Live data from Hacker News

In Praise of Memorization

pearlleff.com

111–120 of 152 posts

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a similar view as a kid, driven mostly by the fact that I wasn't very good at memorisation. I found that I could get by in maths without it, eg. deriving the quadratic formula by completing the square rather than memorising it. I didn't value memory much as a tool in maths. After having studied maths and physics at university and worked as a programmer in a mathematical field for 20 years (and studied much more…

> I had a similar view as a kid, driven mostly by the fact that I wasn't very good at memorisation. I found that I could get by in maths without it, eg. deriving the quadratic formula by completing the square rather than memorising it. I didn't value memory much as a tool in maths. Isn't the structure of the school curriculum also at fault here? If concepts like the quadratic formula being presented without context o…

From my personal experience, I find that schools often fail to prepare their top students because the exercises meant to teach you how to work hard for real this time are still passable with a last-minute cram session by the fastest students. By the time the assignments are actually too long to be crammed, it's often well past the safety of K–12 education.

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#112
post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have dyslexia (specifically a weakness in memory) and agree with everything you say. When not armed with a decent computer I can use as a crutch for my memory I'm noticeably weaker at critical thinking given the time spent recollecting fundamentals.

What software do you use? I have a poor memory and heavily used Notational Velocity as an external brain, but it's Mac only and I'm looking for alternatives.

Speaking for myself, vimwiki notes I review somewhat regularly.

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#113
post #13

In University I had a prof that gave us 600 facts at the start of the year. All printed and easy to read. Each class we went over a few of them. He said if you mastered 100% you'd get 100% on the exam. He would pick from the lot and that's the exam question. His reasoning was. These are the basics, we were all smart, and we could use the basics to go beyond them. But only if we had them. 20+ years later and I still r…

what were the facts?

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Curious, I've learned English to a nearly native level without memorizing a single word.

How does one learn a language without committing it to memory (the meaning of memorizing).

One doesn't, but there is a clear distinction between attempting to learn a language by memorizing its words and grammar, and learning it through context.

To actually understand a language in the same way we understand our native language, we cannot learn the language by memorizing the meanings of words and treating each sentence like a logic puzzle to be solved.

Practical knowledge of language is largely tacit.

A native speaker does not need to know what tense a word is in to use them, they do not even need to understand what a verb is. Explicit grammatical understanding can help us reason about a language, but it is not necessary to learn it.

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#115
post #105

Disclaimer: Anecdata. I volunteer tutor high school kids in my local community. Particularly math and history. The biggest differentiator between the students who scale up quickly and those who scale up a bit more slowly is their aptitude for memorization. Recent history curricula and pedagogy in HS has placed an emphasis on “analysis” and “critical thinking.” But the students who struggle all struggle for the same r…

>The biggest differentiator between the students who scale up quickly and those who scale up a bit more slowly is their aptitude for memorization.... >But the students who struggle all struggle for the same reason: they cannot remember at the moment of writing their paper the basic facts that give context or even give meaning to the documents they are to analyze. It sounds like what you're describing isn't about stud…

It substantially comes down to the amount of language practice those students have had over the years, starting from listening to large amounts of varied material (from conversations/books read aloud) as young children, and then from reading a wide variety of material. The kids who read, and read, and read (especially those who have someone discuss with them the meaning and structure of what they are reading, hearing, or experiencing) learn these skills to great fluency. The kids who don’t, don’t.

Some kids live in households where they listen to thousands of books by age 5 or 6, including not only stories of increasing complexity but also natural history, biography, science, technology, ..., and other kids never get that kind of attention or experience, and end up far behind in those skills.

The ability to “memorize” (i.e. learn) rests on a vast subconscious structure built up by fitting together language, starting from little bits and pieces of vocabulary, and building to subtle understandings of complicated ideas.

The way to train it is by giving the little neural net of the brain as much meaningful input as possible about the relevant parts of the world, and letting the brain fit them together in a web of connections. Not by trying to practice/drill rote trivia (say, reciting state capitals or the multiplication table).

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#116

I've never regarded memorization highly. Whenever we had to learn the times tables or the squares at school, I would just work them out in my head instead of memorizing them. Of course, I still ended up learning the squares and the times tables by heart, but not because I actively memorized them, but because I just used them so much that I couldn't help but remember them eventually. I'm of the opinion that this leads…

I had a similar view as a kid, driven mostly by the fact that I wasn't very good at memorisation. I found that I could get by in maths without it, eg. deriving the quadratic formula by completing the square rather than memorising it. I didn't value memory much as a tool in maths. After having studied maths and physics at university and worked as a programmer in a mathematical field for 20 years (and studied much more…

> After having studied maths and physics at university and worked as a programmer in a mathematical field for 20 years (and studied much more maths in my spare time), I now see my poor recall as the limiting factor in my abilities in maths.

