A spaced-repetition memory system combines the Testing effect and the Spacing effect to enable efficient memorization of many thousands of facts (Spaced repetition memory systems are extremely efficient). Some people also use them for a broader set of tasks (see below). Spaced repetition memory systems make memory a choice, but they’re not just for rote facts: Spaced repetition memory systems can be used to develop conceptual understanding.
The first consumer system of this kind was Supermemo, created by Piotr Wozniak. It adopted and popularized the term “spaced repetition”; prior literature had used a variety of terms (often referring to more specific facets of the underlying phenomenon).
Branwen, G. (2009). Spaced Repetition for Efficient Learning. Retrieved December 16, 2019, from https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition
Deep understanding requires detailed knowledge of fundamentals. One way to view the role of a Spaced repetition memory system, then, is that they efficiently automate away the essential but rote elements of learning so that you can focus on more interesting, meaningful, or conceptual elements.
This is one good retort to Many people view memory as unimportant to deep creative work.
It’s worth pointing out, though, that spaced repetition isn’t just useful for the most rote parts of learning: it’s just easiest to deploy it in that way. In fact, Spaced repetition memory systems can be used to develop conceptual understanding.
Q. How can spaced repetition help you spend more of your energy on deeper engagement?
A. It can automate away many of the rote elements of learning.
Matuschak, A., & Nielsen, M. (2019, October 0). How can we develop transformative tools for thought? https://numinous.productions/ttft (see https://numinous.productions/ttft/#how-important-is-memory)
In response to People seem to forget most of what they read, and they mostly don’t notice, many suggest that they don’t want detailed recall. They do most of their reading “to get a general picture,” or “just to get a conceptual understanding.” That might sometimes be possible, but in many cases it’s not possible to really understand a concept without a firm grasp of the details on which it’s built.
The intuitive argument:
Bluntly, it seems likely that such people are fooling themselves, confusing a sense of enjoyment with any sort of durable understanding. Imagine meeting a person who told you they “had a broad conceptual understanding” of how to speak French, but it turned out they didn’t know the meaning of “bonjour”, “au revoir”, or “tres bien”. You’d think their claim to have a broad conceptual understanding of French was hilarious.”
How can we develop transformative tools for thought? - How important is memory, anyway?
A more concrete argument is that conceptual understanding is mostly about connections—understanding how elements relate to each other, causes, effects, implications, constraints, tendencies, etc. You can’t understand these high-order relationships without familiarity with their constituents.
Another argument draws on our understanding of human information processing: Expertise requires building sophisticated chunk recoding schemes.
A related, simpler claim: Memory augmentation may make it easier to learn complex topics by decreasing working memory load
Q. Reductio ad absurdum argument against someone who only wants a “broad conceptual understanding,” not detailed recall?
A. That’s like wanting to have a “broad conceptual understanding” of French without knowing the meaning of “bonjour.”
Q. Connectivist argument that deep understanding requires detailed knowledge of fundamentals?
A. Conceptual understanding is largely about relationships; can’t learn the edges without knowing the nodes.
Willingham, D. T. (2009). Why don’t students like school? A cognitive scientist answers questions about how the mind works and what it means for the classroom (1st ed). Jossey-Bass.
“understanding is remembering in disguise”
Matuschak, A., & Nielsen, M. (2019). How can we develop transformative tools for thought? Retrieved December 2, 2019, from https://numinous.productions/ttft
It seems that most people can remember only a few high-level details of a book weeks later—if that. A typical reader might spend hours finishing some serious non-fiction—then maybe it comes up at a dinner party, and they find you can remember like three sentences. Basically no detailed recall. Barely the gist! (((Scattered notes|Reading comprehension.md|1,99|1,114))) (((Scattered notes|Reading comprehension.md|1,99|1,114)))
What’s more: people seem surprised when this happens. They seem to consistently overestimate how much they’re absorbing from a book.
Part of the problem here is People often struggle to remember details of prose text because they never processed them in the first place.
See How rapidly do people forget practical knowledge?
This observation is unfortunate for many reasons, but among them: Deep understanding requires detailed knowledge of fundamentals and Complex ideas may be hard to learn in part because their components overflow working memory.
For common objections: Many people view memory as unimportant to deep creative work.
Amlund et al - Repetitive Reading and Recall of Expository Text
Matuschak, A. (2019). Why books don’t work. Retrieved from https://andymatuschak.org/books