That's very insightful!
Learning by Doing
cant believe this article didnt contain google en passant joke :O
Wtf is this? Pls keep some dignity, liechess, drop the rubbish blogs
everybody wants to rule the world
I actually felt this lost of long term memory intuitively a couple of times. Now I pair my game reports with chessable. I have courses of my blunders and openings, so I can get quizzed on the critical moves using the spaced repetition technique and get better at not making the same mistake twice.
> the additional attentional and cognitive processes engaged by this focused activity can eliminate the photo-taking-impairment effect.
I actually read the whole thing, but not the references. It all made sense to me. And I am glad your posted it here. We need more bridging of cognitive sciences to chess learning reminders. And long term memory has its own quirks of digestion. Also, we evolved in locomotion. As a joke, hand waving really helps the thinking. (kind of a nearby theme).
I noticed some sharing of time scales... First 14 days, and then perhaps with some other memory task concern or object of memorization nature, it was 1 day or 2. I am curious about the state of knowledge or questions in cognitive science into quantifying population time scales like that. If that is even possible given all the possible noise factors that experiments combining those factors mentions in your blog, and then timing experiments.
I guess the difficulty of the information to rationally understand or accept (say, just a SF score versus, the consequences at some remote position of the move choice, with some critical points along the way that de visu exposure with active engagement (the goal idea, and the action idea both about attention intensity control, i would say), might also be a factor in those experiments..
Thanks for this self-contained presentation. Both the ideas from the source of new information, how they had empirical basis (not just saying it had, but giving some sense of their serious rational validity), and bridging back to our common topic of interest. It was well done.
went hunting using google. but not for direct stuff. went through semantic scholar too. looking for public accessible recent papers. and one got my increased attention as potentially juicy about this topic. I share it, in case it helps, anyone. It cites a 2016 paper simply called Cognitive offloading pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27542527/
I thought i would dive into a more recent to be aware of more new things and debates still going on. Thanks for that new word, I have had to deal myself a lot with that notion, and dilemma about current understanding of what is being presented (its intrinsic complexity, given my prior knowledge). I think hunting and fast reading on the web to cern and discern hard concepts might be about a dialog between offloading and not about what smells relevant for future digging into, but also because there is a possibility that it might not be relevant as appearing, so, one keeps going. I think this might be the difference between thinking chess is just about performance in some game, and actually studying to understand chess. Both task are present in most chess player, i would assume. but the priorities might differ. But this might be off topic. I guess it might depend how fast one want to become effective, that might shape the nature of what to be memorized. one can memorise a ROT and win more games, and just get the SF report of a blunder somewhere, without needing own rationale about why SF gave such score. And that would be effective given the priority. Does that affect the conclusions. Has the nature of memory task or its intrinsic difficulty of how can i say, "understanding" or perception or digestion, given the prior knowledge at presentation, been studied as factors.
> Hoogerbrugge AJ, Strauch C, Nijboer TCW, Van der Stigchel S. Don't hide the instruction manual: A dynamic trade-off between using internal and external templates during visual search. J Vis. 2023 Jul 3;23(7):14. doi: 10.1167/jov.23.7.14. PMID: 37486300; PMCID: PMC10382786.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10382786/
I actually read the whole thing, but not the references. It all made sense to me. And I am glad your posted it here. We need more bridging of cognitive sciences to chess learning reminders. And long term memory has its own quirks of digestion. Also, we evolved in locomotion. As a joke, hand waving really helps the thinking. (kind of a nearby theme).
I noticed some sharing of time scales... First 14 days, and then perhaps with some other memory task concern or object of memorization nature, it was 1 day or 2. I am curious about the state of knowledge or questions in cognitive science into quantifying population time scales like that. If that is even possible given all the possible noise factors that experiments combining those factors mentions in your blog, and then timing experiments.
I guess the difficulty of the information to rationally understand or accept (say, just a SF score versus, the consequences at some remote position of the move choice, with some critical points along the way that de visu exposure with active engagement (the goal idea, and the action idea both about attention intensity control, i would say), might also be a factor in those experiments..
Thanks for this self-contained presentation. Both the ideas from the source of new information, how they had empirical basis (not just saying it had, but giving some sense of their serious rational validity), and bridging back to our common topic of interest. It was well done.
went hunting using google. but not for direct stuff. went through semantic scholar too. looking for public accessible recent papers. and one got my increased attention as potentially juicy about this topic. I share it, in case it helps, anyone. It cites a 2016 paper simply called Cognitive offloading pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27542527/
I thought i would dive into a more recent to be aware of more new things and debates still going on. Thanks for that new word, I have had to deal myself a lot with that notion, and dilemma about current understanding of what is being presented (its intrinsic complexity, given my prior knowledge). I think hunting and fast reading on the web to cern and discern hard concepts might be about a dialog between offloading and not about what smells relevant for future digging into, but also because there is a possibility that it might not be relevant as appearing, so, one keeps going. I think this might be the difference between thinking chess is just about performance in some game, and actually studying to understand chess. Both task are present in most chess player, i would assume. but the priorities might differ. But this might be off topic. I guess it might depend how fast one want to become effective, that might shape the nature of what to be memorized. one can memorise a ROT and win more games, and just get the SF report of a blunder somewhere, without needing own rationale about why SF gave such score. And that would be effective given the priority. Does that affect the conclusions. Has the nature of memory task or its intrinsic difficulty of how can i say, "understanding" or perception or digestion, given the prior knowledge at presentation, been studied as factors.
> Hoogerbrugge AJ, Strauch C, Nijboer TCW, Van der Stigchel S. Don't hide the instruction manual: A dynamic trade-off between using internal and external templates during visual search. J Vis. 2023 Jul 3;23(7):14. doi: 10.1167/jov.23.7.14. PMID: 37486300; PMCID: PMC10382786.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10382786/