[jey]

Strange. I don't get anything out of memorizing data and just find it to be an extremely difficult chore. I prefer to understand things on a conceptual level. I don't see how it's valid as a "mental exercise"; we could have you memorize some arbitrary sequence of digits. We could also have you spend the rest of eternity rolling a rock up a hill a la Sisyphus.

I think the conclusion is just that you and I have learning styles that work very differently.

[ant5]

Strange. I don't get anything out of memorizing data and just find it to be an extremely difficult chore.

It's not "data", it's Shakespeare. Memorizing and reciting Shakespeare is quite a bit different than doing the same with an arbitrary sequence of digits.

We could also have you spend the rest of eternity rolling a rock up a hill a la Sisyphus.

We could, and while it the first few weeks might teach me some lessons in Zen, it's still not the same thing as Shakespeare.

I think the conclusion is just that you and I have learning styles that work very differently.

I don't think that's really the conclusion.

[jey]

Your assertion is that memorizing to recite helps with comprehension? I don't understand that at all.

[ant5]

It's pretty difficult to commit that much text to memory without reading it inside and out. Comprehending it also makes it considerably easier to remember it.

Seems like you just want to be contrary here, but have never actually spent time remembering and reciting spoken word.

[tkahn6]

I don't think you're understanding his point.

Regardless of the content or meaning of any text, you can memorize it without understanding it. Memorizing may be a proxy for understanding it (you have to read it over and over again), but it is not the same process at all. If you can recite Godel's incompleteness theorem verbatim from memory, does it mean you understand it? Similarly, you can memorize verbatim the Wikipedia article on String Theory, but does it mean you understand it? All you have committed to memory are the words which are pointers to concepts and places and bodies of knowledge (among other things), but unless you understand what those words mean (unless you dereference those pointers), the text is meaningless and opaque. Having memorized X lines from anything is a 'cool' feat to some people, but it's an entirely orthogonal endeavor from understanding what the text means.

Edit: Also, just because someone repeatedly disagrees with you, it does not mean they 'just want to be contrary'.

[ant5]

Having memorized X lines from anything is a 'cool' feat to some people, but it's an entirely orthogonal endeavor from understanding what the text means.

I hold that there's an understanding to be found in Shakespeare in both memorizing and reciting it, and that it impacts you in a far more lasting way than merely studying it.

Would you admit that writing a paper about a passage is more likely to result in your recollection of the meaning of a passage?

What about spending a week after school memorizing that passage? It is also likely to engender that level of recollection and comprehension?

It did, for me. I remember the Queen Mab speech to this day, and that memory seared into my brain serves as the anchor point for many additional recollections I have of studying Shakespeare. I don't have the same level of recollection for any other books I studied in school, from Heart of Darkness to Catcher in the Rye.

Edit: Also, just because someone repeatedly disagrees with you, it does not mean they 'just want to be contrary'.

Given that I'm effectively arguing in favor of my personal experience, and the individual in question has none to draw from and is merely extrapolating from off-the-cuff opinion, I'd say they're just being contrary.

[tkahn6]

The main point I'm trying to make is that one _can_ memorize something and not understand what it means. And one can understand something without having memorized it verbatim. If you accept this, then it follows that memorization and understanding are orthogonal.

One can memorize something and not understand it. One can understand something and not have it memorized. This is not a subjective claim. Memorizing may have helped you understand, but objectively (if you follow the previous logic), it's not a necessary component of understanding.

and the individual in question has none to draw from and is merely extrapolating from off-the-cuff opinion

I don't see how you can draw that conclusion.