Complex cognitive processes response

What seemed most crucial to me about this chapter was the role of the instructor in explicitly tying things into a bigger picture, and heading off misconceptions. This has been a theme in the last few lessons, but specifics from a cognitive perspective were given here. I was thinking about the author’s description of formal discipline, and how my study of Latin did help me, and what might be different about the way I was instructed versus the way that Greek and Latin may have been taught during the Enlightenment as well as to the author. During my study, it was always emphasized how Latin was connected linguistically with the etymologies of English words as well as those in Romance languages. It was always explicitly taught that the rules for grammar and literary devices we studied were connected to those we needed to know in English class. Because of that, I really did make those connections. I don’t think Latin was useful just as an intellectual exercise, but because of the Latin-influenced world I inhabit. On the other hand, I wonder, if the mind-as-muscle theory is totally bunk, why is it always recommended for the elderly to work on puzzles and things to prevent dementia? Is there some kind of specific content area that provides a better “intellectual workout” than others, for that population? I think that what it means is that Latin isn’t better than studying Japanese, and woodworking isn’t more stimulating than pottery, et cetera, which makes sense. But for the few kinds of things that are applicable with general transfer, what best hones those skills? The other thing that I was thinking about was, what kinds of misconceptions/examples of negative transfer have I had that I’ve just never been called out on? Like what kind of situations have I been approaching completely the wrong way because of some similar situation I remember?