Initially I though: How is recalling different from remembering aka not-forgetting? Given a query/question/fact find the answer(s)(matching fact(s). But you seem to imply something different. I take it remembering is the question-answer pairing. What could recalling be? My idea is that it means answers to relevant questions which just weren’t memorized. Probably because there are just too many of them.
So I think it is an interesting idea to separate these concepts. But chould you provide two short definitions to make your distinction clear?
“Memorizing” is intentionally encoding information for ease of later recall.
“Recalling” is becoming aware, consciously, of encoded information, whether it was intentionally memorized or not, in response to a question, to a similar circumstance, or most generally a domain in which that information is relevant. It is primarily, having the “right” encoded information be jogged in a particular instance (that you are reminded of relevant cashed thoughts) and secondarily, the ease and completeness with which that information is brought to conscious awareness.
Not forgetting is safeguarding specifically and intentionally memorized encoded information from decay.
There is a difference between forgetting apiece of information (so it is no longer encoded) and not being able to access it at the appropriate time. It is of course true that if you have forgotten information you will not be able to access it, so you need to “not forget” in order to recall” but in practice we can’t make sure to not forget everything, on the off chance that it might be useful one day. So, it is useful to be able to accurately recall relevant information that has begun to be forgotten. If someone with good “recall” and someone with poor “recall” each have a memory that is close to being forgotten, the one with good recall will be able to access it better.
As an analogy: memory is a conveyer belt, with bits of information that are riding on it. If a given piece of information gets to the end, it falls off (is forgotten). Everything you recall a bit on information, you pick it up and put it at the beginning of the conveyer belt. You can make a habit of continually putting important information back at the beginning of the belt when a signal light that is about the fall off turns on (spaced repetition), which is “not forgetting”, but you can also increase your reach, so that you can easily get at things that are getting close to then end. Since there are to many pieces of information on your conveyer belt to put every piece back at the beginning when it reaches the end, it’s helpful to extend your reach, to be able to get at more of the information on the belt more easily.
I’m no expert. Those who know how memory works, does this analogy make sense?
I often find that If I have a conversion with someone, months latter, I am better able to recall specific details (both key and trivial) than they are. I assume that this is because I am better at the skill of recall, since in theory, our memories of the event should be in a similar state of decay, but now that I think about it, it is possible that 1) I encoded the conversation better in the moment (perhaps by paying closer attention?) or 2) I recall it more frequently and so have it closer to the beginning of my convey belt.
Maybe “recall” is a constant, not a skill that can be improved? Memory experts, what do you have to say?
I know that if you ask me, I can give you a summery of the plot of almost any book I’ve read in the past 4 years (though now I think I have to go over my book lists and test this rigorously). I know that I can tell you actually where we were and what we were doing, as well as give you a play by play of many (not all conversations). I know that if I re listen to a bit of podcast or audio book, I know the exact spot where I was walking when I last heard it. It feels like “recall” is a skill, but maybe it’s only a result of the other two.
Yes. Lots of them. Right now, my memory deck has about 200 cards, and I’m only about 2⁄3 done with the course. I’ll point again to Baddeley Eysenck Anderson. You seem primarily interested in long-term memory (although that may be an artifact of not knowing a lot about memory; a large benefit of having a textbook on memory is to point out “unknown unkowns”), so here are some big ones off the top of my head.
Episodic and semantic memory (are subsets of explicit/declarative memory)
Also procedural memory (a subset of implicit/nondeclarative memory).
You should also be aware of the testing effect and distributed practice, which, along with forgetting curves, form the basis of Spaced Repetition Software. Since many things don’t lend themselve to Anki, like riding a bike, it’s enormously beneficial to know about these independently.
Primarily, but not exclusively. If there are tricks by which I can look at page for 3 minutes and then recite it from memory, I want to hear bout them.
“Recalling” is becoming aware, consciously, of encoded information, whether it was intentionally memorized or not, in response to a question, to a similar circumstance, or most generally a domain in which that information is relevant.
Yeah. That is the definition that I wanted and these circumstances are the ‘relevant questions’ I meant. The implicit context of the facts in which you might recover the information.
Spaced repetion e.g. with an Anki deck helps memorize facts—but if you don’t apply these facts and relate them to other think, apply and use them they are isolated and will not become available in the contexts you seem to imply.
Initially I though: How is recalling different from remembering aka not-forgetting? Given a query/question/fact find the answer(s)(matching fact(s). But you seem to imply something different. I take it remembering is the question-answer pairing. What could recalling be? My idea is that it means answers to relevant questions which just weren’t memorized. Probably because there are just too many of them.
