[Home]History of Forgetting curve/Talk

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences

Revision 3 . . August 11, 2001 6:30 am by MichaelTinkler
Revision 2 . . August 11, 2001 6:04 am by Piotr Wozniak [contest "not helpful"]
  

Difference (from prior major revision) (no other diffs)

Changed: 4c4,6
I beg to disagree with "not helpful". Most people have no idea what is the true forgetting rate. 50% in days or weeks is roughly true and the best short expression of the rate I can come up with. I added more data to the entry but this verges on theorizing. The best argument against "not helpful" is that, following some not-so-honest mnemonists?, people tend to belive that we can learn once and remember for ever. In other words, they belive in forgetting rate of 0. Some reputable scientists also embarked on an effort of proving that true, but the only "zero rate" possible comes from implicit repetition
I beg to disagree with "not helpful". Most people have no idea what is the true forgetting rate. 50% in days or weeks is roughly true and the best short expression of the rate I can come up with. I added more data to the entry but this verges on theorizing. The best argument against "not helpful" is that, following some not-so-honest mnemonists?, people tend to belive that we can learn once and remember for ever. In other words, they belive in forgetting rate of 0. Some reputable scientists also embarked on an effort of proving that true, but the only "zero rate" possible comes from implicit repetition


Well. In distinction from 0 (zero) I suppose it's helpful. Otherwise you have to admit it's rather broad.

HomePage | Recent Changes | Preferences
Search: