The use of spaced repetition memory systems has changed my life over the past couple of years. Here's a few things I've found helpful:
-
Show this thread
-
I've memorized about 9,000 cards, over 2 years.
5 replies 3 retweets 78 likesShow this thread -
The single biggest change is that memory is no longer a haphazard event, to be left to chance. Rather, I can guarantee I will remember something, with minimal effort: it makes memory a _choice_.
5 replies 20 retweets 227 likesShow this thread -
Rule of thumb: if memorizing something will likely save me five minutes in the future, into the spaced repetion system it goes. The expected lifetime review time is less than five minutes, i.e., it takes < 5 minutes to learn something... forever.
3 replies 16 retweets 176 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @michael_nielsen
that rule of thumb originates with
@gwern [https://www.gwern.net/Spaced-repetition#how-much-to-add …] by the way1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WonkaWasRight @michael_nielsen
I think I got it from http://SuperMemo.com .
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gwern @WonkaWasRight
It's pretty likely I got it from SuperMemo. Ironically, I don't remember. But then, I didn't put the source in Anki...
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Incidentally, a few months ago I checked the rule of thumb, based on my average card review time, frequency of correctness statistics, and Anki's spacing algorithm. It came out to around 2-3 mins for an average card, based on reasonable multi-year extrapolations.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @michael_nielsen @WonkaWasRight
Good that you checked. I figured it was right from eyeballing my own Mnemosyne time stats as well but didn't calculate it out or anything.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @gwern @WonkaWasRight
I needed to do some extrapolation of long-term failure rates (since I don't have data, for the obvious reason), so don't take the number too seriously. It was a check to see that the number was in the right ballpark.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Basically, the problem with long-term failure rates is that it seems likely to me that Ebbinghaus/Leitner/etc type decay models get pretty wonky in the tail. If I review after 2 years, get a Q right, does that mean I shouldn't see the Q again for 5 years? Etc.
-
-
Replying to @michael_nielsen @WonkaWasRight
Probably shouldn't. The Mnemosyne dataset goes back over a decade at this point, and multi-year followups have been done, so I figure any serious misfit would be noticed by now. And if you aren't naturally exposed to any recall over decades, how important really could it be?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @gwern @WonkaWasRight
You have vastly more confidence than I in what questions are carefully studied & answered. As to the natural exposure question, part of the point (for me) is to use the ideas as creative stimulus, so having access to infrequently used ideas is a +.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes - 8 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.