5 ms·

People have this weird disdain for memorization. Memorization is the same as knowing. Can you imagine that there have been points in your job that would have g

by NiloCK 4y ago

People have this weird disdain for memorization. Memorization is the same as knowing. Can you imagine that there have been points in your job that would have gone smoother if you'd known more?

atian 4y ago
I don’t believe them to be the same. I have friends who repeat words to me GPT style, that I know them to be imprecise in the spirit of the discussion.
- emodendroket 4y ago
  Then they didn't really memorize them properly, did they?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
bcrosby95 4y ago
Understanding is the structure of knowing. Memorization is the paint on top. It ain't gonna hold your house up.
- Spivak 4y ago
  Memorization is actually the foundation whether you do it with intention or not. Everything in your working knowledge is something you memorized.
- lmpdev 4y ago
  Memorisation is adding nodes to your existing network of knowledge Understanding is efficiently arranging and coordinating those nodes in an efficient path for most situations Wisdom is knowing in which contexts to actually apply that path of nodes Tacit knowledge is similar to wisdom just it generally lacks memorisation There's not a perfect mapping in English between Memorisation, Understanding and Wisdom and their most pragmatic corresponding analogues in nature, but I have found this distinction between terms useful in the whole memorisation v understanding debate
  - Hayarotle 4y ago
    > Memorisation is adding nodes to your existing network of knowledge Adding nodes to your existing network of knowledge is learning facts. Memorization is making the nodes persistent. Both are important, but they're not equivalent. You need to do both. You can learn without memorization (you can learn a lot and forget everything you've learned by the next day). You can memorize without learning the subject matter (for example, you can memorize a counting song in Mandarin Chinese without knowing that what you've memorized are numbers). Flashcards can be used for learning, but they are optimized for memorization. We shouldn't expect them to be the best tool for learning, because that's not what they're designed for. One might get better results learning from another resource, and then using flashcards to memorize the concepts they've learned. Learning facts, understanding how they correlate and memorizing both the facts and the correlations are all different steps. Memorization is useful and necessary, but it's not equivalent to learning and to understanding. Each step helps with the other steps. They can happen at the same time, but not necessarily.
fasterik 4y ago
You can memorize every note of a difficult piano piece, but that doesn't mean you know how to play it well.
- travisjungroth 4y ago
  Yes, memory is a necessary but not sufficient component of learning. "Piano playing" seems like a really poor example to argue against the value of memorization.
  - fasterik 4y ago
    The post I was responding to said "Memorization is the same as knowing". I specifically chose a counterexample to suggest that knowledge is deeper than memorizing some facts about the world. In fact, I would argue that most of the forms of knowledge that are truly valuable are exactly the kinds that aren't amenable to memorization. Think about any skill that's in high demand and takes decades to master. You're not going to get there by studying Anki cards.
    - travisjungroth 4y ago
      Do you think it's possible that knowing more information that is amenable to memorization will help you cultivate knowledge that isn't amenable to memorization better or faster?
      - fasterik 4y ago
        At some point in our education we have to memorize the rules for manipulating algebraic formulas, trigonometric identities, etc. It would be hard to learn calculus without being able to do these things unconsciously. On the other hand, what a professional mathematician does is create new tools for proving theorems. This can't be memorized because, by definition, the knowledge didn't exist. It's true that they draw on previous experience having solved similar problems. But it's not clear to me that this knowledge is most efficiently gotten by drilling the same problems over and over. I think this idea of using Anki for learning everything is misguided because it attempts to reduce complex topics and pragmatic know-how to a set of trivia questions. An example from the article: the author wanted to understand the AlphaGo paper, and some example flashcards were "who plays first in Go" and "where did AlphaGo get its training data". They probably could have acquired a much deeper understanding by playing a few games of Go and implementing a reinforcement learning algorithm for tic-tac-toe. Incidentally, that also sounds a lot more fun and motivating to me than studying flashcards.
hackernewds 4y ago
Knowing is not the same as understanding though. For example, I do not see any value of winning the spelling bee in real life applications. This is actually widely accepted as the downrisk in Asian education systems - the emphasis on rote learning vs practical application.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- emodendroket 4y ago
  > For example, I do not see any value of winning the spelling bee in real life applications. You might if you were an editor. I guess your job probably doesn't have much to do with that so you see it as pointless but there is a different sphere of knowledge where having various things committed to memory would save you time. For instance, if we're interested in learning a new programming language, I guess most of us can understand a sentence like "a string is an immutable sequence of characters," quickly read it, and move on. If you weren't familiar with the concepts in that sentence you'd burn a lot more time before making heads or tails of it.
  - jodrellblank 4y ago
    > “I guess most of us can understand a sentence like "a string is an immutable sequence of characters," quickly read it, and move on.” Can we? In the context of learning a new unfamiliar programming language… is it saying there is a string type or is it telling you that there isn’t a string type but only a sequence of characters? Like APL a string is an array of characters not its own type but in C# [string] is a thing and if you iterate it you get [char] type. In Prolog a string is traditionally a linked list of ASCII code numbers, there isn’t a string type or a char type … but there is still a string to chars conversion function. So is the sentence telling you that there is a char type? In Python a string is iterable but you get strings of length one for the characters rather than chars. But wait what about Unicode and surrogate pairs and glyphs, where does “sequence of characters” fit on those things in this language? What does ‘sequence’ mean in this unfamiliar language - is it saying strings are an array or a list, or that sequence is a trait or behaviour which generalises over many types? What is immutable specifically, sequences or strings or characters or all data? What are the consequences of that? In APL you can assign into an array even though they are immutable (it will be copied behind the scenes) so it seems like it is an implementation detail you can ignore but wait that means dropping one character from the front copies the rest of the string in memory (slow) whereas in other languages trying to change a string at all is an error - compile time or runtime? You might think Prolog can do it if strings are linked lists but surprise, Prolog lists are immutable. So if you read that sentence and move on, what have you really learned about the new language? In the context of this thread how would you Anki-fy the concepts immutable or sequence or string?
vishnugupta 4y ago
> Memorization is the same as knowing. They are not the same which is why they are two different words. For example, memorising first 1000 prime numbers is not same as knowing prime numbers. The former person will not be able to figure out 1001st prime number because it's not in their memory bank but the later can calculate it. Sure it takes time to calculate but it's not impossible. Now, I'm not belittling memorisation. A baseline memory is needed otherwise one'll be wasting time and energy figuring out everything from first principles all the time. This is akin to rainbow tables saving time. But as with all things in life finding right balance is key. As you pointed out, it's useful to memorise things at work to save time and energy.
- timokoesters 4y ago
  You can memorize things like "Definition of prime number" or "Main application of prime numbers". I think memorizing concepts is much more important than memorizing raw data
Volrath89 4y ago
Completely agree here. Memorization is actually quite important. Try learning Spanish from scratch with a "bad memory" and let me know how it goes.
- sph 4y ago
  Nonsense. Memory is a necessary component to acquire knowledge and mastery. But knowledge is not memory. I am fluent in three languages. Learning words is the easy part, fluency unlocks when you are able to think, or feel, in that language. When you have thoughts that you cannot losslessly translate back to your native language. Knowing Spanish words is not knowing Spanish. Memorization is the first and easiest 5% of the whole process.
mvkel 4y ago
Memorization is not comprehension.

