How does interesting and original work compare to AI-generated and most human-generated material? Maybe we could say rather than being merely plausible that it is surprising in plausible ways.
Exactly. Spaced repetition is a remarkably effective learning technique, but it can't tell you what to learn.
At some point I think we have to stop listening to external authorities and rely on our own judgement about what to learn, and how to do so, as signalled by feelings of excitement about particular authors and ideas. One of the effects of formal education is to dampen or corrupt that intuition, e.g. by instilling the desire to learn things 'properly' (say in a certain prearranged sequence) or by the desire to only learn prestigious topics in order to impress other people.
If we are engaged meaningfully with reality we will inevitably revisit particular subjects or authors multiple times. This is an organic form of spaced repetition. Forgetting certain things is part of that: we learn to swim during the winter and to skate during the summer.
I'm coming to wonder if tools like Anki are even detrimental for most learning tasks. Because SRS is built around rote memorizing a bunch of isolated factoids, while the most important part of mastering most subjects is not memorizing facts, it's learning interactions and patterns that let you make use of those facts.
Like, imagine if someone learning to program put a huge amount of their effort into using flashcards to memorize the functions in their preferred language's standard library. I think most people would agree that this person is wasting their time because IDE tooling and Internet searches make it really easy to look up that information on an as-needed basis. So the real effort should be put into learning skills like domain modeling or how to read and debug code.
I think that the same principle might apply to most subjects. Even in language learning, one of the places where SRS is most popular. Academics seem to be pretty skeptical of using any sort of flashcarding to learn vocabulary. In part because the empirical evidence doesn't actually seem to support it, and in part on theoretical grounds. The contemporary model for how the brain models language is fundamentally connectionist. Definitions and lemmas aren't something we naturally memorize as a list of facts and then plug into a grammar, which is why native speakers often have difficulty reciting conjugation tables or defining words.
I think that formal education's tendency toward representing subjects as lists of factoids is fundamentally another manifestation of the McNamara Fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McNamara_fallacy). As long as educators have a mandate to (ostensibly) objectively quantify students' progress with grades and scores, they will have a need to represent the subject manner in a manner that permits easy quantification. And they will have to do so regardless of whether it actually makes sense to do so for whatever subject they're teaching.
I can anecdotally support the criticism of Anki / SRS for language learning, at least as far as rote word definition memorization goes.
While learning Thai -- which is a difficult language already -- I continually struggled with word definitions that should have been easy. How hard is it to remember the words for the various parts of your head and body? With just word definitions, apparently, it's really, really hard.
But then I supplemented this with other tools. One teaches a few words, then throw those words into full phrases in little quizlets. You pick out the written phrase which you think matches the spoken phrase. It always includes one or some of the words you've learned. It puts the words in context, cementing the definition, teaching you grammar, and "foreshadowing" new words. It's skyrocketed my retention and comprehension.
Pictures also help. Children's books with audio narrating are huge.
I guess my point is, Anki with word definitions alone is definitely garbage, or less than ideal at best. Which is why most language learning resources stress that it alone isn't enough - and most learning resources who push Anki (or SRS in general) don't say "do only this." It's part of a balanced breakfast, so to speak. Incorporate it into your workflow, but don't make it the workflow.
So, here's where it gets wild: a couple years ago I stumbled across a study with two treatment groups. The first group was just given graded readers targeting certain vocabulary, and was asked to read them as much as they like. The second was given the same graded readers, but also asked to use flashcards to review the target vocabulary.
So, the flashcard group was just using flashcards as a supplement to extensive reading.
Well, at the end of the treatment period, both groups had the same vocabulary retention. But a couple months later they tested again, and the "no flashcards" group had better retention of the target vocabulary. And not by a small amount, either.
That is super interesting. Do you happen to have a link still? I'd love to learn more. I wonder how applicable it is to learning new languages as opposed to new words in a native / near-native language.
I don't; I usually don't bother to save links to SLA papers because it's not my field of study and my Zotero is already cluttered enough as it is.
It's not terribly hard to find examples of second language acquisition researchers expressing skepticism about flashcarding, though. I don't necessarily find all of it universally convincing (if I did, I wouldn't have 99 reviews left to do today in my 中文 deck), but I do have to admit that a lot of the evidence people claim in support of using spaced repetition systems for language learning has the look of pseudoscience. It largely consists of taking some very limited, tightly focused lab studies, and massively over-extrapolating from them.
But I wouldn't want to over-extrapolate from the studies that claim flashcarding doesn't help, either. The protocols often focus on a very minimalist implementation of flashcarding that's easy to study. Or the protocol is really designed to test some theory about how memory works and not some theory about study strategy. (This second example describes basically all of Ebbinghaus's work, by the way.) One could easily argue, for example, that using a flashcarding application to rote memorize a pre-made deck of words and phrases that somebody else chose is a fundamentally different practice from sentence mining your input materials.
> Academics seem to be pretty skeptical of using any sort of flashcarding to learn vocabulary ... the empirical evidence doesn't actually seem to support it
What does this refer to? Generally I've referenced the Improving Students’ Learning review by Dunlosky et. al. [0] to see what is supported by the literature. The two techniques listed there as having 'high' utility -- Practice testing and Distributed practice -- are most easily accessible through usage of SRS-based flashcards.
Yes, a minority of people (less than 2%) have Hashimoto's Thyroditis, some without knowing about it, and a large dose of iodine could cause damage to their thyroid, I think through some sort of auto-immune process. The selenium helps prevent that.
It's a shame because the remaining 98% could get a lot of benefit and (setting aside the above) iodine is supposed to be the least toxic pure element. In the past Lugol's iodine was used as an antiseptic to put on cuts so I guess a fair amount got absorbed that way.
The manual was bundled with the cassette or disc, and it states in the 'Docking Procedure' section:
Approach the final moments of docking at DEAD SLOW SPEED
However this is dead wrong! If you put some speed on before entering the 'letterbox' you're actually far less likely to crash, unrealistic though this may be. It's perfectly possible to dock successfully at full speed. Try it out here:
