Dance: More patterns or solid basics?

I went to a party yesterday, and got involved in a discussion about teaching dance (specifically west coast swing, but the subject is common to other dances such as salsa, tango and ballroom).

There has been a conflict among teachers. One group prefers to teach more patterns. Another group emphasizes solid basics.

And most students want more patterns. Hands down. Majority vote for more patterns has not changed for years, even decades.

So, what should a teacher do?

As a background, I have seen many learners. Here is my opinion based on my observations. It's quite simple but may sound harsh to some.


For students/learners:

(i) Only few learners who want to be good at the dance (and actually become good) make efforts on solid basics and foundations. They practice basics and do drills, which can be boring.

(ii) Acquiring more patterns is important and it is not wrong for wanting more patterns. Dancing new patterns can make you feel good, and may give you a sense of achievement. They may even feel they are better dancers. But you should know that you are feeling good does not mean you are looking good nor you are a good dancer.

(iii) Watchers don't give a damn about how much time or money you spent, or how much efforts you made, on your dance. You look good there and watchers assume you have danced so long or have taught the dance.

(iv) Good partner dancing requires skills and solid basics. Naive learners may want to believe otherwise and put your feeling first and claim it is good as long as you feel good, but it does not work that way.


Now, how do I see the question, "what should a teacher do?" (and comments for teachers)

(1) In a social party, on street or on stage, for casual watchers, your titles don't work. There are always some who has never seen or heard of you. Only how you dance there counts. Dancers whose dance do not look good are "the Emperor with no clothes". Many will know it and  eventually someone will call it publicly.

(2) A very distinguishing factor is, how you present your basics. Doing your basics beautifully is a place you claim your expertise. 

(3) Only after you have good basics, fancy patterns start looking good. Basics are basics for a reason, and everything else is built on them. Poor executions of many would-have-been-fancy patterns are an eyesore if watchers apply a higher standard.

(4) All dancers/learners with poor basics are viewed as beginners. It does not matter how long you have danced.

(5) Learners who work on their basics are taking the path to intermediate and advanced. Teachers should encourage them.


Teachers who want to teach solid basics and teachers who want to teach more patterns are both correct. The former want to cater to select few who are serious about the dance and want to be good at the art. The latter want to cater to popular demand, whether the learners are ready or not. Since there are more students who want patterns, from the standpoint of the school's finance. it may make better sense.


In summary, if you are a learner and if you want to be better than intermediate and look good, work on your basics. 

If you do not care about how your dance looks and if you are fine with just moving yourself and having fun, seeking more patterns may work. From the standpoint of your improvement, it is a slow path, and you may or may not become a good dancer. You probably do not want to admit it, though.

And you should know there are teachers for both paths. It's your choice. 


If you are a teacher, it also looks like a choice. Cater to select few, or cater to pattern-hungry beginners? In fact, it is not either/or question for teachers. You have to have an ability to cater to both, and there is no choice in the regard. Your choice is about how you split your efforts. Drill classes are for select few who really want to be good. You should be able to run popular pattern classes anytime.

Life: Moving Office (2/19/2016)

On 2/19/2016, supposedly an auspicious day for moving,  I moved my office. While moving I disposed of copies of old papers I collected, as internet provides easy access to these articles. I kept only original data, my notes, and something hard to get or personal, like thesis papers personally given to me. I discarded some of correspondence for publication that was older than 7 years as well. They made quite a pile of papers.

Looking at them reminded me of the time I was working on them, and how I felt for the works. Science has an aspect of hunting and moments of excitement, but somehow the excitements, hopes and frustrations used to feel more vivid. Nowadays I seem to do science with much less (unnecessary) emotions, with more efficiency thanks to acquired professional tricks. Or more precisely, I still keep my passion, but in a different manner. It seems my excitements have turned to more quiet amusements.


The paper copies also reminded me of my scientific interests over past several years. A folder was for ubiquitin ligases, another was for mice models for genomic instability, the other was for histone deacetylases, etc. The pile of papers may have served like a diary or my external memory device. Will losing them all affect my work productivity in the future? Hopefully not. Let's see.


The first task in the new office was preparing a manuscript for submission. Hope it works out.

[My new office. I am working on improving its Feng Shui]

Dance: Genetics, environment, or efforts?

Last Saturday I went to Tulsa for a Tango party, and in the car I had some chat with my friend. 

A topic happened to come up during the chat was, "we can tell which beginner will be good and which one feels like hopeless."

