#SRS #anki #learning
One failure mode of this process is if you Ankify misleading work. Many papers contain wrong or misleading statements.
(...)
As an example, let me describe how I Ankified a paper I recently read, by the economists Benjamin Jones and Bruce Weinberg. The paper studies the ages at which scientists make their greatest discoveries.
(...)
One of the questions I added to Anki was: “What does Jones 2011 claim is the average age at which physics Nobelists made their prizewinning discovery, over 1980-2011?” (Answer: 48). Another variant question was: “Which paper claimed that physics Nobelists made their prizewinning discovery at average age 48, over the period 1980-2011?” (Answer: Jones 2011). And so on.
Such questions qualify the underlying claim: we now know it was a claim made in Jones 2011, and that we're relying on the quality of Jones and Weinberg's data analysis. In fact, I haven't examined that analysis carefully enough to regard it as a fact that the average age of those Nobelists is 48. But it is certainly a fact that their paper claimed it was 48. Those are different things, and the latter is better to Ankify.
If you want to change selection, open document below and click on "Move attachment"
Augmenting Long-term Memoryfeel much connection to those questions. Put another way: if a paper is so uninteresting that it's not possible to add 5 good questions about it, it's usually better to add no questions at all. <span>One failure mode of this process is if you Ankify** I.e., enter into Anki. Also useful are forms such as Ankification etc. misleading work. Many papers contain wrong or misleading statements, and if you commit such items to memory, you're actively making yourself stupider. How to avoid Ankifying misleading work? As an example, let me describe how I Ankified a paper I recently read, by the economists Benjamin Jones and Bruce Weinberg** Benjamin F. Jones and Bruce A. Weinberg, Age Dynamics in Scientific Creativity , Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (2011).. The paper studies the ages at which scientists make their greatest discoveries. I should say at the outset: I have no reason to think this paper is misleading! But it's also worth being cautious. As an example of that caution, one of the questions I added to Anki was: “What does Jones 2011 claim is the average age at which physics Nobelists made their prizewinning discovery, over 1980-2011?” (Answer: 48). Another variant question was: “Which paper claimed that physics Nobelists made their prizewinning discovery at average age 48, over the period 1980-2011?” (Answer: Jones 2011). And so on. Such questions qualify the underlying claim: we now know it was a claim made in Jones 2011, and that we're relying on the quality of Jones and Weinberg's data analysis. In fact, I haven't examined that analysis carefully enough to regard it as a fact that the average age of those Nobelists is 48. But it is certainly a fact that their paper claimed it was 48. Those are different things, and the latter is better to Ankify. If I'm particularly concerned about the quality of the analysis, I may add one or more questions about what makes such work difficult, e.g.: “What's one challenge in determining the age Summary
| status | not read | | reprioritisations | |
|---|
| last reprioritisation on | | | suggested re-reading day | |
|---|
| started reading on | | | finished reading on | |
|---|
Details