I have a (relatively poorly developed) theory that learning and intelligence has far more to do with what and how we forget than the quantity of information we consume. It seemingly explains why sleep matters so much for learning, and also why deep neural nets have performed so well with dropout strategies. I'd be willing to bet this falls in line with my theory...that changing locations and contexts facilitates with forgetting noisy information, letting the important things stand out more once they are retrained.

A different interpretation could be that seeing information embedded in different contexts signals your brain that the information is sufficiently generic as to merit storing it. In a way this might be somewhat analogous to spaced repetition but where space is interleaved instead of time.

Forgetting costs energy... Human memory seems association-based, and even uses the creative part of the brain so it can also generate details (often false) on the fly. So learning things via mnemonics is so successful even if counterintuitive that you're learning two things instead of one, but eventually the mnemonic seems to fade and you can deal with the thing you were after. But the mnemonic often seems to still be there. How do you deal with sudden recall of a memory or fact from 10+ years ago which you haven't thought about at all since then and that for all intents and purposes is useless and noise? There's a lot of stuff that is still 'there' in the brain, even if you can't recall, but may be triggered by some association, so how do you distinguish failure to recall with actual forgetting and the information not being there at all? The article mentions childhood phone numbers. I can remember at least one right now, it wouldn't surprise me if I could recall others with more careful thinking or perhaps some nostalgic browsing of old photos.

Changing locations is barely given a blurb in the article and I don't see how it would help that much apart from maybe motivation-related reasons (similar to having a separate room in your home for your home office). Is there a study on location changing? I'd bet the location trick's effects are dominated by the fact that spaced repetition is at play, which also gets mentioned in the article. Is there a study that tries to detect a difference between spaced repetition in the same location and spaced repetition in other locations? If there were a difference, then maybe it could work on the idea that you're creating a subconscious association with the place you're studying in and the thing you're learning, and by recalling and learning it in another location you're adding another association and strengthening the common paths. But I have to wonder if explicitly constructing a memory palace to create such associations between facts and things/places is a far superior strategy and again would dominate any effect of different location.

"Changing locations is barely given a blurb in the article and I don't see how it would help that much" "that you're creating a subconscious association with the place you're studying in and the thing you're learning"

I think so, see state dependent memory. Mood and intoxication can play a role here as well. [1]

"recalling and learning it in another location you're adding another association and strengthening the common paths"

I think so, see aaachilless's sibling comment [2] about the pattern becoming generic.

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State-dependent_memory

2. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14455056

>The article mentions childhood phone numbers.

ICQ number and quake 3 CD key stand out to me as oddly specific things that have persisted for over 2 decades in my memory now. What's odd is how much that skews my judgement of sunk costs - The fact that I know those things occasionally prompts me to reinstall each, even though there is no point.

>it wouldn't surprise me if I could recall others with more careful thinking or perhaps some nostalgic browsing of old photos.

This can also happen accidentally - A forgotten smell or sound brings back associated memories that were otherwise inaccessible to you.

_Make It Stick_ is my all-time favorite book on effective learning strategies covering these concepts and more in scientific detail.

Love the material, but the book is sooo long and full of filler. I much prefer the article version:

http://tguilfoyle.cmswiki.wikispaces.net/file/view/What_work...

Thanks, I read the book some time ago. This is an excellent summary.

These concepts are discussed in detail in the Coursera course "Learning How to Learn" and the accompanying book "A Mind for Numbers" by Barbara Oakley. Spaced Repetition, Pomodoro, Chunking, Interleaving are things I'm trying to integrate in my learning routine.

"How We Learn" by Benedict Carey is the one I've read on the similar topic, and liked. It's a compendium of scientific research about learning aggregated in a readable format by NYTimes science journalist.

I second the recommendation for her course. It's a rare gem backed both by science and her considerable experience as an effective learner.

I don't remember "varying your study location" in that book.

She does mention it, something like "if you usually study in your bedroom, try recalling in the kitchen" or something like that

Ah, from this I was expecting it to be something with a little more expansion. I think I remember this.

I almost purchased that book. Is it working for you?

I am reading the book along with the course. "Mind for Numbers" is superset of the course, so see if you like the course and then maybe buy the book. So far I am pretty happy with the material and presentation. Armed with all this knowledge, the real challenge is ofcourse, to implement these techniques in your daily life, while breaking years of bad habits. But I am motivated enough to keep trying to do it.

Every time I travel, my imagination goes wild. In a similar manner, I talk more when moving.

As a layman, I find his claim that human brains having unlimited storage capacity dubious.

Or does he mean effectively unlimited, like a brain having 1000 YB[0] of storage and a human never coming close to experiencing that much information input in their lifetime?

[0] This number is made up and for illustrative purposes.

I think the claim as written is dubious, but the point is that our capacity to store information far exceeds our ability to recall information, and we can effectively recall things only because we forget so much.

There are a few people with a condition called hyperthymesia, like Jill Price, and the condition generally has a profound negative impact on their lives.

..and I wonder for people affected by hyperthymesia if they have memories of remembering a memory

I've remembered remembering things before. It's often been useful, especially when I forget the thing I remembered.

I don't find it entirely implausible. Think of it like bloom filters or floating point numbers; the more you need to store and recall, the less accurate it will be.

Its not like there's an "erase" routine in our brains, it's just that the neural pathways start getting used more and more for other more important things. But there's still a readable trace of the old pathway there.

Sort of like the shortcut over the corner of the lawn where the grass can't grow because everyone goes there, but then when the new overpass is built people stop going there and new grass sort of grows over it but not completely because other people see the desire path and use it for other purposes every now and then so it never really disappears.

It is also harder to fall asleep in unfamiliar locations. Your brain is generally more on the less familiar you are with a location.

I find the opposite. I regularly get similar thought patterns going around in my head leading to insomnia. When I change location its far easier not to get trapped in those thought loops.

It makes sense from an evolutionary standpoint. You haven't associated the feeling of safety with the stimuli in this new environment. Which is good, because there could be threats you do not understand how to deal with yet.

I suspect listening to the right music (for you) and at the right volume might achieve similar effects. It's wild theory, but given that sound affects the brain in various positive ways I can't help but wonder.