Learning vs. Memorization

[dougo]

I'm good at learning new things, but I'm bad at remembering how I learned them. I'll never be a good teacher, because once I've learned something I can't reconstruct the steps for someone else to follow. Driving, for example, is not a conscious process for me, it's almost all intuition and muscle memory. If I had to teach someone how to drive it'd be like asking the centipede how to walk. Similarly, when I read or hear something, I internalize the meaning but forget the form. I can never remember exact quotes from song lyrics or movies, for example. Memorizing poetry in school was nearly impossible.

I've recently noticed that this also applies to my opinions. If I encounter (or construct) an argument that convinces me to form an opinion about something, then I will hold the opinion long after I stop being able to reconstruct the argument from memory. This makes me uncomfortable when someone challenges my opinion, because I can't defend it and it makes me look irrational by holding indefensible opinions. But I also don't want to just change my opinion because I can't remember the original argument.

One example that made me think about this is a recent debate about proprietary software with mshonle. There are two anti-proprietary camps: the open source people think that proprietary software is bad because it leads to poor quality, and open source software will win in the long run because it is better equipped to compete. The free software people think that proprietary software is unethical and should be fought more directly, ultimately through a constitutional amendment but in the meantime by copyleft. At some point I became convinced to belong to the latter camp, but I don't actually remember the argument that convinced me. And it's frustrating that I have to do research to find an argument that I've already been convinced by. (I remember reading The Libertarian Case Against Intellectual Property Rights, which might have been part of it, but I haven't gotten around to re-reading it yet.) (There is also an economic argument against intellectual property but my recollection is that it's more in line with the open source camp: it's an argument that copyright is not necessary, but not that it's harmful.)

Another example is the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. It never made much sense to me until at some point I became convinced that guns should not be illegal (though I personally want nothing to do with them). But whenever I come up with some way to explain it to someone it sounds ridiculous, like all the NRA bumper sticker slogans like "guns don't kill people, people kill people" and "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". I actually agree with both of those sentiments but it's hard to avoid making them sound vapid. (And they are not the arguments that convinced me.)

At some point I will embark upon a project of self-explanation, to figure all of these things out and write them down so I don't forget them again. But for now I'll just start with this self-meta-explanation.

Comments

[emmacrew.livejournal.com]

I'm good at learning new things, but I'm bad at remembering how I learned them.

Meee, toooooo. And because I know a lot of random stuff, people tend to assume I'm good at memorizing things, when I'm really just hopeless at it. Dates in particular I'm awful with, I can sort of remember a general timeline, but specific years that things happened, not a chance.

I think the opinion thing is probably true on some level for a lot of people, at least for opinions formed early on. When opinions change, though... it's interesting to think about.

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I've recently noticed that this also applies to my opinions. If I encounter (or construct) an argument that convinces me to form an opinion about something, then I will hold the opinion long after I stop being able to reconstruct the argument from memory.

I've been thinking about this a lot, especially in regards to politics and the resistance people have to listening to anything that challenges their opinions.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I don't think I'm resistant to listening, unless it's something I've heard many times before.

I think a lot of people form opinions without ever having actually been convinced by an argument. That's a pretty different case. In the cases I'm thinking of, I remember being convinced, I just don't remember how. If I examine an opinion and don't even remember forming it, I think I would be more likely to change it when challenged.

On the other hand, a lot of people never even have their opinions challenged. It's easy to live in a world where everyone you meet is pretty much on the same side. I don't think I actually know any Republicans, except for my grandparents. (Are there any on my friends list? I think fin9901, but he hasn't posted in over a year.)

[greyaenigma.livejournal.com]

I was thinking of it in broader terms, rather than just something that resulted from rational discovery or decision. Like you say, opinions formed without being convinced. I'm sure one could categorized this -- I bet an awful lot of it just comes from "trusted source", which becomes frustrating when you're tryng to challenge the source itself.

