>> SO I'M CATHY (INAUDIBLE) AT THE NICHD. MY PORTFOLIO IS MATH AND SCIENCE COGNITION AND LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT AND DISORDERS OF THAT LEARNING. AND SO I AM ENGAGED IN THIS NEW INITIATIVE BECAUSE WE ARE REALLY INTERESTED IN MOVING FORWARD THE STEM EDUCATION ISSUES AT NIH WHICH ALL OF US AT NIH HAVE AN INTEREST IN. WHETHER YOU'RE A PARENT OR A RESEARCHER OR A GRANDPARENT OR SOMEONE IN THE COMMUNITY, STEM EDUCATION IS IMPORTANT TO ALL OF US, BOTH IN TERMS OF HOW WE FUNCTION IN OUR HEALTH, OUR WELL BEING BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF OUR NATIONAL ECONOMY. SO THIS INITIATIVE WAS A DESIRE TO MOVE FORWARD THIS KIND OF CONVERSATION AND DRAW ATTENTION TO THE NEED FOR DISCUSSING HOW WE TEACH SCIENCE PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO NIH, HOW WE TEACH SCIENCE AND MEDICAL SCIENCE BEHAVIORAL SCIENCE, AND MOVE OUR ECONOMY, OUR ENVIRONMENT AND OUR WELFARE FORWARD. SO I'M THRILLED TO BE THE PERSON TO INTRODUCE OUR SPEAKER TODAY JUSTICE HALBERDA, FROM -- HALBERDA FROM JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY. HE'S ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR OF PSYCHOLOGY AND BRAIN SCIENCES AND ALSO THE DEPARTMENT OF COGNITIVE SCIENCES AT HOPKINS UNIVERSITY, IN BALTIMORE. HE ALSO HAPPENS TO BE SOMEONE WHO HAS A GRANT, A PI IN MY PORTFOLIO. I KNOW JUSTIN WELL FROM THAT CONTEXT AND ALSO FROM OUR EXCHANGES IN OUR COMMON INTEREST IN THIS SCIENCE. JUSTIN HAS HAD WOUND WONDERFUL TRAINING EXPERIENCE, HE'S NOT THAT CLOSE TO TRAINING ANY MORE, HE'S MOVED ON BUT HE'S TRAINED AT THE FRENCH NATIONAL CENTER FOR SCIENTIFIC VERGE AS A POST-DOCTORAL FELLOW AND FOR ANYBODY WHO KNOWS THE CNRS YOU KNOW THE WONDERFUL REPUTATION, THE EXCEPTIONAL REPUTATION FOR COG ANITIVE AND BRAIN SCIENCES BEING DONE AT THAT INSTITUTE IN FRANCE. HE'S ALSO HAD A FELLOWSHIP IN THE DEPARTMENT OF PSYCHOLOGY, AT HARVARD UNIVERSITY WITH SUE KERRY AND THOSE WHO KNOW SUE KERRY'S WORK, LANGUAGE AND CONCEPT FORMATION COGNITION IS KEY. AND JUSTIN HASN'T STRAYED TOO FAR FROM THAT IN HIS OWN RESEARCH AS WELL. SO DR. HALBERDA HAS NUMEROUS GRANTS. HE'S PI, AN INVESTIGATOR AND A MENTOR ON A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT GRANTS. JUST BY DESCRIBING SOME OF THE GRANTS I CAN -- YOU CAN IDENTIFY SOME OF THE BREADTH AND DEPTH OF HIS SCIENCE INCLUDING BASE YEN APPROACH -- BASE YEN APPROACH TO NUMBERED REASONING, HE'S GOT GRANTS FROM NSF AS WELL AS NIH. IN MY PORTFOLIO HE HAS DEVELOPMENT AN FUNCTION OF NON-VERBAL APPROXIMATION. HE ALSO IS PI ON A SUMMER RESEARCH EXPERIENCE FOR STUDENTS IN SCIENCE LEARNING. UNIFYING THE SCIENCE AND LOGIC IN HUMAN INFANTS. I KNOW HIS PRESENTATION WILL TOUCH ON MANY OF THOSE TOPICS. HE'S THE AUTHOR OF MANY, MANY PUBLICATIONS, MORE THAN 20 PUBLICATIONS AND REFERRED JOURNALS, TWO I WOULD HIGHLIGHT ARE ONE FROM THE JOURNAL NATURE, FROM 2008 WHICH WAS THE FIRST PAPER TO DESCRIBE HOW THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM IS PREDICTIVE OF LATER MATH PERFORMANCE OR LEAST PROBABLY IN THE REVERSE, IT PREDICTED THE PRIOR -- THE PRIOR EXPERIENCE AND LATER MATH ACHIEVEMENT AND MORE RECENTLY THAT NUMBER SENSE ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN SEEMS TO BE CHANGING OR DEVELOPING INTO THE 30s AND THEN EITHER PLATEAUING OR FALLING OFF A LITTLE BIT AS WE AGE. SO SOME DEVELOPMENTAL PERSPECTIVE ON THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM. I'M SURE HE'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM AND WHY IT'S SO IMPORTANT. WITH THAT I WILL LET YOU, JUSTIN TELL EVERYBODY ABOUT YOUR SCIENCE AND HOW IT RELATES TO OUR TOPIC TODAY. BUT I ONLY REALLY EXCITEED TO HAVE YOU HERE, JUSTIN, IN A BRILLIANT YOUNG SCIENTIST, AND A GREAT PERSON AND BROAD THINKER. SO WE HAVE A LOT OF FUN IN CONVERSATIONS AND I HOPE WE CAN DO THAT THIS AFTERNOON. THANK YOU, JUSTIN. [APPLAUSE] BASE YEN BAYESIAN >> THANK YOU TO CATHY AND THANK YOU TO Y'ALL. WHEN I WAS THINKING ABOUT WHAT TO TALK ABOUT TODAY, I WANTED TO NOT GIVE MY STANDARD CLOAK YUM AND TRY TO PAINT A PICTURE THAT WOULD MAYBE INSPIRE A CONVERSATION ABOUT FOUNDATIONAL COGNITIVE ABILITIES, HA WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THEM. AND -- WHAT WE UNDERSTAND ABOUT THEM AND POTENTIAL IMPORTANCE HOW WE THINK ABOUT STEM LEARNING AND STEM EDUCATION. AND FUTURE OPPORTUNITIES FOR RESEARCH AND DISCOVERY IN THOSE AREAS. SO I'LL GO THROUGH, THIS IS GOING TO BE BASICALLY A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT FOUNDATIONAL COGNITIVE ABILITIES ARE, WHICH -- WHAT DO WE KNOW ABOUT THE DIFFERENT DOMAINS, WE HAVE ABILITY WE ALL SHARE IN THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT MATHEMATICIAN AND UNDERSTAND NUMBERS THE WAY WE THINK ABOUT BIOLOGY AND PHYSICAL OBJECTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIPS. THOSE INTUITIONS THAT WE HAVE ACTUALLY SEEM TO BE CROSS CULTURALLY UNIVERSEAL. THEY'RE SHARED THROUGHOUT THE WORLD IRRESPECTIVE OF THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM IN THE CULTURE YOU WERE BROUGHT UP IN. THESE BASIC INTUITIONS WHILE THEY WE RELY ON THEM THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES MANY ARE OBSERVABLE AT BIRTH OR VERY SHORTLY AFTER BIRTH. INFANTS COME INTO THE WORLD KNOWING SOMETHING ABOUT NUMBERS AND KNOWING ABOUT MATHEMATICIAN, HAVING BASIC INTUITIONS ABOUT WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE AND HOW THEY RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER. IN FACT, THEY INDICATE A NUMBER WHICH I THINK IS THE BEST CASE WORK OUT OF THESE DOMAINS THAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. WE KNOW THAT IT IS AVAILABLE AT THE MOMENT OF BIRTH. SO YOU GO INTO THE MATERNITY AND YOU TEST THE BABIES AT TWO YEARS OF AGE, TWO HOURS OF AGE, TWO HOURS OF AGE THEY SHOW A PREFERENCE FOR LOOKING AT LARGER NUMBERS OF ITEMS AND CAN DISCRIMINATE LARGER FROM SMALLER NUMBERS WHEN YOU CONTROL FOR OTHER CONFOUNDING FACTORS. WE KNOW WHERE IN THE BRAIN THESE THINGS ARE REPRESENTED, LOSS OF ONE OF THESE SPECIAL PURPOSE CORE UNDERSTANDING, IN THE CASE OF NUMBER IT'S IN THE OPERATEAL CORTEX, -- PARIETAL CORTEX. IF YOU HAVE A STROKE APPROXIMATE DAMAGEED THAT PART OF THE BRAIN, YOU WILL HAVE ACQUIRED DISCOUNT CULIA. YOU WILL NEVER REGAIN YOUR MATH PREVIOUS MATHEMATICAL ABILITIES. SO THESE CORE SYSTEMS OR CORE UNDERSTANDINGS OF VARIOUS CONSENT DOMAINS. THEY'RE PART OF THE BIOLOGICAL HERITAGE IN A WAY. WE SHARE THEM AS I SAID, CROSS CULTURALLY AND THROUGHOUT DEVELOPMENT BUT ALSO MANY NON-HUMAN ANIMALS HAVE THE SAME KIND OF INTUITIONS AND CORE UNDERSTANDINGS OF BASIC ABILITIES. BASIC DOMAINS. WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS TALK THROUGH THAT, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A SENSE OF WHAT THOSE ARE LIKE. THEN I'M GOING THE START TALKING ABOUT WHAT IMPACT THAT MIGHT HAVE ON HOW WE THINK ABOUT SCIENCE EDUCATION. I ENJOY CROSS DISCIPLINE WORK AND ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE LEARNED BY DOING THAT IS IMPORTANCE OF HUMILITY. SO SOMETHING THAT COMES UP WHEN I TALK ABOUT, I GET EXCITED AND PASSIONATE ABOUT THE MATERIAL AND THE IDEA ABOUT THAT WE SHARE THESE THINGS CROSS CULTURALLY, WE SHARE THEM WITH OTHER ANIMALS, WE SHARE THESE THINGS WITH INFANTS. FOR ME, THAT'S -- IT LEAVES ME TO CONSIDER HOW I AM LIKE THOSE OTHERS THAT I MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT I WAS DIFFERENT FROM. IT LEADS ME TO CONSIDER HOW I'M SIMILAR TO PEOPLE OF OTHER CULTURES, IT LEADS ME TO THINK HOW I'M SIMILAR TO AN INFANT OR MY INFANT. AND BUT WHEN I'M HAVING CONVERSATIONS AND GETTING PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT WITH EDUCATORS, OFTENTIMES WE HAVE TO THEN WORK THROUGH A CONVERSATION ABOUT WELL, ARE YOU SAYING THESE THINGS ARE INNATE AND NOT TAUGHT AND THEY'RE NOT CHANGEABLE AND -- THAT'S SOUNDING LIKE IT'S GOING TO RUN CONTRARY TO MY INTERESTS AND EDUCATION. SO IN THE MIDDLE OF THE TALK I'M EEL ADDRESS THAT AN THINK THROUGH IT. I THINK IT'S QUITE THE OPPOSITE, MAYBELY I'M INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT HOW THESE BASIC FOUNDATIONAL ABILITIES ARE MERELY THE FOUNDATION UPON WHICH WE BUILD ALL OF OUR FUTURE KNOWLEDGE. SO UNDERSTANDING THEM DOESN'T FORM HOW WE GO ABOUT THINKING ABOUT EDUCATION, BUT IT DOESN'T REPLACE EDUCATION IN ANY WAY. THEN I WILL CLOSE WITH PRESENTING SOME EVIDENCE SPECIFIC TO THE WAYS WE HAVE BEEN LOOKING HOW THE FOUNDATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF NUMBERS IMPACT PERFORMANCE IN SCHOOL MATHEMATICIAN AND OTHER PLACES. IT SAYS OUTLINE BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY JUST PART ONE OF FIVE. SO AS I WAS MENTIONING, WE HAVE THESE FOUNDATIONAL COGNITIVE ABILITIES. THEY'RE SHARED CROSS YOU WILL CHURLLY, SHARED ACROSS DEVELOPMENT. THEY'RE SHARED WITH OTHER ANIMALS. WE RELY ON THEM THROUGHOUT OUR LIVES. SO THERE'S MANY SUCH