5 ms·

I wonder if it also had to do with the fact that handwriting is slower. Which means that you generally hold the concept in your working memory for longer than

I wonder if it also had to do with the fact that handwriting is slower. Which means that you generally hold the concept in your working memory for longer than typing. Which often times does not require the concept to be held in working memory at all because typing speed matches reading speed. I also wonder if looking down at the page as you write vs looking up at the board. Constantly looking up and down is like a high frequency spaced repetition game, whereas the latter is a more motor/mechanical practice.

alok-g 3y ago
I too wonder the same thing. In addition to holding the concept in working memory for longer, writing being slower also leads to better refinement of the ideas as you write as the brain has more time to process the thought being written down.
- chenxi9649 3y ago
  what do you think is the difference between "being in the memory for longer" and "more time to process the thought"?
  - alok-g 3y ago
    I perhaps wrote it suboptimally; sorry about that. I meant the brain having more time to process the thought and thereby also actually processing it to refine it by connecting the dots better with the existing knowledge & understanding by recalling the latter too into the working memory from the long-term memory, as well as perhaps the working memory creating a stronger stimulus for the long-term memory to record better. As an abstraction (which would not match how this actually works in the brain), merely having/holding a thought constant in the (working) memory for longer before transfering it to the long-term memory should not by itself lead to a better long-term memorization and recall, nor to a better understanding of the concepts involved. It could at best strengthen the working memory itself. Please let me know if I misunderstood your question, if I am failing to answer it, and/or, if you think my understanding posited is not correct, accurate or complete. Would be happy to learn back and/or discuss further.
    - chenxi9649 3y ago
      Haha it's all good! No need to apologize. I think what you said makes sense! Making connections with existing knowledge definitely strengthens the knowledge beyond simply holding it into your working memory and rote memorizing it. The former feels like it leads to understanding, where as the latter leads to ...memorizing. However, I feel like the difference between the two(understanding/memorizing) is actually closer than most of us imagine!
      - alok-g 3y ago
        Understanding, for the brain, is ultimately memorization too. Memorization need not be understanding. More below: Going by a reasonable approximation/assumption that the the information in the brain is stored as synaptic weights, both understanding and rote memorization would end up as those weights. The difference is how much semantic structuring happens in those neurons/weights. Rote memorization would be closer to relatively unlinked pieces of information whereas understanding would have more cross-linking. The same thing arises for machine learning too. Certain models basically just store all data. When a good model generalizes, it is able to interpolate/extrapolate better to unseen situations, which is going beyong rote memorization. The double-descent phenomenon in large neural networks however is surprising and is something I do not currently understand enough. Upon observing myself, something similar or related seems to happen for the brain too. I've noticed that when memorizing by rote (e.g., practicing a specific song on a piano), I tend to make mistakes when starting out, become better, but then again start making mistakes, and finally improve and settle.
jerlam 3y ago
I had a teacher who told us that when we took notes, we could not just transcribe what the teacher said - we had to take the ideas and write them down in our own words, because we would actually be thinking and learning and not just brainlessly writing it down.
- chenxi9649 3y ago
  It's almost as if, the only way we have to validate whether or not we've understood something is to be able to explain the concept to ourself. Therefore, understanding/learning == being able to explain to ourselves. And the way to get better at understanding(aka. explaining the concept to ourselves) is to... repeatedly explain the concept to ourselves. When you think this way, the Feynman technique is less a "method" to learn. But rather the fundamental truth as to how we all learn.
- asdff 3y ago
  It depends on the class. If you tried pulling this in organic chemistry you would certainly fail the class. Writing down each and every step the professor is writing on the board for the reaction is critical in that class.
- bonton89 3y ago
  This may well require to much time to do depending upon the material. I remember a math class that drove me nuts because the instructor used overhead sheets. Usually they were at least limited to output speed of their own hand writing so I could keep up but with the overhead protector I was always scrambling to even get it down.
fatnoah 3y ago
My own personal and completely based on anecdote opinion on note taking is that I can write notes while paying attention to something else, but typing has a much higher cognitive load, so more of my attention is focused on operating a keyboard vs. listening. I'm also someone that needs good visual organization to really study and learn things, so a habit I built in college was to write all of my notes, and then later transcribe them to computer. That helped it flow through my brain twice, organize the notes, and also do so when my sole task was working with the notes rather than capturing notes AND listening at the same time.
- goda90 3y ago
  Maybe it's because I have terrible and slow handwriting, or because I had a job transcribing audio interviews as a teenager, but I find it's the complete opposite for me. Writing makes me miss more because I can't keep up.
  - fatnoah 3y ago
    Everyone's brain works differently. My mom worked at the county court and her side gig was creating transcripts of the court case. It was always amazing to see her fingers fly as she sat with headphones and a glazed look as the words seemed to flow directly from ears to paper.

