Hey folks. Interesting discussion. I particularly like the simple ideas, "When somebody's eyes get wide and they smile they've got it," and, "If I have to think about it, I haven't done it enough."
That said, I think this discussion veers into inaccurate and unsupported claims. I know the following might seem pedantic, but please don't take it as a personal attack. I believe in clear and accurate information, especially when talking about things as complex as the brain and learning processes.
First, regarding the classic model of the "left brain" being rational and logical, and the "right" brain being creative and intuitive, my understanding is that this view has been largely discredited, and the human brain is considered to be far more complex. Let's start with the very basics of what we do know. The brain is lateralized, that is, split into two halves, divided by the longitudinal fissure, and linked by the corpus callosum. In terms of motor control, the left brain controls the right side of the body, and the right brain controls the left side of the body. Also, parts of the left brain are deeply involved with some aspects of language, which, interestingly, might be part of what set us apart from other primates. Aside from that, there appears to be too much variability and uncertainty to make broad assertions about the lateralization of brain function.
Second, if we consider the nervous system as a whole, there are many ways to characterize different functions or components. One useful model separates the brain and spinal cord, called the central nervous system or CNS, from all the other nerves in the body, called the peripheral nervous system or PNS. Another model makes a distinction between motor nerves, that innervate muscles, and sensory nerves, that transmit information from sensory organs to the CNS. Yet another model describes the voluntary and involuntary nervous system. And the involuntary nervous system can be further subdivided into the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous systems.
The reason that I think this is important is that, in the posts above, it's hard to know exactly what different authors intend. For example, the author of the original post talks about skiing "moving to the back of the brain." I suppose the author means that movement patterns become ingrained and they don't have to think about them anymore--they just happen. Fair enough. But perhaps the author trying to describe something more concrete, such as engrams, and their possible location somewhere in the brain? This has been the subject of considerable research. Engrams do seem to exist, but they are not simply located at the back of the brain.
The author of a successive post talks about the brain as having "three" levels, and describes the "autonomous" nervous system. I believe the author intended to say "autonomic" nervous system. That's a simple enough typing mistake. But I think it's not accurate to assert that the brain has some kind of three-level structure. The author does qualify this statement by saying that it's a gross oversimplification, but this sentence is also quoted for emphasis by another reader, despite the fact that it's misleading. Later, the author talks about the "middle brain." I assume the author means the voluntary or somatic nervous system, although this is not clear. Finally, the author talks about "making new neural connection" and states that it takes a particular number of repetitions for these connections to be made. It may well be true that it takes repetition for new synapses for form, or for existing synaptic connections to be strengthened or weakened, however, once again, I believe that the the relationship between movement, or any other activity, and changes in the brain is far too complex to be described in such simple terms.
So let's try to be more accurate and clear.
What is the OP actually asking? Is there is a correlation between PSIA skills levels and different stages of learning in the human brain--if such stages of actually exist? How much time does it take to become competent at a particular skill? Is it possible to move on to more advanced skills only when more basic skills have been mastered?
Once again, I absolutely do not intend this as a personal attack, just an plea for higher discourse. And like I said, I love the simple tips, which summarize such complex processes; the gleam in the eye of somebody learning something new, the self-knowledge that if you are thinking about doing something, you probably haven't practiced it enough. Thanks.