a discussion about elite athletes recognizing patterns quickly - the location of a volleyball in space from a view of the forearm, based on those thousands of hours of learning the relationships.  The anecdote about hitting baseball pitches was interesting.  Major league baseball players can hit 95 mph pitches, but in a softball game were totally unable to hit a female pitcher throwing mid 60s.  They had learned to predict where a baseball would be partly from the pitcher's cues, and absent those could not hit. 

At any rate, great sightreaders instantly see much more on the page - larger chunks and relationships - than average players, and simply practicing sightreading is probably not going to build that ability. 

[lostinidlewonder]

One item, unrelated at first glance:  10,000 hour meme.  He cited a study of chess players learning masters level skills, which involves memorizing about 300,000 chunks of positions.  They took an average of 11,500 hours, which would seem to support the Gladwell and Erickson statements.  But he points out Great sightreaders don't read note by note, they recognize chunks like the chess players do.  (Grandmasters level chess players can completely reproduce a chess board layout from a 3 second glance, as long as it's from a game.  With random layouts they do no better than the rest of us.)

I don't have time to respond to everything but this here is quite a bit of misinformation by the source of your info. I'm good at chess but far away from being a grandmaster let alone an international master and I can reproduce by glance any position. Magnus Carlsen and many other GMs can play many multiple boards blindfold, so reproducing a position even if random would be absolutely child's play for them.

300k positions memorised is totally unnecessary too, that would be akin to sight reading note by note.

[brogers70]

I don't have time to respond to everything but this here is quite a bit of misinformation by the source of your info. I'm good at chess but far away from being a grandmaster let alone an international master and I can reproduce by glance any position. Magnus Carlsen and many other GMs can play many multiple boards blindfold, so reproducing a position even if random would be absolutely child's play for them.

300k positions memorised is totally unnecessary too, that would be akin to sight reading note by note.

The difference between random positions and positions from a game is analogous to the difference between random notes on a score and an excerpt from a (pre-20th century) piece. For the same number of notes, it's a lot easier to sight read or memorize the latter. My understanding is that grandmasters remember positions by chunking (such and such a pawn structure, parallel rooks, threat to a piece, similarity to a game they remember, etc) just as musicians chunk (circle of fifths progression over an Alberti bass) rather than reading or remembering individual notes.

[ranjit]

I think sight reading difficulty mostly lies in being able to retrieve patterns from memory. But it's not ordinary, slow memory. It has to be quick, unconscious, a reflex. I personally think I find sight reading very hard, and it's to do with the difficulty I've faced making these patterns automatic. When I see a word in English,  the retreival process is so automatic the conscious mind plays virtually no role -- I can not choose to not read a word I see, and if I scroll through a page really quickly, my mind automatically registers certain interesting words among the hundreds of words on the page.

I would assume that proficient sight readers can do the same, but so far, I haven't come remotely close, and doubt I will get there in my life, given how so relatively little I progressed after 2-3 years of reading.

It's discouraging because after 2-3 years of reading text, I was reading full- length novels at 500wpm. Reading came really naturally to me, which is why I can't understand why sight reading won't. Perhaps it's just age.

[keypeg]

I think sight reading difficulty mostly lies in being able to retrieve patterns from memory.  .....

This starts with the assumption that reading, or sight reading, involves retrieving patterns.  It may not involve that.  I also think we have a problem with the word "reading" ---- it is a word we use for language (words), and therefore we expect the same process or character.  What if it's not?

[keypeg]

Did the author of that book teach reading music, and specialize in it?  My sight reading and my reading skills have improved exponentially.  The teacher I study with makes reading skills a priority for all students, and I've not been told of any such problems among older students.

Ah.  But are your memorization skills improving? 

No, the book isn't on music, it's on sports.   

Thank you for answering.  Therefore you wrote your extrapolation on what you learned from a book on sports, rather than citing someone who teaches reading and observes students.  The topic was sight reading, and that is what I answered.  i do not relate it to memory, and I'm not told that it relates to memory.  My early "reading" as I did was probably largely pattern-related (memory).

Memorization is in fact probably improved and better.  There is a different, and more multifaceted process at work.

