|
|
|
|
|
|
by Koshkin
1544 days ago
|
|
|
When encountering a new concept (a definition, a theorem) memorization is more important than understanding. Yes, you can spend time trying to crack the meaning, but you won’t unless you spend enough time contemplating examples and trying to imagine counter-examples. It’s a struggle. A more efficient way of gaining understanding is, first, to have things you do not (yet) fully understand memorized to the letter, and then use this to do exercises and solve problems. Only then you can more or less fully appreciate the concept, its raison d'être, and why it is formulated the way it is; no amount of explaining on the part of the instructor can be as helpful as your own practice actually using the thing. |
|
|
I tend to use the term "contextual recall" rather than the term "memorization", since the former emphasizes that it's okay to rely on a combination of memorization and pithy resources.
Hand anatomy is the best example I can think of. A good diagram can help you recall enough information to answer complex questions that would otherwise require an incredible amount of memorization. You still need to memorize some things in order to answer questions -- mostly the kinematic aspects and various properties of the things being represented (tendons, bones, muscle, etc.) -- but far less than you would need otherwise.
The one pager of theorems and proof construction techniques sometimes allowed in mathematics courses is another example.
This is why generative models are exciting as the next "tool for thought" for me, up there with calculators and search engines. Contextual recall is a powerful tool, especially when combined with memorization, and is a limiter for lots of folks (including me).