So I think it is an interesting idea to separate these concepts. But chould you provide two short definitions to make your distinction clear?
I’m not sure I’m following you. Can you rephrase?
“Memorizing” is intentionally encoding information for ease of later recall.
“Recalling” is becoming aware, consciously, of encoded information, whether it was intentionally memorized or not, in response to a question, to a similar circumstance, or most generally a domain in which that information is relevant. It is primarily, having the “right” encoded information be jogged in a particular instance (that you are reminded of relevant cashed thoughts) and secondarily, the ease and completeness with which that information is brought to conscious awareness.
Not forgetting is safeguarding specifically and intentionally memorized encoded information from decay.
There is a difference between forgetting apiece of information (so it is no longer encoded) and not being able to access it at the appropriate time. It is of course true that if you have forgotten information you will not be able to access it, so you need to “not forget” in order to recall” but in practice we can’t make sure to not forget everything, on the off chance that it might be useful one day. So, it is useful to be able to accurately recall relevant information that has begun to be forgotten. If someone with good “recall” and someone with poor “recall” each have a memory that is close to being forgotten, the one with good recall will be able to access it better.
As an analogy: memory is a conveyer belt, with bits of information that are riding on it. If a given piece of information gets to the end, it falls off (is forgotten). Everything you recall a bit on information, you pick it up and put it at the beginning of the conveyer belt. You can make a habit of continually putting important information back at the beginning of the belt when a signal light that is about the fall off turns on (spaced repetition), which is “not forgetting”, but you can also increase your reach, so that you can easily get at things that are getting close to then end. Since there are to many pieces of information on your conveyer belt to put every piece back at the beginning when it reaches the end, it’s helpful to extend your reach, to be able to get at more of the information on the belt more easily.
I’m no expert. Those who know how memory works, does this analogy make sense?
I often find that If I have a conversion with someone, months latter, I am better able to recall specific details (both key and trivial) than they are. I assume that this is because I am better at the skill of recall, since in theory, our memories of the event should be in a similar state of decay, but now that I think about it, it is possible that 1) I encoded the conversation better in the moment (perhaps by paying closer attention?) or 2) I recall it more frequently and so have it closer to the beginning of my convey belt.
Maybe “recall” is a constant, not a skill that can be improved? Memory experts, what do you have to say?
I know that if you ask me, I can give you a summery of the plot of almost any book I’ve read in the past 4 years (though now I think I have to go over my book lists and test this rigorously). I know that I can tell you actually where we were and what we were doing, as well as give you a play by play of many (not all conversations). I know that if I re listen to a bit of podcast or audio book, I know the exact spot where I was walking when I last heard it. It feels like “recall” is a skill, but maybe it’s only a result of the other two.
Memory researchers do, in fact, make a distinction between accessibility (can I retrieve a memory?) and availibility (does the memory trace exist?).
Ok, great. General accessibility is what I mean by “recall.” Any other terms that I should be familiar with for this discussion?
Yes. Lots of them. Right now, my memory deck has about 200 cards, and I’m only about 2⁄3 done with the course. I’ll point again to Baddeley Eysenck Anderson. You seem primarily interested in long-term memory (although that may be an artifact of not knowing a lot about memory; a large benefit of having a textbook on memory is to point out “unknown unkowns”), so here are some big ones off the top of my head.
Implicit and explicit memory (also known as declarative and nondeclarative, respectively).
Episodic and semantic memory (are subsets of explicit/declarative memory)
Also procedural memory (a subset of implicit/nondeclarative memory).
You should also be aware of the testing effect and distributed practice, which, along with forgetting curves, form the basis of Spaced Repetition Software. Since many things don’t lend themselve to Anki, like riding a bike, it’s enormously beneficial to know about these independently.
Also Source monitoring, which leads to my favorite term, cryptomnesia.
Consolidation.
Primarily, but not exclusively. If there are tricks by which I can look at page for 3 minutes and then recite it from memory, I want to hear bout them.
Yeah. That is the definition that I wanted and these circumstances are the ‘relevant questions’ I meant. The implicit context of the facts in which you might recover the information.
Spaced repetion e.g. with an Anki deck helps memorize facts—but if you don’t apply these facts and relate them to other think, apply and use them they are isolated and will not become available in the contexts you seem to imply.
Use it (the memory of the facts) or loose it.