Hacker News Reader

Comment by f_allwein | Hacker News Reader

This is what the Hagakure (book of the Samurai) says about this [1]:

"In Yui Shosetsu’s military instructions, “The Way of the Three Ultimates,” there is a passage on the character of karma. He received an oral teaching of about eighteen chapters concerning the Greater Bravery and the Lesser Bravery. He neither wrote them down nor committed them to memory but rather forgot them completely. Then, in facing real situations, he acted on impulse and the things that he had learned became wisdom of his own. This is the character of karma."

Personally, I'm all for taking digital notes as they are searchable and can be backed up. I think either way, the process of taking notes is more important than the tools.

[1] https://github.com/hollanddd/hagakure/blob/master/chapter-10...

View on HN

That is really a description of Zen and spontaneous learning. Personally I've never experienced this phenomena...

I like the idea, but I'm not sure I would want to rely on it, say, in an exam.

So what you are saying is that in your personal opinion you think the carefully designed and executed study reported here is wrong, because you disagree with it. Because the study specifically says that when taking notes, handwriting outperforms using a computer.

So tell me, why is the study wrong?

I don't necessarily agree with the findings, but you may have missed something. The article talks about typing vs writing. This person talked about listening instead, and that does work for some people.

Let me give you an example where the study can be wrong. My son is an Aspergers. He is classified as gifted or near gifted (it's a fine line). However, he struggles to write. So, in his case, he has 2 options: (1) just listen [he has a great memory and this has proven to work well], or (2) type.

I take these types of advice with a grain of salt. Rather than the what, I focus on the why.

My own experiences reflect those of many commenters here: I wrote notes and either couldn't read them or didn't go back to them. I most probably should have listened rather than scribe myself.

you are saying that a large collection of self-reported anecdotes more correctly describes a population than a study; we say "you're wrong," and there is plenty of statistical evidence that proves you are wrong, but of course you don't believe in statistical evidence, instead you'll tell me that you can think of ways you could be right and you can remember some times when you were right and some times when your family members were right.

I'm exaggerating of course, but I think that sums up the discussion here?

I wouldn't say the study is wrong, but I think there are two different aspects here: tools used to take notes vs. amount/ kind of notes taken. From the article:

> Laptop users instead took notes by rote, taking down what they heard almost word for word.

That does sound like a bad idea. However, a student could also use a laptop to take more abstract notes (as I assume the pencil users did). On the other hand, a pencil user might be able to write shorthand, thus taking almost verbatim notes (which would probably be less useful).

So, instead of ditching your laptop, think about how to use it.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com