DOMAINS, NUMBER IS ONE THAT I'M TALK ABOUT BUT FISCAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN OBJECTS THAT AN OBJECT CAN BE SUPPORTED T IDEA THAT I DON'T WANT TO SPILL THAT, THE IDEA WHEN I DROP THAT IT'S GOING TO FALL. THERE'S EVIDENCE FOR A CORE UNDERSTANDING OF SPACE, SPATIAL RELATIONSHIPS, THE ABILITY TO NAVIGATE IN SPACES, WORDS AND SYNTAX IS ONE AREA THAT ALSO SEEM TO HAVE A UNIQUE FOUNDATIONAL ABILITY, CATEGORYCAL PERCEPTION, SOME BEING UNIQUE TO HUMANS THOUGH PERHAPS. SO A THAT'S AN AREA OF RESEARCH RIGHT NOW, MAYBE SONG BIRDS MIGHT BE ABLE TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS WITH SYNTAX THAT WE CAN DO. BUT NOT JUST ANY OLD ANIMAL AND UNDERSTANDING BIOLOGY CONTAGION FOR INSTANCE, HER REDTY SEEM TO BE IDEAS THAT WE COME TO BUILDING UPON A FOUNDATIONAL UNDERSTANDING OF BIOLOGICAL SYSTEMS AND HOW THEY RELATE TO ONE ANOTHER. AND IN INTUITIVE PSYCHOLOGY, IN THE CASE OF NUMBERS THERE'S MORE THAN ONE CORE SYSTEM, THIS CORE SYSTEM ONE HERE IS AN ABILITY TO REPRESENT INDIVIDUAL OBJECTS SO TO TAKE -- AS YOU WATCH ME DO SOMETHING WITH OBJECTS, WHAT SHALL I DO, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T -- I WAS GOING TO JUGGLE THAT, I WAS GOING TO JUGGLE THAT LASER POINTER. SO THEN -- NOT IMPRESSIVE IF YOU'RE NOT JUGGLING A LASER POINTER THEN NO ONE IS SCARED. SO YOU SEE THIS AS A SINGLE COHERENT OBJECT THAT TRACES A CONTINUOUS SPATIAL TEMPORAL PATH. INFANTS ALSO SEE THAT WAY, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING YOU LEARNED HOW TO DO, AND THERE'S LIMITATIONS ON OUR ABILITIES TO TRACK MULTIPLE ITEMS IN PARALLEL FOR INSTANCE. SO IF YOU'RE TRACKING MULTIPLE OBJECTS MOVING AROUND YOU CAN'T TRACK ALL OF THEM. YOU HAVE TO FOCUS YOUR ATTENTION ON SUBSET. SO THIS IS RELEVANT FOR HOW WE BUILD MATHEMATICAL THOUGHTS BECAUSE AS WE THINK ABOUT OBJECT AND SETS AND RELATIONSHIPS ACROSS SETS, SOME INVOLVES AROUND A SINGLE ITEM, A SINGLE INDIVIDUAL. AND INFANT HAVE THIS ABILITY AND THIS LIMIT OF THREE, THEY CAN ATTEND AROUND THREE OBJECTS AT ONE TIME. YOU ALSO HAVE THAT SAME LIMIT, IT TURNS OUT. AND NON-HUMAN PRIMATE VERSUS THE SAME LIMIT. IT SEEMS TO BE SOMETHING PRETTY FUNDAMENTAL ABOUT THE PRIMATE VISUAL ATTENTION SYSTEM YOU'RE LIMITED TO ATTENDING THREE OBJECTS AT ANY ONE TIME. WHILE YOU'RE LOOKING AT ME YOU FEEL LIKE YOU SEE EVERYTHING ALL AT ONCE. BUT ACTUALLY WHAT'S HAPPENING IS YOUR ATTENTION IS ON THREE ITEMS, JUST JUMPING AROUND WHICH THREE IT'S ON, HOPEFULLY IT'S ON ME, ONE IS ON ME MOST OF THE TIME. TODAY. SO YOU MIGHT NOT EXPERIENCE SOME OF THESE LIMITATIONS BUT WHEN WE DO PSYCHOLOGICAL EXPERIMENTS WE CAN SAY YES INDEED WE SHARE THAT SAME LIMIT. WE ALSO HAVE ABILITY TO BIND ITEMS TO A SET. SO WHEN YOU LOOK UP THERE YOU SEE IT AS TWO RED THINGS, RACE CARS AND TWO KITTY CATS, EVEN IF YOU DON'T HAVE DEVICTIMTOR TOO, IF YOU HAVEN'T LEARNED CARDINAL NUMBER WORDS, AND YOU'RE A 14 MONTH OLD OR 12 MONTH OLD, 12 MONTH LOOKS AT THAT AND STORES IN MEMORY AS TWO SETS OF TWO, IT REMEMBERS NOT WITH DESCRIPTOR TOO, THOSE CAP AND THOSE CAR A CAR B P AND OVERCOMES THE LIMIT OF THREE BY BUILDING LARGER SETS SO AN ABILITY TO BIND ITEMS TO SETS, A THIRD SYSTEM THAT WE ALL SHARE IS THIS -- SORRY ABOUT THE COLOR YELLOW BUT CORE SYSTEM THREE IS A REPRESENTATION OF LARGER APPROXIMATE NUMEROSITIES. SO THEN WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT IN SOME DETAIL. SO BUT ALL OF US HAVE THIS OTHER THING ABOUT MAMA TICKS. WHEN I PUT THESE HERE EVERYONE RECOGNIZES THESE ARE NUMBERS AND WE HAVE AN EXACT PRECISE UNDERSTANDING OF LARGE NUMBER. SO IF I SAID I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU A MATH PROBLEM, SO 7,652,029 PLUS ONE. WHAT'S THE ANSWER? (OFF MIC) I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE FEST PART WAS BUT I KNOW IT SHOULD BE 30 AT THE END. RIGHT. EXACTLY. SO TO DATE HUMANS IN NUMEROUS CULTURES ARE THE ONLY CREATURES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED ON THIS PLANET WHO THINK SUCH THOUGHTS. SO INCLUDING HUMANS ON THIS PLANET, ADULT HUMANS WHO ARE INCREDIBLY INTELLIGENT BUT WHOSE LANGUAGE DOESN'T HAPPEN TO HAVE LARGE PRECISE NUMBER WORDS, SO THE LEARNING OF LARGE PRECISE NUMBER WORDS LIKE 17 OR 7 MILLION, WHATEVER NUMBER I SAID, THAT TAKES A LONG TIME AND IS A CULTURAL CONSTRUCTION AND THE CHILD HAS TO WORK THROUGH A VERY LONG PROCESS THAT SPANS OVER THREE YEARS OF COMING TO UNDERSTAND HOW COUNTING WORKS AND WHAT THE MEANING OF THE EXACT NUMBER WORDS IS, IF THAT HUMANS CULTURE DOES NOT HAVE THAT KIND OF SCAFFOLDING AND THAT -- THOSE KIND OF WORDS THEY SHOW NO EVIDENCE OF HAVING ACCESS TO THE THOUGHT PRECISELY 19. THESE ARE VERY INTELLIGENT ADULTS BUT THEY JUST DON'T -- ANYWAY WE ASK IN TRY AND TEST THEM, EVEN NONLINGUISTICLY HAY DON'T ENGAGE THE THOUGHT PRECISELY 19. SO YOU HAVE THAT. SO COUNT HOW MANY IS ON THIS SIDE I'LL STOP YOU NOW BECAUSE IT WILL BE A VERY BORING TASK. SO. SO YOU CAN DO THAT. IF I PUT THAT UP THERE, NOBODY KNOWS THE ANSWER RIGHT AWAY. EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE THIS -- I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY BUT SAY THERE'S 22 OR SOMETHING. IS THAT WHAT THE ANSWER IS? OKAY. GOOD. ALL RIGHT. SO YOU COULD GO ABOUT VERIFYING VERIFYING THAT IT IS IN FACT 23, SO YOU COULD RECOGNIZE THAT'S THE EXACT NUMBER THAT'S UP THERE. BUT IT WOULD TAKE A LONG TIME, THIS IS ALSO A BIT OF EVIDENCE FOR YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHAT IT MIGHT BE LIKE TO BE ONE OF THESE ADULTS WHO GREW UP IN A CULTURE WHO DIDN'T HAVE NUMBER WORDS. IT'S NOT THAT DIFFERENT FROM BEING YOU. YOU PUT THOSE UP THERE AN NOBODY IN THE ROOM WHEN I PUT THAT UP THERE GOES 23, CLEARLY IT'S 23. EVERYONE HAS TO DO THIS INCREDIBLY LABORIOUS GAME OF GOING THROUGH ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, MAYBE GROUP BY 2, 2, 4, 6, EVERYONE IS HAVING TO DO SOME KIND OF LONG TIME CONSUMING SERIAL STRATEGY. SO ALL OF YOUR MANY YEARS THINKING PRECISE NUMBERS HASN'T GIVEN YOU SOME NEW PER ACCEPT ACTUAL ABILITY TO SEE HOW MANY DOTS THERE ARE IN THE SCREEN. YOU STILL HAVE TO DO THIS CULTURALLY CONSTRUCTED BIT OF BEHAVIOR YOU WERE TAUGHT AS THE SERIAL WAY TO GO THROUGH IT, GIVEN YOU HAVE PER ACCEPT ACTUAL LIMITATION -- PER ACCEPT ACTUAL -- PER ACCEPT ACTUAL LIMITATIONS. -- FIGURE OUT HOW MANY ARE THERE. TO BE HONEST, THERE'S NO OTHER CONTRAST I CAN THINK OF. NO MATTER HOW --ITE NOT HOW COMPLEX THE THOUGHT 23 IS. YOU TOLD ME 7 MILLION BLAH, BLAH, BLAH AND 30 IN ONE SECOND, RIGHT? YOU KNEW THE ANSWER TO THAT SO YOU CAN CONTACT THE EXACT NUMERICAL CONCEPTS IMMEDIATELY. SO THE PROBLEM IS NOT THE PLEXTY OF THE CONCEPT. SO FOR INSTANCE IN ELECTRON, RIGHT, MAYBE THAT'S A COMPLEX CONCEPT, I DON'T KNOW. YOU KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES TO RECOGNIZE WHETHER THERE'S AN ELECTRON? IT TAKES ABOUT HALF OF A SECOND. YOU JUST LOOK AND SEE IF YOU SEE A LITTLE LINE, A LITTLE PATH IN THE CLOUD CHAMBER AND SAY YEAH, THERE WENT THE ELECTRON. SO IT'S NOT ABOUT THE COMPLEXITY OF THE IDEA THAT MAKES IT HARD TO TELL THAT THERE'S 23. IT'S THAT YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CORE SYSTEM THAT CAN ENABLE YOU TO RECOGNIZE PRECISELY 23NESS, THAT'S AN IDEA YOU CONSTRUCTED BUILDING ON TOP OF THOSE CORE SYSTEMS THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. SO NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT THE CORE SYSTEMS ARE LIKE. I'LL FOCUS ON CORE SUM NUMBER 3. INSTEAD OF THIS IS JUST SAYING IT TAKES YOU A LONG TIME, THAT'S REACTION TIME, IF -- INSTEAD OF SAYING HOW MANY THERE ARE, HERE IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION. IN THIS PICTURE WHICH HAS MORE, LEFT SIDE OR RIGHT SIDE? >> RIGHT. >> RIGHT. >> WHO COUNTED BEFORE THEY FIGURED OUT THE ANSWER? UNLESS YOU COUNT ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. PROBABLY NOBODY. OKAY? YOU ALSO HAVE AN IMMEDIATE INTUITIVE SENSE OF NUMBER OF ITEMS UP THERE, NOT ENOUGH TO GET YOU TO PRECISELY 23 BUT NOR SAY THAT'S MORE DOTS THAN THAT IS. AS ADULTS IN THE CULTURE YOU MAPPED THAT INTUITIVE SENSE OF HOW MANY, MEDIAN INTUITIVE SENSE OF HOW -- SO WE CAN PLAY THE NUMBER GAME, I'LL FLASH DOTS, YELL OUT HOW MANY THERE ARE, JUST SAY ABOUT HOW MANY. THERE'S NINE. HERE IT COMES AGAIN, ANOTHER ONE. 16. OKAY. ANOTHER ONE. >> 1. >> GOOD. IT WAS ONE. HERE COMES ANOTHER ONE. 47. THAT'S A RESULT THAT'S THREE. YES THAT WAS THREE. THAT'S A RESULT THAT REPLICATES BROADLY THAT PEOPLE UNDERITSELF MATE. SO WHAT YOU EXPERIENCE IF YOU LISTEN TO EVERYONE ELSE YOU EXPERIENCED ANOTHER PART OF THIS CORE SYSTEM NUMBER 3, APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM. THE AMOUNT OF NOISE IN YOUR ESTIMATE INCREASES AS THE NUMBER INCREASES SO WHEN THERE WAS ONE EVERYONE SAID ONE. WHEN THERE WAS 3, EVERYONE WOULD HAVE SAID 3. WHEN THERE WAS NINE WE HAD SOME 8s, MAYBE A 7, MAYBE A 10. WHEN THERE WAS 47 THOUGH WE HAD A 30, WE