Bery good. I'm very old. So I will do what old ppl do and tell you a couple of things I've found that have worked across my lifetime.
The one thing I discovered inadvertently is what I call the punch and praise. It's the best thing that I ever discovered. The student walks into the tournament fully prepared and with all the talent in the world and utterly fails. Their self-esteem is shot and they feel like they just can't do it. You point out to them that you know this stuff but you got worried and you did fail. My experience is that makes them very angry with you because they view that as an insult. However, it also makes them flip the script/narrative. They now believe they are competent but that they just didn't use what they have. The anxiety is replaced with anger and a sense of entitlement that usually gives them a very good result in the next tournament. I guess it works so well because it changes the narrative. When I was in graduate school, I was briefly a stats tutor. I had 5 students who had flunked their first exam. Unless they did very well on their second exam, they would not graduate -- a lot of pressure. In every case, they got the top score in their class. In each case, they got angry with me but later thought very highly of me.
I found that getting them to create their own narrative about how to study chess is very effective. Using the Socratic method (as in problem-based learning) forces them to incorporate their own internal story about how they will succeed as opposed to a didactive method where you are trying to get them to buy into your story. This works especially well in a group format where you ask them a broad question like how are we are going to improve our endgame knowledge (as with problem based learning)? Next, I would guide them by asking questions so that they are considering going though their own games, games of the great players, endgame books, training software etc ... and coming up with a reasonable study plan and means of evaluating their progress. They're motivated because it is their plan and not yours -- even though you used the Socratic method to have them arrive at ideas that are very similar to your own. I taught at a medical students in this matter for many years. After I was trained in problem-based learning and saw the results, I felt like apologizing to all my students that I had previously used a didactic approach with. I found that problem based students are happier, more motivated and more practical.
So I agree they the narrative is very important and the dissonance is what needs to be overcome. I call it iterative dissonance because one idea can lead to another etc that leads one astray but mindfulness can bring you back to your narrative of success.
Well done!
@BarakSaltz , not sure I have read any studies on that, but sure they exist. Maybe 'code switching' for bilinguals has relationship to cognitive dissonance, be interesting subject to look more into.
But think the idea (at least for my research) is a universal model of expertise, so would equally apply to language acquisition. There might also be similarities to chess, in learning in the youth, and brain formation, where it is easier to learn these skills (languages / chess) as children, possibly because of the lack of cognitive dissonance, requiring to unlearn.
If you have thoughts, please share them.
Thanks for sharing @defense57 , guess my main point was to express why improvement is so difficult, mainly by bringing together cognitive dissonance and deliberate practice, so there are no easy answers. I added the Hoosiers picture, because thought that expressed the tough nature of deliberate practice and extreme coaching that often produces excellence. But coaching and teaching is not usually about creating champions, but inspiring your students, or just slight improvement, giving over the subject matter. The student has to want it for themselves. As I continue my series of Models of Expertise, we will see why coaching is only a minor element in the process, maybe 5-10% of the variation, as where deliberate practice is 25-50%. Some students can excel without coaching or good teachers, but no one, even with the best teachers or coaches excels without deliberate practice.
Any experienced chess coach, who goes over their students game, can quickly list a whole long things the student is doing wrong, and in reality no matter what stage of the game we are at, we can all work on everything, but just pointing out: 'you did this and that wrong' is unlikely helpful. As I say often 'to master the game of chess, you have to master every aspect of chess', but to just gain 100 rating points, or win your section, there might be more benefit to just one technique, but no matter what you work on will require deliberate practice, and have resistance caused by cognitive dissonance. And imbalances in our understanding of different aspects of the game, will eventually hinder further improvement. Sometimes you want to encourage students to work on the parts of the game they enjoy the most, and are the strongest, but sometimes one must actively work on their weakest points, and the parts they enjoy the least.
