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

[keypeg]

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.

Thank you for that - ALL of it.,   I needed to read this tonight.

[lostinidlewonder]

Thank you for that - ALL of it.,   I needed to read this tonight.

No problems, I think often people can tend to forget (or cannot see beyond it) that we are not in a race or in competition with others. I taught a low functioning autistic student piano for several years and they did terrible compared to others but fantastic relative to their own experience. I would know not one person who would dare think that this low functioning student should have just given up, in fact even though this student played quite poorly by comparison, they were an inspiration greater than even the highest class of pianist!

We should even extend this comparison tendancy to comparing our current self to our younger self when done in a negative/self limiting light (reflecting on personal growth would be a much more useful comparison though). What motivation can one really gain from that? Sure many people will admit as they age their physical/mental capabilities diminish but so what? Should we now fall down in a heap and cry at it? I know with age comes greater emotional and physical burdens, it is a very common factor, but as the saying goes "The devil finds work for idle hands." The proverb implies that when people have nothing productive or meaningful to do they might engage in activities or behaviors that are unproductive or potentially harmful. It suggests that keeping oneself occupied with purposeful tasks or work can prevent getting involved in negative or troublesome activities and this is true throughout our life and especially true as we age.

[ranjit]

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.

You misread what I wrote. I said EVEN IF we take for granted that cognitive functions decline... I never made a claim about whether or not they did. But my point was that even if cognitive functions decline, it doesn't necessarily mean giving up is justified, because then the question becomes "by how much"?

[ranjit]

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".

I was looking at it through the lens of opportunity cost. Let's say you could invest a chunk of time in your 60s into either writing a book, or learning to play the piano. Given that you are likely to have more success with the former (plenty of published writers who started at an older age vs pianists), you might choose to do that instead.

Perhaps it's just the way I think of it, though. If I didn't think I had some talent for piano, I wouldn't be doing it right now (maybe 30 minutes a day but not "seriously"), because I would rather be a scientist than keep hitting my head against beginner repertoire. Time is finite, and we must decide what to do with it.

Of course, many people have plenty of time on their hands, and every situation is different.

[lostinidlewonder]

I was looking at it through the lens of opportunity cost. Let's say you could invest a chunk of time in your 60s into either writing a book, or learning to play the piano. Given that you are likely to have more success with the former (plenty of published writers who started at an older age vs pianists), you might choose to do that instead.

Perhaps it's just the way I think of it, though.

I certainly do think this is more of a personal way to think about it. I actually don't think in this manner at all. The value of an activity isn't solely determined by how skilled you are at it.

If I didn't think I had some talent for piano, I wouldn't be doing it right now (maybe 30 minutes a day but not "seriously"), because I would rather be a scientist than keep hitting my head against beginner repertoire. Time is finite, and we must decide what to do with it.

Of course, many people have plenty of time on their hands, and every situation is different.

You can always depress yourself by knowing there are countless people better than you and I and more talented at the piano. How "good" you are at something is always relative. We should measure the worthiness of partaking in something by the fulfillment, joy, and personal growth it brings us. Feeling as if you have something special or different to offer to the pursuit is of course a strong source for motivation too and that doesn't necessarily equate with talent and top skill levels.

Talent really is a comparison tool, if everyone sucked at piano then talent would mean something quite different. As a teacher it is nice to meet talented students who learn faster than the average but it honestly isn't something I'd only want to work with. Average students and students who struggle also can enjoy just as much as the talented counterparts. Each individual brings their own unique experiences, motivations and ways of connecting with music. For many the process of learning and overcoming obstacles enhances the enjoyment and sense of accomplishment and this obviously has nothing to do with talent.

[ranjit]

I certainly do think this is more of a personal way to think about it. I actually don't think in this manner at all. The value of an activity isn't solely determined by how skilled you are at it.

I don't think the value of an activity is solely determined by how skilled you are at it either, but skill certainly does play a role, don't you think?

We should measure the worthiness of partaking in something by the fulfillment, joy, and personal growth it brings us. Feeling as if you have something special or different to offer to the pursuit is of course a strong source for motivation too and that doesn't necessarily equate with talent and top skill levels.

I think that fulfillment, joy and personal growth do depend on how skilled you are as well. People who play better tend to want to persist, because they find the output musically rewarding. Someone who didn't find it that way would not.

If you had to choose between curing cancer and playing the piano, obviously how good you are at playing the piano would play a major role in that decision. We are not completely solipsistic beings.

You can produce more impact and do more interesting things if you are talented at something vs if you are not. Obviously, it plays a role in motivation and the decision-making process. Imagine someone in their 50s who really likes to listen to classical music, say the second Rachmaninoff concerto was their absolute favorite. If you promised them that they could play it in a year if they worked 6 hours a day, you bet many people would be willing to take that on, and maybe even take a sabbatical from work to carry that out. On the other hand, if you told them that they might be able to play a Chopin waltz after 20 years, they would be much less willing to put in a ton of effort.

I see many people who tell me that they would like to learn piano, guitar, etc. I try to tell them that it's possible, and I've had a lot of success as an adult. But their justification for not trying is that they do not have as much talent, and could not work that hard, so it would take them many years to play something which sounded musical enough to their ears, and they have other things to do. If they could get the same result in less time, they would be willing to do it.

[timothy42b]

I don't think the value of an activity is solely determined by how skilled you are at it either, but skill certainly does play a role, don't you think?

It can play a role in how fun something is, for sure.  You may not care about reaching an elite level, but for some things a certain minimum level makes a difference.  Can't memorize?  Learn to read, play repertoire that isn't as dependent.  Etc.

Or as in one of my other activities that I spend a good bit of time trying to improve, disc golf.  I enjoy it, and partly do it to keep my 70 year old body able to scramble through the woods (or at least think it can.).  You need that minimum level or all you do is hit trees and lose discs in the water.  But it's also important to understand physical limitations to avoid injury.  I have little very internal hip rotation, so the coil must be done differently than someone who has it - else I can't use weight shift and risk a shoulder injury.  Etc. 


Sometimes looking at limitations honestly can help plan alternate methods to increase skill. 

[keypeg]

Imagine someone in their 50s who really likes to listen to classical music, say the second Rachmaninoff concerto was their absolute favorite. If you promised them that they could play it in a year if they worked 6 hours a day, you bet many people would be willing to take that on, and maybe even take a sabbatical from work to carry that out. On the other hand, if you told them that they might be able to play a Chopin waltz after 20 years, they would be much less willing to put in a ton of effort.

Fortunately you're not a teacher.  Were a teacher to say either of those two things, I'd look elsewhere.  The goals are wrong - playing some piece - there's too much of that around already.  I might ask the 2nd teacher to restate this in terms of skills for playing the piano well.  I'd be much more likely to go with the 2nd teacher than the first.

50 may seem far away old for you.  I was close to that age when I started lessons.    A whole bunch of my time was wasted due to presumptions and attitudes.  Shortcuts, rushing through, aiming for pieces and external results, because of what was assumed someone of my age would want.  You lose time twice over: the wasted time of following that kind of "guidance" --- the wasted time undoing the damage, the mislearning, and sorting it all out.

