The forgetting curve explains why humans struggle to memorize
qz.com
qz.com
https://www.coursera.org/learn/learning-how-to-learn
It includes a section about this. I've also found many of the lessons applicable to other parts of my life.
This course is more focused on how/what to learn to boost your career.
I liked both courses; they take 2-3 hours per week for 4 week.
I think this is where Bloom's taxonomy (and the like) can help with decreasing the decay effect. The mental effort requirements for memorizing are considerably lower than those of levels like synthesis. In that case, factual information can be lost (specific API commands), but more important elements are retained (when/why/how to make API calls).
That's where I think Bloom's can step in. Memorization is the first step, but then its about recalling and applying the mental model. As you traverse the levels, you eventually reach things like problem-solving and evaluating.
Ebbinghaus discusses spaced repetition, but I wonder if spaced repetition in conjunction with Bloom's taxonomy is a better approach for higher level learning than JUST spaced memorization.
- https://www.gwern.net/Spaced%20repetition
That, combined with Frequency Lists (another really cool topic), is what inspired me to create my own learning webapp:
Note: it's for me to learn, so login is a bit broken and you have to try to do it twice for it to work if you want to test it out.
One also observes the same in AI that the AI learns more in the first evolutions.
Also the same in Spaced repetition such as Anki and Memrise. Anki and Memrise software must some how know of the forgetting curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaced_repetition
Memristor https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memristor Memristors mimic human brain https://www.eetimes.com/document.asp?doc_id=1264640
I'm not sure this is true in general. Older people have rich semantic connections that, if they can leverage them, allow them to learn things quickly. But those connections can also work against them (e.g. learning to drive on the other side of the road you get to keep 90% of what you learned, but also battle against a strong, pre-learned bias).
So many flaws packed into one paragraph.
>brain-as-computer, or computer-as-brain
That would be two different metaphors, not one
>A brain “stores” memories like files on a hard drive
Nobody thinks this
>The computer won’t forget where the file is
Brains don't forget because they can't find the file...
>neural network can only learn what it’s told to
The power of neural networks is that they discover patterns on their own. Thats the whole f*ing point of neural networks.
> Nobody thinks this
Ahhh... I don't know. That was certainly a fiction that a number bosses where happy to foist on my generation back in the day. It makes for a very convenient basis to blame the junior for virtually anything.
They sort of do. The act of remembering alters the connections to other information made. Later, when trying to recall something again, the original connections may no longer work leaving you unable to find the information.
>The power of neural networks is that they discover patterns on their own. Thats the whole f*ing point of neural networks.
They can only find patterns in what they're told to.
I disagree.
If you feed a bunch of images into a CNN, it doesn't just learn flower, cat, etc. It learns more fundamental things such as edges, textures, patterns. see: https://distill.pub/2018/building-blocks/
Moreover, you can use simple reward signals, such as "progress forward", to learn complex locomotion: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hx_bgoTF7bs
If you still think these represent "find[ing] patterns in what they're told to", I would argue you only think that because the scale of these experiments is so small.
Inputting a bunch of pictures is telling it to find patterns in those pictures. And though some of those patterns are fundamental things, at some point it will need to be told what patterns are useful.
Nobody thinks this"
If you ask them directly and they bring it up to conscious recognition, no, approx. nobody thinks this.
However, if you witness people's actions when they set out with the deliberate goal of learning something, they clearly act as if they believe they can write something "once" to the "brain's hard drive" and retain it indefinitely by sheer force of will, and that failure to do so is a moral or character failing. Articles like this are important to correct people's implicit, unexamined beliefs.
Of course if you've been on HN for a while, you've had spaced repetition of the importance of spaced repetition (albeit perhaps not on the optimal schedule), so you may feel it's very common knowledge. It isn't. Only a few subcultures have heard of it; the broader culture is ignorant of these ideas.
I don't think this is a mystical life hack, we do this with babies, children, students, and I have never heard an adult seriously suggest that they can memorize something in one go.
Well, okay, maybe the president and people with photographic memories. But in general? If people decide they want to learn something they definitely are aware it will take work and practice and repetition. Maybe they don't want to do that work, but I doubt they're truly surprised when they don't make progress.
Incidentally:
You mention sports practice. This is a really fascinating topic, possibly different from mental recall such as spelling and theatre lines.
A beginner in a sport can practice in a very general manner, since anything they do is likely to produce improvement. Someone who has just started learning tennis may benefit from the occasional game of squash or badminton, for example. Put another way, in problem space they are very distant from the target, so any effort has a reasonable chance to take them in a direction which is vaguely towards the target.
An expert athlete, however, must practice very specifically. They are very close to the target: only movement directly toward the target is useful. The tolerance is far less, the number of directions they can take is far fewer.
