The building blocks of understanding are memorization and repetition

My latest hack is to return to paper and pencil. After going paperless about a decade ago, re-wiring these particular neural pathways is quite an obstacle in itself. But in terms of retention and creative flow it is unparalleled. I bring it up because I think the foundation for the memorization and repetition feedback cycle begins with elementary school lessons in handwriting, cursive, the alphabet and spelling. And then onto basic arithmetic and mathematics. The idea that "digital native" students would eschew hours of rote hand writing practice altogether puts humanity in danger of losing something elemental.

Everyone has their own roadblocks when it comes to learning. Looking at my understanding of programming I realize I have put too much an effort on self-study (rote memorization) and not enough emphasis on interaction (especially with people).

As a child I was always able to memorize something- whether it be classical music, or formulas. However, the deeper connections in learning that allow you to proceed outside of your box come from something else. True understanding is greater than the sum of it's parts.

I like the adage- see one, do one, teach one. Memorization is a requisite for all of them, but true understanding and mastery comes when you're able to take abstract concepts and impart them to other people.

No matter where you are the easiest way to benchmark your competency is to share it with someone else. They don't even need to be an expert, after all- it doesn't take a air traffic controller to see that a plane's landing gear isn't down.

Didn't this turn out a bit of a straw man? As far as I understand, she advocates an understanding of the concepts complemented by some appropriate type of repetition.

There is also a third concept: That of imagining. She speaks specifically of one equation in classical mechanics, which she played around with in her mind until it became second nature.

Of course, this is based on her experience. It appeals to me based on my own experience, yet it isn't a showcasing of scientific rigour within pedagogics.

> at the end of the day, it inherits the attributes, methods and behavior, of the "muscle" class

Really, it inherits from the general "biological system" class, of which "muscle" is the common subclass referenced, since it's the one most people have familiarity in utilizing.

The differentiation of "muscle" from other "biological system" classes is entirely unrelated to the "use-it-or-lose-it" feature, however, and your subclassing is inappropriate.

While this seems like being pedantic, I'd argue it's important to know when we're using a member to exemplify a class versus when we're talking about the definition of a class.

The same use-it-or-lose-it applies to everything from lung capacity to stomach size to hormone production by organs, and is a good principle to know about how biology works. The emphasis on "muscle" as the class (rather than an exemplifying member) hides this underlying truth about all biological systems -- that they dynamically adapt to efficiency.

> You'd be wasting your time trying to get a deep understanding of the Russian phrase, but there's a reason to do it with the mathematical phrase.

I think you're simply wrong here.

You're not talking about the amount of conceptual depth underlying it, you're talking about the relative delta in the conceptual structures between languages you already know and the language you're learning.

On the whole, the Russian phrase has greater conceptual depth; however, Russian is closer to English than mathematics is, and thus you get greater conceptual transfer between your knowledge of English and Russian than your knowledge of English and mathematics, so more of your past experience remains relevant.

In essence, I have something like 36-72k hours considering semantically equivalent statements to the Russian one in English, while I have something like 5-10k hours of studying mathematical statements at all.

Your comment just amounts to saying that having 6x as much practice at task A as task B makes task A relatively easier, which, while true, isn't perhaps as profound as you'd meant it.

Consider this: the entire field of academic inquiry containing Euler's identity is fundamentally an effort to fully understand "I went to the store".