Meanwhile the ideas of limitations, weaknesses of a group or category of people --- these can affect how a student is taught, what the student is not given, what goals are not created, how the student is not seen on the one hand ...... what is learned affects future mindset and future skills, including closed doors to rooms you didn't know exist.  That's on the one hand.  Probably more dangerous is the student about to set out on the journey, and limiting themselves from the very beginning.  This can even be subconsciously; trying but hampered by the planted doubt.

I do not like the present topic because of consequences.

[lostinidlewonder]

I don't think the value of an activity is solely determined by how skilled you are at it either, but skill certainly does play a role, don't you think?

A minimal role and practically inconsequential if you enjoy the activity in the first place.

I think that fulfillment, joy and personal growth do depend on how skilled you are as well. People who play better tend to want to persist, because they find the output musically rewarding. Someone who didn't find it that way would not.

I'm yet to come across anyone who is such a complete nit wit that they cannot find enjoyment in learning the piano. Improvement and progress is utterly relative, what might be a snails pace and useless to you is valuable and enjoyable to someone else. I already gave an extreme example of this in my previous posts.

If you had to choose between curing cancer and playing the piano, obviously how good you are at playing the piano would play a major role in that decision. We are not completely solipsistic beings.

I just don't see things in this manner and so many people I have taught also don't see things in this way. Obviously we don't just learn completely from our own knowledge but doesn't that encourage that if we are slow learners at something that we should persist?

You can produce more impact and do more interesting things if you are talented at something vs if you are not.

In the world of piano there are plenty of talented pianists who play at a high level but are ultimately unrecognised and really impact the world in a minimal way.

Obviously, it plays a role in motivation and the decision-making process. Imagine someone in their 50s who really likes to listen to classical music, say the second Rachmaninoff concerto was their absolute favorite. If you promised them that they could play it in a year if they worked 6 hours a day, you bet many people would be willing to take that on, and maybe even take a sabbatical from work to carry that out. On the other hand, if you told them that they might be able to play a Chopin waltz after 20 years, they would be much less willing to put in a ton of effort.

I never really have this type of conversation with students, we focus on the "now" and what can be enjoyed and explored now. Looking ahead is fine but having fanciful dreams which if they are not attained within a certain timeframe or if at all then there is no joy is just an illogical approach imho.

I see many people who tell me that they would like to learn piano, guitar, etc. I try to tell them that it's possible, and I've had a lot of success as an adult. But their justification for not trying is that they do not have as much talent, and could not work that hard, so it would take them many years to play something which sounded musical enough to their ears, and they have other things to do. If they could get the same result in less time, they would be willing to do it.

If people think this way then they will not start a huge amount of things and miss out on experiencing life. If you only want to pursue things that come easy to you then you really limit the amount of personal growth and capability to face challenges. Also people experience different learning curves, I have taught plenty of people who start out learning the piano quite slowly and with a lot of challenges but years later they make a break through and start accelerating their learning. If one just quit at the start because it felt too hard they would never realize this and this is why focusing on ones rate of learning really doesn't need be a major focus (not to say it can't be, I personally enjoy challenging myself in that department but to apply that to everyone is foolish).

[ranjit]

Fortunately you're not a teacher.  Were a teacher to say either of those two things, I'd look elsewhere.  The goals are wrong - playing some piece - there's too much of that around already.  I might ask the 2nd teacher to restate this in terms of skills for playing the piano well.  I'd be much more likely to go with the 2nd teacher than the first.

Don't you understand the principle of a thought experiment?

[ranjit]

I'm yet to come across anyone who is such a complete nit wit that they cannot find enjoyment in learning the piano. Improvement and progress is utterly relative, what might be a snails pace and useless to you is valuable and enjoyable to someone else.

If people think this way then they will not start a huge amount of things and miss out on experiencing life. If you only want to pursue things that come easy to you then you really limit the amount of personal growth and capability to face challenges.

I know someone for example, who is a busy researcher and likes music. He would like to learn an instrument, but doesn't find it worth it given the time investment to get anywhere decent. That's the kind of vantage point from which I'm approaching this -- a working professional with little time on their hands, because I encounter it quite often.

I'm not saying that you only pursue things that are easy to you, but that time and energy are limited.

[keypeg]

Don't you understand the principle of a thought experiment?

I understand some principles of good and bad teaching.  A thought experiment should be based on a proper premise - this isn't a good one.

[lostinidlewonder]

I know someone for example, who is a busy researcher and likes music. He would like to learn an instrument, but doesn't find it worth it given the time investment to get anywhere decent. That's the kind of vantage point from which I'm approaching this -- a working professional with little time on their hands, because I encounter it quite often.

I'm not saying that you only pursue things that are easy to you, but that time and energy are limited.

This just sounds like a defeatist attitude and someone who only wants to work with something that comes naturally. For example if you hate a topic or have no interest in it or it totally bores you that is a valid reason to not pursue it. Just because it's hard and you progress slowly isn't a reason to put something aside. If someone claims they become bored and angry with a topic because it's hard and they progress slowly then I think they may need some life lessons to make them more accepting of their limitations. There is certainly much to learn by struggling to overcome difficulties. It's all about finding the balance between pushing through difficulties and recognizing when a lack of interest or innate passion might hinder progress.

[brogers70]

I know someone for example, who is a busy researcher and likes music. He would like to learn an instrument, but doesn't find it worth it given the time investment to get anywhere decent. That's the kind of vantage point from which I'm approaching this -- a working professional with little time on their hands, because I encounter it quite often.

I'm not saying that you only pursue things that are easy to you, but that time and energy are limited.

That seems pretty reasonable to me. Time and energy are limited, you balance how much you love an activity, what your goals are, how reasonable they are given your time and energy, etc. You're not turning your back on life if you decide you've got time for piano, and learning Greek, but not enough time to add in drawing from life, even if you think that would be a cool skill to develop, and even though you probably could develop it if you took time away from the other things.

[lostinidlewonder]

Personally I think it's far too simplistic to use rate of learning as a reason to take something up or not. I've taught so many people who are untalented at piano but really do love playing and learning and over coming their challenges. Sure I've come across people who love the "idea" of playing the piano, seeing it through rose tinted glass, but then when the actual work and effort comes into play they soon realise they don't actually like playing the piano, just the fanciful dream.

[brogers70]

Personally I think it's far too simplistic to use rate of learning as a reason to take something up or not. I've taught so many people who are untalented at piano but really do love playing and learning and over coming their challenges. Sure I've come across people who love the "idea" of playing the piano, seeing it through rose tinted glass, but then when the actual work and effort comes into play they soon realise they don't actually like playing the piano, just the fanciful dream.

I agree; I would not take the rate of learning as the sole reason to take up an activity or not. Instead you balance your time, your energy, your interest in the activity, your rate of learning, your goals, etc. Neither I, nor, I think, Ranjit, are advocating anything along the lines of "This is going to be hard and take work, so better not try."

[lostinidlewonder]

Ranjit speaks about it not being "worth the time" and expressed before he'd not take up piano if he didn't have some talent for it. To me this is placing a lot of focus on whether something is going to be too hard and not worth the time. Doing things that are very difficult is a particular interest of mine and I've grown a lot through that, putting myself in uncomfortable, insecure positons and trying to fight my way through. Of course we do naturally enjoy things that come easier, it's a no brainer, who likes to play a game where all they do is experience losing? Although it's quite a lesson to be beyond a game of winning and losing, where winning or losing is not what it's about and the bigger picture reveals something much more significant.