HAD A -- I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY SAID 50 BUT THE SPREAD AROUND THE NUMBER GOT BIGGER. AND THAT SIGNATURE OF THAT AMOUNT OF ERROR OR NOISE INCREASING AS THE NUMBER INCREASES ACTUALLY FOLLOWS A VERY SPECIFIC PATTERN, THE STANDARD DEVIATION INCREASES LINEARLY WITH THE MEAN. AGAIN, INFANTS WILL SHOW THAT PATTERN. THAT'S ONE WAY WE KNOW THEY'RE TAPPING THE SAME INTUITIVE NUMBER SYSTEM THAT YOU JUST TAPPED WHEN WE PLAY THE GAME. SO THE BABY CAN PLAY THAT GAME AND ALSO SENSE IT'S AROUND 16. THE BABY HASN'T LEARNED THE WORD 16 YET BUT THE BABY WHEN SHOWN HAS THE SAME INTERNAL SENSE THAT YOU HAVE, JUST THAT YOU HAVE LEARNED TO MAP THAT INTERNAL SENSE TO A NUMBER WORD. THERE IS A HAND IN THE BACK. SO IT'S NOT A -- THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT METHODS, BRAIN IMAGING, TECHNIQUES A SIMPLE BEHAVIORAL METHOD IS YOU BORE THEM. YOU SHOW DIFFERENT INSTANCES 16 DOTS OVER AND OVER. 16 DOTS. YOU WATCH HOW LONG THE BABY WILL STAIR AT IT. THE FIRST TIME YOU PUT UP YOU GO WOW I LIKE IT AND THEY STAIR FOR TEN SECONDS. THEN YOU GO BEEP BEEP BEEP, BRING UP 16 LITTLE CHICKENS. NICE, LIKE THAT. LOOK AWAY, 8 SECOND, 16 DOTS, LOOK AWAY AFTER SIX SECONDS ET CETERA SO BABY IS BORED AND SAID THIS IS IS A BORING GAME. YOU KEEP SHOWING 16 OBJECTS OVER AND OVER. NOW ONCE THE BABY HITS THE CRITICAL AMOUNT OF BOREDNESS WHICH IS BASICALLY ONLY LOOK FOR ABOUT 3 SECONDS, WHEN YOU BRING UP ANOTHER 16 THINGS, THE BABY IS READY TO BE TESTED. THE NEXT TIME YOU SHOW THE BABY A DIFFERENT NUMBER OF THINGS. YOU SHOW THE BABY EIGHT THINGS, EVEN IF YOU CONTROL FOR DENSITY AND SIZE AND HUMAN NANS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THE BABY IF THEY RECOGNIZE THE NUMERICAL DIFFERENCE INCREASES TO 8, THEY GO WELL THAT'S NEW. ONLY NEW BECAUSE IT'S NEW NUMBER. EVERYTHING ELSE L IS CONTROLLED FOR. AND THEY'LL AT SAY SIX MONTHS SUCCEED WITH 16 VERSUS 8 BUT THEY'LL FAIL AT 16 VERSUS 12. YOU CAN RUN EXPERIMENTS BABIES AND YOU GET THIS RATIO DEPENDENT PERFORMANCE THAT YOU ALSO SEE IN A DOSE. AND NON-HUMAN PRIMATES, AND MAMMALS, AND ALSO BIRDS. SHOW THE SAME SIGNATURE. WE'LL GET INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE. WE KNOW WHERE IN THE BRAIN YOU'RE DOING THIS, AS I SAID, THE APPROXIMATION IS THIS YELLOW STUFF THAT'S PARIETAL, INTERPARIETAL SULKUS. WHEN YOU'RE ASKING TO DO EXACT NUMBER FACTS THAT -- DONE IN MULTIPLE AREAS BUT FRONTAL CORTEX, THESE ARE AREAS THAT ACTIVATE WHEN YOU DO DIFFICULT LANGUAGE TASKS. SO YOU'RE EXPLICIT EXACT NUMBER REASONING ABILITY IS NOT SIMPLY TAKING A CORE SYSTEM LIKE THE YELLOW STUFF AND GETTING IT SHARPER AND GETTING IT -- AND GETTING BETTER. THAT'S NOT WHAT IT IS TO HAVE AN EXACT NUMBER SYSTEM. IT'S A DIFFERENT UNDERSTANDING. YOU HAVE A NEW THING THAT NO OTHER CREATURES ON THE PLANET HAVE, YOU BUILT FROM THINGS YOU DO UNDERSTAND BUT IT'S ITS OWN BEAST, ITS OWN UNDERSTANDING. THAT'S ONE OF THE MODELS THAT I WANT TO TALK ABOUT THROUGHOUT HOW TO THINK HOW YOU TAKE FOUNDATIONAL CORE ABILITIES AND HOW THEY MIGHT IMPACT STEM LEARNING AN STEM TEACHING. JUST GIVING OTHER HIGHLIGHTS OF THIS, I MENTION COLURES -- CULTURES THAT DON'T HAVE NUMBER WORDS. THIS IS ONE CULTURE (INDISCERNIBLE) PEOPLE THE AM ZONIAN RIVER BASE, THESE INDIVIDUALS HAVE NO WRITTEN LANGUAGE, NO SYMBOLS, OF ANY KIND THEY DON'T ENGAGE IN TRADE. THEY LIVE IN SMALL GROUPS. AT THE TURN OF THE CENTURY THERE'S MANY LANGUAGES ON THE PLANET THAT DIDN'T HAVE NUMBER WORDS SO THEIR LANGUAGE HAS ONE, TWO AND MANY. SO YOU COULD SAY TWO OF THOSE, ONE OF THOSE OR YOU CAN SAY LOTS. A BUNCH. AND THERE'S OTHER NUMBER WORDS BESIDES THOSE IN THIS LANGUAGE. THESE INDIVIDUALS TEST THEM IN ANY NUMBER OF TASKS TRYING TO SEE DO THEY EVER REPRESENT PRECISELY SIX AND YOU FIND NO EVIDENCE THAT THEY REPRESENT PRECISELY SIX. BUT YOU FIND THE RATIO DEPENDENT PERFORMANCE THEY TALK ABOUT WITH THE DO. SO THEY HAVE A FULLY FUNCTIONING APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM AND THEY UNDERSTAND EXACTLY WHAT THOSE THOUGHTS MEAN AND THEY CAN USE THE THOUGHTS BUT THEY DON'T HAVE WORDS FOR THEM. SO IF YOU'RE A SPEAKER OF THIS LANGUAGE AND I SHOW YOU MY 16 DOTS, THINK ABOUT WHAT IT'S LIKE TO BE SPEAKER OF THE LANGUAGE. 16 DOTS. IN YOUR MIND YOU THINK THE THOUGHT IT'S AROUND 16 DOTS. BUT YOU HAVE NO WORDS TO SAY THAT WITH. SO THE ONLY THING YOU CAN SAY IS LOTS OF DOTS OR IT'S LOTS OF DOTS. LOTS OF DOTS. LIKE THAT'S TONAL WORD YOU CAN SAY SO THERE'S NO WAY OF DIFFERENTIATING AND MAKING FINDINGS LIKE THE 7 MILLION BLAH BLAH BLAH 29, 7 MILLION BLAH BLAH BLAH 30. I CAN'T REMEMBER 7,620. YES. (OFF MIC) >> THAT HASN'T BEEN DONE. THIS IS WORK THAT INVOLVES COLLABORATING WITH ANTHROPOLL GISTS. AND IN ANTHROPOLOGY IN THE LAST SAY 50 YEARS, THERE'S BEEN A BACK AND FORTH NOT BATTLE. TRYING TO THINK OF A DIFFERENT WORD. A DISCUSSION OCCURRING ABOUT WHETHER THE STUDY IS ABOUT WHAT'S UNIQUE IN CULTURES AND THEREFORE, WE SHOULDN'T GO IN AND SAY HI, YOU HAVE NO COMMERCE BUT ISLE PUT YOU INSIDE A MAGNET AND TAKE PICTURES. VERSUS THE SCIENTIFIC INTEREST OF LOOKING AT WHAT HAPPENS TO HUMANS IN DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENTS, BEING IN DIFFERENT SITUATIONS. SO WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THOSE STUDIES BUT THERE ARE ETHICAL QUESTIONS INVOLVED THAT I'M NOT -- I HAVE NO TRAINING TO ANSWER. SO WE HAVEN'T DONE THAT. I MENTION THAT REPEAT THE QUESTIONS. THAT WAS THE QUESTION, HAS ANYBODY PUT A PURE SPEAKER IN AN FMRI MACHINE. YES. SORRY. SO I MENTION RATS HAVE IT. SO HERE IS A SIMPLE TASK U YOU TRAIN THE RAT, PUSH THIS BAR 16 TIMES AN RUN AND PUSH A LITTLE BUTTON AND YOU'LL GET FOOD. IF YOU PUSH IT 15 TIMES, NO FOOD FOR YOU. 17 TIMES, NO FOOD FOR YOU AND THE RATIFY GURRING THIS OUT READILY AND YOU CAN THE TEST THE RAT WITH A DIFFERENT SET OF BARS AND TURN OFF THE FOOD, ET CETERA AND ASK HOW MANY TIMES DOES THE RAT PUSH THE BAR AND THE DATA LOOKS LIKE WHAT YOU WERE SAYING OUTLOUD F YOU O TRY TO MAKE THE RAT PUSH IT FOUR TIMES, MOST OF THE TIME HE DOES PUSH IT FOUR TIMES. SOMETIMES IT'S THREE, RARELY TWO, SOMETIMES FIVE. FEWER TIMES 6 OR 7, ALMOST ALL THE TIME HE'S PUSHING IT FOUR. HE KNOWS IT. AND THE WIDTH OF THAT HUMP IS TELLING US HOW PRECISE IS THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE NUMBER. TAKE THE SAME RAT AND ASK HIM TO PUSH 16 TIMES ON THE BAR, YOU GET MORE NOISE. THAT RATE OF INCREASE IN NOISE CONSISTENT WITH FABER'S LAW, A PSYCHOFIST PHYSICAL SIGNATURE OF THIS CORE SYSTEM. SO USING BEHAVIORAL TASKS WE CAN SAY RATS HAVE THE SAME SYSTEM AND WE -- THERE'S EVEN SINGLE UNIT RECORDING LOOKING AT WHERE IT IS IN THE RAT BRAIN. PIGEONS HAVE IT TOO. I WON'T SPEND A LOT PIGEONS. THIS SHOWS PIGEONS CAN ADD AND SUBTRACT WITH THIS SYSTEM AND SO CAN HUMANS AN INFANTS. SO I SHOW YOU FIVE DOTS AND HID THEM AND BROUGHT IN FIVE MORE, YOU SHOULD KNOW THERE SHOULD BE AROUND TEN AROUND HERE AND SO DOES THE HUMAN INFANT. IF YOU TAKE A NON-HUMAN ANIMAL LIKE -- AND TRY -- TENS OF THOUSANDS OF TRIALS TO TEACH I NUMBER SYMBOLS YOU FIND SHE DOES LEARN THEM, I HAVE NUMBER SYMBOLS UP TO 19 NOW. ET'S LABORIOUS AND SHE NEVER HAS AN INSIGHT HOW ACCOUNTING WORKS. TO DATE THERE'S NO ANIMAL FOUND THAT HAS INSIGHT ABOUT ACCOUNTING. I EACH TIME IT TAKES TEN THOUSAND TRIALS TO GET THEM TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE NEW NUMBER MEANS BECAUSE THEY RELY ON THE APPROXIMATE CORE SYSTEM. THEY'RE NOT INTEGRATING THEM INTO SOME INTEGRATING ACROSS THE APPROXIMATE SYSTEM, THE SET BASE REPRESENTATION, THE INDIVIDUALS IN ORDER TO BUILD THIS RICHER DEEPER UNDERSTANDING OF EXACT NUMBER YOU AND I HAVE DONE VIA EDUCATION FROM OUR PARENTS OR SCHOOL OR WHEREVER. SO WE HAVE NOW GONE THROUGH THAT PART. SO THEY HAVE THESE FOUNDATIONAL ABILITIES. I FOCUS TON CASE NUMBER, IT'S THE BEST WORKED OUT CASE, AS I WAS SAYING BIOLOGICAL CONCEPTS LIKE CONTAGION, AND HER REDTY ALSO SEEM TO BE RESTING ON FOUNDATIONS THINKING BIOLOGY. FOR INSTANCE ON CONTAGION, 40 -- 4:00 O'CLOCK. BEFORE 4. OKAY. I WAS SAYING 340, MAYBE I WAS SUPPOSED TO STOP. A LITTLE LONGER THAN THAT. (OFF MIC) YOU'RE STANING UP HERE TALKING AND WANT TO MAKE SURE PEOPLE BOARD. SO GOOD. IMAGINE YOU COME IN, SO ABOUT INTUITIONS ABOUT CONTAGION, IMAGINE YOU COME IN TO -- THIS IS A REAL STUDY, YOU COME TO LAB, THERE'S A NICE BOWL OF ICE CREAM, IT'S FROZEN AND NOBODY TOUCHED IT, EVEN SCOOP IT OUT IN FRONT OF YOU. SCOOPED IT OUT. ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TABLE OR ACTUALLY ON A DIFFERENT TABLE, ON THE DIFFERENT TABLE THERE IS A RIPE STINKY FRESH PILE OF DOG FEE CEASE. NOW -- FECES. I TAKE A STRING, PUT ONE END IN THE DOG FECES AND I TAKE THE STRING AND PUT THE OTHER END IN THE ICE CREAM. HOW MANY PEOPLE EAT THE ICE CREAM? YOU MAY OR MAY NOT FEEL THE INTUITION, NOW IN FRONT OF YOU I COME WITH SCISSORS, I CUT THE STRING. DO YOU FEEL MORE LIKELY TO EAT THE ICE CREAM NOW? SOME PEOPLE FEEL THAT. RIGHT? IS THAT NOT CRAZY? I MEAN, COME ON. ONE OF THE PARTS OF YOUR INTUITIVE BIOLOGY ABOUT CONTAGION IS THAT CONTAGION INVOLVES CONTACT. CONTAGION INVOLVES PHYSICAL CONNECTION. A TINY STRING STRETCHING FROM COULD BE HERE BUT IF THERE'S A STRING CONNECTING IT, LOOK OUT. THAT COULD BE BAD STUFF. I'M CONNECTED TO IT. IF YOU CUT THE STRING THOUGH TIGHTS THE SAME STRING, MANY PEOPLE FEEL INSIDE OF THEMSELVES I'M A LITTLE MORE LIKELY TO EAT -- I DON'T WANT TO BUT IF I WAS HUNGRY I WOULD EAT THE ICE CREAM. SO AGAIN, WE CAN TALKG7D A LOT, I TEACH A COURSE WITH SPRING SEMESTER THAT HOPKINS ON THE CORE SYSTEMS. IT TAKE IT IS THE SEMESTER TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM, WE SPENT THREE, FOUR WEEKS ON EACH ONE SO THERE'S MANY THINGS TO TALK ABOUT. WE'LL CONTINUE FOCUSING ON NUMBER BUT MAYBE NOTEING A FEW OTHERS LIKE WHAT WE SAID ABOUT CONTAGION, PROBABLY MENTION SOME THINGS ABOUT PHYSICS AND A FEW OTHERS AND WE CAN HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT IF YOU LIKE. HOW DO CORE SYSTEMS IMPACT STEM LEARNING BUT ALSO HEALTH MORE GENERALLY. CATHY WHEN SHE WAS STARTING SHE WAS SAYING SHE WAS MENTIONING SOME WORK THAT SHOWS AS YOU GAIN IN MATHEMATIC SKILL YOUR LIFE PROSPECTS IMPROVE BOTH IN TERMS OF YOUR HEALTH, YOUR CAREER, YOUR INCOME, YOUR HAPPINESS AND THAT CAN BE TRUE WHEN YOU CONTROL FOR MANY, MANY OTHER FACTORS ALSO. IMPROVEMENTS IN UNDERSTANDING STEM CONCEPTS, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE A NICE READY STATISTIC HERE. THAT ARTICLE IS GREAT. IT'S MIND BLOWING HOW LARGE THE IMPACT IS ON PEOPLE'S LIFE PROSPECTS AND OUTCOMES IN TERMS OF HEALTH AND ALSO COST TO THE NATION IN TERMS OF NUMBERS OF DOLLARS SPENT IN HEALTHCARE DOWN THE ROAD. IF WE COULD GET BETTER AT MATHEMATICS WE WOULD SAVE BILLIONS. SO WHAT IS THE IMPACT? THIS IS A FEW NOTES. ONE WAY OF THINKING ABOUT THESE CORE SYSTEMS ARE IN A NEGATIVE WAY. THIS IS WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT TALKING EDUCATORS SO THE IDEA OF THESE KINDS OF CORE UNDERSTANDINGS OR NAIVE UNDERSTANDING IS SOMETHING THAT SCIENCE EDUCATION COMMUNITY IS VERY FAMILIAR WITH. SOMETIMES THOUGHT OF AS MISCONCEPTIONS THAT BLOCK THE TEACHING. YOU HAVE TO OVERCOME THEM SO THERE'S WORK AT MERELY STANDENING FRONT OF STUDENTS AND TELLING THEM INFORMATION DOESN'T WORK IF YOU'RE NOT MINDFUL OF THEIR MISUNDERSTANDINGS. YOU HAVE TO TRY AND HAVE CONCEPTUAL CHANGE OCCUR, NOT MERELY DISPLAY TO THEM A SET OF CONCEPTS. YOU HAVE TO WORK FROM THE CONCEPT THEY HAVE TO THE NEW ONES. SO SCIENCE EDUCATORS ARE WELL AWARE OF THIS, THESE CORE UNDERSTANDINGS I'M SPEAKING OF, AND ONE WAY OF UNDERSTANDING IS THEY'RE KIND OF A PROBLEM FOR US, SO THEY CAN REALLY UNDERSTAND BIOLOGY AND GET BEWHEREON SO THEY CAN UNDERSTAND PHYSICS. SIMILARLY, IT IS ALSO TRUE THOUGH THAT THESE MISCONCEPTIONS BASED IN THESE CORE SYSTEMS BIOLOGY, LIKE CONTAGION, PEOPLE BELIEVE OUR BLOOD IS BLUE. LOOK, I SEE IT THROUGH MY SKIN, IT'S BLUE. THEN THE TEXTBOOKS, WHY THEY CHOSE BLUE? SORRY. I ASSUME HERE I AM. YOU KNOW YOUR BLOOD IS NOT BLUE, RIGHT? INSIDE YOUR BODY. IT IS NOT BLUE. IT IS ALWAYS RED ALL THE TIME. WHAT HAPPENS IN OXYGENATED VERSUS DEOX YESNATED BLOOD IS A SHIFT IN COLOR SPECTRUM OF THE BLOOD BUT IT'S ALL WITHIN THE RED ORANGE LAND. IT'S A SMALL SHIFT AS THE BLOOD BECOMES DEOXYGENATED. WHY THE BOOKS CHOOSE BLUE TO SAY HERE IS DEOXYGENATED BLOOD, IT IS A TERRIBLE CONFLICT WITH PEOPLE'S MISCONCEPTIONS, BECAUSE PEOPLE HAVE A MISCONCEPTION THIS THE BLOOD IS BLUE BECAUSE THEY SEAMUS LES OF THE VEIN LIEU THE SKIN SOMETIMES, I GUESS THE BLOOD IS BLUE IN THERE. THAT WAS A TANGENT, WASN'T IT? IT'S AN EXAM ROLL OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE MISCONCEPTIONS MIGHT BE UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CORE UNDERSTANDINGS ARE, HOW THEY MIGHT LEAD TO FALSE IDEAS OR MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF SCIENCE EDUCATION IS AN IMPORTANT MATTER. ALSO IMPORTANT FOR HEALTH POLICY. YES, YOU CANNOT, IT'S TRUE, REALLY TRUE, YOU CANNOT GET AIDS FROM SHAKING HANDS WITH SOMEONE AND YOU HAVE NO CUTS ON YOUR HANDS, THEY HAVE NO CUTS ON THEIR HANDS. PEOPLE HOLD THESE MISCONCEPTIONS AND THEY HOLD THEM NOT BECAUSE THEY INVENT THEM OUT OF THIN AIR, THEY'RE REMARKABLY CONSISTENT WHICH MISCONCEPTIONS PEOPLE HOLD. SO THE THING ABOUT CONTAGION AND PHYSICAL CONTACT. THESE CORE SYSTEM UNDERSTANDINGS LEAD PEOPLE TO ENGAGE IN BAD BEHAVIORS LIKE RISKY BEHAVIOR. PEOPLE MISUNDERSTAND PROBABILITY SO IF YOU GIVE THEM INFORMATION ABOUT RISK AND HEALTH RISK BY TELLING THEM PROBABILITIES, BASICALLY 10% OF HUMANS UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THE REST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT AND THEY HAVE SYSTEMATICksz MISUNDERSTANDINGS OF WHAT YOU EAR SAYING. SO IT IS IMPORTANT TO THINK HOW THE CORE SYSTEMS MAY BLOCK US DOING SCIENCE EDUCATION, WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THAT, IT'S ALSO TRUE THEY LEAD TO BEHAVIORS OR DIFFICULT COMMUNICATING SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION TO NAIVE -- NAIVE ISN'T A GOOD WORD, TO PEOPLE WHO ARE UTILIZING THE CURRENT CONCEPTS TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE SAYING THE CURRENT CONCEPTS AROUND APPROPRIATE YET BECAUSE THEY'RE RESTING ON THE CORE SYSTEMS. SO AN EXAMPLE OF THIS, THESE ARE STUDENTS WHO -- THIS IS FROM MIKE MCCLOSKY FROM THE LATE 70s. THESE ARE JOHNS HOPKINS STUDENTS WHO CAME INTO PHYSICS 101. THEY ARE SMART STUDENTS, THEY'RE IN PHYSICS 101, TAKEN TESTS AT THE BEGINNING ABOUT INTUITIVE UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICS. HE'S SPINNING THE BALL OVER HIS HEAD, THE WEIGHT OVER THE HEAD. HE LETS GO, WHICH PATH IT'S GOING TO FOLLOW, THE BALL. AND YOU CAN ANSWER THAT FOR YOURSELF SECRETLY IN YOUR HEAD. THEN THERE'S QUESTIONS LIKE THIS, BASIC INTUITIVE THINGS THEY NEVER INVOLVE FORMULA OR MATH. THEN THE STUDENTS TAKE A SEMESTER OF PHYSICS WHERE THEY STUDY, KNEW TONIAN MECHANICS. THEN GOES TO THE STUDENTS WHO GOT As AN Bs IN THE CLASS, NOT THE STUDENTS WHO GOT Fs OR DES, THE STUDENTS WITH As OR Bs SO THEY ANSWERED QUESTIONS LIKE THIS WITH FORMULA AND GOT As AND BS ON EXAM AND GIVES THEM THE INTUITIVE TEST AGAIN. AND A LARGE NUMBER HAVE NOT IMPROVED THOUGH THEY JUST MADE As AND Bs ON KNEW TONIAN MECHANICS. AGAIN, THIS IS A POINT SCIENCE EDUCATORS ARE FAMILIAR WITH.„,# SO THE ANSWER HERE IS A. AND THIS IS THE RESULT YOU GET FROM STUDENTS WHO GOT As AN Bs AFTER THEY GOT THE CLASS. YOU HAVE 33% FEELING LIKE IT'S SUPPOSED TO CURVE A BIT. HERE IS ANOTHER ONE. THIS ONE YOU ACTUALLY GET TO COME UP AND TRY -- THERE'S -- YOU COME UP TO A TABLE, THERE'S A TUBE OF A SORT AND YOU HAVE TO TRY AND -- YOU ROLL THE BALL THROUGH, IF YOU GET THE BALL THROUGH WITHOUT TOUCHING THE TUBES YOU GET $5. I DIDN'T PUT THE PERCENTAGE UP THERE. MANY, MANY, MANY PEOPLE DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. YOU JUST TRACK THEIR ARM. IF THERE'S ANY CURVE, LINEAR MOTION IN THE ARM, IT'S COMPLETELY PHYSICALLY THE WRONG IDEA. THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THE TASK IS TO DO THIS, WHICH ALMOST NOBODY DOES. THE ONLY WAY TO SOLVE THIS TASK IS COME TO THAT EDGE AND ROLE IT STRAIGHT THROUGH THE TUBE FROM ONE CORN TORE THE OTHER. ALMOST EVERYONE DOES SOMETHING LIKE THIS, TRIES TO PUT A LITTLE ENGLISH. SPIN IT AROUND. MCCHSKY MADE THE CASE, VERY CONVINCING THAT THIS IS PART OF OUR INTUITIVE PHYSICS, UNDERSTANDING OF PHYSICAL OBJECTS HOW THEY MOVE AND INTERACT, THIS IS A DRAWING FROM 1582 FROM A BOOK DESCRIBING HOW CANON BALLS MOVE. AND THIS WAS THE ACCEPTED PHYSICAL THEORY OF THE TIME BEFORE -- PRIOR TO NEWTON, BASICALLY DESCRIBED FROM A TO B THE FIRE IN THE CANON GIVES IMPETUS TO THE CANON BALL, BASICALLY IT SHOVES THIS ENERGY INTO THE CANON BALL. THE CANON BALL GOES. BUT AS IT GOES, GRAVITY IS SUCHING THE ENERGY OUT OF IT. AND EVENTUALLY YOU'LL GET TO A POINT TO SEE WHERE IT SUCKED THE ENERGY OUT. THE ENERGY IS GONE FROM THE CANON BALL. SO NOW GRAVITY PULLS IT DOWN TO D AND F. AND SO IF THAT'S -- FEELS SORT OF REASONABLE TO YOU, AGAIN, THAT'S -- THAT IS FINE, IT MEANS YOU COULD HAVE BEEN A FANTASTIC PHYSICIST IN 1582. NOW WE KNOW THAT ACTUALLY NO FORCES EVER PUT INTO IT -- THE OBJECT. THE OBJECT ITSELF CAN'T CONTAIN ANY FORCE. A FORCE ACTS ON IT AND AS SOON AS IT LEAVE IT IS GRAVITY, LOTS OF STORY IS SORT OF RIGHT. BUT IT'S THIS IDEA THAT YOU CAN PUT ENERGY INTO THINGS THAT WAS THE CORE UNDERSTANDING IN 1582 AND REMAIN IT IS CORE UNDERSTANDING OF JOHNS HOPKINS UNDERGRADUATES WHO MAKE As AND Bs IN COLLEGE PHYSICS. SO AGAIN, THE IMPORTANCE OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT THE CORE UNDERSTANDINGS ARE SUCH THAT WE CAN GO IN AND TALK TO THE STUDENTS AT THAT LEVEL WITH THOSE CONCEPTS AND SAY LET'S NOT TALK ABOUT THIS. IT'S NOT THEY'RE WRONG OR DUMB OR BLOCKED. IT'S VERY