Point: http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2012/08/05/forgetting-is-good/
"Why Forgetting Can Be Good", by Scott H. Young:

> People often ask me how they can guarantee they won’t forget anything they’ve 
> learned. But I think forgetting isn’t such a bad thing and that trying to 
> avoid it completely is a loser’s strategy.
>
> ...I’m skeptical of the value of an SRS for most domains of knowledge. The 
> problem is simply that just because you’re reminding yourself of an idea 
> doesn’t make it useful. Useful and important ideas recur frequently, so 
> spaced repetition is naturally built into the process of learning 
> aggressively.
>
> People have asked me if I have a mechanism to review material from courses I 
> completed earlier in the MIT Challenge. Initially, I had considered creating 
> one, but going through the classes has shown me that it isn’t necessary. For 
> any given class, some ideas will be very useful and important, others less 
> so. If an idea is useful, it shows up in more than just one class. Huffman 
> coding has probably shown up in 4-5 classes I’ve done, so I’m getting tons of 
> repetition even though I never use a formal system to remind myself. Even 
> languages, the favorite child of SRS seem amenable to this approach. If you 
> spend most your time actually communicating, the words and phrases you 
> memorize are precisely the ones that come up most frequently. Perhaps just 
> going out and speaking a lot is the best kind of spaced repetition. The same 
> is true in non-academic learning. When I read a book, I try to deeply 
> understand it, but I don’t make any system to guarantee that knowledge is 
> perfectly preserved. The reason is that I know if the ideas are useful and 
> important, they will show up as themes in other books.
>
> ...When Should You Look Back?
>
> Often the paths and trails into unexplored territory circle back to familiar 
> ground. This presents an opportunity to relearn those old ideas or to view 
> them in a new way and get a better connected understanding of them. At the 
> beginning of the MIT Challenge I took a class which introduced the Laplace 
> Transform and, honestly, I didn’t get it. I could manipulate them well enough 
> to pass a test, but I couldn’t see what they were or why they were useful. 
> However, because they were an important idea, they showed up again and again. 
> Each time I circled back I got another chance to learn them more deeply. Had 
> they not been important, I might never have seen them again and they would 
> have faded from memory, but if they aren’t too important, why would that 
> matter?

Counterpoint: 
http://blog.learnstream.org/2012/08/spaced-repetition-in-natural-and-artificial-learning/
"Spaced repetition in natural and artificial learning", by Ryan
Muller:

> He [Scott] argues that aggressively pressing forward in learning new and more 
> advanced material will naturally re-expose him to material from before, 
> making a spaced repetition system unnecessary.
>
> Such a result has been found for an elementary math curriculum. In _Why 
> Students Don’t Like School_, Daniel Willingham (another of my favorite 
> learning bloggers) summarizes the results of a longitudinal study: “A student 
> who gets a C in his first algebra course but goes on to take several more 
> math courses will remember his algebra, whereas a student who gets an A in 
> his algebra course but doesn’t take more math will forget it. That’s because 
> taking more math courses guarantees that you will continue to think about and 
> practice basic algebra.”
>
> ...A good *curriculum* teaches you an artificial subject in a similar manner. 
> It’s like a game that’s carefully set up to advance in difficulty as you use 
> the skills and equipment you’ve gathered on the way. Subjects like math and 
> science may be artificial, but curricula have undergone thousands of years of 
> refinement to be somewhat learnable. This is what Scott Young is relying on 
> when he presses forward with the MIT challenge.
>
> But Khatzumoto’s method is setting up an artificial world where one doesn’t 
> exist, where not even a good curriculum exists. He’s building his curriculum 
> in place. Topics like foreign languages have some options for curricula, but 
> why not make them contemporary and interesting by using real media? There’s 
> no curriculum for being up to date with the latest trends in business or 
> software engineering, but it’s important: you need to be able to converse 
> with others in that vocabulary, and you may pick up some wisdom along the way.
>
> Spaced repetition specifically replicates some of the advantages of a natural 
> environment. Memory works like this: when we encounter important things a 
> number of times in different contexts, we begin to learn them in the 
> abstract. Otherwise, we’d be totally overwhelmed by the number of abstract 
> concepts we could apply in any circumstance. By artificially spacing 
> repetition, we allow the context to vary via the passing of time. Not only do 
> our physical surroundings change, but the knowledge we have that can be 
> related to what we learn changes.
>
> So I don’t agree with the extent to which Scott thinks aggressive learning 
> makes spaced repetition unnecessary. Moreover, he’s overlooking the “spaced” 
> part of the concept: that *not* repeating, and allowing the context to vary, 
> is an equally important part of the equation. But there is an art to keeping 
> that environment spruce: Khatzumoto says, “I choose decks in order of 
> fun/priority and I delete extensively. If I’m avoiding a deck, then I go on a 
> deletion spree, and I keep deleting until the deck feels good again.”

My own observation is that an optimally constructed curriculum *could*
effectively implement spaced repetition, but even if it did (most
don't), unless it is computerized it will not adapt to the user.

-- 
gwern
http://www.gwern.net

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"mnemosyne-proj-users" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to