4 ms·

Anyone else feel like they just read a bunch of assumptions with no support followed by a chart "proving" an exponential equation grows faster than a linear one

Anyone else feel like they just read a bunch of assumptions with no support followed by a chart "proving" an exponential equation grows faster than a linear one? What the heck am I supposed to take away from this? This is a half ass theory, not evidence. Where's a shred of evidence, on the time scales here, these "units of information" are retained (under either method). Are they even relevant compared to a _skill_ like reading that enables quicker information ingestion across an entire life o and is applicable across a wider range of problems than _individual information units you read_??

p-christ 4y ago
What bit do you doubt? The core concept that spaced repetition increases rapidly in effectiveness over time is called the Spacing Effect. There are many many studies that have investigated and proved it
- pkilgore 4y ago
  "Proved" is not a word used in any physiological research I've ever been familiar with, at least not with paragraph, if not pages of qualification. Would you please link me to this proof?
  - p-christ 4y ago
    Agree, I shouldn't have used the word "proved". But there is a lot of robust evidence for it going back to the 1800s. Many of the studies are linked to on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect
- pkilgore 4y ago
  > It takes you years to get twice as effective at reading Evidence? What's the evidence this is a linear growth process? How many years? At what age? What populations? There is no rigor here at all.
  - p-christ 4y ago
    The article links to a paper which estimates how much more effective you get at reading the more knowledge you have. It shows that for most ages you don't improve in this way, but for older ages you do. Then it says for the "best case" that "adults" takes years to get twice as effective at reading. If you don't believe this then it means you think it takes adults less than a year to get twice as effective? If effectiveness doubles each year then that would mean by the time a 25 year old becomes 65 that they're 1 million times as effective at reading than when they were 25. Does that sound reasonable to you?
fedeb95 4y ago
Starting from smokey definitions such as "potential", and that learning equals memorising.
themenomen 4y ago
Well, for me, this article and the previous one that was on HN some weeks ago were just propaganda to push the service they promote for eventual monetization. Something wrong with it? I don't know, well may be just lack of transparency I guess.

p-christ 4y ago

What bit do you doubt? The core concept that spaced repetition increases rapidly in effectiveness over time is called the Spacing Effect. There are many many studies that have investigated and proved it

pkilgore 4y ago
"Proved" is not a word used in any physiological research I've ever been familiar with, at least not with paragraph, if not pages of qualification. Would you please link me to this proof?
- p-christ 4y ago
  Agree, I shouldn't have used the word "proved". But there is a lot of robust evidence for it going back to the 1800s. Many of the studies are linked to on the wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spacing_effect
pkilgore 4y ago
> It takes you years to get twice as effective at reading Evidence? What's the evidence this is a linear growth process? How many years? At what age? What populations? There is no rigor here at all.
- p-christ 4y ago
  The article links to a paper which estimates how much more effective you get at reading the more knowledge you have. It shows that for most ages you don't improve in this way, but for older ages you do. Then it says for the "best case" that "adults" takes years to get twice as effective at reading. If you don't believe this then it means you think it takes adults less than a year to get twice as effective? If effectiveness doubles each year then that would mean by the time a 25 year old becomes 65 that they're 1 million times as effective at reading than when they were 25. Does that sound reasonable to you?

fedeb95 4y ago

Starting from smokey definitions such as "potential", and that learning equals memorising.

themenomen 4y ago

Well, for me, this article and the previous one that was on HN some weeks ago were just propaganda to push the service they promote for eventual monetization. Something wrong with it? I don't know, well may be just lack of transparency I guess.