INCREDIBLE UNDERSTANDING. IT'S A USEFUL UNDERSTANDING IT'S FILLED WITH FRICTION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THIS IS A VERY NON-KNEW TONIAN WORLD WE LIVE IN. IF I DO THIS, HE'S NOT GOING TO KEEP GOING FOREVER, HE'LL STOP BECAUSE OF FRICTION. AND IT'S QUITE HARD TO OBSERVE SO THE IMPETUS THEORY MAKES QUITE A BIT OF SENSE OF OUR EVERY DAY WORLD. IT DOESN'T SEEM VERY KNEW TONIAN. YES. (OFF MIC) >> THE QUESTION WAS DO THEY HAVE PEOPLE WHO OBSERVE THAT ISN'T TRUE? IT'S ACTUALLY INTERESTING, IT'S THE OPPOSITE. THE UNDERSTANDINGS ARE SO POWERFUL THEY CAUSE PEOPLE TO HALLUCINATE THE PATHS. SO I MEAN -- TO ME THAT PATH -- THAT PATH LOOKS A LITTLE BIT SILLY. BUT IF I ASK PEOPLE TO DRAW THE REAL PATH, NOBODY DRAWS THE PERFECT PRABULA. EVERYONE DRAWS IT STARTS TO SLOW DOWN AT THE END OF THE JOURNEY. NOBODY DRAWS A PERFECT PARABALO. NOBODY DRAWS THE KNEW TONIAN ANSWER, IT'S NOT THE RIGHT ANSWER ACTUALLY BECAUSE AIR RESISTANCE, FRICTION DOES MAKE IT SLOW A BIT BUT PEEP HALLUCINATE HOW MUCH IT SHOULD SLOW DOWN. SO THAT'S TRUE AND WE NEED TO BE MINDFUL OF THAT. BUT THAT'S KIND OF A SOMEWHAT NEGATIVE VIEW OF CORE -- THESE CORE UNDERSTANDINGS. I HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THE POSSIBILITY OF THINKING ABOUT THEM AS POSITIVE VIEW OF THEM WHICH IS THAT IF WE CONSIDER WHAT IT IS TO LEARN, YOU HAVE TO HAVE SOME VOCABULARY IN WHICH YOU REPRESENT WHAT YOU OBSERVE, WHAT THE OBSERVATION IS. WHAT THE -- WHAT JUST OCCURRED. YOU DON'T HAVE THAT, THERE'S NO WAY YOU CAN LEARN ANYTHING. SO YOU HAVE TO HAVE A SET OF CONCEPTS THAT YOU CAN APPLY TO A SITUATION, LOOK AT IT ABOUT SEE WHAT HAPPENS. WHEN YOUR EXPECTATIONS ARE FOOLED, WHAT YOU EXPECT TO HAPPEN DOESN'T HAPPEN IT'S SURPRISING TO YOU. EDUCATORS KNOW THIS TOO. THAT'S SURPRISE DRIVES YOU TO HUNGER FOR A NEW EXPLANATION. A NEW UNDERSTANDING. SO THE CORE SYSTEMS IN MANY CASES THEY MIGHT BE A BLOCK BUT IN MANY CASES THEY MIGHT BE THAT WORK SPACE IN WHICH YOU REPRESENT THE WORLD SUCH THAT YOU CAN BE SURPRISED AND START TO GAIN A DEEPER UNDERSTANDING. (OFF MIC) >> QUESTION WAS WHAT HAPPENS IF YOU'RE A VERY BEGINNING LEARNER AN YOU HAVE NO EXPECTATIONS. FOR THESE CORE SYSTEMS AS YOUNG AS WE CAN LOOK, THE BABY VERSUS THE SAME EXPECTATION. THIS IS WORK BY RENEE (INAUDIBLE) ON SUPPORT. SO AT THREE MONTHS, LOOKING TIME STUDIES THREE MONTHS IS ABOUT AS YOUNG AS YOU CAN GO WITH LOOKING TIME STUDY. THAT'S THE REASON SHE STARTS AT THREE MONTHS. AT THREE MONTHS OF AGE IF I TOOK THIS OBJECT AND YOU SEE LIKE THIS AND PUSHED IT OFF THE LECTERN AND IT FLOATED HERE, YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED. YOU WOULD SAY THAT GUY IS GOOD. THREE MONTH OLD SURPRISED AT THAT TOO. THREE MONTH OLD IS NOT SURPRISED SEE IF I SEE IT THREE MONTH OLD IS NOT SURPRISED HOWEVER IF I TAKE THIS AND IT'S RIGHT HERE. IT'S -- IT FLOATS RIGHT HERE. THEY'RE NOT SURPRISED IF IT FLOWS RIGHT HERE. BASICALLY AS LONG AS IT'S TOUCHING A THREE MONTH OLD DOESN'T CARE. THE THREE MONTH OLD TO HAVE ANY PREFERENCE HERE HAS TO HAVE A CORE SYSTEM THAT SEES TWO OBJECTS, OBJECT A LECTERN, OBJECT B BOTTLE. CAN'T LEARN SUPPORT UNLESS IT SEES TWO OBJECTS. CAN'T LEARN RELATIONSHIPS BEFORE IT CAN SEE TWO OBJECTS AND AN EXPECTATION ABOUT SUPPORT, SUPPORT IS CONTACT. THINGS HAVE TO TOUCH. THEY TOUCH'S FINE. IF -- OH, THAT'S NOT ALLOWED. RIGHT? SO BEFORE -- ACTUALLY I WANT TO DO THIS. BEFORE WE SAY THREE MONTHS OLD AREN'T SO SMART. SO LOOK AT THIS, THIS IS A HARD METAL THING. IT'S A HEAVY THING. READY? YOU SEE IT UP HERE. AND NOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, I'M GOING TO I DO IT WHICH WAY? I'M GOING TO PUSH IT OFF THE EDGE AND I WANT YOU TO LOOK AT IT AND TRY AND THINK TO YOURSELF WHEN IS IT GOING TO TIP. JUST TRYING TO GET IT JUST WHEN IT STARTS TO TIP, TIP NOW LET GO? OKAY. WHAT ABOUT NOW? NOW? ALMOST. NOW? NOW. OKAY THERE GOES. WHERE IS MY PEN? TELL ME THINK ABOUT TIP? ANYBODY VERY,VERY BORED AT MY EXPERIMENT HERE? YOU MIGHT BE BORED IF YOU HAD ALREADY CORRECTLY LEARNED ABOUT CENTER OF MASS AND PLAINER OBJECTS AND SUPPORT. IT'S GOING TO TIP EXACTLY THE SAME POINT. EXACTLY THE SAME POINT I MARKED. DOESN'T MATTER WHICH SIDE IT'S FACING. THIS PLAINER OBJECT WILL ALWAYS TIP AS SOON AS THAT MARKET IS NO LONGER OVER THE WOOD. I KNOW THAT. I LEARNED THAT BUT I STILL FEEL A LITTLE BIT LIKE OH, YEAH, THAT'S A LITTLE -- THAT'S TOOL, THAT'S KIND OF WEIRD. OH, YEAH. RIGHT? SO THIS IS TO SHOW US THAT EVEN YOU, YOU UNDERSTAND SUPPORT QUITE WELL. MAYBE YOU ARE BETTER THAN ME AND YOU INTERNALIZE THE INTENTER OF MASS AND FEEL THAT INTUITIVELY. I FEEL IT INTUITIVELY BUT NOT -- CERTAINLY NOT INTUITIVELY AS I FEEL LIKE THIS SHOULD DROP. SO WE ARE STILL IN THE MIDST OF REFINING OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE PHYSICAL WORLD BUT AGAIN, IT'S THE CORE SYSTEMS THAT HAVE EMPOWERED US TO DO THATTING IN THE FIRST PLACE. SO (INAUDIBLE) HAD THAT -- WHERE IS MY DRINKING? YEAH. THAT AT THREE MONTHS ANYTHING TOUCHES IS OKAY. AT FOUR TO FIVE MONTHS THE INFANTS WILL BE SURPRISED AT THIS. BUT THEY WON'T BE SURPRISED AT THAT. SOME PART OF -- OF THE SURFACE OF THE OBJECT IS ON THE TOP PART, THEY WILL BE BORED. THEY DON'T FIND THAT SURPRISING. THE SIX AND A HALF MONTH OLD FINDS THIS SURPRISING. BUT DOESN'T FIND THIS SURPRISING. SO IF I LET GO OF THIS AND IT STAYS YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED. RIGHT? SIX AND A HALF MONTH OLD DOESN'T FIND THAT SURPRISING. BECAUSE NOW THE REPRESENTATION IS SOMETHING LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE LENGTH OF THE OBJECT SHOULD BE SUPPORTED. LIKE THE REPRESENTATION OF A SIX AND A HALF MONTH OLD. THE MAJORITY OF THE LENGTH OF THE OBJECT. ONLY AT ABOUT 12 MONTHS DO WE SUCCEED AT THIS KIND OF CASE. WHEN WE JUST SAW IS MEMBERS OF NIH ARE STILL REFINING TO SOME EXTENT THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF SOME, UNDERSTANDING OF SUPPORT. SO IN THIS CASE WHAT WE'RE SEEING, IT'S NOT EXACTLY RIGHT TO SAY THE CORE SYSTEMS ARE A PROBLEM, THEY'RE A MISCONCEPTION, THEY'RE NOT RIGHT, WE HAVE TO GET PAST THEM, THAT COULD BE TRUE IN SOME CASES. IN SOME OTHER CASES LIKE THIS ONE, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO LEARN ABOUT SUPPORT. IF THE INFANT DIDN'T START HERE ABLE TO REPRESENT OBJECT A, OBJECT 2, SPATIAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THEM CONSISTENT WITH SUPPORTER AND CONSISTENT. FROM THAT THEY REFINE. I THINK A SIMILAR CASE IS TRUE FOR NUMBER --ISH HURRY. THIS IS SOME WORK BEING DONE AT THE MARYLAND SCIENCE CENTER. WHERE -- SO A BIG PART OF SCIENCE MUSEUM APPROXIMATE HANDS-ON SCIENCE, LEARNING INSIDE AND OUTSIDE THE CLASS ROOM, PART OF THOSE KIND OF MUSEUMS IS INTERACTING WITH A DISPLAY. OFTENTIMES DISPLAYS ARE SURPRISING, THEY DO SOMETHING INTERESTING AND WEIRD. SO WHAT LISA IS FINDING IS THAT SHE HAS A -- WE BOTH HAVE BUT THIS ISN'T MY WORK, WE HAVE A SPACE IN THE KIDS PART OF THE MUSEUM, BETWEEN AN INFANT AND 12-YEAR-OLD CAN COME IN AND WE HAVE STUDIES IN THE MUSEUM, IT'S LIKE A DISPLAY, THEN TALK ABOUT PARENTS AND SCIENCE AND GET THE HAND OUT THAT TALKS ABOUT WHAT THE PROCESS IS, SO THEY GET TO BE PARTICIPANTS IN EMPERIMENT WITHIN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM AND ALSO LEARN ABOUT THE SCIENCE THAT EVOLVES, THEY CAN COME BACK AGAIN AN AGAIN, WE HAVE MULTIPLE PROJECTS. WHEN KIDS AT ANY AGE WITNESS A PHYSICALLY SURPRISING EVENT, IN THIS ONE, A LITTLE THING IS HIDDEN UNDER THE CUP AND IT MAGICALLY POPS OVER THE TO THE OTHER CUP, YOU SEE IT, IT SHOWS UP IN THE OTHER CUP, THE BOX IS LATE MAGIC THINGY. KIDS SEE A PHYSICALLY SURPRISING EVENT BUT VIOLATES THEIR UNDERSTANDING OF HOW OBJECTS SHOULD BEHAVE, LEARN MORE AN RETAIN MORE ABOUT THAT OBJECT. THAN KIDS WHO SEE A PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE TRANSFORMATION OF THAT OBJECT AND THE SAME INFORMATION AND SAME EXPERIENCE IN THE SCIENCE MUSEUM, ET CETERA. ANOTHER WAY THE CORE SYSTEMS ARE EMPOWERING LEARNING THEY GIVE RISE TO THE GUT FEELING OF SURPRISE. WHEN YOU FUEL THAT SURPRISE, IT FEELS VERY LIMBIC SYSTEM, IT'S NOT THE CORTEX ONLY. IT'S LIKE YOU FEEL WHOA AND YOU SEE MAGIC. THAT WAS CRAZY. THAT FEELING IS LINKED WITH A HUGE SURGE OF DOPAMINE, IT IS BEING SURPRISED IN THE CORE SYSTEM, DRIVING THE SEARCH FOR DESCRIPTIONS AN LEARNING THAT'S OCCURRING. WE DON'T WANT -- I THINK WE DON'T WANT TO SAY ALL THE TIME, OH, CORE SYSTEMS, MISUNDERSTANDING, THEY'RE A PROBLEM FOR SCIENCE -- I THINK THERE'S A RICHER UNDERSTANDING THAT WE CAN START LOOKING AT HERE ABOUT HOW THEY ENTERACT AND HOW DETAILED THE FOUNDATIONS FOR WHAT WE END UP LEARNING. THE LAST PART IS WHERE I WAS GOING TO DO LOTS OF MY OWN RESEARCH. IN THE LAST THREE MINUTES, I'LL TELL YOU FEW MORE THINGS ABOUT CORE NUMBER SYSTEM AND HOW IT AFFECTS MATH PERFORMANCE. CATHY MENTIONED THE 2008 PAPER WHERE WE FOUND THIS IS THE FIRST PLACE WE FOUND PEOPLE