Same story here. Undergrad engineering math curriculum came easy to me, and it stuck as it was our bread and butter (calculus + diff eq). Once I got to grad level courses, the frequency with which we would utilize the material elsewhere dropped dramatically, and the net effect of that was I could never recall the topics until I needed them.

The next problem was even more significant: If I took even higher level courses, they relied on knowledge of the material I took in one of those prior courses that had not been burnt into memory, and may have taken 2+ years prior. The only reason I did poorly was because I had not memorized enough of the prior material.

On my own, I studied/reviewed the undergrad statistics course 3 times over many years and it never stuck. Finally, in 2018 I used spaced repetition to memorize much of the material, and over 3 years later I can still read material that utilizes those statistics and understand what I'm reading.

Memorizing is useful for things you don't use often.

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#117

Disclaimer: Anecdata. I volunteer tutor high school kids in my local community. Particularly math and history. The biggest differentiator between the students who scale up quickly and those who scale up a bit more slowly is their aptitude for memorization. Recent history curricula and pedagogy in HS has placed an emphasis on “analysis” and “critical thinking.” But the students who struggle all struggle for the same r…

If we're slinging anecdata around I may as well offer mine up as a long-underperforming student that also somehow took night classes at college for software when I was 11 years old.

The teachers may force the kids to memorize, but that doesn't mean it does them any good in the long run. I met tons of kids that memorized mathematics from 8 to 13 years of age in Canada. I struggled badly with fractions when I was 8 years old. The fact that there wasn't one canonical representation broke my little brain. Before in mathematics you could always "keep going until you were done" and the number looked like 1.75 and that was it. Now you could stop at 14/8 or 1 6/8 or 1 3/4 or 7/4 or even 1.75 again! And sometimes they made me round it all the way up to 175/100 instead! Madness!

But unlike the kids in my class that seemingly did better than me in grade 4 while I was wasting my time trying to make this slippery math reliable I naturally ended up memorizing little gems like 7/2 being 3 and 1/2 because I kept at doing the actual work over and over again until my brain remembered it for its own sake. I'm not fighting my brain and trying to squash stuff that I don't care about into it, I'm letting it make the tradeoff as to what to memorize and what to keep as I keep doing the work over and over again.

By grade 6 (age 11, same time I started college) I was starting to wonder why we hadn't learned anything in a couple years in math. When you understand the building blocks or "first principles" so well, what looks to be a new lesson (the area of triangles!) barely registers because it's such a basic application of what you've already learned before. By grade 8 (age 13) I was actually complaining that we'd barely made any progress in 5 years of education. I believe my exact words were "we've basically learned nothing other than maybe the Pythagorean theorem" and I still mostly believe that.

When it comes to things like science, computer science, visual (ie, non-statistical) mathematics, and probably economics, physics, optics, and some areas of statistical mathematics we could probably move 3x as fast if we would just really hammer home the first principles until we were absolutely sure they were sticking.

We don't let babies fill containers with soup because they haven't demonstrated that they understand what a hole is and does. I feel like too often we force children to remember that 3*7 is 21 without really making sure they understand multiplication. The key to getting a child to really learn something isn't by jumping to intentional memorization. Not with mathematics, anyway. The key is to get them to reason about it and to practice over and over again. Not to memorize, but to understand and though knowledge and understanding are different things, understanding always comes with some knowledge though the reverse is not necessarily the case.

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#118

Disclaimer: Anecdata. I volunteer tutor high school kids in my local community. Particularly math and history. The biggest differentiator between the students who scale up quickly and those who scale up a bit more slowly is their aptitude for memorization. Recent history curricula and pedagogy in HS has placed an emphasis on “analysis” and “critical thinking.” But the students who struggle all struggle for the same r…

Perhaps that explains why Indian and Chinese secondary education can perform so well for their top students: even if they emphasize memorization rather than critical thinking, at the end of the day they can still pick up the latter without suffering from the former.

Re: In Praise of Memorization

#120

Disclaimer: Anecdata. I volunteer tutor high school kids in my local community. Particularly math and history. The biggest differentiator between the students who scale up quickly and those who scale up a bit more slowly is their aptitude for memorization. Recent history curricula and pedagogy in HS has placed an emphasis on “analysis” and “critical thinking.” But the students who struggle all struggle for the same r…

On the other hand, a good memorization skill must not necessarily mean you come to the right conclusions. Your sources, peers, genetics and a mind that is by nature chaotic, do it's part.

For example, having good memory may lead you to become more arrogant. If other people praise you for your skill, you become so confident in your conclusions that you stop questioning them and rather see confirmation in an echo chamber of sources.

This arrogance is the source of much evil, I think. You see it a lot in politicians and management.

Post reply on HN