I didn’t watch the debate, but I know it sucked.
What I found in the comments is embarrassing.
Snort.
A study lol.
Why would scientists call a neurological phenomenon “muscle memory?” Doesn’t even pass the smell test.
The article states that muscle memory is making muscles remember movements, but then Zahabi says it’s neurological.
Sloppy, sophomoric, embarrassing, does not even merit reply, frankly.
EDIT:
I just noticed he calls it “muscle memory/motor learning”—this is idiotic at best and dishonest at worst.
Of course motor learning is a empirical phenomenon; every conceivable theoretical camp in motor learning believes their own discipline of study exists.
Greg is arguing for a view of motor learning. Why would he be arguing motor learning doesn’t exist? You can’t use the two interchangeably.
Muscle memory is not motor learning. It doesn’t define motor learning, and it’s not a position inside motor learning except to people who have no idea what they’re talking about.
Share this post