Forum Posts Feed
short time memory and outliner software
< Next Topic | Back to topic list | Previous Topic >
Posted by Manfred
Mar 26, 2008 at 11:57 PM
Guido and Cassius,
can’t help myself, but I need to respond:
(i) Even if hyperlinks can be useful, one should be aware that hyperlinks are not necessarily translated into meaningful connections between thoughts by your brain ( my main argument against the wiki approach of connected text ).
(ad i) I couldn’t agree more. But the idea is not to translate hyperlinks “into meaningful connections between thoughts,” but to translate (possibly) meaningful connections between thoughts into hyperlinks (to test and explore them) or to create a hierarchy of some sort
(ii) I agree completely! That is why one should be careful and “stingy/minimalist” in creating hyperlinks. I, too, fear to use the wiki approach for the same reason. Of course, some might say that wikis or an abundance of hyperlinks might support “thinking outside the box,” but I doubt it.
(ad ii) If (i) is the only reason for the fear, it is no reason, because that’s getting it “back a…wards,” as one of my friends likes to say. You should use just as many (or just as few) hyperlinks, as it is necessary to express meaningful links. And, you know, you are not eternally committed to links. they are just as easily removed as they are added.
I AM sorry.
Manfred
Posted by dan7000
Mar 27, 2008 at 12:03 AM
Guido wrote:
> In his theory, Prof. Haft
>explains that lawyers should build structures of basically not more than 7 items ( one
>parent and not more than six childs ), arguing that doing otherwise would not fit to the
>human short time memory’s capacity ...
...
>Therefor an outline should not have more than 6 main chapters,
>each of them having not more than 6 sub-chapters…
In my outlines, I try to limit myself to six children for each item. I don’t do that for my memory, but rather because I have found that it forces me to think harder about the structure of my outline and speeds up information retrieval in the future.
It’s easy for me to just dump a huge list of information into one level of an outline. Unfortunately, a huge list is pretty much useless: to find information in it, you have to read the entire list every time you need one of the items!
I guess it’s basically a search algorithm problem. I want faster searches, so I want smaller numbers of children on each branch. Setting an arbitrary limit of 6 children per item forces me to really consider where each item should go and how it relates to other items.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Mar 27, 2008 at 09:16 AM
Stephen Zeoli wrote:
>First of all, I am uncertain of the value in worrying about
>short-term memory. That’s not learning or understanding. It enters our minds for a
>short time then goes away. As it should.
I may be wrong, but isn’t something supposed to go through short-term memory before it goes into long-term, i.e. short-term memory effectively operating as a filter for what may be further remembered? The way I see it, if it’s not worth remembering for a short while, then it’s probably not worth remembering for a long one.
alx
Posted by Guido
Mar 27, 2008 at 01:10 PM
Alexander, you are right. Research shows that it is the pattern we use to process in our short - term memory that is registered in our long - time memory. Stephen confounds short - time memory with ultra - short - time memory which indeed is used for very very short but necessary reactions so as crossing the road when the lights are green etc. and for that reason has to be quickly evacuated.
Not so for short - time memory. When reading a book, you use your long - time memory for the context and your short - time memory for the new information. You simply cannot process information i.g. learn, understand, think without short time memory.
Being limited to seven items would be quite frustrating. We have to build chunks of information. An experienced “speed-” reader is used to deal with a whole phrase as one chunk and remembers up to three, four, five phrases in his short - time memory. An unexperienced “slow” reader deals with one word or two = one chunk and has to re-read frequently.
When using outliner software or, better, mind - mapping software we should be aware of the brain’s necessity of chunking information. Creating huge lists simply will not help to learn, to memorise and finally to understand better. I propose to create a network of Mind-Maps that have not more than 4 or 5 main branches and 5 or 6 levels ( childs to each branch ). By repeating the Mind-Map, it will become one chunk with the time and you will be able to memorise 4, 5, 6 Mind-Maps and so on.
Posted by Alexander Deliyannis
Mar 29, 2008 at 04:22 PM
Guido, many thanks for the summary.
The issue seems to be quite more complex than I initially imagined. Indeed, Miller’s original paper ( http://www.musanim.com/miller1956/ ) seems to have been surpassed, as well as been overused in areas unrelated to its original scope, such as user interface design ( http://www.edwardtufte.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0000U6 ).
From what I’ve read these days, I think your description is one of the most clear and accurate ones regarding the outcome: whether we are to memorise or process information, we need to recognise patterns and deal with chunks rather than mutiple isolated concepts. I think that, one way or another, this method is what many of us have been trying to apply with the tools we discuss at this here forum.
alx