Many researchers are trying to make a more efficient Spaced repetition memory system, but I believe that the critical thing to optimize is emotional connection to the review session and its contents—and conversely, to ruthlessly minimize elements which provoke a sigh. These systems, left to their natural inclinations, naturally decay to produce dutiful sessions which feel disconnected from anything that matters to you.
Part of this is writing good prompts: What are the most important attributes of good spaced repetition memory prompts?. But this isn’t enough. Review sessions need ongoing grooming to stay interesting. If you don’t add anything new for a while, your sessions will feel stale: Spaced repetition review sessions often become boring and detached without a steady stream of new prompts. If you often forget an answer, you must refactor the question or risk future eye-rolls.
For me, the most important type of maintenance concerns my shifting interests. I might stumble on a fascinating paper and write a few dozen prompts to help me internalize the details. Now fast forward six months. In the happy case, I’m thrilled when these questions recur because they reconnect me to the ideas of this fascinating paper, which now appear richer through the lens of my intervening experiences. Much of the time, I simply feel grateful to still remember the details. But sometimes, I no longer find the paper very interesting; the questions just feel like a chore. They’ve become “orphan prompts”—Avoid orphan spaced repetition memory prompts.
Part of the Taking emotion seriously umbrella.
Q. Most SRM researchers focus on optimizing the scheduler, but I think it’s most important to optimize…
A. Emotional connection to the review session and its contents
My Patreon post elaborating this topic: “Skip”: exponential-backoff deferral mechanisms and fuzzy inboxes | Andy Matuschak on Patreon