Sure if you have multiple choices of what you could do, choose what interests you the most and that might factor in the ease that you learn the subject. But to throw something you really are passionate about into the fire because it's too hard is something I'd avoid. I'm drawn to:

"The greater the difficulty, the more the glory in surmounting it."  Epicurus.

[brogers70]

Totally agree that "to throw something you are really passionate about into the fire because it is too hard" is something to avoid.

The kind of choice I'm thinking of is this. I played viola for a while and enjoyed it, and I think that with hard work, I could have gotten to the point of being in a pretty good local, amateur orchestra and played a couple of concerts a year. Maybe good enough to play a little chamber music. But eventually I decided that putting the extra time into piano would get me more opportunities to play music I cared about than would putting that time into the viola. Time and energy are finite. In order to say yes to something, you always have to say no to other things. That's not a cop out or saying no to life, it's deciding what you care about most.

[lostinidlewonder]

I of course don't disagree since there really is multiple angles to this all. I do wish to ponder this question here as I've done over the years of teaching.

Logically we can't just do everything. Finding something and sticking to it is a good habit. Jumping around all the place can leave you with nothing at the end, sort of like relationships with a significant other!

I've spent my career witnessing so many ways in which people have a relationship with the piano. I've pretty much seen it all I think. Those who feel they are untalented and watch videos of kids playing many grades above them effortlessly, spirals them into self doubt and feeling their journey is worthless and ultimately giving up on the piano. I've seen people fully enjoy the piano but never play past an intermediate grade. I've seen those who play at the higher levels but detest piano because it has been forced upon them. Older students who embrace the challenge without worrying about their age and those who constantly wish they started earlier because age is holding them back.

What do I see from all this? Those who shut up and just enjoy the creative process without analysing and thinking so much about barriers but instead approaching it much like a curious child, they experience great joy and contentment.

So sure if you have a creative outlet that you feel you can achieve much more in do that at the expense of other creative outlets. However many people have zero musical creative outlets and struggle with any instrument they attempt, so as a teacher my responsibility is to help them thrive and that has zero to do with their ability level.

It is more a phisophical question this thread is hitting on. Does it matter if one learns slowly compared to others or compared to any other measurement, age, iq, disposable income etc. Of course everyone is going to have their own answer but from I've seen from all the different relationships with the piano I've been exposed to, a particular way to answer it that disregards any barriers and gets on with the relationship tends to produce much better fruit.

[ranjit]

Ranjit speaks about it not being "worth the time" and expressed before he'd not take up piano if he didn't have some talent for it. To me this is placing a lot of focus on whether something is going to be too hard and not worth the time. Doing things that are very difficult is a particular interest of mine and I've grown a lot through that, putting myself in uncomfortable, insecure positons and trying to fight my way through. Of course we do naturally enjoy things that come easier, it's a no brainer, who likes to play a game where all they do is experience losing? Although it's quite a lesson to be beyond a game of winning and losing, where winning or losing is not what it's about and the bigger picture reveals something much more significant.

Well, I have found learning the piano to be incredibly difficult so far, if you look at it that way. I have often even questioned if it was possible at all. It is the hardest thing I've ever done, and I've done some hard things in the past.

So, it isn't a question of whether it feels hard, but of whether at the end of all of that work, it produces something I can be proud of. I am not only a pianist, and regardless, I very quickly reached a point where I could test out ideas on the piano and play some of my favorite songs. The struggle has been to learn "the real deal".

You need to balance your priorities. I realized that to reach the level of playing I aspired for, spending several hours a day was necessary and that it would be impossible with a full time job. But it would've been pointless to decide that if I didn't have at least some talent.

Also, piano is not the only possible creative outlet. I think I'm a fairly creative person. I also used to write and was fairly good at it. If piano wasn't working out, I might prefer to compose some songs, learn to use a DAW and get into production, get deeper into music analysis or other aspects of music. I'm sure it would be a lot of fun trying to produce a hit record or something, and I fancy I could do it if I worked at it for years. Or a well-received book. Or anything in science.

I felt myself improving very quickly, and needed to see how far it could go. If I didn't improve much, I would limit my time at the piano to an hour a day and do some other worthwhile endeavor.

It's been my experience that most people who quit piano lessons talk about feeling a lack of progress and competence after a few years of lessons, followed by a lack of enjoyment and harsh teaching, etc.

It reminds me of when I learned math as a kid. If I was like other kids, I might have grown to dislike it. After all, I hated the way it was taught in schools. But I could just read it and understand it much, much faster than others so I taught myself everything and tried out hard puzzles which were really fun, and I naturally developed a kind of fascination for it.  If I found it to be a chore and if I had to force myself using "discipline" to learn it, I would've lost interest real quick. In a way, I'm a very undisciplined person and thrive on adrenaline and passion instead. In a way, I feel like I just need instant gratification, but seem to learn quickly enough that the next big insight feels like it's right around the corner which keeps it exciting. Delayed gratification is something I'm terrible at, ironically for a pianist -- I get bored very quickly. If I don't see results within a week, I'm out.

Is that healthy? I don't know.

[ranjit]

I understand some principles of good and bad teaching.  A thought experiment should be based on a proper premise - this isn't a good one.

I think it's a good premise. The premise is: if you somehow knew beforehand that you would make stellar progress, would you do it or would you still avoid it? This would obviously make a difference for most people, so the outcome matters.

[timothy42b]

Ranjit speaks about it not being "worth the time" and expressed before he'd not take up piano if he didn't have some talent for it. To me this is placing a lot of focus on whether something is going to be too hard and not worth the time. Doing things that are very difficult is a particular interest of mine and I've grown a lot through that, putting myself in uncomfortable, insecure positons and trying to fight my way through.
"The greater the difficulty, the more the glory in surmounting it."  Epicurus.

Exactly.  And to ensure piano is properly difficult, attempt it without a teacher.  MUCH more satisfying. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Exactly.  And to ensure piano is properly difficult, attempt it without a teacher.  MUCH more satisfying.

Great to see the sarcastic reply from you, it's so helpful and contributes soooo much. Awesome to see you miss the point too, but not surprising, perhaps in your case the thread topic holds true to a greater degree.

[lostinidlewonder]

So, it isn't a question of whether it feels hard, but of whether at the end of all of that work, it produces something I can be proud of.

It should be fairly logical then to realise that it is all quite relative what one can be proud of, and talent doesn't equate to much.

I realized that to reach the level of playing I aspired for, spending several hours a day was necessary and that it would be impossible with a full time job. But it would've been pointless to decide that if I didn't have at least some talent.

Naturally it only represents a small % of pianists who even have this choice to dedicate to the instrument. Of course then talent, having something special to give to piano etc becomes more important since the dedication requires some kind of reason.

It's been my experience that most people who quit piano lessons talk about feeling a lack of progress and competence after a few years of lessons, followed by a lack of enjoyment and harsh teaching, etc.

Like I've been saying progress is relative, if one cannot enjoy their relationship progress and connect either piano on that level it's a problem. Expectations getting in the way are often barriers to long term improvement rather than motivational sources.

...if I had to force myself using "discipline" to learn it, I would've lost interest real quick. In a way, I'm a very undisciplined person and thrive on adrenaline and passion instead. In a way, I feel like I just need instant gratification, but seem to learn quickly enough that the next big insight feels like it's right around the corner which keeps it exciting. Delayed gratification is something I'm terrible at, ironically for a pianist -- I get bored very quickly. If I don't see results within a week, I'm out.

Is that healthy? I don't know.

Seeing results short term shouldn't be too hard to satisfy, but it's the expected amount of it that can. Everyone has weaknesses/challenges when it comes to the piano and that doesn't necessarily only regard the skills of playing it, it can include the career at a professional level. Some things take years of tiny improvement to see a final break through, some never see it at all but strive for it. Just look at the amount of failed concert pianists who cannot sell a profitable concert, or teaching businesses that don't experience enough success, or composers who keep at their craft but barely anyone pays them attention. Change the perspective to a struggling beginner student who takes a few years to pass some early grades after spending thousands on lessons. Yet even with these struggles people persist because there is an enjoyment of the challenge, there is something beyond great success and accolades that they are after. Sure many quit because it gets too difficult, just banging your head against failure with no plan is craziness, but many who actually see the baby steps towards something are quite content with that.

[keypeg]

.

[ego0720]

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.

Quite contrary. Many people who note their limitations are the ones that excel.  In my experience, the ones who do exceptional have qualities of knowing the realities of their deficiency or limitations, accept it, and work with it in a way to go above and beyond.  They let it work against them. They make a note of it and overcome it.  This is what is referred as a growth mindset. Quantizing ones ability can make for better progress with the right view.

[lostinidlewonder]

Quite contrary. Many people who note their limitations are the ones that excel.... They make a note of it and overcome it.  This is what is referred as a growth mindset. Quantizing ones ability can make for better progress with the right view.

Though if someone says, "You're old, you just will work slower than anyone younger than you" how can you overcome that and what kind of motivation does that bring at all? It seems a rather demented way to draw inspiration from. Rather wouldn't you just do the work and get excited with the work you are getting through? A positive motivation.

Sure we work with our weaknesses but we work with a problem that has a solution, just saying you are old has no solution! That kind of thinking is more harmful than helpful because it focuses on an aspect that can't be changed, which then undermines someone's confidence and motivation. It's crucial to shift focus to what you can control and the positive aspects of your work. Embracing experience, wisdom, and unique perspectives that come with age is certainly a source of strength. It's about proving through actions and results that age doesn't dictate your ability to work effectively or efficiently. So those who think pessimistically about ageing may be heading toward a self-fulfilling prophecy, something to be wary of!

[lostinidlewonder]

Some more thoughts:
I do teach older students differently from younger. Young kids you can show them something and they just learn it, with the older students you sometimes need to give them "memory hooks" something that they can recall to help them remember what needs to be done. I see tons of pattern in music and always search for the right kind of thought that will assist my student to remember what they need to do. Likely could create a whole new thread discussing this or even write a whole book about it!

So if you try to learn as a child does (generally less focused attention and a more an indirect absorbing method through play) when you are much older you may hit brick walls and just give the excuse that age is ruining it all. However I have found that supporting the thinking with something that really does click with the older student can act as a catalyst for their progress in a significant way.

It is certainly not automatic that a dedicated child learning the piano will always get to the upper levels, that just does not happen. So when I teach older students I am also aware that the actual level they may can be limited too and and it is based on many factors rather than just age. I'd rather not get into the details of all of them but some factors which limit progress more striking than age imho would include: physical, cognitive, perceptual, emotional and neurological limitations, auditory processing disorders, psychological barriers, motivational factors, environmental constraints and etc etc. The list goes on. Some of these issues can be dealt with but a teacher can only do so much, there is no way to totally reprogram someone, often these factors form a part of an individual's intrinsic framework that can't be entirely altered or reprogrammed. So we work with the overall framework the student is dealing with in the most effective manner possible, striving to encourage a meaningful connection with creating music.

[ego0720]

The hypothetical someone you bring up is an internal problem with the wrong view. The semantics connote with the ego and is what's rendering wrong out of the law of nature.  The challenge is acceptance without letting ego get in the way. When one let's go of the ego, acceptance of truth isn't much of an obstacle. It's being comfortable of oneself with reality.

Believe it or not the intent of our messages are the same. It could possibly be cultural difference or difference in learning styles. If u look at Yuchan Lim and his negative response about his performance, he's not complacent. Doesn't mean he's not happy in the truest sense of the word. It's not demented but a way to see fixable faults to make improvements. Mike Tyson when he won his first Boxing Championship said his coach berated him for so many mistakes despite being on top of the world that night. Maybe some ppl prefer euphemisms but others like knowing their realities to then know how to work around their limitation or make cost-benefit analysis and decide the blueprint of their journey.

This could go on forever with each person making their own judgement. But ultimately everyone should reflect deeply on why they feel as they do, especially if there are strong feelings. When one stops feeling things, and realize things just are, usually a good sign of stability and zen.

[lostinidlewonder]

The hypothetical someone you bring up is an internal problem with the wrong view.

What does this mean?

The semantics connote with the ego and is what's rendering wrong out of the law of nature.  The challenge is acceptance without letting ego get in the way. When one let's go of the ego, acceptance of truth isn't much of an obstacle. It's being comfortable of oneself with reality.

I'm really unsure what you are trying to get at. We are emotional beings ultimately, there's no comfort in the statement "you are old and will learn slowly", it is rather a defeatist negative perspective which doesn't inspire nor should be use as a source of any motivation or reflection.

Believe it or not the intent of our messages are the same. It could possibly be cultural difference or difference in learning styles.

Can you define what you are comparing?

f u look at Yuchan Lim and his negative response about his performance, he's not complacent. Doesn't mean he's not happy in the truest sense of the word. It's not demented but a way to see fixable faults to make improvements. Mike Tyson when he won his first Boxing Championship said his coach berated him for so many mistakes despite being on top of the world that night. Maybe some ppl prefer euphemisms but others like knowing their realities to then know how to work around their limitation or make cost-benefit analysis and decide the blueprint of their journey.

Self critique is fine but to mediate upon an unchangeable issue such as age offers no solution. What benefit is there for someone who is older to think, "oh I'm old I'll always be slower than those younger than me". What kind of strategy arises from this thinking? Instead why not deal with the work and the challenges faced in work, there you can make changes and challenge yourself.

This could go on forever with each person making their own judgement. But ultimately everyone should reflect deeply on why they feel as they do, especially if there are strong feelings. When one stops feeling things, and realize things just are, usually a good sign of stability and zen.

Any feelings about age limiting you will limit you and place unnecessary and immovable obstacles in your way. It's just a way of thinking that is limiting, not inspiring and calling for action, rather instead a defeatist mentality which encourages one to remain frozen, a paralyzing type of "help".

[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? .......
[a whole bunch of stuff]
......... 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...........  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.

Quite contrary. Many people who note their limitations are the ones that excel.  In my experience, the ones who do exceptional have qualities of knowing the realities of their deficiency or limitations, accept it, and work with it in a way to go above and beyond.  They let it work against them. They make a note of it and overcome it.  This is what is referred as a growth mindset. Quantizing ones ability can make for better progress with the right view.

I have added part of my post which you tried to respond to.  Please read again.  You refer to people knowing the realities of THEIR deficiencies ........... not supposed imaginary theoretical deficiencies (what I'm arguing against), but real ones.  So there is no "contrary".  My first sentence refers to "what we are able to do".  This assumes what we are not able to do but it involves real abilities and real lacks.

[keypeg]

.

[ranjit]

Fortunately you're not a teacher.  Were a teacher to say either of those two things, I'd look elsewhere.  The goals are wrong - playing some piece - there's too much of that around already.  I might ask the 2nd teacher to restate this in terms of skills for playing the piano well.  I'd be much more likely to go with the 2nd teacher than the first.

I didn't get time to reply to your post earlier. If you can play a piece "well", you can manage all of the relevant technique to a decent extent. I guess what I didn't make clear was that I was assuming that the teacher could deliver on their promise, that they would actually get a student to play that concerto at a high enough level, and teach the required skills. If they would just make them hack through it while ruining their playing, sure, that's not good.

There are a lot of people in their 50s (say) who have been to concerts and know the music well, but acquiring the ability to play a concerto would be very difficult. Of course this is a bit of a generalization, but I have seen many such people.

You might say that it's the right way to learn piano methodically and learn and perfect the skills required. I won't disagree with that.

This is running a bit long, but I haven't really been thinking about hacking through pieces recently, so when I talked about "learning" something, I meant learning it properly.

[ego0720]

What does this mean?

I'm really unsure what you are trying to get at. We are emotional beings ultimately, there's no comfort in the statement "you are old and will learn slowly", it is rather a defeatist negative perspective which doesn't inspire nor should be use as a source of any motivation or reflection.
Can you define what you are comparing?
Self critique is fine but to mediate upon an unchangeable issue such as age offers no solution. What benefit is there for someone who is older to think, "oh I'm old I'll always be slower than those younger than me". What kind of strategy arises from this thinking? Instead why not deal with the work and the challenges faced in work, there you can make changes and challenge yourself.
Any feelings about age limiting you will limit you and place unnecessary and immovable obstacles in your way. It's just a way of thinking that is limiting, not inspiring and calling for action, rather instead a defeatist mentality which encourages one to remain frozen, a paralyzing type of "help".

Sorry I don't know how to manipulate the quotes in chunks and respond.

"You're old, you just will work slower than anyone younger than you".  There is a semantic that goes along with statement.  Nobody stated that.  How I see it, I see wiser men who have lots of experiential knowledge they must sift through before they can add, peg, or layer new information to it.  That's a good thing. But that's me.

"you are old and will learn slowly" -- again that was inferred and a statement you made. I didn't say that. I did say that as one ages the process of learning gets slower. Slower connotes as a negative quality per the statement and you are right that with that view its a self-defeating attitude.  I don't think slower is a bad thing. It's just something that is true.  I know I recover slower and that I am not as sharp as when I was young (that does not necessarily mean I don't think I'm sharp).  I'm not sad about it.  I just know that the rate of decline can happen and can significantly be slowed down if I choose to exercise more physically, mentally, and spiritually. Because if I did not believe that aging did not slow me down, why should I practice because I can always do it later. So with that knowledge of whats happening to me, I practice the heck out of my life, I run 1-3 miles 2-3x a week -- fastest time 5:50 in 1 mile (better than when I was younger which was 7:15 -- even if I recover slower with hard work I got fastest time ever), I can type 60-110 wpm (when I was young about 45 wpm), and I practice piano and continue reading. I continue to engage my mental process and I read. Because I know with exercise these things slow down the breakdown of my mind as I get older. It is a defeatist negative attitude if you perceive it that way.  Reality is what we make of it.  I don't like to deceive myself of the law of nature. By emotions, we do not want to believe girls cannot be physically as strong as boys but the hormones say otherwise. Does that mean girls should not do sports?  Should girls play sports alongside boys? By the biochemistry of the body it just is and its probably not a good idea to let girls play with boys in sports.  I still watch women sports in their league but thats something society is trying to figure out.  I don't pretend I'm the same as when I was young but I also know of qualities that make me better than when I was young when I practiced piano.  But I am slower, I recover slower, and more forgetful even if I use memory gimmicks to remember things.  I know that I cannot achieve absolute pitch because that can only be established at critical periods. Doesn't stop me from attaining relative pitch. It might require me to warm-up with keys to give me a stabilizing sound to compare it with, I might take 3-5 seconds to recognize the pitch, but I wont pretend I'll try and work on developing absolute pitch because that will be wasted time and I go for things that my body dictates as attainable.

"... comparing..."  Its a teaching style. Some like the military approach. Others like nurturing approach. Does it mean that those who teach in an aggressive manner dont love their pupil as much as those who prefer nurturing the talent?  The love is there, just the understanding of how it should be done. That's why there is a dad and a mom.  Type A and Type B.  Yin and Yang.  It's a balancing act. Some need their hands held as they journey through life while others need traverse their path independently.

Regarding ego: This is a spiritual thing.  Ego is how one see oneself.  When one understands that we are more than our physical body and that everything in life is culturally ingrained from the system we live in, one understands right and wrong is artificial.  This goes back to the view.  The objective answer that we are slower when we age is the law of nature.  That can't be disputed. And what everyone is getting at is the semantics of the argument.  And those semantics are internal to each person expressing their opinion.  And the responsibility of feelings belongs to that person alone.  No one else is responsible for a persons feelings but themselves. If a statement engenders such feelings, a question should be raised as to why do we feel such a way and why does it make such a connotation.

'Any feelings about age limiting you will limit you and place unnecessary and immovable obstacles in your way. It's just a way of thinking that is limiting, not inspiring and calling for action, rather instead a defeatist mentality which encourages one to remain frozen, a paralyzing type of "help".'

LiW you are a great teacher.  And you care very much about others.  But the responsibility of each person feelings rests internally with them and they have to resolve that on their own.  Any feelings by a person is a responsibility for that person to dwell on and its up to them to figure it out.  If something is amiss the view needs to change.  If not the view, its the speech.  Is the glass half-empty or half-full?  That's a perspective we choose to accept.  It there a right answer?  The reality varies on our understanding and what we choose to believe. There is no reason why multiple truths can't be true. The nature of language can be illusive and is itself a system with limitations.

[ego0720]

LiW -- In your advocacy you are correct about the nocebo effect.  It does require careful language from a great teach to make sure people have proper guidance that is constructive.  However the responsibility still rest internally.  People have to look within and really challenge their understanding and feelings.  When they challenge what others are trying to say, they should really look at how they expressed it as it is more of a revelation of oneself rather than of other people.  We understand by our own experiences in life and each person's experience is different therefore leads to different conclusions.  Those conclusions are expressive of that person and not necessarily reflective of the other.

[lostinidlewonder]

Interesting post ego. This all is a topic of high interest to me so forgive the wall of text.

"You're old, you just will work slower than anyone younger than you".  There is a semantic that goes along with statement.  Nobody stated that.  How I see it, I see wiser men who have lots of experiential knowledge they must sift through before they can add, peg, or layer new information to it.  That's a good thing. But that's me.