Additionally, the extremely fine control of the musculoskeletal system necessary for athletes degrades slightly with absence from practice. The specific activity must be regularly practiced to achieve peak performance, and ensure the neurological specialisation is maintained. This is why professionals must "warm up", to ensure the nervous system is tuned to peak performance. (Avoiding injury is a separate and complicated issue.)
Spaced repetition is related to this, since athletes must indeed practice/train. But the time element here is very complex, and unique to the sport, the athlete, and much more. Frequency, rest, intensity, endurance and more are in that mix. Add mood, motivation etc and it becomes almost overwhelmingly complex. Possibly why some of the finest athletes aim to take emotions out of the mix: simplicity and reliability. Perhaps!
A lot of this is still poorly understood, as it is with memory and recall.
I'm also an athlete (I teach karate) and agree with your assessment. I feel myself get worse at techniques if I don't exercise and reinforce the motions at least weekly. I generally have the class do basically the same core techniques at the beginning, then rebuild any lost reflexes in intermediate drills, and finish with no more than three new (related) techniques per day.
There is never a time when anyone no matter how skilled won't benefit from practicing even the most basic of basics once you're at a high level. They're never quite perfect! In fact the more advanced the student, the more likely they'll benefit from going back to the basics and really re-evaluating how the basics work given their new expertise.
Again I say, look to people's actions, not their words. By their actions, a lot of people show that they believe that they can be exposed to the material either once, or a very small number of times, and retain it indefinitely (along with understanding not only the material but all implications of the material, automatically), and that when the material is not retained, it is perceived as a moral or character failing. If this was not true, "cramming" wouldn't even be a word.
This is merely one of the many places where what people say they believe deviates from what they demonstrate by their actions that they believe.
Further, I think it's also pretty obvious that many of the people who do in fact study, do so very inefficiently because they do it without knowledge or understanding of the issues raised by spaced repetition. I don't think you can just apply it blindly, but at the same time, you need to be aware of the basic issues and incorporate the insights. Another one of the classic study errors, at least from the perspective of retaining the material indefinitely, rather than just for a single test, which the structure of our modern formal schooling encourages, is to study this week's material this week and ram it into my head, then study next weeks material next week and ram that into my head, and so and so forth, rigidly partitioning what I study, based on the assumption that, again, once I jam it into my brain it'll stay there indefinitely. The correct way to study for something very heavily fact-based (like a medical program) in the steady-state is to spend maybe 60% on this week's stuff, 20% on last week's stuff, and the remaining 20% scattered through the stuff that you've had the hardest time retaining from the previous weeks, not 100% on this week's topic, and not X% on this week's topic and 100-X% evenly spread through "review" on the rest of the course, though that latter one is at least close enough to work.
Isn't this what the expression "It's on the tip of my tongue" refers to? You know you have the name/word/??? somewhere in your brain, but you can't access it.
So, same goes for how can you tell if it will rain soon? Well, used to folks knew some tricks by looking at the sky. Some folks still know them. By and large, everyone else is more accurate by asking their devices.
Want to know how far away something is? There is an amazing trick you can do with your thumb and line of site. If you really want to know, though, get a range finder. :)
And it isn't just memory. Consider how much weaker most people's arms are today than they used to be.
Talking of rentals it always seems to take me ages how to figure out how to adjust the seat.
Same thing when I am driving with someone giving out the directions versus trying to figure out the way myself. If I was given the directions, I'll probably need them again on the way back. If I figured out the path myself I'll be more likely to find my way back.
Sure, when it's the start of the Fibonacci sequence.
It's all about the relational aspect. Chess games are easy because they tell a story in a strong player's head, and so to repeat the game you just tell the story in your head again. That's why if you do forget a game, just being told what the first move or two was is often enough to recall the rest of the game - kind of like being told the first sound of a word you're trying to remember.
This is also why chess players can see a position and remember 'Ooo, that's from Reti-Alekhine' or whatever. You see games and the people playing become part of the story. It's like reading a page from a book and being able to say what book it was. On top of that it's also quite often an extremely important page, making such a demonstration even more trivial.
There have also been a lot of studies testing this stuff. For instance, one briefly showed strong players a position that might actually occur in a regular game and asked them to recreate the position. And they did extremely well, whereas casual players did awfully. However, the interesting thing is that when asked to do this for positions with the pieces on random squares, strong players did not do substantially better than casual players. This has been attributed to pattern recognition, but in my opinion it's more about the story being told even on a single move - the ideas and possibilities. Again the difference between trying to repeat the words from a page of book as opposed to trying to repeat random words.
However for other kinds of memories, such as remembering a situation or a picture, I have heard (I'd appreciate a reference) that the recall process of long-term memory is slightly destructive, and that the memory must be re-encoded into long-term memory. That suggests that recalling a memory repeatedly could accelerate it's deterioration.