WITH INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES. >> MORE THAN THREE MINUTES. GOT IT. I WORK ON NUMBERS. SO THEY DISPLAY -- I'LL SHOW YOU THE TASK AGAIN. THIS IS A GROUP OF 14-YEAR-OLD KIDS THAT HAVE TO SEE TRASHES, YOU HAVE TO DECIDE MORE YELLOW DOTS OR BLUE. THAT WAS MORE BLUE, THAT ONE IS HARD. I THINK IT WAS BLUE. THAT WAS MORE BLUE DEFINITELY. SOMETIMES HARDER SOMETIMES EASIER, YOU DON'T COUNT THEM, THEY FLASH UP THERE AND YOU HAVE TO GIVE ANSWER. BY VARYING THE RATIO BETWEEN BLUE AN YELLOW DOTS WE CAN LOOK AT WHERE DIFFERENT KIDS HAVE DIFFERENTTY THIS IS THE RATIO BETWEEN THE DOTS. THIS IS LIKE TWO TO ONE, THIS IS 20 YELLOW DOTS VERSUS TEN BLUE DOTS, THE GROUP IS UP CLOSE TO 100% CORRECT. THEY'RE GETTING THAT RIGHT. EVERYBODY HAS DIFFICULTY AS THE RATIO BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT, THIS IS LIKE 7 VERSUS 8. AND THE QUESTION WAS DO DIFFERENT -- SO SET THIS UP. BEFORE THIS PAPER WE DIDN'T KNOW IF DIFFERENT PEOPLE HAD DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PRECISION IN THE CORE SYSTEMS. THEY'RE UNIVERSEALLY SHARED. EVERYONE HAS GOT THEM, YOU CAN SEE. THEM AT BIRTH. LIKE EYE SITE. YOU SAY BASICALLY 2020 HINDSIGHT OR SOMETHING. DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PRECISION OR LEVELS OF CONFIDENCE IN CORE UNDERSTANDINGS. IS EVERYONE STARTING AT THE SAME LEVEL OR INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE? BY DOING THIS TASK WE'RE ABLE TO MEASURE AND ASK THE QUESTION ARE THERE INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES AN FOUND INCREDIBLY WHOPPING INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCE, THIS IS 64, 14-YEAR-OLD KIDS, ESTIMATE OF THE INTERNAL NOISE OF THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM. SO THE GUT SENSE OF HOW MANY DOTS ARE NOISY AND SCALED WITH THE NUMBER, THIS IS THE CONSTANT THAT SAYS HOW QUICK DOES THE NOISE GROW WITH THE NUMBER. IF YOU'RE A KID STRUGGLING WITH SEEING THE DOTS, GETTING THE NUMBER RIGHT YOUR NOISE IS GROWING QUICKLY. IF U WHERER A STUDENT DOING VERY WELL, THE NOISE IS GROWING LINEARLY BUT MORE SLOWLY. THAT'S WHAT THIS IS. SO THIS SPREAD IS FROM A KID -- THIS KID WOULD BE, THAT'S 12 BASICALLY 12% NOISE TO SIGNAL RATIO. THAT KID IS 75% CORRECT WITH 11 VERSUS 10 DOTS. QUITE GOOD. 14-YEAR-OLD KID. ALL THE WAY TO THIS KID, IN ORDER TO GET 75% CORRECT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE 11 VERSUS 7 DOTS OR 6 DOTS. THIS KID IS REALLY STRUGGLING. WE ALSO FIND REACTION TIME DIFFERENCES. SO THEN WE HAD THAT AND WE CAN SAY NOW, FIRST INTERESTING RESULT, LOOKS LIKE THESE CORE ABILITIES ARE NOT EQUAL. DOESN'T HAVE IMPACT ON SCHOOL PERFORMANCE. THESE KIDS ARE TRACKED EVERY YEAR SINCE FIVE YEARS OLD TESTED ON MATH ABILITIES, SPATIAL ABILITIES. MANY, MANY TASKS. THIS IS THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PLAYING THE BLUE AND YELLOW DOTS GAME FOR TEN MINUTES AT AGE 14. TEN MINUTES OF BLUE AND YELLOW DOTS RATS 14. SIGNIFICANTLY CORE RELATES TO HOW WELL YOU DID ON STANDARDIZED TESTS MATHEMATICIAN EVERY SINGLE YEAR, YOU HAVE BEEN IN SCHOOL ALL THE WAY BACK TO KINDERGARTEN, THIS IS THE RELATIONSHIP IN THIRD GRADE. R SQUARE OF .32, IT REMAINS SIGNIFICANT CONTROLLING FOR WORKING MEMORY, POINT IQ, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, VISUAL SPATIAL REASONING. ALL THE COGNITIVE ABILITIES THAT HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED BEING RELEVANT TO PREDICTING SCHOOL MATH PERFORMANCE. SO CONTROLLING ALL OF THEM AND APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM PRECISION. HOW WELL YOU DO IN TEN MINUTES OF BLUE YELLOW DOTS PREDICTING YOUR SCHOOL MATH PERFORMANCE, CONTROL FOR BLUE AND YELLOW DOTS, THESE ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT. NOW WE HAVE NEW DATA WORKING MEMORY, YOU SEE WORKING MEMORY IS CLOSE HERE, IT'S STILL SIGNIFICANT WHEN CAN YOU CONTROL BUT THE ODDS IS ALL GO AWAY. SO THIS WAS A BIG RESULT, THAT SAID WHOA, THERE'S INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN CORE ABILITIES AND THEY SEEM TO BE AFFECTING HOW WELL YOU DO IN SCHOOL MATHEMATICS. SO THINGS WE HAVE DONE SINCE THEN, I SHOULD MENTION THIS WORK IS SUPPORTED FROM NICHD. SO I MENTIONED BRAIN DAMAGE, THERE'S ALSO DEVELOPMENTAL SO THE STUDENTS STRUGGLING MOTH IN MATHEMATICS ALSO -- MATHEMATICIAN HAVE THE NOISIEST GUT SENSE OF NUMBER, THE NOISIEST APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM. THIS IS 200 PRE-SCHOOLERS SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECISION AN SCHOOL MATH -- TEAM OF PERFORMERS IS THERE BEFORE YOU ENTER SCHOOL. THIS IS DATA SHOWING BLUE AND YELLOW DOTS PRECISION AT AGE 3 PREDECKS HOW WELL YOU'LL DO IN MATH IN THIRD GRADE. CONTROLLING FOR OTHER FACTORS. THE 200 SAMPLE KIDS ARE 6 AND WE FOLLOW THEM OUT AND NOW WORKING ON INTERVENTIONS WITH THEM. THIS IS JOHNS HOPKINS UNDERGRADUATE SHOWING THE RELATIONSHIP TO THEIR MATH SAT PERFORMANCE. THEY DO BLUE YELLOW DOTS CLASS FOR -- BLUE AND YELLOW DOTS TASK FORE 8 MINUTES IN THE CLASSROOM AND THEN WE GOT THEIR SAT SCORES FROM THE REGISTRAR. IT RELATES HOW WELL THEY DO IN MATH SAT BUT NOT VERBAL AND REMAINS SIGNIFICANT WHEN YOU ROLL FOR SAT SO NOT A GENERAL IQ, EYE'S SPECIFIC RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE CORE UNDERSTANDING OF NUMBER, AND HOW YOU DO ON HIGH ORDER MATHEMATICIAN. THIS IS THE SAT. THEN THIS IS RECENT WORK THAT CAME OUT IN PN AS. SO WE PUT THE -- WE PUT THE TASK UP ON THE WEB. YOU CAN GO DO IT YOURSELF AND TEST YOURSELF, IT'S FREE. YOU CAN DOWNLOAD THE SOFTWARE TOO AND GIVE IT TO PEOPLE, IT'S ALL FREE. WE PUT OUT THE WEB, THIS IS A SAMPLE OF 13,000 PEOPLE BETWEEN 11 AND 85 YEARS OF AGE. I REALLY DO WANT TO SHOW YOU THIS, WAS TRYING TO GET A MOVIE TO WORK EARLIER. IT WASN'T WORKING. MAYBE I CAN CHANGE THE RESOLUTION. OR -- OF THE SCREEN. HOW DO I DO THAT? LET'S DO THAT. IT'S REALLY WORTH SEEING. O SO LET ME SEE IF I CAN DO LET'S SEE IF THAT WORKED. SO I ALSO GET INTO KITS PLAYING INFORMATION, THAT'S SOMETHING I ENJOY THINKING ABOUT. SO THIS IS THE SUPPORTING ONLINE MATERIALS FOR THE PNAS PAPER, YOU CAN GO AND PLAY WITH IT. WE MADE THE ENTIRE DATA SET OF 13,000 PEOPLE AVAILABLE ON LINE FOR PEOPLE TO INTERACT WITH YOURSELF. WHAT YOU'LL SEE HERE IS EACH DOT IS A PERSON THE DOT IS GOING TO EMERGE AS WE GET TO THEIR AGE. WEE GOING TO -- WE'RE GOING TO WATCH THE LIFE SPAN GO FROM AGE 10 TO AGE 80 IN SEVEN SECONDS. AND WE'LL WATCH IT OVER AND OVER. WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO IS ASK OKAY WHAT IS HAPPENING TO THE CORE NUMBER SYSTEM. OVER THE LIFE SPAN. THEY REFRACTION THAT INTERNAL NOISE ON THE BOTTOM AND BETTER, SMALL NOISE IS HERE, BIG NOISE IS HERE. RESPONSE TIME, HOW LONG IT TAKES YOU TO COME UP WITH YOUR ANSWER, ON THIS SIDE, THIS IS FAST, THAT IS SLOW. IF YOU'RE REALLY GOOD AT THE BLUE YELLOW DOTS GAME YOU GET YOUR ANSWER QUICKLY AND ACCURATELY. BEST PERFORMANCE DOWN HERE, WORST PERFORMANCE UP THERE. SO AGAIN YOU CAN GO ON AND PLAY WITH THIS, WE'LL LET IT LOOP. THE OVALS AND PLUSES ARE SUBJECT MEANS AND TESTS IN THE 90 PERCENTILES. AS AGAIN, HERE IS THE FIRST THING WE NOTICE, THERE'S THREE TRANSITIONS IN THE LIFE SPAN, WE HAVE OTHER WORK DOWN TO FROM 6 MONTHS TO 11. THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH IT. THERE'S THREE MAIN TRANSITIONS AN DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGES IN THE CORE SYSTEM. FIRST IS A RAPID DROP IN RESPONSE TIME. TO AGE 16. SO YOU SEE THAT, THEN THERE'S A SHIFT TOWARDS BETTER PRECISION, MOVING TO THIS SIDE. AND BEST PRECISION, THERE'S THE DROP, THERE'S THE SHIP. BEST PRECISION IS NOT ATTAINED IN POPULATION UNTIL AGE 30 YEARS. THIS CORE SYSTEM THAT YOU CAN SEE AT TWO HOURS AFTER BIRTH IS IMPROVING FOR THE ENTIRE TIME YOU'RE IN SCHOOL ALL THE WAY TO AGE 30. IT'S ACTUALLY A MASSIVE AMOUNT OF IMPROVEMENT. THEN THE LAST IS DECLINE WITH AGING. PEOPLE START MOVING OUT OF THE HOT SPOT DOWN HERE TOWARDS WORST PERFORMANCE, SLOWER LESS ACCURATE PERFORMANCE. SECOND THERE'S RELATIONSHIP HOW WELL YOU SAY YOU DID IN SCHOOL MATHEMATICIAN WHEN YOU WERE IN SCHOOL WHICH CAN BE SEEN IN COLOR. SO THE RED OVAL IS SUBJECTS IN THE TOP 20% OF -- THEY FELT TOP 20% RELEVANT TO PEERS IN SCHOOL MATHEMATICIAN. NOTICE THE RED MAGENTA REDDISH OVAL IS LEFT OF SAY THE YELLOW AND GREEN OVALS. THAT'S TRUE ACROSS THE LIFE SPAN SO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PRECISION OF YOUR CORE NUMBER SENSE AND PERFORMANCE IN MATHEMATICIAN STAYS STABLE THROUGH THE LIFE SPAN, NOT JUST THERE IN PRE-SCHOOL, NOT LIKE A NUMBER SENSE IS IMPORTANT FOR KINDERGARTNERS AND FIRST GRADERS BUT WHO CARES. THAT'S NOT AGAIN, IT'S NOT THE WAY TO THINK ABOUT THE CORE SYSTEMS. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAVE THEM. THEY'RE THERE FOR THEIR WHOLE LIVES. THEY EMPOWER LEARNING. SO WE CAN SHUT THESE OFF TOO. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS YOU CAN DO. YOU CAN SHUT OFF DIFFERENT GROUPS, PLAY WITH THEM A LOT OF WAYS SO I ENCOURAGE YOU TO GO PLAY. SO THE CORE SYSTEMS ARE WITH US. THEY'RE NOT ALWAYS BAD. THEY EMPOWER LEARNING. THIS IS A SITE YOU CAN GO TO TEST YOURSELF AS -- THAT WAS CREATED WITH SOME FUNDING FROM NSF. THEY SUPPORT LEARNING, THEY INSPIRE LEARNING BECAUSE THEY GIVE RISE TO FEELINGS YOU FEEL WHEN YOUR CORE COMMITMENTS ARE VIOLATED AND IN THE INTEREST OF TOO MANY I DIDN'T PUT THIS IN BUT I WANT TO NOTE SOME NEW WORK THAT WE HAVE THAT'S IN PRESS NOW. WHAT WE FOUND IS THE CORE NUMBER SYSTEM, THAT CHUBBYNESS OF THOSE HUMPS HOW FAST THEY GET CHUBBIER, IT TURNS OUT THAT'S SOMEWHAT ABOUT INTERNAL NOISE BUT VERY, VERY MUCH ABOUT STUDENTS INTERNAL CONFIDENCE. SO THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM BASED ON STUFF WE'RE HAVING NOW IS NOT ABOUT THINKING ABOUT CARDINALITY AND IT'S FUZZY AND TRYING YOUR BEST, IT'S ABOUT THINKING ABOUT RELATIONSHIPS. SO THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM THAT GIVES YOU A GUT SENSE THAT PLUS SIGN MEANS I'M GOING UP IN NUMBER SPACE, MINUS MEANS I'M GOING DOWN. IF YOU HAVE A MOI SHY APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM THE STUDENT HAS RADICALLY LESS CONFIDENCE IN NUMBER CONCEPTS. THIS IS -- IF EVERY TIME YOU'RE ASKED TO THINK NUMBERS AND RELATIONSHIPS AN GREATER THAN OR LESS THAN, I DONE -- BASICALLY I'M GETTING A NOISY INTERNAL SIGNAL IN MY BRAIN. I'M VERY NOT CONFIDENT P AND IT'S LICK -- SO MY LEFT EYE IS TERRIBLE I HAVE TEARIAL VISION IN MY LEFT EYE, IF I CLOSE MY RIGHT EYE EVERYTHING IS FUZZY, I'M NOT VERY CONFIDENT IN MY ABILITY TO SEE YOUR FACIAL EXPREGNANTS SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS A FUNNY DEMO OR TERRIBLE DEMO. I HAVE CONFIDENCE IN SUCCESS YOUR EXPRESSIONS. RIGHT EYE MORE CONFIDENCE IN WHAT YOUR EXPRESSIONS ARE, YES, I'M WITH THIS EYE OPEN I'M A VERY SOCIABLE GUY, A GUY WHO GOES TO THE PARTY AND IS READY TO MAKE THE JOKES AND WITH THIS EYE, I'M NOT GOING TO P PARTY, I'M STAYING HOME. I DON'T WANT TO INTERACT WITH THE PEOPLE, I DON'T -- I SAY SOMETHING, I P CAN'T TELL IF THEY'RE LAUGHING OR NOT. YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAY SOMETHING SO THE NOISIER SYSTEM, IT'S NOT ABOUT NOISIER THOUGHTS, IT'S LESS CONFIDENT THOUGHTS HOW THE CORE SYSTEMS IMPACT EDUCATION. SO WHAT WE SEE IS THAT IN AN INTERVENTION, I LITTLE PRIM AVENUES AT AGE 30, WE CAN INTERVENE AND IMPROVE PRECISION OF STUDENTS APPROXIMATE NUMBER SYSTEM WHEN WE IMPROVE THAT PRECISION WE SEE IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENTS IN THE STUDENTS INTERNAL CONFIDENCE. SO LIKE TAKING SOMEBODY THAT SAYS EYE NOT A MATH PERSON, BASICALLY TERRIBLE EYE SIGHT AND TURNING OUT WE CAN INTERVENE AN TRY AN IMPROVE THEIR EYE SIGHT PRECISION. WE'RE IMPROVING THEIR NUMBER SENSE PRECISION AND THAT TRANSLATES INTO GREATER CONFIDENCE. SO TO ME THAT'S A NEW RESULT, WE DONE HAVE ANY FUNDING FOR IT YET, ET CETERA, TO ME THAT'S A PLACE WHERE THIS IS REAL OPPORTUNITY FOR INTERFACE BETWEEN EDUCATION AND UNDERSTANDING CORE COGNITION BECAUSE OF ALL OF THE WORK THAT SHOWS US THAT CONFIDENCE, INTERNAL CONFIDENCE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT TO OUT.S. SO -- CUT I DON'T MEANS. -- OUTCOMES. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. [APPLAUSE] >> SOME OF THE THINGS YOU SAID IN THE (INAUDIBLE) THESE GO ON -- AMAZING HOW ENDREDGED THESE SEEM TO BE. >> RIGHT. SO THE WORK THAT -- REPEAT THE QUESTION. THE HOPKINS UNDERGRADUATE STUDENTS WHO AFTER MAKING AN A OR B IN COLLEGE PHYSICS STILL HAVE NOT OVERTURNED THEIR NAIVE INTUITIONS ABOUT PHYSICS. NAIVE PHYSICS THEORY AND STILL SAY THE BALL SHOULD CURVE A BIT. I THINK SUSAN KERRY MY GRADUATE ADVISER, I DIDN'T WORK ON THIS AT ALL, THIS WAS DONE IN THE '70s. SHE DID THE SEMINOLE WORK IN THIS AREA. SHE DEMONSTRATED THAT YOU CAN TAKE A 6TH GRADER AND IF YOU CONSTRUCTD THE LESSON SUCH THAT YOU ADDRESSED, YOU UNDERSTOOD THE INTUITIVE SYSTEM THEY HAD, IN THIS CASE ONE OF THE CASES IT WAS BIOLOGY, ONE OTHER CASE IT WAS DENSITY AND MASS AND WEIGHT. IF YOU UNDERSTOOD THAT FIRST THEORY THEY HAD, AND CONSTRUCTED THE TEACHING MATERIAL SO THAT IT ADDRESSED THEIR INTUITIVE THEORY, YOU CAN SCAFFOLD A 6TH GRADER TO OUTPERFORMING A JOHNS HOPKINS SOPHOMORE FOR THOSE CONCEPTS SO THAT WAS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT FOR DEMONSTRATING THAT THIS SIDE ABOUT UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPTS THAT THE STUDENT HAS AND TAILORING THE DEMONSTRATIONS AND THE DIAGRAMS TO THAT UNDERSTANDING IN ORDER TO SCAFFOLD THEM, I THINK THAT WAS -- SO IT'S NOT JUST SHOCKING, IT'S ALSO ABOUT THE SCAFFOLDING INVOLVED IN THE MATERIALS AND THE DIAGRAM2>x (OFF MIC) >> GOOD QUESTION. HOW DO YOU INTERVENE AND IMPROVE THE PRES IS OF CORE NUMBER CONCEPTS? SO I'M GOING TO PREFACE BY SAYING NOW YOU'RE GETTING -- NOW YOU'RE GOING TO GET OOH PASSIONATE OPINION BASED ON PAPERS CURRENTLY BEEN WRITTEN AND NOT YET PUBLISHED. I WOULD SAY THE YOUR IS STILL OUT. WHERE WE HAVE BEEN GOING AND FINDING GOOD RESULTS IN TERMS OF TRANSFER OF TRAINING TO OTHER CONTEXT IS BY THINKING ABOUT THE CORE SYSTEM AS NUMBER SIMILAR TO EYE SIGHT, ATTEMPTING TO GATHER EVIDENCE TO BUILD A MODEL OF WHAT'S OUT IN THE WORLD. THE EVIDENCE THAT IT GATHERS IS NOISY. IF YOU'RE LIKE ME -- I DON'T KNOW HOW COMMON THAT IS, HOW MANY PEOPLE ONE EYE BLURRY THAN THE OTHER. SO YOU KNOW WHEY I'M TALKING ABOUT. IF YOU LOOK ONLY OUT OF THE BLURRY EYE YOUR BRAIN, THE SAME BRAIN, GATHERING EVIDENCE WHAT'S IN THE WORLD AND THE EVIDENCE, IT'S ALSO NOISY FOR THE GOOD EYE. IT'S NOISE DEPENDENT, IT'S NOT AS GOOD AS EAGLE'S GOOD EYE. GIVEN THAT, THE BAYESIAN WORK IS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND NUMBER REPRESENTATION AS GATHERING OF NOISY EVIDENCE ANDRYING OVER NOISY EVIDENCE. THE INSIGHT ABOUT TRAINING WHAT YOU NEED TO DO IS BASICALLY MANIPULATE THE LEVEL OF NOISE AND GET THE SUBJECT TO NOT JUST LIKE GET BUT B BETTER BUT BETTER HOW THEY GATHER EVIDENCE. A LOT OF DEDECISIONS WE'RE MAKING ALL THE TIME, THEY'RE NOT THE END VALUE. IF I IF I WANT TO MAKE EYE CONTACT WITH YOU WHEN ANSWERING THE QUESTION, I'M DOING STUFF LIKE THIS. ALL THAT IS ABOUT ME HAVING A MODEL OF EGG TERM WORLD AND REASONING AND SAYING YES, THIS IS BETTER, NOW I CAN SEE. LIKEWISE TRYING TO SEE HOW MANY DOTS THERE ARE, SOME LEAD TO WORSE EVIDENCE, NOT JUST MOVING YOUR HEAD BUT WAYS OF PROCESSING THAT INFORMATION MAYBE YOU'RE -- MAYBE YOU'RE SUBJECT TO TWO DRAWN ASTRAY BY AREA. SO YOU'RE LIKE YOU SEE BIG DOTS AND YOU THINK THERE'S A LOT OF THEM. WELL, IT VIA TRAINING AND FEEDBACK YOU STARTED TO SAY THAT'S NOT RIGHT, NOT GETTING THIS RIGHT AND YOU'RE HUNTING DOWN A PATH THAT IS THE WAY YOU MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO GET THE BEST SAMPLE POSSIBLE OF WHAT THAT NUMBER S. WE HAVE BEEN DOING TRAINING USING VIDEO GAMES AND THE GAMES THAT SEEM TO BE WORKING THE BEST ARE FIRST PERSON SHOOTER VIDEO GAMES WITH THE VIOLENCE AND THE WORST ONES THAT PARENTS DISLIKE. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT NOW IS WITH -- WE HAVE SOME INITIAL FUNDING FROM NSF FROM 7 TO 12-YEAR-OLDS WITH NO VIOLENCE WHATSOEVER AND IN BEDS WITHIN A KIND OF EXCITING FUN FIRST PERSON GAME, IMBEDS NUMBER RELEVANT DECISIONS, INSIDE NOISY EVIDENCE. SO THE GAME RIGHT NOW, IT'S NOT -- THE STRUCTURE IS YOUR A WIZARD OR APPRENTICE AND YOUER HEALING ANIMALS, MAGICAL CREATURES SO YOU'RE GOING IN THE WORLD BUT IN ORDER TO HEAL THEM THEY HAVE DIFFERENT -- HOW MUCH DETAIL SHOULD I GET INTO? IMAGINE YOU COME UPON A SWARM OF BEES AND YOU HAVE TO LOAD SOME NUMBER OF SPELLS INTO YOUR WAND, IT'S APPROXIMATE, THERE'S NEVER NUMBER, THE KIDS AREN'T GOING TO BE PLAYING A MATH GAME. SO YOU'RE ESTIMATING YOUR BEES AND SPELLS AN TRYING TO HEAL THE BEES BUT YOU'RE MAKING COMPARISON NUMBER REASONING DECISIONS. , ALL IMBEDDED IN A FUN GAME. WE HAVE HAD LUCK WITH THE GAMES WITH NO NUMBER CONTENT, SO -- AND VIOLENCE SO NOW WE'RE TRYING TO MAYBE CREATE SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T EXIST ON THE MARKET AT ALL, AN MAMMERSIVE FUN GAME YOU'RE DOING NUMBER DECISION AND WE HAVE ROPES AN REASON ABOUT RATE AND DIVISION. BUT THE KIDS WILL NEVER THINK THEY'RE DOING A MATH PROBLEM. AND HOPEFULLY HAS IMPACT. WE'LL MONITOR THEIR PLAY AND SEE DOES IT ADJUST THE GAME TO SKILL LEVEL. SO I'M INTERESTED IN IMPROVING THINGS THAT WAY. (OFF MIC) >> RIGHT. REPEAT QUESTION. DID I REPEAT THE LAST WITH ONE? OKAY. YOU HAVE TO REMIND ME EVERY TIME. THE QUESTION WAS SCAFFOLDING. GIVEN YOU CAN TAKE A 6TH GRADE WE ARE A CERTAIN KIND OF SCAFFOLDING AND GET THEM TO PERFORM BETTER THAN A JOHNS HOPKINS UNDERGRADUATE, COULD YOU TAKE A BETTER 6TH GRADER WITH BETTER SCAFFOLDING ABOUT GET THEM TO OUTPERFORM JOHNS HOPKINS GRADUATE STUDENT? I WON'T SAY THE QUESTION WAS FACULTY BECAUSE THAT'S TOO THREATENING AN IDEA. SO THE ANSWER