Conversation

Hypothesis: The red zone is for "note-taking" (as traditionally understood) - not particularly useful for learning and application The yellow to green zone is for "note-making" (per

@NickMilo

/ #zettelkasten) - it's how you construct knowledge to be deeply and flexibly applied

Quote Tweet

Ethan Mollick

@emollick

Jul 8

If you want to learn how to learn, these two charts are where you should start. They are the result of a large meta-analysis of study techniques. You should skip the highlighting, summarizing, and rereading. Instead, practice, quiz & explain. Open paper: journals.sagepub.com/stoken/rbtfl/Z

Show this thread

Replying to

and

Haha this is the famous paper. Hard agree on this.

Replying to

and

He did his best to make sense of it. Yet I'm surprised why people I respect try to speculate on top of whoever pseudo science when science in this field is open, free, recent, verified and abundant.

Joel Chan

| joelchan86@hci.social

Replying to

and

I don't quite follow what you are saying here: can you elaborate? What are you referring to as pseudoscience vs. science?

Replying to

and

1) successful #pkm course vendors are more marketing people than scientists. They take an insight and turn it into a keystone of science. No evidence, no research. We should stay very cirsconspect. 2) "metaresearch" is just another name for a patchwork of secondary research.

Joel Chan

| joelchan86@hci.social

Replying to

and

Understood re: (1), thanks! Though not-science != not valuable. I do like

@ejames_c

's metric of believability for getting value: commoncog.com/blog/believabi Don't follow (2): did you mean meta-analysis? OP was that, not meta-research, which is diff. but also valuable IMO!

commoncog.com

Believability

Technique summary of Ray Dalio's Believability.

Replying to

My philosophy is more based on doubt than belief :) Let's go for metaanalysis, did you read it? I scanned it. We are going backward in Learning science if we follow this reasoning.

Joel Chan

| joelchan86@hci.social

Replying to

Doubt less, rather than believe more? :) I didn't read it! Now that I have, I see I was mistaken: it wasn't a meta-analysis, but a narrative/critical review w/o specific methods for systematicity. Separately, curious what new developments you find compelling?

Replying to

Good god, are you telling me that it’s NOT a meta-analysis? This is the second time I’ve read something by Ethan where he gets the fundamental results wrong (the other one was his thread on coffee, which was horribly done) I think I need to mute him.

12:15 AM · Jul 10, 2022Twitter Web App

Replying to

(I clicked through. It’s not a meta-analysis. Wtf.)

Joel Chan

| joelchan86@hci.social

Replying to

Yeah... :/ The paper itself is actually quite good! Perhaps *because* it's not a meta-analysis, it does a better job of imparting a "map" you can work with! Noting key "seminal" studies, foci and open problems, theories, contextual variation and wrinkles, etc.

Replying to

Fair, I’m just bothered that Mollick so confidently states it’s a meta-analysis. A researcher that doesn’t care about the precise accuracy of terms rings alarm bells for me.

Show replies

Replying to

Look I’ll be honest… I retweet or like his content somewhat frequently. I read it less frequently. I do this for two reasons: To look smart (unsure if it works). To save it for later, so its easier for me to find. I should put more rigour into my tweets I guess