by NiloCK 4y ago

People have this weird disdain for memorization. Memorization is the same as knowing. Can you imagine that there have been points in your job that would have gone smoother if you'd known more?

atian 4y ago

I don’t believe them to be the same. I have friends who repeat words to me GPT style, that I know them to be imprecise in the spirit of the discussion.

emodendroket 4y ago
Then they didn't really memorize them properly, did they?
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

bcrosby95 4y ago

Understanding is the structure of knowing. Memorization is the paint on top. It ain't gonna hold your house up.

Spivak 4y ago
Memorization is actually the foundation whether you do it with intention or not. Everything in your working knowledge is something you memorized.
lmpdev 4y ago
Memorisation is adding nodes to your existing network of knowledge Understanding is efficiently arranging and coordinating those nodes in an efficient path for most situations Wisdom is knowing in which contexts to actually apply that path of nodes Tacit knowledge is similar to wisdom just it generally lacks memorisation There's not a perfect mapping in English between Memorisation, Understanding and Wisdom and their most pragmatic corresponding analogues in nature, but I have found this distinction between terms useful in the whole memorisation v understanding debate
- Hayarotle 4y ago
  > Memorisation is adding nodes to your existing network of knowledge Adding nodes to your existing network of knowledge is learning facts. Memorization is making the nodes persistent. Both are important, but they're not equivalent. You need to do both. You can learn without memorization (you can learn a lot and forget everything you've learned by the next day). You can memorize without learning the subject matter (for example, you can memorize a counting song in Mandarin Chinese without knowing that what you've memorized are numbers). Flashcards can be used for learning, but they are optimized for memorization. We shouldn't expect them to be the best tool for learning, because that's not what they're designed for. One might get better results learning from another resource, and then using flashcards to memorize the concepts they've learned. Learning facts, understanding how they correlate and memorizing both the facts and the correlations are all different steps. Memorization is useful and necessary, but it's not equivalent to learning and to understanding. Each step helps with the other steps. They can happen at the same time, but not necessarily.

fasterik 4y ago

You can memorize every note of a difficult piano piece, but that doesn't mean you know how to play it well.