Regarding narrative identity theory and therapy, or a universal form of self-improvement, is likely very similar. A good therapist can likely find countless bad character traits, flaws, weaknesses that the patient would want to change and perfect, and create a path to help them refine their character, 'become a better person'. Often framing that within a larger narrative is helpful, and character refinement is a grueling difficult process, producing the extreme cognitive dissonance, to accept our way of interacting with other people is flawed, and should be changed, and requires feedback and sensitivity. But also like chess, sometimes losing, and a blow to the ego is what actually motivates us to make the change. Like getting dumped by a girlfriend, or losing friends, fallout with family / loved ones,..., (parallel to a loss in chess), and seeing a therapist or a conversation with a trusted advisor (parallel to going over chess game with a coach), to learning what skills we can improve on, till eventually we compete in our next match and see how we do, and fit that into a narrative we understand ourselves with, and how other people understand us, and resolving the inevitable cognitive dissonance between the two, especially if we are going through a self-improvement process.
Blessings, thanks for sharing.
Interesting article. However, I must adjust or correct one aspect, and it's important because it's central to the topic.
There is no strain from CD (article says stress, but it presumably means strain) because the mind will do ANYTHING to avoid it, including denying, altering, rejecting the evidence of one's own senses and thought processes. That procedure occurs so instantly that the stimulus never reaches the level of strain; as if it is recognized from afar.
The article is quite right to emphasize how critically important CD is to an understanding of human behaviour. "The human is not a rational animal but a rationalizing animal."
@dhja614 more a primer / history of cognitive dissonance, in relationship to deliberate practice, and chess improvement.
But feel free to add any knowledge you have.
Thanks @BlackpoolJohnny, not sure what you mean, Festinger clearly defines the concept of strain even within a mathematical concept of cognitive dissonance and stress. Stress might have multiple meanings across science, physics, biology and medicine, with different connotations that don't match, but quite sure stress is the technical term used by Festiger and later CD researchers.
But sure you are right, that most intellectual stress / strain caused by CD, like in chess, will not reach the common physiological understanding of stress / strain, but it might, and even extreme chess CD can elicit a physiological stress / strain reaction, that might be theoretical possible to model with a mathematical model.
Strain might be taken from similar theories in the 1950s of Merton & Durkheim, even current research on cognitive dissonance focuses on stress / strain. Part of the long lasting influence of the theory, that CD can be combined with other theories, and the stress / strain can be quantified, and possibly made into a predictive theory corresponding to modern neural correlate theories and predictive processing.
chess is different from maths etc: your opponents also improve. Why would amateurs subject themselves to classical and standard (as opposed to 960)? when "The other major reason preventing adult improvement is the inherent non-enjoyable effort needed for deliberate practice. Most people play chess for fun, as a hobby, and deliberate practice takes the enjoyment out of the game. An adult could put that same effort into something that would benefit their career, increase their financial and social status, family life, or any of the other aspects of life. Chess is usually a hobby meant for relaxation and fun, not to demand discipline and work." About the effectiveness, yes focusing where other players do not makes sense, but they can also change their focus... Indeed if you are not close to the very top you would be well advised to study a bit of music instead... other musicians' accomplishments will not nullify your effort.
Nice to chat ---------- felt like being back in harness! All the best..........................
Thanks @themiddleway , stay tune for future installments on Models of Expertise. From the cognitive psychology perspective, we are looking for a universal model that explains all cognitive activity, paths from beginner to expertise. Although each field has different variable and specifics.
Motivation regular appears as one of the main factors, maybe 5-10% of variation, but all of the elements are difficult to measure. The key aspect is the deliberate practice, which by definition is not enjoyable, often something someone has resistance to do, caused by cognitive dissonance and other factors. And mastery takes thousands of hours of deliberate practice over years, so over that time, motivation and other factors change. And time is limited, people have to wisely chose what to work at.
Blessings
@BlackpoolJohnny , great stay active in the chat, stay tuned for further installments on the expertise series. All the best.