alok-g 3y ago

I too wonder the same thing. In addition to holding the concept in working memory for longer, writing being slower also leads to better refinement of the ideas as you write as the brain has more time to process the thought being written down.

chenxi9649 3y ago
what do you think is the difference between "being in the memory for longer" and "more time to process the thought"?
- alok-g 3y ago
  I perhaps wrote it suboptimally; sorry about that. I meant the brain having more time to process the thought and thereby also actually processing it to refine it by connecting the dots better with the existing knowledge & understanding by recalling the latter too into the working memory from the long-term memory, as well as perhaps the working memory creating a stronger stimulus for the long-term memory to record better. As an abstraction (which would not match how this actually works in the brain), merely having/holding a thought constant in the (working) memory for longer before transfering it to the long-term memory should not by itself lead to a better long-term memorization and recall, nor to a better understanding of the concepts involved. It could at best strengthen the working memory itself. Please let me know if I misunderstood your question, if I am failing to answer it, and/or, if you think my understanding posited is not correct, accurate or complete. Would be happy to learn back and/or discuss further.
  - chenxi9649 3y ago
    Haha it's all good! No need to apologize. I think what you said makes sense! Making connections with existing knowledge definitely strengthens the knowledge beyond simply holding it into your working memory and rote memorizing it. The former feels like it leads to understanding, where as the latter leads to ...memorizing. However, I feel like the difference between the two(understanding/memorizing) is actually closer than most of us imagine!
    - alok-g 3y ago
      Understanding, for the brain, is ultimately memorization too. Memorization need not be understanding. More below: Going by a reasonable approximation/assumption that the the information in the brain is stored as synaptic weights, both understanding and rote memorization would end up as those weights. The difference is how much semantic structuring happens in those neurons/weights. Rote memorization would be closer to relatively unlinked pieces of information whereas understanding would have more cross-linking. The same thing arises for machine learning too. Certain models basically just store all data. When a good model generalizes, it is able to interpolate/extrapolate better to unseen situations, which is going beyong rote memorization. The double-descent phenomenon in large neural networks however is surprising and is something I do not currently understand enough. Upon observing myself, something similar or related seems to happen for the brain too. I've noticed that when memorizing by rote (e.g., practicing a specific song on a piano), I tend to make mistakes when starting out, become better, but then again start making mistakes, and finally improve and settle.

jerlam 3y ago

I had a teacher who told us that when we took notes, we could not just transcribe what the teacher said - we had to take the ideas and write them down in our own words, because we would actually be thinking and learning and not just brainlessly writing it down.

chenxi9649 3y ago
It's almost as if, the only way we have to validate whether or not we've understood something is to be able to explain the concept to ourself. Therefore, understanding/learning == being able to explain to ourselves. And the way to get better at understanding(aka. explaining the concept to ourselves) is to... repeatedly explain the concept to ourselves. When you think this way, the Feynman technique is less a "method" to learn. But rather the fundamental truth as to how we all learn.
asdff 3y ago
It depends on the class. If you tried pulling this in organic chemistry you would certainly fail the class. Writing down each and every step the professor is writing on the board for the reaction is critical in that class.
bonton89 3y ago
This may well require to much time to do depending upon the material. I remember a math class that drove me nuts because the instructor used overhead sheets. Usually they were at least limited to output speed of their own hand writing so I could keep up but with the overhead protector I was always scrambling to even get it down.

fatnoah 3y ago

My own personal and completely based on anecdote opinion on note taking is that I can write notes while paying attention to something else, but typing has a much higher cognitive load, so more of my attention is focused on operating a keyboard vs. listening. I'm also someone that needs good visual organization to really study and learn things, so a habit I built in college was to write all of my notes, and then later transcribe them to computer. That helped it flow through my brain twice, organize the notes, and also do so when my sole task was working with the notes rather than capturing notes AND listening at the same time.

goda90 3y ago
Maybe it's because I have terrible and slow handwriting, or because I had a job transcribing audio interviews as a teenager, but I find it's the complete opposite for me. Writing makes me miss more because I can't keep up.
- fatnoah 3y ago
  Everyone's brain works differently. My mom worked at the county court and her side gig was creating transcripts of the court case. It was always amazing to see her fingers fly as she sat with headphones and a glazed look as the words seemed to flow directly from ears to paper.