It does make sense.
I guess sort of have a wild talent and now that I'm attempting to use techniques, it is interfering.
I guess the question is, if I am able to attain lucidity, do I need to learn these techniques?
For example, if once I'm lucid, I have no problem flying, do I need to learn a technique on how to become good at flying?
I love the science of the technique and all, but as Tim Gunn on Project Runway would say, "I'm worried."
Originally Posted by drewmandan
This seems like it might be a case of what I call "Beginner's Luck Syndrome". There are typically 3 stages to learning a new skill.
The first stage is when you can do something almost entirely intuitively. You are usually fairly good at whatever the task is, and you don't have to think about it. However, your abilities will naturally be limited because you don't know exactly what you're doing.
The second stage is the learning stage. When you begin to consciously learn a skill, you need to begin at the basics. But in the process of going back to the basics, you erase all the intuitive knowledge you already had. Thus, in comparison to earlier, your skills have apparently gotten worse. However, what skills you do have are now entirely transparent. You now know exactly how you do what you do.
The third stage is mastery. Because you now understand how everything works, you are once again good at whatever it is you're trying to learn. In fact, at this point you become better than you ever were because you've learned the skill in a systematic and conscious way.
So for example, your friend, who plays golf once a year, beats you on the course after you just finished taking lessons. Why? The friend doesn't know what he's doing; he just relies on pure instinct, whereas you are consciously thinking about what you're doing. But since you're still learning, the friend appears to be better.
Does that make sense?
|
|
Bookmarks