Interaction vs. Stimulation

I've read in On Intelligence by Jeff Hawkins, that a significant feature of the human brain is the way the neocortex is connected to the thalamus (I think I have the regions right, but the books on loan so I can't check right now).  Generally, there is a more direct connection between motor control and the "learning" regions of the human brain.

Since reading this I've theorized this as an explanation of why humans early development of human babies is so slow in comparison to other species.  Elephant babies walk within minutes of birth, yet it's a year or more before human babies walk.  Gorillas are closer to humans but still quicker.

But humans reach levels other species never do, and one reason might be that a more direct connection to motor skills produces more valuable feedback.  In a sense, it would make life more interactive.  Rather than interacting with the world through a instinct based filter, actions and reactions would have a direct loop.

So it was reading GristMill about educational TV's lack of positive effect, that I was thinking back to this.  Why is TV such a poor tool for learning?  It can be a fairly rich experience, but it's never interactive.  And interactivity is key to learning, especially in humans.

But the study doesn't just suggest that TV is no help, it suggests it is harmful.  It really states that a child may have been better off starting into space than watching TV.  That's right, it's not just a problem of substituting TV for valuable parent time, it's just plain bad.

The researches theorize that the babies are simply over stimulated and unable to process important interactive information when it's available.  That may be, but there may be even more going on.  If children are trained by TV not to interact, because the TV does not respond, or that they don't need to interact, because the TV responds the same either way, then they won't be trying as hard during parent time.

I think that is a lesson that could be applied much more broadly.  I find one of the major differences between good and great programmers is their "research" instinct.  When a bad programmer is stumped, he resorts to direct questioning.  That may seem more interactive than a Google or MSDN search, but in reality it's not.  The person you ask either knows the answer or not (often not).  With the other options you're required to find the answer.  Do this enough and you'll learn a lot more than if you had the answer spoon fed.

That topic brings me to my last thought, TV vs. computers.  Computers are often grouped with TV by parents as two of the same.  The glow, they make noises, and they suck time in great quantities, yes.  The similarity doesn't go much farther though.  Computers are interactive in a way TV's are not.  It's possible to find non-interactive material on a computer, but unless trained otherwise most humans opt for the interactive option.  Actually, maybe that applies to animals as well, just think of the cat playing with a mouse.  It's fun till it stops moving...