Independent control over the last three fingers of the hand is one of the places where there are some pretty important anatomical differences between people.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anatomical+variation+fi...
Independent control over the last three fingers of the hand is one of the places where there are some pretty important anatomical differences between people.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=anatomical+variation+fi...
But, you know, I chatted some time ago with a nurse who worked with children with neurological disabilities of some kind, which rendered them unable to attend a regular school. She insisted on the idea, that disabilities is not an excuse for a child to be freed from normal expectations. It was like "you are 8 years old, get the spoon and use it yourself, you can do it". Moreover she refused to work with children whose parents interfered with her methods. She said it is ok, if mother feels pity for her child and cannot see how her child struggles with a spoon and because of that helps him/her. But only outside of working hours of the nurse. When she is here, she is in command, and mother should not interfere. If parents interfered, she believed her work to be futile because child will grow disabled not by a physical condition, but by a mental representation of himself, he would think of himself as of disabled, he would make excuses to not try to do what is hard to do for him, and so on.
I don't know what was the psychological outcomes for her pupils, but they grew to an almost normal adults in means of physical and mental abilities. Or at least she told me so, and I believe her.
I mean, it is not good for a learning to doubt your innate abilities. A learner must believe in herself, or she would face more problems than she might. It is why I do not like when media tells everyone that there are a "nature" component in any "nature vs nurture" question. From other side I do not like to not like, because I believe that it is not good to believe in lies, but... I don't know. It is too complicated.
(Despite trying most mech keyboards/switch types, I've always been faster on chiclet/low profile/low force style: it would've saved a lot of time if someone had pointed out that mech keys aren't actually about typing efficiency at all.)
https://deskthority.net/wiki/Alps_SKCP_series
I am guessing you could type faster on those than whatever chiclet board. The advantage they have is that the plate spring pops back up, reducing the amount you need to use the extensors (it’s faster to just contract and then relax the flexors than to deliberately lift the fingers). [Unfortunately they weren’t built into too many keyboards, and some of the ones that do have them are crappy for other reasons.]
There are a bunch of relevant keyboard design factors which are not really properly considered by keyboard makers. For example:
+ The relative height of the tops of the keys (sadly most keyboards ever made have screwed this up, and it has only gotten worse over time, because most keyboard designers were just copying past designs without understanding the anatomical considerations). If the further rows (top letter row, number row, F row) are aggressively raised, the fingertips can reach them without needing to bend at the first knuckle, meaning those keys can be pressed without as much hand movement while the fingers remain in the most comfortable and fastest part of the main flexors’ range of motion. By contast the bottom row of letters should be the same height as the home row.
+ The separation, tilt, and tent of the two halves of the keyboard. Ideally the keyboard should be oriented so that the forearms and back of the hand are comfortably flat with wrists and arms in a neutral position, and key axis on each half of the keyboard should be perpendicular to the plane of the forearm/hand.
+ The placement of more keys within a close range of hand/finger motion, and the elimination of keys further away. (This gets us decidedly away from standard keyboard shape.) In particular there should be a lot more more accessible thumb keys.
+ The letter arrangement. Qwerty is optimized for the original keyboard from the 19th century. Dvorak is optimized for the shape of 1930s typewriters (where the consistent aggressive height differences mean that the close letter row is quite hard to reach but further rows are relatively easy). More recent efforts to optimize arrangement make no effort to make sure that several-key sequences on one hand can be typed in one fluid motion. In practice people who type quickly can line up several fingers on the same hand and press the keys in quick succession using one medium-scale motion, alternating between stretches on one hand and the other.
https://www.amazon.com/Mechanical-Keyboard-Extra-Thin-Switch...