[lostinidlewonder]

The difference between random positions and positions from a game is analogous to the difference between random notes on a score and an excerpt from a (pre-20th century) piece. For the same number of notes, it's a lot easier to sight read or memorize the latter. My understanding is that grandmasters remember positions by chunking (such and such a pawn structure, parallel rooks, threat to a piece, similarity to a game they remember, etc) just as musicians chunk (circle of fifths progression over an Alberti bass) rather than reading or remembering individual notes.

The correlation between  piano and chess is not so strong. What truly is random? Seemingly random notes on the piano can drive some sort of pattern too. If I as a non grandmaster of chess can keep any position on the chess board in my mind imagine how much easier it would be for a master who much better than I. As I said there are masters who can keep multiple boards in their head and play blindfolded (and I get the positons derive from gameplay but that doesn't take away the greater mental challenge)  so memorising a single position is totally easy by comparison even if "random" or illegal positions.

I can glance at sheet music and still see it in my minds eye too even if it is seemingly random notes. I don't think I have photographic memory but in the short term it remains there and I can see it. Glancing skill for sight reading to allow a persistence of what you see in the mind is certainly trainable. In any case this all is a tangent to the topic, I am just passionate about chess too since I've played it all my life.

The largest problem with these studies by the people you have mentioned is that the sample space is either extremely small or not defined at all. If they took the top grandmasters of chess today and tested them they would find their results would likely not be reproduced.

[timothy42b]

The difference between random positions and positions from a game is analogous to the difference between random notes on a score and an excerpt from a (pre-20th century) piece. For the same number of notes, it's a lot easier to sight read or memorize the latter. My understanding is that grandmasters remember positions by chunking (such and such a pawn structure, parallel rooks, threat to a piece, similarity to a game they remember, etc) just as musicians chunk (circle of fifths progression over an Alberti bass) rather than reading or remembering individual notes.

Yes, I think so, though I haven't seen it discussed much.  .
When LIW looks at a score I'm sure he sees much more instantly than I do.  He's been doing that so long he is probably not aware of it, but it informs his sightreading.  He has many patterns thoroughly learned that he can recognize; he also has the skills to reproduce, which is possibly a different mechanism. 

People who play a lot of one genre of music - say, SATB traditional hymns - get good at recognizing the commonalities and if they don't sightread perfectly you often can't tell they're faking some of it.  That ability doesn't automatically transfer equally to other genre's, particularly ones that are not 4/4 quarter notes.  <s>

Students are often advised here and on other forums to read a lot of Bach chorales to improve sightreading, as if sightreading was a specific skill not directly related.  I suspect that they would improve their sightreading much faster by also taking a few Bach chorales and learning them thoroughly, internalizing the commonalities.  They would get very good at sightreading Bach chorales, and similar pieces; how much it would generalize is debatable. 

Now if it is true that a significant part of reading involves recognizing learned patterns - not that I've proven it, but it at least makes some common sense - then adding to the patterns we know requires memory.  For some of us memory fades as we age, particularly recent and episodic memory.  Some here are fortunate that this has not occurred - keypeg seems to be doing well.  I'm in the group that struggles. 

[ranjit]

Glancing skill for sight reading to allow a persistence of what you see in the mind is certainly trainable.

Could you explain how this could be trained? I think that would be really useful.

[lostinidlewonder]

Could you explain how this could be trained? I think that would be really useful.

I'll message you otherwise it will tangent this thread.

[brogers70]

Back on the theme of chess memory. There are actual experiments done on the ability of variously ranked players to memorize positions taken from actual games or randomly generated. The results showed....

"Dozens of experiments have shown that chess masters (but not novices) are able to reconstruct meaningful chess positions after rapid glances almost perfectly, but cannot reconstruct with the same ease a random scrambling of the chess pieces found in a position. Masters only slightly do better than amateurs in reconstructing random chess positions after a few seconds of glancing at the position. Further experiments have shown that masters can reconstruct an unfamiliar game with 22 pieces after viewing it for 5 seconds with about 93% accuracy. Masters (rated over 2200) have an 81% accuracy. Experts (rated 2000 to 2200) have an accuracy of 72%. Class A players (1800-2000) have an accuracy of 51% and novices have an accuracy of 33%. It seems that real chess positions carry deep meaning, but random chess positions do not. Advanced chess players remember pieces in structured positions, and that pieces are remembered as groups or chunks rather than the individual pieces together."

That's from https://billwall.phpwebhosting.com/articles/chunking.htm

The following article on Adriaan de Groot, who studied chess psychology, can lead you to the original studies, if you want to dive into Google Scholar, a summary is

"Drawing on earlier studies (by Djakow, Petrowski and Rudik in the 20s) de Groot also exposed subjects very briefly, for 3-4 seconds, to positions taken from a game. He found that grandmasters and masters were able to recall the location of 93% of the pieces, while the experts remembered 72% and the class players merely 51%.

In later (1973) studies conducted by Herbert A. Simon and W.G. Chase the experiments were conducted with real game positions and compared with random positions. The Americans discovered that in the real positions the performance of their subjects declined proportionally to their chess ratings, but that in the random position players of all levels did approximately the same. Simon and Chase came to the conclusion that higher-ranked players use a form of chunking, or pattern-matching, that allows them to rapidly encode macro features of the positions."

https://en.chessbase.com/post/adriaan-de-groot-che-psychologist-1914-2006-

And here are just a couple of the relevant research papers

https://bura.brunel.ac.uk/bitstream/2438/1343/1/Copy-Task-NEW-BJP.pdf

https://iiif.library.cmu.edu/file/Simon_box00021_fld01467_bdl0001_doc0001/Simon_box00021_fld01467_bdl0001_doc0001.pdf

There are lots more papers. It does look like the basic finding that the difference between the ability of masters and novices to recall positions at a glance is much greater when the positions are taken from actual games versus random positions (with the random positions generated as described in the papers) and that chunking explains the difference - ie real games generated meaningful, easily recognizable chunks more readily than random positions.

[timothy42b]

There are lots more papers. It does look like the basic finding that the difference between the ability of masters and novices to recall positions at a glance is much greater when the positions are taken from actual games versus random positions (with the random positions generated as described in the papers) and that chunking explains the difference - ie real games generated meaningful, easily recognizable chunks more readily than random positions.

The sports author that I quoted (Epstein) used chess as one example, but he was really focused on the ability of elite athletes to do something similar at speed, as when receiving a pitch or a volleyball return, based on years of training providing them with similar chunks of input.

It seems logical to me that there is some application to music as well, and specifically to sightreading.  It also seems logical that any deficit in memory might make acquiring enough chunks more difficult, and logical that at least some of us have age related memory decline.  I realize that's quite a long chain of logic and many of you will not agree. 

[rmgatl]

While working on a PhD in a related topic, I recall reading about neuroplasticity declining with age:
https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_60020_4/component/file_60021/content

I haven’t studied this in depth, but seems like what we lose is offset by having more bits of knowledge to connect with.  As some already pointed out, that means already having a lot of patterns, technical issues/solutions and interpretation knowledge to draw upon.

Btw I did my PhD at a top school in my mid 50s in just 3 years, first study hit an A+ journal first pass.  But my research built on decades of experience and I was probably more organized than my 20s - but I did have to learn SPSS/AMOS to do some hairy stats, so we can underestimate ourselves.

I have folks ask about learning piano as adults and I’m always positive and encouraging, it’s never too late to enjoy it.  However, the likelihood of someone starting late and becoming an expert performer is pretty close to zero.  I didn’t start skiing until age 19 and never got past green/blue slopes, that’s just how it usually is.

I started playing by ear at 4, studying piano at 5, and up until about age 30 I would effortlessly have a piece memorized by the time I could play it.  No more!  I only perform with the score on my iPad now at age 67.  Why deal with the pressure and time to secure memory?  But I otherwise learn pieces at a similar rate as decades ago.

[ego0720]

I second rmgatl.

The trick I think is the critical period somewhere between fetus until 8 years of age. With sound being grounded early this makes for a huge advantage when memorizing patterns. You see, you touch, and you hear and all the while put it together. As your mind mixes it up it generates a thought responsive reaction. Practically speaking the pitch recognition makes for almost a requirement for one to go far bc music is frustratingly slow in the beginning that we need the boost by ear to give us some umph early on for encouragement. Whatever we get by age 18, we are pretty much at the highest phase of our development (growth at logarithmic scale by that point).

Anytime afterwards, we can still achieve success as that depends on other factors. But there will be a limit to how far one will get. Unfortunately I have am with ranjit .. I learn but forget very fast.  If everyone lives long enough we all ultimately get Alzheimer. It’s a matter of slope or rate of decline.  We can only slow down the process but not avoid it.