Does it sound too harsh? Probably. But this kind of judgement happens all the time. For dances or physical arts with professional track (e.g. ballet, acrobat, gymnastics), the judgement is made quite early in life by others.

But let's suspend judgement on the judgement for thoughts' sake, and let's think what makes the difference between hopefuls and ...well, non-hopefuls.


Curiously enough, my thoughts on this subject is heavily influenced by a question in my work, "how cancer comes into being".  At first there are apparently the same cells. Some of them later become cancer. What makes the difference?

Current answer for the cancer question is "genetics, epigenetics (modifications imposed on genome by environmental factors) and environmental factors. They occur over time, so age is an important factor as well." 

I believe the same for dancing. Genetics, epigenetics and environmental factors, and your age (or life/developmental stage), all affect how you develop as a dancer.


In the case of dance, "genetics" counts for a dancer's appearance, physical build and ability, and for "natural" competence for a certain moves. 

"Environment" affects whether the person has access, education or experience for the dance. That includes people---friends, partners, coaches and cheering squad. His/her knowledge about a dance is usually coming from the environment. Born in Argentina may have given you a better access and education for Tango, for example.

"Epigenetics" is like your thought habits, formed inside you as a result of your environment and yourself. Efforts are something you make or choose to make. It occurs on your side and is a part of epigenetics (as you choose to make). As 10,000 hour rule asserts, it can be critical. If you are gifted with good genetics and have a good environment, it would be easy for you to recognize it and make efforts to be even better. But even with good genetics and environment, without efforts your gift could be wasted.

Then age. This is somewhat of a white elephant in dance teaching industry. Your performance is not always dictated by calendar age. But chances are, a 14 years old likely acquires and retains new moves easier than a 40-years old. When you are 70 years of age, you do not move like the time you were 20 years of age. The difference is due to the developmental stage and speed of neuro-muscular learning. Or simply due to physical change that has taken place. 



So my tentative answer to the question "genetics, environment, or efforts?" is "all of them, plus your age".


When we say we can predict which one would grow, we are making judgement mostly on genetics (that can be seen and felt) and age. 

That means, we are not counting on how much they love the dance and how much efforts they will make. We also don't know what kind of environment they would be in or would move in. Education is relatively easy to get, and we do not put much weight on how much they know at the moment in the prediction.

So our predictions can be defied. There have been many dancers who do not feel like "the gifted", but they can dance, teach and compete successfully nonetheless. They were smart enough to make up with their shortcomings by something else.


Although I have confidence in my intuitive judgement for genetics, I cannot predict their environment and epigenetic factors (their efforts and dedication), and social-level success is another layer of dancing.


You do not have to be the top-notch gifted dancer to be a successful dancer. It is an important thing to remember for everybody.

[What shape will you draw in this chart?]

Another manuscript is almost done. Hoping to send it out soon.  I got to increase research output this year. Systems biology approach is giving me a pile of interesting datasets, and I am having so much fun.

Dance: Have a picture pause

I have been quite busy for work......grant writing, sending it off, finishing up another manuscript, etc etc.

So I'll keep this entry short.

*****************************************
About dance. Or more precisely, being a dancer (or, a trick to make you look like a dancer).

If you dance a partner dance, have a photogenic pause or two. 

So someone can take a picture of you any time.

The pause should look good. Half-assed one will not work.

If you dance Tango, search Tango pauses (there are many nice looking pictures), pick one up, practice in front of mirror, then the pause is yours.

It's like actors practicing their best smile for a head shot. You better have one. 


Find good looking ones. And take a "dance" picture with your friends and post it. It might go viral. Have fun.  

[something like this]

Science: Press release for our paper (Feb 1. 2016)

We got a paper published today (2/1/2016) in a journal "Cancer Research". 

The journal is one of the top-ranked journals for Oncology and Cancer Research field, meaning that it is more difficult to publish in the journal with rigorous scrutiny by reviewers and editors. To publish in a high impact journals, in general, we have to provide novelty that could impact the field.

So we decided to do a Press Release for the paper, working with Public Relations office in our Stephenson Cancer Center. It would be good to publicize what we do in the lab and how it is connected to public health and to the society.

Following is the content of the Press Release article.

http://stephensoncancercenter.org/News/DetailsPage/tabid/2331/ArticleID/231/Turning-Down-the-Volume-on-Cancer.aspx

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TURNING DOWN THE VOLUME ON CANCER

OU researchers identify new targets for colon cancer prevention and treatment

Oklahoma City (February 1, 2016)  When the audio on your television set or smart phone is too loud, you simply turn the volume down.  What if we could do the same for the signaling in our bodies that essentially causes normal cells to turn cancerous?

