3 ms·

I have a couple of questions... How do you trust your memory when (as I understand it), every time you recall something your brain changes in ways that can aff

I have a couple of questions... How do you trust your memory when (as I understand it), every time you recall something your brain changes in ways that can affect recall later? Is there a distinction between learning and knowing? For example, in my undergrad days I learned about Simpson's rule for numerical integration. I jammed enough of it into my memory to pass the test and quickly forgot all the details. Now, 30+ years later, I needed to calculate the volume of a pretty complex space. I remembered the existence of Simpson's rule but absolutely nothing else about it. Looking it up on Wikipedia I was able to re-learn it well enough to apply it in my job and move on to the next problem. If, over the past 30 years, I had been using flash cards to remember the details of Simpson's Rule, I would have wasted a lot of time. Re-learning it when needed also means I don't have to rely on my faulty, dynamic memory. For me, it seems like there's a sweet spot to remembering enough to know the concept and then relying on the internet to fill in the details as needed.

quarok 4y ago
Firstly, in terms of the distinction between learning and knowing -- the thing that matters most is the strength of the encoding in the brain. If you just memorise something with 0 understanding, the connections in the brain aren't as strong -- so they disappear. Whereas if you know something thoroughly, the connections are much, much stronger. These strong connections are why when you go back and look at it, you recognise it and you know how to apply it - because you still have some of the residual memories from this strong encoding. But in the meantime, you probably haven't been able to apply it in an analogy for example. Secondly - there's a classic on the topic of Spaced Repetition written by Gwern.[0] Gwern calculated that, given the average amount of time you spend testing yourself on something, and the exponential increase in how long you remember it, if you would spend more than 5 minutes per 10 years looking something up, you should use spaced repetition to remember it. For transparency I work with OP on Save All. 0: https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition
- mistermann 4y ago
  > Firstly, in terms of the distinction between learning and knowing -- the thing that matters most is the strength of the encoding in the brain. I'd vote for the ability to perform a skilful epistemic analysis of the retrieved information being more useful. I prefer this because it can overcome any natural immutable shortcomings in the underlying process.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
p-christ 4y ago
> every time you recall something your brain changes in ways that can affect recall later? Yeah that phenomenon is called "proactive & retroactive interference". > For me, it seems like there's a sweet spot to remembering enough to know the concept and then relying on the internet to fill in the details as needed. I think i agree with you to an extent. For example, there is no point memorising all the digits of pie so that you can use it when programming, it's much more efficient to just remember what pie is at a vaguer higher level than to put the energy into memorising all its digits. But i would say that most people go too far the other way and only remember less than the efficient amount.

quarok 4y ago

Firstly, in terms of the distinction between learning and knowing -- the thing that matters most is the strength of the encoding in the brain. If you just memorise something with 0 understanding, the connections in the brain aren't as strong -- so they disappear. Whereas if you know something thoroughly, the connections are much, much stronger. These strong connections are why when you go back and look at it, you recognise it and you know how to apply it - because you still have some of the residual memories from this strong encoding. But in the meantime, you probably haven't been able to apply it in an analogy for example. Secondly - there's a classic on the topic of Spaced Repetition written by Gwern.[0] Gwern calculated that, given the average amount of time you spend testing yourself on something, and the exponential increase in how long you remember it, if you would spend more than 5 minutes per 10 years looking something up, you should use spaced repetition to remember it. For transparency I work with OP on Save All. 0: https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition

mistermann 4y ago
> Firstly, in terms of the distinction between learning and knowing -- the thing that matters most is the strength of the encoding in the brain. I'd vote for the ability to perform a skilful epistemic analysis of the retrieved information being more useful. I prefer this because it can overcome any natural immutable shortcomings in the underlying process.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

p-christ 4y ago

> every time you recall something your brain changes in ways that can affect recall later? Yeah that phenomenon is called "proactive & retroactive interference". > For me, it seems like there's a sweet spot to remembering enough to know the concept and then relying on the internet to fill in the details as needed. I think i agree with you to an extent. For example, there is no point memorising all the digits of pie so that you can use it when programming, it's much more efficient to just remember what pie is at a vaguer higher level than to put the energy into memorising all its digits. But i would say that most people go too far the other way and only remember less than the efficient amount.