5 ms·

I commented on this on HN a couple months ago, but I had a similar conclusion regarding the value of memorization when I joined med school after studying comput

I commented on this on HN a couple months ago, but I had a similar conclusion regarding the value of memorization when I joined med school after studying computer science in undergrad and grad. It took me a while to buy in to high-volume memorization as a learning technique (especially coming from CS, where memorizing facts is not a huge emphasis). After a while though, I started recognizing how the quick recall encouraged by the system enhanced my understanding of concepts vs replacing it (I wrote about this a couple years ago [0]). [0] https://samrawal.substack.com/p/on-the-relationship-between-memorizing https://samrawal.substack.com/p/on-the-relationship-between-...

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago
That's my takeaway from The Shallows by Nicholas Carr. Knowing how to derive information or where to find information doesn't mean you know the information and knowing the information is necessary to form higher level associations in the mind.
- JonChesterfield 2y ago
  Huh. That's an interesting premise. I think I would split it though - knowing the basis well enough to derive results is probably fine for later deduction, knowing where to find the information is definitely useless for it.
  - nescioquid 2y ago
    The argument is actually more about insight. You can't have insights about things you don't already have in your head. Insight in this context is noticing some new relationship between two facts. There was a slang term "refrigerator thoughts" that described someone staring into the refrigerator while thinking of a show plot and realizing there is a plot hole, a disturbing implication, etc. In any case, that's an example of insight. Hopefully we have these spontaneous realizations about less trivial things as well. The more stuff you've got in your head, the more insights you'll have, which drive more questions whose investigations puts yet more stuff in your head. I don't think you can split it. The critical piece is actually getting information into your head in the first place.
- bitwize 2y ago
  "Oh, and check this out: I'm a bloody genius now! Estás usando este software de traducción de forma incorrecta. Por favor, consulta el manual. I don't even know what I just said, but I can find out!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TG1AzBJYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TG1AzBJYo
- anon291 2y ago
  I have sung the praises of memorization since I was a kid, and yet the attitude that, with the internet, memorization is no longer required because we have access to unending knowledge, seems oh so prevalent. One wonders what these advocates must think... do they claim to know Norwegian because they can use Google to translate at any particular instant, for example? One wonders what life might be like for people so confident in their non-existent abilities.
  - BizarroLand 2y ago
    Knowing things is important, but so is knowing where to find how to know things and things to know. I memorized my multiplications tables like a good little boy, and I can do decent amounts of math in my head, but I am not a fast or as capable as the default calculator that comes with every smartphone on the planet.
  - Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
    I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Nobody claims to know Norwegian, it's just that the value of knowing it is not as valuable now that I can just use Google Translate to talk to a Norwegian. I do agree that memorization is important, by the way. I just think that it's useless if you can't also derive your way there. Nothing wrong with having checkpoints in your mind though.
  - wisty 2y ago
    A lot of education "experts" (people doing education research, policy and Ted talks) are usually privileged enough that their parents forced them to memorise enough phonics and times tables to get to college, and think that the teachers who tried to do the same were just wasting their precious time when they could have been doing interesting things like talking about philosophy. Education as a discipline has no real knowledge or skills in the Anglosphere beyond basic essay writing. Historically teaching was a craft, taught in trade schools or on the job, but for various reasons it moved to university without universitiea having of the content developed, so universities took the low road and asked PhD candidates to essentially write essays on the philosophy of education so that's now the content. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach teachers, and since the content is just writing essays on the philosophy of education their confidence in non-existent abilities is never pressure tested.
- purpleteam81 2y ago
  True, that is rote learning. It can be the basis of critical thinking. Critical thinking involves methods of inquiry...who, what, why, when and how. Rote thinking is limited to 'how'.
Aerbil313 2y ago
Related thread a while back: "Learning Is Remembering": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32982513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32982513

2OEH8eoCRo0 2y ago

That's my takeaway from The Shallows by Nicholas Carr. Knowing how to derive information or where to find information doesn't mean you know the information and knowing the information is necessary to form higher level associations in the mind.

JonChesterfield 2y ago
Huh. That's an interesting premise. I think I would split it though - knowing the basis well enough to derive results is probably fine for later deduction, knowing where to find the information is definitely useless for it.
- nescioquid 2y ago
  The argument is actually more about insight. You can't have insights about things you don't already have in your head. Insight in this context is noticing some new relationship between two facts. There was a slang term "refrigerator thoughts" that described someone staring into the refrigerator while thinking of a show plot and realizing there is a plot hole, a disturbing implication, etc. In any case, that's an example of insight. Hopefully we have these spontaneous realizations about less trivial things as well. The more stuff you've got in your head, the more insights you'll have, which drive more questions whose investigations puts yet more stuff in your head. I don't think you can split it. The critical piece is actually getting information into your head in the first place.
bitwize 2y ago
"Oh, and check this out: I'm a bloody genius now! Estás usando este software de traducción de forma incorrecta. Por favor, consulta el manual. I don't even know what I just said, but I can find out!" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TG1AzBJYo https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F3TG1AzBJYo
anon291 2y ago
I have sung the praises of memorization since I was a kid, and yet the attitude that, with the internet, memorization is no longer required because we have access to unending knowledge, seems oh so prevalent. One wonders what these advocates must think... do they claim to know Norwegian because they can use Google to translate at any particular instant, for example? One wonders what life might be like for people so confident in their non-existent abilities.
- BizarroLand 2y ago
  Knowing things is important, but so is knowing where to find how to know things and things to know. I memorized my multiplications tables like a good little boy, and I can do decent amounts of math in my head, but I am not a fast or as capable as the default calculator that comes with every smartphone on the planet.
- Pedro_Ribeiro 2y ago
  I think you're being a little disingenuous here. Nobody claims to know Norwegian, it's just that the value of knowing it is not as valuable now that I can just use Google Translate to talk to a Norwegian. I do agree that memorization is important, by the way. I just think that it's useless if you can't also derive your way there. Nothing wrong with having checkpoints in your mind though.
- wisty 2y ago
  A lot of education "experts" (people doing education research, policy and Ted talks) are usually privileged enough that their parents forced them to memorise enough phonics and times tables to get to college, and think that the teachers who tried to do the same were just wasting their precious time when they could have been doing interesting things like talking about philosophy. Education as a discipline has no real knowledge or skills in the Anglosphere beyond basic essay writing. Historically teaching was a craft, taught in trade schools or on the job, but for various reasons it moved to university without universitiea having of the content developed, so universities took the low road and asked PhD candidates to essentially write essays on the philosophy of education so that's now the content. Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach. And those who can't teach, teach teachers, and since the content is just writing essays on the philosophy of education their confidence in non-existent abilities is never pressure tested.
purpleteam81 2y ago
True, that is rote learning. It can be the basis of critical thinking. Critical thinking involves methods of inquiry...who, what, why, when and how. Rote thinking is limited to 'how'.

Aerbil313 2y ago

Related thread a while back: "Learning Is Remembering": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32982513 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32982513