It is more of an exaggerated stance agreeing with the topic of the thread and then going ahead and explaining the adverse influence such a belief entails. I am of the thought that considering age as a limitation has no constructive use at all, sure some people may find motivation through that but from my experience most don't get to that conclusion.

"you are old and will learn slowly" -- again that was inferred and a statement you made.

It is just way to discuss, what happens if one totally agrees with the topic of this thread and how poor it is to think in this manner, it doesn't require anyone to have actually said it, it is a postulation and the reasoning that follows hopes to highlight that it is a bad one.

I did say that as one ages the process of learning gets slower. Slower connotes as a negative quality per the statement and you are right that with that view its a self-defeating attitude.  I don't think slower is a bad thing. It's just something that is true. 

Then if you can construct anything useful from such thoughts that as you age learning gets slower it has benefits. Otherwise it is just useless type of thinking which serves no purpose but to disable, it makes nothing easier thinking in this way. As I highlighted in previous posts there are far more factors that impact upon learning speed than just age.

I know I recover slower and that I am not as sharp as when I was young (that does not necessarily mean I don't think I'm sharp).  I'm not sad about it.  I just know that the rate of decline can happen and can significantly be slowed down if I choose to exercise more physically, mentally, and spiritually. Because if I did not believe that aging did not slow me down, why should I practice because I can always do it later.

My thinking is that even though this is something that happens what is the point in thinking about it? Why not get on with the work? The more your thoughts surround such things the more it pulls you down. Mind/Body connection is a serious power, it is not living in denial but it is focusing on what is important and what can be changed, focusing on factors which one cannot change helps/solves nothing. 

So with that knowledge of whats happening to me, I practice the heck out of my life, I run 1-3 miles 2-3x a week -- fastest time 5:50 in 1 mile (better than when I was younger which was 7:15 -- even if I recover slower with hard work I got fastest time ever), I can type 60-110 wpm (when I was young about 45 wpm), and I practice piano and continue reading. I continue to engage my mental process and I read. Because I know with exercise these things slow down the breakdown of my mind as I get older. It is a defeatist negative attitude if you perceive it that way. 

That's excellent results you have achieved. Taking a negative and trying to see it in a positive light is something stronger people do do. For example say someone had a terrible experience that left them shattered (you can imagine all the types of horrible things that humanity can experience) one either curls up in a ball of depression or uses it to do good, like support others who have gone through the same terror. Turning something negative into positive, evil into good etc.

So sure people may think that they are getting old and they better "use it or lose it", the fact that time is running out as you age becomes more apparent, that we really only do have a short time here. Unfortunately from my experience people who consider their age too much do NOT use it for the positive, instead they use it more for reasons why they can't achieve, can't do this or that. The therapy in my lessons (it certainly feels like it) with older students with this idea that they are too old and will learn poorly, is to get them to prove that they can do it, to forget about the age factor and just get on with experiencing a relationship with music. I have then found they often think less about the age factor and start enjoying the exprience they are going through, age is not the focus, it is not the reason why they are doing something, they are enjoying a relationship with music with freedom of thought and not to combat anything to do with their age.

Reality is what we make of it.  I don't like to deceive myself of the law of nature.... By the biochemistry of the body it just is.  .... I don't pretend I'm the same as when I was young but I also know of qualities that make me better than when I was young when I practiced piano.  But I am slower, I recover slower, and more forgetful even if I use memory gimmicks to remember things.

It is not about being in denial, it is a fact that as we age we get slower in many ways and this can be more or less pronounced depending on the individual. The thing I am saying is that why think this at all? When one says "I am getting older, I am slower, I recover slower, I am more forgetful, I feel more pain, my body is breaking down etc etc etc", although these things may well be true they are for the majority of people NOT positive motivators. Instead isn't it much better to get on with the work and getting excited by the results of our labor? Is it truly a good motivator to say one does an activity because it aims to slow down a negative mental/physical aspect of our body due to aging? I argue that more people will not be able to find inspiration from such things that can last long term.

Motivation thrives on positive goals and aspirations. Instead of framing activities solely as remedies to slow down negative aspects of aging, it is more effective and fulfilling to find joy and purpose in the activities themselves, as I keep saying "get on with the work". When we engage in things that bring us fulfillment, we're more likely to find lasting motivation and satisfaction.

Some like the military approach. Others like nurturing approach. Does it mean that those who teach in an aggressive manner dont love their pupil as much as those who prefer nurturing the talent?  The love is there, just the understanding of how it should be done.

In my mind at least and from my experience a good teacher nurtures the student and works at a level that they understand, always building them up. I never have in all my years teaching found anyone who wants me to be super tough on them. That is not to say that I challenge my students when necessary but it is all done with care and consideration. This is different in other countries, I have seen some teachers from other countries be absolutely brutal to their students, I think it's quite terrible but it can be a tradition of those countries.

In regards to this thread I absolutely would never just highlight the short comings of an older student and tell them things like "It's very hard for you to learn this because you are old, younger students do it much easier than you! You should really have started earlier but its too bad we are stuck with this situation. It's really unfortunately that you chose to start late you shouldn't expect you will go too far... etc etc". I can see some people might take it up as a challenge to prove they can go against the odds, go against the fact that as you age you tend to get slower in many ways, but I'd rather a student draw motivation from more positive sources, the stream of inspiration/motivation/courage  there is much longer lasting.

That's why there is a dad and a mom.  Type A and Type B.  Yin and Yang.  It's a balancing act. Some need their hands held as they journey through life while others need traverse their path independently.

I have taught quite diverse families with no mum and dad, some are dad and dad, mum and mum, or just one or the other, or grandparents, or non family guardian etc etc. Everyone needs to feel safe and secure, someone who believes in them and honestly wants to help them. That doesn't mean never call them up on bad behaviour but the way that is done can be either done ham fistedly or with a type of love that likes them for who they are predominantly and that which wants to build them up to be the best they can be.

... The objective answer that we are slower when we age is the law of nature.  That can't be disputed. And what everyone is getting at is the semantics of the argument.  And those semantics are internal to each person expressing their opinion. 

It is something that happens but how does one process that in the mind and how that is connecting to their mind and body is of critical importance. Sure you are not going to live totally oblivious and in denial that you are getting older, but at the same time you don't need to constantly think about it and and draw movitation from it since there are so many better, positive places to draw inspiration and motivation from by comparison.

And the responsibility of feelings belongs to that person alone.  No one else is responsible for a persons feelings but themselves. If a statement engenders such feelings, a question should be raised as to why do we feel such a way and why does it make such a connotation.

When I have tutored older students I think some of them have really appreciated my perspective that they are doing just fine and that their age has such a miniscule amount to do with their progress. Age is just one tiny fragment contributing to ones learning rate, in my previous post I listed out many other factors which I think are more influencial many of which can be worked upon. So I find my students feeling and emotion are a part of my responsibility as well, I don't just transfer knowledge and give directions, I ensure that my students feel more confident, more motivated, more secure that they have a teacher who wants the best for them and am there to help their emotional challenges. This helps the student learn and thus the students emotions are a big part of a teachers job imho.

LiW you are a great teacher.  And you care very much about others.  But the responsibility of each person feelings rests internally with them and they have to resolve that on their own.

