Cursive Myths

The importance of cursive to the development of children seems to spawn myth after myth.  This week a woman assured me that it taught children to have more continuity of thought, and that this was research, not an hypothesis. How one would measure that seems an interesting research design.

It's just one of those zombie ideas that people want to be true, like the Sapir-Whorf theory of linguistic relativity.  It just won't die. As I don't share the idea myself, I have little insight into the motives for it. For some it may simply be that they were good at it.  Others think it looks better, and attempting beauty is good for us. It was important in our grandparents' education, so traditionalists think it must thus be obviously superior to whatever-the-hell-they-teach-kids-now. There is a particular attraction to ideas that it is neurologically important, or that it builds character. Again, how on earth would we eliminate selection bias in measuring that? 

I was forever given extra penmanship practice in grades school, sometimes being kept in from recess. It was considered important that I learn to hold the implement loosely at the proper angle, rather than squeezing the pencil until my fingers ached. This was presented to me as an approach that not only made the letters look better, but would train me to be more "relaxed."  Well, I did have a dozen symptoms of anxiety, yes, from pica to bruxism and beyond, but I never experienced holding a small wooden rod loosely and trying to do something intentional with it as having any positive effect.