Casual thoughts about memory and our misconceptions about it, based on the last few weeks of seeing a LOT of lay mental models about memory and cognition:

- it is well known in the psychological and cognitive sciences that memory is not like a man-made recording device. Your memory is not a tape recorder, or analogous to computer memory. Nevertheless people will insist on constantly using computer metaphors for memory. Just know this is widely regarded as inaccurate

in reply to Dr. Cat Hicks

- a key principle of much of the memory that we're concerned with in casual conversations (how we learn, retrieve information for large and complex tasks, "meaning" memory) is that we store information in relationship with the previous information and organization of our memories. Over and over, research has found that we are much more "active" participants in this process rather than "passive recorders"
in reply to Dr. Cat Hicks

With this knowledge in hand, we start to understand illusions of learning, e.g.:

"Conscientiously taking verbatim notes or reading to-be-learned content over, if it is done in a passive way, is not an efficient way to learn"

- Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques, and illusions. Annual review of psychology, 64(1), 417-444.

in reply to Dr. Cat Hicks

@edutooters

No matter what level educator you are, this thread has some important reminders on learning.

mastodon.social/@grimalkina/11…


Casual thoughts about memory and our misconceptions about it, based on the last few weeks of seeing a LOT of lay mental models about memory and cognition:

- it is well known in the psychological and cognitive sciences that memory is not like a man-made recording device. Your memory is not a tape recorder, or analogous to computer memory. Nevertheless people will insist on constantly using computer metaphors for memory. Just know this is widely regarded as inaccurate


in reply to Dr. Cat Hicks

My favorite quick example of this is this simple game:

"Hey computer, here's twenty random things. Memorize them."
"Okay."
"Recite them forwards."
"Okay."
"Recite them backwards."
(flips the sign of one counter increment) "Okay."

"... hey human, here's twenty random things. Memorize them."
"Okay."
"Recite them forwards."
"Okay."
"Recite them backwards."
head explodes

People can train themselves to be better at this, but most people don't have sequence-flipping of unpatterned data come naturally to them, and with computers it's almost exactly as easy as forward readout.

in reply to Dr. Cat Hicks

And of course the computational theory of mind has achieved a pretty dominant position in philosophy of mind. Since the Enlightenment and the ascendence of scientism we homo sapiens have had a weakness for interpreting things through the framework of our shiniest, most advanced technology. A few hundred years ago the universe was thought of as a great clockwork. Today we understand things as computers. We keep making the same mistakes, don't we?
This entry was edited (1 day ago)
in reply to Dr. Cat Hicks

I really found the historical perspective on this (i.e. technology serves as the metaphor for intelligence) fascinating: aeon.co/essays/your-brain-does…

In Our Own Image (2015) by George Zarkadakis is a great read as well.

in reply to Dr. Cat Hicks

"the Mandela effect" should be an opportunity to explore how fallible human memory is, and how it can interact with group dynamics, leading to things like widespread memories of events that never happened. Instead it's a basis for people who are certain their memories are 100% digitally accurate to unmoor themselves from reality and start rambling about parallel universes while fashioning tinfoil hats for themselves.