travisjungroth 4y ago
Yes, memory is a necessary but not sufficient component of learning. "Piano playing" seems like a really poor example to argue against the value of memorization.
- fasterik 4y ago
  The post I was responding to said "Memorization is the same as knowing". I specifically chose a counterexample to suggest that knowledge is deeper than memorizing some facts about the world. In fact, I would argue that most of the forms of knowledge that are truly valuable are exactly the kinds that aren't amenable to memorization. Think about any skill that's in high demand and takes decades to master. You're not going to get there by studying Anki cards.
  - travisjungroth 4y ago
    Do you think it's possible that knowing more information that is amenable to memorization will help you cultivate knowledge that isn't amenable to memorization better or faster?
    - fasterik 4y ago
      At some point in our education we have to memorize the rules for manipulating algebraic formulas, trigonometric identities, etc. It would be hard to learn calculus without being able to do these things unconsciously. On the other hand, what a professional mathematician does is create new tools for proving theorems. This can't be memorized because, by definition, the knowledge didn't exist. It's true that they draw on previous experience having solved similar problems. But it's not clear to me that this knowledge is most efficiently gotten by drilling the same problems over and over. I think this idea of using Anki for learning everything is misguided because it attempts to reduce complex topics and pragmatic know-how to a set of trivia questions. An example from the article: the author wanted to understand the AlphaGo paper, and some example flashcards were "who plays first in Go" and "where did AlphaGo get its training data". They probably could have acquired a much deeper understanding by playing a few games of Go and implementing a reinforcement learning algorithm for tic-tac-toe. Incidentally, that also sounds a lot more fun and motivating to me than studying flashcards.

hackernewds 4y ago

Knowing is not the same as understanding though. For example, I do not see any value of winning the spelling bee in real life applications. This is actually widely accepted as the downrisk in Asian education systems - the emphasis on rote learning vs practical application.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
emodendroket 4y ago
> For example, I do not see any value of winning the spelling bee in real life applications. You might if you were an editor. I guess your job probably doesn't have much to do with that so you see it as pointless but there is a different sphere of knowledge where having various things committed to memory would save you time. For instance, if we're interested in learning a new programming language, I guess most of us can understand a sentence like "a string is an immutable sequence of characters," quickly read it, and move on. If you weren't familiar with the concepts in that sentence you'd burn a lot more time before making heads or tails of it.
- jodrellblank 4y ago
  > “I guess most of us can understand a sentence like "a string is an immutable sequence of characters," quickly read it, and move on.” Can we? In the context of learning a new unfamiliar programming language… is it saying there is a string type or is it telling you that there isn’t a string type but only a sequence of characters? Like APL a string is an array of characters not its own type but in C# [string] is a thing and if you iterate it you get [char] type. In Prolog a string is traditionally a linked list of ASCII code numbers, there isn’t a string type or a char type … but there is still a string to chars conversion function. So is the sentence telling you that there is a char type? In Python a string is iterable but you get strings of length one for the characters rather than chars. But wait what about Unicode and surrogate pairs and glyphs, where does “sequence of characters” fit on those things in this language? What does ‘sequence’ mean in this unfamiliar language - is it saying strings are an array or a list, or that sequence is a trait or behaviour which generalises over many types? What is immutable specifically, sequences or strings or characters or all data? What are the consequences of that? In APL you can assign into an array even though they are immutable (it will be copied behind the scenes) so it seems like it is an implementation detail you can ignore but wait that means dropping one character from the front copies the rest of the string in memory (slow) whereas in other languages trying to change a string at all is an error - compile time or runtime? You might think Prolog can do it if strings are linked lists but surprise, Prolog lists are immutable. So if you read that sentence and move on, what have you really learned about the new language? In the context of this thread how would you Anki-fy the concepts immutable or sequence or string?

vishnugupta 4y ago

> Memorization is the same as knowing. They are not the same which is why they are two different words. For example, memorising first 1000 prime numbers is not same as knowing prime numbers. The former person will not be able to figure out 1001st prime number because it's not in their memory bank but the later can calculate it. Sure it takes time to calculate but it's not impossible. Now, I'm not belittling memorisation. A baseline memory is needed otherwise one'll be wasting time and energy figuring out everything from first principles all the time. This is akin to rainbow tables saving time. But as with all things in life finding right balance is key. As you pointed out, it's useful to memorise things at work to save time and energy.

timokoesters 4y ago
You can memorize things like "Definition of prime number" or "Main application of prime numbers". I think memorizing concepts is much more important than memorizing raw data

Volrath89 4y ago

Completely agree here. Memorization is actually quite important. Try learning Spanish from scratch with a "bad memory" and let me know how it goes.

sph 4y ago
Nonsense. Memory is a necessary component to acquire knowledge and mastery. But knowledge is not memory. I am fluent in three languages. Learning words is the easy part, fluency unlocks when you are able to think, or feel, in that language. When you have thoughts that you cannot losslessly translate back to your native language. Knowing Spanish words is not knowing Spanish. Memorization is the first and easiest 5% of the whole process.

mvkel 4y ago

Memorization is not comprehension.