Thank you, I don't know if I am great but I really do care about teaching and think there is serious responsiblity that sometimes lie beyond just the teaching. I feel that I have really helped some students with all sorts of issues just by talking to them and allowing them to share their thoughts and emotions with me. I'm sure other piano teachers will agree that we are not only teachers but wear many hats, therapist certainly being one of them! Surely teachers with experience realize that sometimes we to listen and support students with heavy emotions that they are carrying with them. I can give so many case examples but one example: I have a 70+ year old student that I have taught for 20+ years who was adopted at a very young age and experienced many separations and people abandoning him, this of course has impacted upon him throughout his life. I make it a habit to give him a message here and there outside of lessons to make sure he knows I am thinking about him and it has nothing to do with the piano just a friendly message. We had had countless talks about his experiences and I offer positive feedback for all he has achieved and does or just allow him to have an ear to speak to. Taking responsibility for my students emotions is something I feel honored to be a part of, I certainly don't just want to teach them piano if there is more behind it all. Sure the majority of my students just want to learn piano and I'm totally happy with that, but when we see something else behind it all and the student wants to share things with you, we must take responsbility for that and see if we indeed can help them.

[lostinidlewonder]

LiW -- In your advocacy you are correct about the nocebo effect.

It is certainly something I have witnessed in action a number of times in lessons over the years. I find paying attention to this and trying to give students activities which aim to push against it (a type of musical cognitive behavior therapy) can really help. Show them that no barrier  needs to exist and they are successful intelligent students, it is hard for them to keep thinking in the negative manner when they have so much good work they have gone through. So many interesting stories to tell about that one. Unfortunately I can't say I had a 100% success rate but it has been more wins than losses at least.

It does require careful language from a great teach to make sure people have proper guidance that is constructive.  However the responsibility still rest internally.  People have to look within and really challenge their understanding and feelings.

I agree that people need to take responsbility, I often tell my students, "meet me half way". If it is just me doing everything it is like playing a game of golf, hitting the ball for them, then dragging them through the course. So if they resist meeting me half way I have a lot of patience and have seen some resistant students eventually make that effort for change. So although I agree with you I think as a teacher we have a deep responsbility to help encourage them to resolve their challenges.

When they challenge what others are trying to say, they should really look at how they expressed it as it is more of a revelation of oneself rather than of other people.  We understand by our own experiences in life and each person's experience is different therefore leads to different conclusions.  Those conclusions are expressive of that person and not necessarily reflective of the other.

I'm always of the thought that every student is valuable, has something important to teach me, they are smart and they are worthy to have a journey with music. Of course you get those students who are extremely negative, especially those who have been somewhat forced to continue to learn the piano. I mean this is a different kind of negativity (more adversity) which is probably the most extreme one to change. I have not once managed to change their minds (I did manage to keep teaching a number for a few years though), they all eventually quit, but before they do the majority learned how to play and actually focus to get the work done. That is a win at least, to get them to learn a subject they were not fully into. I made sure I talked about non-piano regulary with these students before, after and during the lesson, that way they didn't feel so suffocated and would do work when I changed the gears back to the topic.

I have no qualms teaching students who may not totally like playing the piano, I think it is an important lesson to do something you may not totally enjoy. It is very important to ensure that the student is still kept comfortable and I find that resonsibility heightens quite a bit more when working with these students otherwise you can really give them a terrible experience which makes them associate negativity with education. Of course there have been cases which I told the parent/guardian that piano lessons really are completely not for the student since nothing I could do broke through their adversity to learning the piano. The vast majority of these students would not communicate with me which highlights how important it is to talk with your teacher when experiencing challenges.

[ego0720]

LiW I can see where u are at. I enjoy the exchange.  I’ll say briefly that the way I see the question was neither adverse nor beneficial. It just is.  I just accept the truth and it doesn’t sway me in any direction.  I make a note of observation from my experiential truth and proceed with that understanding.  It shouldn’t bother anyone. If it does have a strike, that’s something to ponder because the profundity of the feeling can run deeper than what the question is asking.  Sometimes it takes great awareness to understand ourselves as a variable of the system. When we feel something, we have to go back to the root of its cause. That is outside the scope of anyone except for the person for which experienced such feeling. When we feel negative feelings be it anger, sadness, frustration etc.. those originally were evolutionary mechanism that allowed us to survive the millions of years on this planet. The problem is letting these feelings go as, at this point in our cycle, those types of feelings are superfluous.  We are creatures of habit so it’s tricky learning to let these less-than-positive feelings go (passed on from one generation to the next).  LiW you possess great sensitivity to people and it’s very commendable especially as a teacher.  And it’s great you are sensitive as to be protective of the psyche of students. But people have to come to the realizations of how they choose to feel as a cause-and-effect of their own doing despite what they perceived to be as the source of their experience.

[lostinidlewonder]

I think it's good you can ponder how you've slowed down Imin age and use that for motivation, I'm sure others can do the same. What I've come across though are people who do not really use it in that way, so they must be guided and supported to change that perspective or ar least not to stare at it and just get on with life. When they are exposed to other perspectives and taken along thar journey they can taste the good fruits of another "way" and thus not feel so trapped within their own heads.

I like to think we are there for others and support each other. Of course people are alone more often with their own thoughts but if they have experiences with others who have tried to give them positive support this can also circle through their minds as well and indeed help the constructive change. I like to think we are all together but apart.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

I've been following this thread with interest. Just thought I'd pop up to say that, whilst I wouldn't presume to speak for anyone else, I've been on this forum almost 20 years now and I learn FASTER than I used to, or at least in a more disciplined and efficient manner. The only thing which has deteriorated slightly is my sight-reading, which is still good (few would believe me but it doesn't matter how hard a piece is, I'll start by a sight-read and I'll try to make sure I don't stop at any point) but my eyesight is worse than it used to be and that is having a small effect thereupon. Of course, whether I would still learn as well a further 20 years on is something to be decided.

[timothy42b]

Note that the responders to this thread are an extremely truncated distribution. 
They are mostly people who are a) motivated to keep learning, and b) have had at least some success in learning. 
Probably neither describes the average piano student. 

[lostinidlewonder]

Note that the responders to this thread are an extremely truncated distribution. 
They are mostly people who are a) motivated to keep learning, and b) have had at least some success in learning. 
Probably neither describes the average piano student.

Illogical on my behalf since I'm speaking about teaching experience with individuals those who certainly needed assistance with a and b . Also the average student does satisfy a and b otherwise why would they continue??

[ego0720]

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.

Quite contrary. Many people who note their limitations are the ones that excel.  In my experience, the ones who do exceptional have qualities of knowing the realities of their deficiency or limitations, accept it, and work with it in a way to go above and beyond.  They let it work against them. They make a note of it and overcome it.  This is what is referred as a growth mindset. Quantizing ones ability can make for better progress with the right view.

I have added part of my post which you tried to respond to.  Please read again.  You refer to people knowing the realities of THEIR deficiencies ........... not supposed imaginary theoretical deficiencies (what I'm arguing against), but real ones.  So there is no "contrary".  My first sentence refers to "what we are able to do".  This assumes what we are not able to do but it involves real abilities and real lacks.

