Six degrees game

Today I was in a coffee place and there was this girl (A) playing a game with another girl (B) because A was indoctrinating B into a religious organization. The game was as follows:
A picks a random conversation topic.
B has to relate it to the scriptures in less than six steps.

The point of the game was, I think, mainly to give B practice for telling other people about her religion and why it is good. {to be clear I have no problems with the religion itself or even indoctrination methods; it's not my business}

I think this game is neat because playing it allows you to create a whole bunch different 'cognitive pathways' to one subject in your brain. You can make this node a major hub of your brain network. If people do this with religion it not only allows them be able to bring it up in conversation, but causes them to vastly increase the probability of the subject of the religion coming into their head. Therefore they become more religious because they're always thinking about the scriptures. Maybe this is a type of positive feedback loop.

Does this mean that if we think a lot about any particular subject, and then if we try one day to play the six-degrees game with the subject for a little while, we will create a positive feedback loop in our brain that will cause the subject to become of increasing importance in our mind (if our mind is left uninhibited to think what it comes upon)?

If anyone is reading this, which I assume not, but if you are and you know about this subject of Neuroscience/Psychology could you link me to some papers?

Would it be a nice personal experiment to try this with a topic? Perhaps dangerous?
If we picked something like scriptures, then we might make an impact on our lives. Perhaps certain pieces of media are meant for this sort of associative feedback reinforcement analysis. Perhaps if we create a little well connected node in our mind for a particular subject, in associating many other different subjects with this one, we will be able to better understand it.

Perhaps we can filter the mechanism by which connections are created with this node so particular types of effects in the growth pattern and effect of this subject node occur.

A big part of the posts I will be making on this blog will be about how to make someone who is not very smart learn physics, as this is my situation. I believe anyone can learn anything no matter how stupid they are [barring actual disabilities]. Currently I am having trouble with thermodynamics & statistical mechanics. The math isn't hard, but making all the connections during problems seems hard. I am determined to make myself do this.
I assume nobody is reading this, but if anyone is and is good at physics but naturally quite stupid, let me know and tell me how you did it.

This guy made a great site:
http://www.cscs.umich.edu/~crshalizi/notebooks/


I wonder how people get to be able to read so much stuff. This guy says he does nothing but read. I am afraid my hip flexors and posterior chain will go bad if I do this.

 Some people learn how to learn things properly when they are young. In this case, it seems that they do not have to meta-think about how to think because it is what they do. But maybe one of the only ways for an older person to learn how to think is to do this metacognition.
When we growing up, some of us were taught to do things like understand what we were looking at from an early age. Some of us weren't. Regardless, here's a nice video relating to this:
Feynman said this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1TiXLGqlM4&feature=related
It seems nice. I'll try it with the classes I'm in.

In order to be academically successful, many students will avoid known vices at all costs. What about unknown vices? What is an unknown vice? I watched two episodes of the Big Bang theory show. That's about all I have time to watch. Why don't they ever study on the show? What are they doing? Don't you have to study continuously when you're in grad school for physics at a school like that?
I don't know. Maybe people with high amounts of focusing ability do not have to give up everything nonacademic to understand their field. But the guy who made the notebooks (at the beginning of this article), who seems very well-read and successful at science seemed to give up everything non-academic. It remains a mystery to me as to how people succeed at science and still do things outside of science. Maybe it is minimize distraction and maximize productivity? Is this productive? I think that it is important to learn how to do this and make it so that others in my situation can do this as well.

First Post

I'm Victor Lawrence. I am a student and I'm interested in a lot of things. I made the blog so that I could have somewhere to put all the things I think about which I gather from schooling and reading and living. Most of the posts will be about things related to math, biology, physics, psychology, and complexity. I know not too much about any of these things, but I am slowly learning. I think writing about these things and my frustrations in learning about them will be a good way to avoid irritating my friends, who do not want to hear about these things. Writing them on the internet allows for me to think someone might be reading, which, I hope, will cause me to be motivated to learn more and faster and more efficiently. Nobody might be reading; or maybe just the life form that may or may not have evolved on the internet that takes up small amounts of space on everybody's computer and in many people's subconscious activities.