I don't have a lot of people actively trying to challenge my opinions, but my family does live in Florida, so they're not expose to much truth. A political conversation with them runs to the very frustrating. If I weren't so emotionally involved it would be fascinating psycholgy to see them actively dislike Michael Moore, but utterly unable to explain why they don't trust anything he says.

[memegarden.livejournal.com]

I get really frustrated when I fail to leave myself footnotes, too. Usually it's for facts I can't document sources for, but am totally convinced of. Sometimes I turn out to have heard them from my mother, in which case I have to consciously mark them "uncorroborated" or I'll continue to treat them as gospel. It's less frequent that I run into an opinion of mine that I can't document at all, but it does happen, and, yes, it's quite annoying.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I think internalizing things is natural and is essential to being effective. When working with younger people I'm surprised how "anti-process" they are. "Oh, let's skip this step!", "No no, we should do that step too.", "Why?", "Uh, I forget... uh, four years ago I faced something like this, and I just have a feeling we shouldn't skip it."

However, when it comes to having ethical debates with someone, it just doesn't cut it. Morality is a long conversation over a very long history of philosophers, and you need to be aware of all sides of the debate and what the arguments and counter-arguments are. When I was just getting interested politically I held a lot of beliefs I don't currently have now. But that's because I made further investigations. My first investigations into economics was kind of pathetic: "Ha ha! They assume rationality-- but people aren't always rational and thus I don't have to worry about this entire field's arguments anymore. Aren't I clever." It wasn't until continuing the discussion with several econ majors that I started to get anywhere. Oh yes, and reading several books helped.

Perhaps you haven't read Joel's strategy letter V because you are convinced a priori it can't be right. But if it has a good point you hadn't considered before, the right thing to do is to change your mind.

By letting the ethical reasons slip by you, you could have actually acquired other knowledge that directly contradicts one of the premises of the previous arguments you've now forgotten.

This would actually sum up Eric Raymond quite well: he's a grab bag of things from Ayn Rand and anthropology, and he has no idea how the hell anything fits together any more, hence his absurd essays. (I'm not knocking The Cathedral and The Bazaar, though [actually, I am, it has a stupid name], that essay is actually very motivating and excites you about open source projects. Other than that, the man is a poster child for Poor Scholarship U.)

Getting into discussions with folks who like to debate is a good way to embark on your self-explanation project.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

I pretty much agree with you. It wasn't meant as an excuse, just an observation.

I haven't read that (but I will tomorrow maybe) because I didn't know about it. But besides the topic, I'm predisposed to disagree just because I've disagreed with pretty much everything else I've read of his so far. But I'll keep an open mind.

At this point, trying to debate with a half-empty toolbox is just going to make me frustrated. I think I'd rather start with some monologues to get my brain warmed up.

[mshonle.livejournal.com]

I recommend Peter Singer's book Practical Ethics, if you are curious about filling up the toolbox.

What! This is interesting.

[coolkit.livejournal.com]

Allow me to explain (why I am surprised). Ages ago, perhaps, it was the first time I met you. I remember very clearly, you explaining to some poor smuck (at NU) about the reasoning behind why you wanted to do a PhD in Computer Science and why in the northeast and why Karl and why that subject. I don't recall the content. But, I remember, being amazed that you could explain step by step, very clearly, pros and cons along the way, almost like taking the listeners on a journey and justifying your decision. (I think you scared the poor chap!) But then that was a long time ago.

[dougo.livejournal.com]

That's odd, because I think it was kind of accidental how I ended up there. I only applied to Northeastern because I knew some people there and they had late application deadline, i.e. after I had already gotten rejection letters from my first two choices (U of Washington and UC Berkeley). And I only ended up working for Karl because he was the first one to have a supported RA position available and I was desperate to stop TAing. My original thesis subject had nothing to do with Demeter or Aspect-Oriented Programming, but I finally gave up and switched to something more aligned with Karl's interests.

Anyway, I guess I have a better memory of historical events than of chains of reasoning.