Let's summarize what happened.  rmgatl cited studies on neuroplasticity. I second that opinion.  And then the quote above ensued.  And I reread your statement.  I am not clear what it was you wanted me to check by rereading as I didn't retrieve much else that I didn't get the first time.  If you don't mind elaborating what you thought I missed so we can be on the same page, if you feel that its important.  I have made it clear that we will each remain strong to our truths due to our unique experiences in life.  How about I begin by summarizing what I got from your response.

You wanted to practice piano without concerning with studies.  Studies aren't real or as valuable as individual experiences. Studies can have potential harm to new students.  There is questionable value of studies. And we should focus on the optimal way of reaching our best. And it is what life is about. 

The contrary view I was expressing was how studies can be beneficial.  I gave in my exchanges with LiW how my personal experience helped me be better than I could ever be by quantifying some of the variables I have.  I make it a positive experience and I embrace science as well as I embrace my individual experience with people.  One does need to be comfortable and self-accepting.  Whether that deficiency is -real- or -imaginary- does not change the premise that most critical is a person's mind, not of studies or any experience good or bad.  It's not what is said or done but rather what our response to what is said or done that is what life is about.  What we think about others are revelations of ourselves in a form that can be deceiving otherwise.

But I don't think the logical aspect is what I got from your response.  It's rather the strong emotion I get from your response that I heard over your argument.  Maybe I intercepted incorrectly but I feel like you were taken aback.  If what was said offended you I am sorry.  I don't have any strong passion about this topic one way or another.  It just is.  OP asked a very simple question and we spent more time discussing the -semantics- of the question rather than just answering it directly, quickly.  If anything, it allowed me to see more character out of these usernames.

[keypeg]

Ego, you had responded to me by saying "Quite contrary. Many people who note their limitations are the ones that excel."  There is no "contrary" when I argue that the starting point is our actual abilities (which in itself includes limitations) - and you argue that it starts with people noting their actual abilities ("note their limitations".
You refer to what someone else wrote (mgatl).  You had responded to what I had written which had nothing to do with anyone else's writing.  That actual starting point is what we in fact can and cannot do - that is my argument.  The best people to determine this are the student and a good teacher working with that student.

You wanted to practice piano without concerning with studies. 

I was not considering studies one way or the other.  My statement, which you had responded to with "on the contrary" was that we should start with a student's actual abilities - where that particular student is at and nothing more than that.

[ranjit]

What do you think about using studies to try to improve efficiency like in this blog? https://bulletproofmusician.com/blog/

We have to start from a generalization. If studies are not applicable in general, this sort of analysis would be a waste. I do not think it is so. Bodies vary but not so much that piano technique fundamentally changes. Minds do vary as well, but there are many things which hold for virtually anyone. There are only so many ways which 99.99% of the population will use.

There are rare, strange cases -- for example, I've heard that some people do not see the number line as a straight line but see it to be stretched and skewed and like it loops back into itself. Using that, they might immediately be able to add something like 103+78 but find 6+9 harder. Or, they might find it very easy to know that the sum of two large numbers is less than a certain number (because their number line loops back instead of being linear). There are similar things for music, I'm sure, and for that, there is no method or general advice.

[ego0720]

Ego, you had responded to me by saying "Quite contrary. Many people who note their limitations are the ones that excel."  There is no "contrary" when I argue that the starting point is our actual abilities (which in itself includes limitations) - and you argue that it starts with people noting their actual abilities ("note their limitations".
You refer to what someone else wrote (mgatl).  You had responded to what I had written which had nothing to do with anyone else's writing.  That actual starting point is what we in fact can and cannot do - that is my argument.  The best people to determine this are the student and a good teacher working with that student.
I was not considering studies one way or the other.  My statement, which you had responded to with "on the contrary" was that we should start with a student's actual abilities - where that particular student is at and nothing more than that.

You did state not to worry about what some studies indicate about the matter (after the two comments about the studies), mentioned the potential harm, then raised points as to the purpose of this discussion.  By that, I offered an alternate viewpoint.  “Quite contrary” was in reference to the latter post. I know you probably saw it differently and that’s fine. We were both having different conversations with each other.

I noticed that you tend to focus a fair amount of attention on others in a way that can be, self-limiting. This can restrict some of your awareness.

[ego0720]

What do you think about using studies to try to improve efficiency like in this blog? https://bulletproofmusician.com/blog/

We have to start from a generalization. If studies are not applicable in general, this sort of analysis would be a waste. I do not think it is so. Bodies vary but not so much that piano technique fundamentally changes. Minds do vary as well, but there are many things which hold for virtually anyone. There are only so many ways which 99.99% of the population will use.

There are rare, strange cases -- for example, I've heard that some people do not see the number line as a straight line but see it to be stretched and skewed and like it loops back into itself. Using that, they might immediately be able to add something like 103+78 but find 6+9 harder. Or, they might find it very easy to know that the sum of two large numbers is less than a certain number (because their number line loops back instead of being linear). There are similar things for music, I'm sure, and for that, there is no method or general advice.

This belongs in its own topic. Thanks for deflecting.. this age topic was beaten to a dead horse and hit the spot.  OP, never bring this up again. 

[keypeg]

I noticed that you tend to focus a fair amount of attention on others in a way that can be, self-limiting. This can restrict some of your awareness.

I also teach.  So being aware of how things affect others is par for the course.  You don't know me or how I work to know whether I am "self-limiting" - I assure you that I'm not.  I would not make any such statement about you, because I know nothing about your progress, achievements, or anything else. 

[keypeg]

What do you think about using studies to try to improve efficiency like in this blog? https://bulletproofmusician.com/blog/

We have to start from a generalization. If studies are not applicable in general, this sort of analysis would be a waste.

I don't know if you were asking me or someone else, though your post comes right after mine.  I want to reiterate that in my response to "Ego" I was clarifying the conversation, which had been a response to me where I stated something which was quoted, and what I stated had nothing to do with studies.

I've been reading the posts by BulletProof for years - I'm subscribed.  What interests me the most are his own experiences as a musician.  Some (many?) of the studies are too narrow and not that applicable, but they serve as a catalyst for some truth he discovered in playing - i.e. an interpretation - and that's the part that interests me.  I have disagreed with several of the studies and their conclusions, and we have dialogued about it in the past.

[keypeg]

Ok, trying to get my thoughts together on this.  I was pretty sick when this thread started and am still not 100% yet.

One major factor is the learning & teaching process itself.  What a person does / is taught to do, will affect the outcome.  If this is done different with one group than another, then if the results are different it may not be the nature of the group, but rather, the nature of the teaching/learning activities.  The obvious one would be shortcuts for adults for "quick results" and less superficial and more thorough teaching of youngsters.   (2) There may also be tendencies to overcome.  If children are physical and direct, and adults tend to be abstract and cerebral - and if learning to play involves engaging the body and the senses directly, then you want to latch onto that.  You'll want to slow down and engage body & senses, be less cerebral.  What we see, however, is teachers saying "Adults are cerebral and grasp abstract concepts quickly, so I'll teach them along that plane." (and neglect what it is that is actually needed).

TLDR: You need to do what is needed optimally for learning and growth.  Teaching and learning toward wrong perceptions can interfere with this.  At least some results are due to this.  At least as bad if not worse is approaches and expectations due to theories.  The short answer that I tried to stress before is to consider the actual person who is there; find out what the actual strengths, weaknesses and learning styles are, and work with that.