TO THAT ONE, I THINK THIS SUCCESS PEOPLE HAVE SCAFFOLDING OF THE SORT I'M TALKING ABOUT, ARE DIRECTED AT VERY SPECIFIC COMMITMENTS ABOUT A PHYSICAL SYSTEM, IT'S NOT A SCAFFOLDING THAT LEADS TO A BROAD GENERAL CHANGE. LIKE OVERALL INTELLIGENCE OR MAIN GENERAL PROBLEM SOLVING. THESE ARE THINGS LIKE WE ALL AT ONE POINT IN OUR LIVES, MAYBE STILL CONFOUND DENSITY AND MASS. SO WE THINK A DENSE ROCK IS HEAVY AND DENSE BUT THAT'S TOTALLY CONFOUNDED. THOSE ARE SEPARABLE DIMENSIONS, BUT YOU CAN THINK ABOUT DENSITY OF A MATERIAL COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM THE OVERALL MASS OR WEIGHT OR SOMETHING OF THE MATERIAL. AND THAT SUCCESSFUL BUT THAT DOESN'T MAKE THE 6TH GRADER THEN BECOME A BRILLIANT PHYSICIST IN ALL AREAS OF PHYSICS, IT STAYS IT HAS A PROFOUND INTERESTING IMPACT ON THINKING BUT THERE'S -- I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SUPER SCAFFOLDING THAT COULD WHOLE SAIL CHANGE SOMEONE INTO A JOHNS HOPKINS PROFESSOR. THANK GOODNESS. (OFF MIC) >> SO THE QUESTION WAS SEX DIFFERENCES. SO THERE ARE SEX DIFFERENCES IN THESE LARGE DATA SETS. I NEVER MADE ANY CLAIMS FROM THOSE DIFFERENCES BECAUSE IT'S -- THAT IS TOO HEIDI MENTIONAL A QUESTION FOR THIS KIND OF DATA TO APPROACH. IN THE WEST SAMPLE THERE'S SELF-SELECTION GOING ON, WHO CHOOSES TO COME DO THIS TEST. WE DON'T HAVE A HANDLE ON WHAT THOSE FACTORS ARE LIKE. TYPICALLY IT IS THAT FEMALES PERFORM LESS WELL THAN MALES. THOSE ARE NOT ONES -- THEY ARE VERY SMALL AND I DON'T TRUST THEM SO I DON'T BELIEVE IT YET. BECAUSE IT'S TOO HEIDI MENTIONAL A QUESTION. NOT ONLY IS THERE SELF-SELECTION BUT THERE'S ALSO THE WOMEN WHO ARE COMING TO TAKE THIS TEST THEY LIVE IN THIS CULTURE, THEY KNOW HOW THE CULTURE THINKS ABOUT WOMEN AN MATH AND SCIENCE. (OFF MIC) >> THERE'S NONE. SO (INDISCERNIBLE) HAD A PAPER RING INFANT STUDIES AND THERE'S NO SEX DIFFERENCES AND IN ANIMAL STUDIES THERE'S NO SEX DIFFERENCES. (OFF MIC) YOU TALKED ABOUT THE GENERAL DESCRIPTOR OF FIRST PERSON (INAUDIBLE) MORE SPECIFIC THAN THAT? >> >> MORE SPECIFIC AS INTERVENTION? >> UH-HUH. >> SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE FREELY AVAILABLE NUMBER RACE IS ONE (INDISCERNIBLE) DEVELOPED THAT HAVE SHOWN POSITIVE RESULTS FOR CHILDREN STRUGGLING WITH THE LOWEST ACHIEVING CHILDREN, CHILDREN STRUGGLING WITH DEVELOPMENTAL DISCALCULIA. BOB ZEIGLER HAS A SET OF INTERVENTIONS THAT ARE RELATED TO LIKE SHOOTS AND LADDERS TYPE GAMES. LINEAR NUMBER BOARD GAMES. THOSE ARE POSITIVE RESULTS WITH LOW SES STUDENTS. BUT THE CHALLENGE FOR THOSE INTERVENTIONS AND THERE'S -- AND NOW THERE'S A WHOLE WAY WITH THE BRAIN AGE STUFF AND LIMOUSTY, THAT'S A HUGE WAVE COMING FROM THESE MINI GAMES WHERE YOU CAN PLAY TASKS AND GET BETTER AT THEM FOR YOUR PRESCHOOL OR ON THE iPAD, THINGS LIKE THAT. WHAT I WOULD SAY -- SO THESE ARE GREAT, IT'S GREAT ENTHUSIASM TO TRY THING AND SEE WHAT WORKS BUT AS OF YET I WOULD SAY NONE OF THOSE GENERALIZE BROADLY. THERE ARE IMPROVEMENTS BUT THEY SEEM TO BE IMPROVEMENTS ON THOSE TASKS. AND THEY DON'T GENERALIZE BROADLY ACROSS TASKS. SO THAT'S THE NEGATIVE RESPONSE BY WHICH TO USE. THERE IS NOTHING I COULD SAY THIS IS THE ONE. THAT'S WHY WE'RE SO INTERESTED IN TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING. I THINK THE THING THEY ALL THOSE INTERVENTIONS ARE MISSING, THEY STILL LOOK LIKE MATH CLASS. LOTS OF INTERVENTIONS LIKE GAME INTERVENTIONS, THEY USE THE GAME AS REWARD FOR DOING MATH CLASS. DO MATH CLASS AND THEN LET YOU PLAY TWO MINUTES OF VIDEO GAME. THIS IS GREAT. I WANT PEOPLE TO TRY IT BUT NOT WHAT I WOULD BE PUTTING MY -- THAT'S NOT WHERE I'M PUTTING MY EFFORT. I THINK IT'S A CHIME RA. THE KID KNOWS ABSOLUTELY WHEN THEY'RE DOING MATH CLASS AND KNOW ABSOLUTELY WHEN THEY'RE GETTING TOLY A GAME. I THINK THE REAL POWER OF -- I MEAN GAMES ARE AMAZINGLY POWERFUL, KIDS LOVE THEM AND PLAY THEM FOR HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS AND HOURS. SO IT'S AMAZING TIME ON TASK THAT REIT NOW SNOT TAPPED AND THERE ARE NO GAMES THAT EXIST THAT ARE THAT MUCH FUN. NO EDUCATIONAL GAMES YET THAT EXIST WITH THE FUN CENTRAL TO THE GAME SO THAT'S WHERE I'M TRYING TO PUT ENERGY AND MAYBE CREATE SOMETHING AND SEE IF IT WORKS. (OFF MIC) >> I -- MAYBE I NEED TO -- I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO LISTEN TO THE CHOIR I HAVEN'T HAD THE CHANCE THE TALK TO RECREATIONAL THERAPIES SO THAT WOULD BE GREAT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS. >> THE EXAMPLE THAT YOU GAVE THE INTERVENTION ENHANCING ACUITY WAS A IMPROVING A BIOLOGIC FUNCTION IN VISION THE INTERVENTION FOR IMPROVING THE APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF (INAUDIBLE) YOU'RE NOT PROVIDING EYE GLASSES THAT INCREASE ACUITY. SO WHAT DO YOU THINK YOU ARE, HOW ARE YOU ADJUSTING WHAT IS ADJUSTED WHEN INTERVENING AND IS IT DEPENDENT ON RELIABLE FREQUENT FEEDBACK OF PERFORMANCE? >> GOOD. RELIABLE FREQUENT FEEDBACK -- SORRY. I DON'T KNOW IF I REPEATD THE OTHER ONES. QUESTION WAS ABOUT INTERVENTION A LITTLE MORE ABOUT WHAT THE MECHANISM IS AT PLAY GIVEN NOT PUTTING EYE GLASSES ON SOMEBODY, WHAT IS ACTUALLY BEING IMPROVED. SO NOW I HAVE TO REMEMBER WHAT I WAS GOING TO SAY WAS MY ANSWER. OKAY. FEEDBACK. I LEFT THAT OFF I KNEW I WAS MISSING SOMEBODY. AND IMPORTANCE OF FEEDBACK. FEEDBACK ABOUT ACCURACY LEADS TO INCREDIBLY RAPID IMMEDIATE IMPROVEMENT AND LIZ BRANNON DID THAT WORK, THAT WAS SUPPORTS BY NICHD ALSO. THAT JUST CAME OUT IN PRESS. AND -- BUT DOESN'T LEAD TO LASTING IMPROVEMENT IN THE PRECISION OF THE SYSTEM. SO THAT -- THE FEEDBACK -- THERE'S TWO PROBLEMS IN THE SYSTEM. ONE IS THE NOISE, THE OTHER IS BIASES. PEOPLE UNDERESTIMATE ALL THE TIME. SO THE FEEDBACK YOU CAN CHANGE THE BIAS VERY QUICKLY. AND YOU WILL GET A LOT OF IMPROVEMENT WHEN YOU FIX A BIAS. BUT CHANGING THE INTERNAL NOISE OF THE SYSTEM TAKES LONGER, NOT -- TAKES A DIFFERENT KIND OF TRAINING, IT'S NOT DEPENDENT ON FEEDBACK AT ALL. YOU CAN HAVE NO FEEDBACK AND STILL GET IMPROVEMENTS IN INTERNAL NOISE, BECAUSE THE FEEDBACK, THE SUBJECTS NEEDS TO IMPROVE THE INTERNAL PRECISION IS THEIR OWN MIND ENGAGENING THE PROBLEM. SO JUST LIKE I WAS SAYING WITH TRYING TO SEE SOMETHING AND THERE'S A BUNCH OF TREES, NOBODY EVER -- WHEN I AM FACING THAT PROBLEM I HAVE TREATMENT FROM MY FACE AN I WANT TO SEE THAT, NOT ONE BIT -- I NEED A GOOD EXAMPLE. I WANT TO SEE THE CLOCK. I DID THIS NOBODY CAME AND PUT AN M AND M IN MY MOUTH AND SAID YOU DID IT. BECAUSE THE WORLD ITSELF IS GIVING ME THE FEEDBACK THAT YEP, YOU HAVE GOT A BETTER SIGNAL ABOUT THE CLOCK. SO WE TURN OFF THE FEEDBACK IN THE GAME, THE KID DOES -- THEY DON'T KNOW THEY'RE PLAYING A NUMBER GAME IN THE PROTOTYPES WE HAVE. THERE'S NO FEEDBACK THAT I MEAN TO EAR JUST PLAYING BUT IT'S THE ACTIVE ENGAGING AND THINKING ABOUT THE NUMBERS AND THINKING ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE NUMBERS THAT IS THE TRAINING THEY NEED TO BE DOING. SO IT DOESN'T NEED FEEDBACK. IS THAT -- -- >> WE STILL DON'T KNOW HOW (INAUDIBLE) >> WHAT IS THE THING THAT'S GETTING BEAR. THE THING THAT'S GETTING BETTER, THIS IS NOW ME JUST SAYING WHAT MY CURRENT HYPOTHESIS IS THAT I'M WORKING ON WHICH IS WHAT'S GETTING BETTER IS ALL OF THE -- I TELL YOU A LITTLE MORE DETAIL. SO WHEN THE RATIO GETS HARDER WHEN A NUMBER DECISION BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT, TWO KINDS OF STUDENTS, STUDENTS WHO SLOW DOWN AND MAKE A MORE ACCURATE DECISION, SO THEY TRADE OFF -- THEY SENSE THEY NEED MORE EVIDENCE AND STUDENTS WHO GO STRAIGHT THROUGH. THE STUDENTS WHO GO STRAIGHT THROUGH, THERE'S TWO KINDS, STOUNDS INCREDIBLY GOOD AND GO STRAIGHT THROUGH OR STUDENTS THAT DO INCREDIBLY BAD AND GO STRAIGHT THROUGH SO A HUGE PART OF STUDENTS TO REALIZE THEY SHOULD DO THIS. GETTING THEM ENGAGED IN THE TASK AND SAY WHEN IT'S HARD I CAN GET A BETTER ANSWER IF I JUST TAKE A LITTLE EXTRA MINUTE AND GET A LITTLE MORE EVIDENCE THEN I CAN GIVE A BETTER ANSWER. SO THAT'S -- GETTING THEM TO HAVE A SLOPE WHERE THEY SLOW DOWN AS PROBLEMS GET MORE DIFFICULT IS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SEE IMPROVING. THE OTHER THING IS THAT WHEN PROBLEMS BECOME TOO DIFFICULT, MANY STUDENTS GIVE UP OPT TASK AND RANDOM GUESS. SO THE OTHER THING WE'RE IMPROVING IS WHERE THEY -- WHAT USED TO JUST CRASH AND IT'S TOO HARD I'LL GIVE A RANDOM GETS, THE TRAIN WEARING DOING SEEMS TO BE GETTING THEM TO ENGAGE IN THE SIGNAL MORE. SO BOTH, THE SLOWING DOWN GETS HARD AND ACTUALLY GIVING AN ANSWER. THAT'S THE THINGS WE SEEM TO BE HAVING IMPACT ON. >> HELP ME THANK JUSTIN BUT FIRST I WANT TO INVITE YOU BACK NEXT MONTH ON NOVEMBER 29th WHEN SHIRLEY MALCOLM WILL BE OTHER FROM AAAS TO TALK ABOUT BRINGING UNDER-REPRESENTED POPULATIONS INTO THE SCIENCE. WHAT DIFFERENCE DO DIFFERENCES MAKE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> PLEASE TURN IN YOUR EVALUATIONS. >> SPECTACULAR. >> THANKS FOR HAVING ME.O