←back to thread

Spaced repetition systems have gotten better

(domenic.me)
673 points domenicd | 1 comments | 18 May 25 11:42 UTC | HN request time: 0.205s | source
Show context
bearjaws ◴[18 May 25 12:34 UTC] No.44020922[source]▶
Spaced repetition has been all the rage for 20 years now.

Dozens of apps, thousands of lectures, and it turns out its not really a silver bullet.

There's nothing really wrong with it, it's just that people tend to fall off the same way they do on any other education pattern.

A couple years ago I was thinking "If Google and Apple really cared about kids they would make a spaced repetition unlock system", where by you have to make note cards every week and then have to answer correctly to get into your phone. (obviously requires some bypass system, other rules, etc)

You could probably jury rig it with a popup that comes up after you unlock, but people would never install it anyway.

replies(11): >>44020936 #>>44020982 #>>44021067 #>>44021102 #>>44021143 #>>44021340 #>>44021407 #>>44022192 #>>44022229 #>>44022370 #>>44022435 #
Alex-Programs ◴[18 May 25 13:09 UTC] No.44021143[source]▶
Spaced repetition is time-optimised, but it isn't self-discipline optimised, nor motivation-optimised. If you're limited by time, it's very efficient, but it drains motivation. If you're anywhere close to being limited by motivation (or, failing that, self-discipline), it just causes burnout and failure.

I credit Anki to my success at GCSEs and A Levels despite having a head injury, and I also credit it to me burning out so hard I took a gap year!

And I'm enjoying the gap year, but Anki made it a near necessity.

replies(5): >>44021387 #>>44021413 #>>44021433 #>>44022280 #>>44022636 #
maximus-decimus ◴[18 May 25 13:50 UTC] No.44021413[source]▶
I don't understand, wouldn't it be worse for motivation to take longer to achieve the same results?
replies(3): >>44021488 #>>44021823 #>>44021904 #
avemuri ◴[18 May 25 14:01 UTC] No.44021488[source]▶
Motivation is some combination of real and perceived effort Vs expected reward. Shorter isn't always better. For eg. Counting every single calorie is the shorter way to lose weight, but for most people, eating approximately healthy is more optimal from an effort /motivation poi t of view.
replies(1): >>44022234 #
1. dkarl ◴[18 May 25 15:50 UTC] No.44022234[source]▶
I think both have a place. When someone is starting for the first time, they're enthusiastic, but they haven't built faith in the process yet. It's easy for them to lose confidence if they're putting in work but the results are slow or ambiguous. I think it's best to take advantage of their beginner's enthusiasm and kick them off with something higher effort that is guaranteed to show them clear results. After they build confidence they can settle in to something lower effort (aka "more sustainable") where the benefit is longer-term and you don't see dramatic results every week.