New discoveries by researchers at the Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma may point to new ways to do just that.

Hiroshi Y. Yamada, Ph.D.,, and his team zeroed in on Chromosome Instability as a potential precursor to colon cancer.

“Chromosome Instability is a major cause of genomic instability and occurs in many cancers. It is seen in 80 to 90 percent of human colon cancers.  In fact, our data suggest that it may be a key player in the process by which healthy cells in the colon become cancerous,” Yamada said. 

 

The team first developed a laboratory model with a mutation that essentially makes cell division sloppy, resulting in chromosome instability. 

“The simple premise is that if we test a drug or diet on this laboratory model which we know is at greater risk for colon cancer and we see fewer cancers, then that drug or diet may be promising in terms of preventing or curing cancer. It’s a type of research called translational oncology and it’s an essential pre-clinical step for developing new drugs for cancer prevention and therapy,” he explained.

As predicted, the laboratory model proved cancer-prone, quickly developing small tumors and lesions. After a while, tumor suppressors appeared to do their job and most of the small tumors regressed. The tumors that grew, though, were found to be carrying more than ten times the number of mutations of tumors in the controls. These tumors  also were likely malignant and more difficult to cure.  

“There seemed to be a tug-of-war at the molecular level influencing whether the mutated cells would become cancerous. That’s when we decided to introduce a systems biology approach in our analysis and that brought many surprising and promising findings,” Yamada said.

In fact, by tapping into the cutting-edge technologies within the bioinformatics core at the University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, the team discovered different gene expression signatures – signatures similar to those in cancer – in the laboratory model with chromosome instability.  In addition, many of the pathways that lead to cancer were upregulated, like turning up the volume on the TV.

Another surprise was that the genes involved in immune function, which is the biologic system that helps the body police for cancer, were downregulated.

  

“This was something new,” Yamada said. “We had assumed that the effects of chromosome instability would be based more on individual cells.  Instead, our research showed chromosome instability may be able to influence the genesis of cancer in many different ways. It’s actually good news because with the bioinformatics information, we can formulate novel intervention strategies aimed at these previously unknown targets.”

The findings bring a lot of excitement for Yamada, his team and for the field of cancer prevention and treatments. There may be other applications for their work too. 

“Genomic instability also is a hallmark of aging. So we intend to look into the effect of this in the aging process and in age-associated cancers,” Yamada added.

The research is published in the February 1, 2016 issue of Cancer Research, a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research. The Association is the world’s oldest and largest professional association related to cancer research.

The OU research team also included: Stephenson Cancer Center members Chinthalapally V. Rao, Ph.D., Altaf Mohammed, Ph.D., and Naveena Janakiram, Ph.D., as well as Yuting Zhang, MD.,   Laura Biddick,  Arun Reddy,  and  Stan Lightfoot, MD., of the Center for Cancer Prevention and Drug Development, Department of Medicine, Hematology/Oncology Section, OU Health Sciences Center.

The research was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (NCI R01CA094962, RO1CA090658 and NCI RO3CA162538) as well as  a Chris4Life colon cancer foundation pilot study grant.  Additional support came from the National Center for Research Resources and the National Institute of General Medical Sciences of the National Institutes of Health through Grant Number 8P20GM103447 [Oklahoma's IDeA Network for Biomedical Research Excellence (OK-INBRE)] to the OUHSC Microgen core facility.

[By Theresa Green]

ABOUT THE STEPHENSON CANCER CENTER

Oklahoma’s only comprehensive academic cancer center, the Stephenson Cancer Center at the University of Oklahoma is a nationally noted leader in research and patient care. The Stephenson Cancer Center annually ranks among the top three cancer centers in the nation for patients participating in National Cancer Institute-sponsored treatment trials, and it is one of 30 designated lead centers nationally in the Institute’s National Clinical Trials Network. In collaboration with the Oklahoma Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust, the Stephenson Cancer Center is decreasing the burden of cancer in Oklahoma by supporting innovative laboratory, clinical and populations-based research. The Stephenson Cancer Center has 200 research members who are conducting more than 135 cancer research projects at institutions across Oklahoma. This research is supported by $38.5 million in annual funding from the National Cancer Institute, the American Cancer Society and other sponsors.