That reminds me of an interesting fact I recently learned. The longest land border between France and another country is that between French Guiana and Brazil. It’s longer than any of France’s borders in Europe.
You may be different than most people, @Thudlow_Boink, but in my experience most people who have not had typing/keyboarding instruction typically use two fingers (one per hand), and look at the keys when they type. This tends to reduce their speed drastically.
My own experience with typing instruction was being required to take a unit of typing in eighth grade. My middle school (in Tennessee, of all places) also required everyone (boys and girls alike) to take industrial arts (aka wood shop), home economics, art, and music.
Anyway, I liked the typing unit so much that I took a full year of it in ninth grade in a room also full of IBM Selectric typewriters. I got to be a fairly fast touch-typist, which served me well when computers came around.
My son never got any formal typing/keyboarding instruction in school, but when he was young I got him a computer software package (Mavis Beacon or something similar). He enjoyed it, and got to be a pretty fast typist as well.
Our choices in grade 8 in 1962 were industrial arts/home ec, technical drawing/art, and for the “brainy class” - mandatory instrumental music and typing (both sexes, but none of the others listed). One male took art; the others were taken by the expected sex.
The average person can be impressive playing 20 questions. Maybe not “woodruff keys” or “Duke Kahanamoku,” but how they can narrow it down to something reasonable like “pine cone,” “David Letterman” or “parking meter” with only 20 guesses.
A lot of people, in spite of the fact that they are using the information exactly this way, fail to grasp that negative answers usually provide as much information as positive ones. For example, the classic question “Is it bigger than a bread box?” (Something maybe people don’t ask anymore since everyone started keeping bread in the fridge, I don’t know.) A “yes” answer and a “no” answer provide more or less the same information, but people still feel disappointment when they get a negative answer.
Which is another thing people don’t know-- simple statistical concepts. And people ought to know them. If everyone understood “regression to the mean,” then they’d know why it appears that punishment for poor performance is more affective than reward for a good performance in encouraging children to do well on their schoolwork, even though it is just an illusion, and reward works better in the long run.
(In my family, “bread box” was quickly outlawed as the hidden answer)
ETA @RivkahChaya do you think that has more to do with aggression and dominance being the go-to of human nature, as much as willful ignorance?
I’m not sure to what you are referring.
How would you answer the question? I guess you’d have to say ‘no’, since a bread box is not bigger than a bread box, it’s exactly the same size as a bread box.
This maybe points to our natural inclination to get angry rather than constructive
Would you mind elaborating on this? In what sense does it appear punishment is more effective?
It’s kind of six of one, half a dozen of the other in practical terms. My son gets tally marks for “listening the first time.” After 100 marks, he gets a prize. (He just got a sick Bowser action figure that blows “smoke” out of its mouth.)
If he doesn’t listen, he doesn’t get tally marks. Or screen time. Or whatever the thing. I don’t know if it’s substantially different than punishment in a practical sense. But we try to frame it as rewards for good behavior.
When Bill James pointed out in the early 80s that regression to the mean was a critical factor in analyzing baseball stats of all kinds, the pushback from the old-timers who “knew what they saw with their eyes” was merciless. Random chance couldn’t possibly explain anything about the world.
Analytics won but took decades and a new generation to put them into regular use.
Regression to the mean is the tendency for a new piece of data to be closer to the mean than the last piece of data. If someone has a poor performance, their next performance is likely to be better (i.e. closer to the mean), regardless of whether the poor performance was punished. Similarly, if someone has a good performance, their next performance is likely to be worse (i.e. closer to the mean), regardless of whether the good performance was rewarded. If you ascribe the change of performance to punishment and reward, it looks like the punishment of the bad performance had a positive effect, and the reward of the good performance had a negative effect. But the changes may have been solely due to regression to the mean, and have little or nothing to do with punishment or reward. A well-designed study has to take this into account.
Thanks. Very good explanation.
I have huge respect for Woodruf Keys. In many applications, the entirety of the complex machine functionality ultimately comes down to this little piece of metal usually no bigger than a nickel cut in half. Learning to install them properly is “key”. 
You cut off the part about this being due to regression to the mean. See @Jeff_Lichtman’s explanation.
(I agree that regression to the mean is something that everyone ought to know about.)
Thank you. What I actually wrote was this:
“If everyone understood ‘regression to the mean,’ then they’d know why it appears that punishment for poor performance is more affective than reward for a good performance in encouraging children to do well on their schoolwork.”
Agree! @Jeff_Lichtman that was very clear.
The TV show DC’s Legends of Tomorrow satirized this, where attempting to foil Princip was the time-travelers’ biggest obsession, such that they had to take a number and wait their turn in line to have a go at Princip.
My parents had a breadbox when I was little. It had a front that slid open like a garage door. It was approximately the dimensions of a toaster oven.
We had one too.