I think the time to nail in the “fast twitch” neural connections is early on. Neurogenesis occurs up until 25.  We can still form connections afterwards but it would be slower thereafter, much as a bodybuilder vs a boxer when it comes to speed. I think when we are older we peg new information onto foundational knowledge rather than learn from a purely fresh outlook. That is why we tend to suffer from stereotypes and categorical information built into our brain structure and relate to new information from analogies.  It’s also why it’s important to let newer minds lead as they can adapt easier.

To answer OP question directly, I don’t believe it’s a myth.  If u do the work in early (9 forms of intelligence) then u r set for life.  You establish the foundation early on and can return to that later in life still sharp.  That’s why the boxer mayweather can still outshine many ppl today who are much younger than him.. bc his reflexes were built early when his body was configuring.  He’s still phenomenal in his speed even at his age.  The neuroplasticity decreases, we forget faster, and new information is latched from analogies onto old, longterm information we put in our head. If the work wasn’t done early on it’s just exponentially more difficult trying to build. 

[keypeg]

How about if we each do what we are able to do, reach what we are able to reach, and not worry about what some study says about the matter? I'll take people's individual experiences because that's real.  An experienced teacher like LiW who has worked with and observed lots of students of all ages, and who ALSO knows how to teach (because learning and skills are also tied up to that) - that's something I'm happy to read.  How many theories in the past have had people believe themselves incapable of this and that, or barred from such endeavours.

What potential harm to someone starting out (and maybe quitting or setting sights low) after reading about what they will not be able to do, or poorly, or slowly?  If you believe you can't, then you can't, because of that belief.

What is the purpose and use of this whole discussion?  The asker is in his 30s, and another here still in his 20s.  Some of us are at the other end of the age span.   Whether the discussion is downsides of age, or gender, or race, or socioeconomics ---- how about we just find the most optimum way of reaching what we want to reach, and see how far we get?  That's what life is about, in fact.

[ranjit]

A possible reason to ask this question is to decide whether learning a certain skills is a worthwhile time investment. Learning anything has an opportunity cost.

OP, consider this: Even if we take for granted that you are slower as you age, the question really is: by how much? If it's 1% slower, it should not really affect your decision either way. If it is 20x slower, then that would likely be a different story. And given that the extent to which it differs seems to vary so widely among the population, good luck finding an exact answer to that.

[lostinidlewonder]

In the end I think we should promote learning and motivation to learn, to be active in this world, to strive to achieve no matter what the boundaries. To me it seems like the underlying thinking about the limitations of age actually puts up unnecessary barriers which have no real constructive benefit.

So called "studies" might tell you one thing but scratch the surface of these studies and you will often see a bias or things like a miniscule sample space which simply does not deal with the vast amount of individuals in this world.


Should we tell this lady to stop competiting because she is too old and never will be as good as those  younger than her?

Perhaps this event also should be cancelled because why should they bother doing something that they do so much worse than those younger than them?

And why are these people bothering to even swim when they are so disabled? They should instead focus on things which they can do much better?

Or perhaps we should tell this lady to stop playing the piano and maintain her skills because shes getting too old?

I think the prevailing thought when watching these videos above is "inspiration". Anyone who starts to "compare" them with those who might be better are utterly missing the point and really do need their brain checked.

I know this discussion is more about attaining new skills at an older age, but to me its no different. Participating in an activity when you are older is beneficial and good for you, no matter what level you have attained beforehand. Even if one thinks they are slower the benefits to the brain to keep it trained is much more beneficial at a later age than it might be when you are younger, "use it or lose it".

[keypeg]

A possible reason to ask this question is to decide whether learning a certain skills is a worthwhile time investment. Learning anything has an opportunity cost.

OP, consider this: Even if we take for granted that you are slower as you age, the question really is: by how much? If it's 1% slower, it should not really affect your decision either way. If it is 20x slower, then that would likely be a different story. And given that the extent to which it differs seems to vary so widely among the population, good luck finding an exact answer to that.

You're in your 20s. I'll be 70 in a couple of months.  Let's not take that nonsense "for granted".  And there's a .lot of harm to these things, including potentially how someone is taught = what they are given - due to presumptions along such lines.

Sorry, I don't need to be dragged down like this in mood right now.  I'm on day 4 or 5 (lost track) of Covid and everything hurts.  I'm tired.  Now THERE is something that does slow one down.  Illness.  And even here, bodies respond differently.