Chris Cal

Tag: wf/anki-add

  • What is a Memory System?

    A spaced repetition system or better called a memory system is meant to test whether you can reconstruct an idea (what you want to understand deeper and remember) from a specific piece of information (a prompt) using your internal models (current understanding). A memory system is not a process for “putting information into a bucket.”

      • What is the goal of a memory system?
        To test whether you can reconstruct an idea.
      • In a memory system, what serves as the cue for reconstruction?
        A specific piece of information: the prompt.
      • In a memory system, reconstruction happens from what?
        Your internal models.

    Good prompts help you reconstruct from:

    1. A generative explanation
      A causal story: why the claim is true, what problem it solves, what makes alternatives fail.
    2. Problem-situations and triggers
      The kinds of situations where the idea should come to mind.
    3. Counterfactual structure
      What would be different if the idea were false; what would follow if it were true.
    4. Error boundaries
      Common misapplications, confusions, and nearby false friends.
    5. Procedures / decisions
      What you do differently because you know it, what choice you make, what question you ask next, what you stop doing.

    Ideally, that information is not merely a fact, but an explanation. That is the key question when you design a prompt: What material would reliably let me reconstruct the explanation I want? When the prompt works, repeated reconstruction helps that explanation take hold in the mind’s ecosystem, where ideas survive or fade, influence behavior or do not, and interact with one another.

      • There are 5 handles good prompts let you reconstruct from. Which one says you “have” the idea?
        The generative explanation.
      • Why is the handle, Problem-situations/Triggers, valuable to include as an internal model?
        It lets you know when to use the idea.
      • When should you try to create the 5 memory system handles, during prompt creation or when attempting to understand the idea?
        When attempting to understand the idea.

    Properties of effective reconstruction prompts (based on Andy Matuschak’s Good Prompts)

    • Reconstruction prompts should be focused.
    • Reconstruction prompts test one relation at a time.
    • Reconstruction prompts should be precise about what they’re asking for.
    • Reconstruction prompts should produce consistent answers each time you perform the task.
    • Reconstruction prompts should be tractable.
    • Reconstruction prompts should be effortful.
      • State one thing that could be wrong with the following prompt?
        Good reconstruction prompts test one r_ at a time, should be f_, p_, produce c_ answers, t_, and e_.
        It tests many relationsips / is not focused enough / could be intractable.
      • There are several properties of good prompts but what is the general idea?
        Make the prompt tight, clear, and worth the mental work.

    We prefer explanations because they are often the kinds of ideas that can influence what we do rationally. But no general rule can tell us in advance what material will let a particular person reconstruct a particular idea. The only method is to guess, test, and revise for each individual.

    Why reconstruction? Because you cannot reconstruct what you have never constructed in the first place. You must first understand something at least partially. Reconstruction then reinforces that understanding and may deepen it.

    See also: Andy Matuschak’s Good Prompts (I replace “retrieval” with “reconstruction” based on my understanding of the mind)

    Links to this note:
    Learning

  • Change the Problem Landscape

    Elon Musk’s question, “What did you get done this week?”, has become a meme for productivity.

    Naval has a version of this too:

    A better question is:

    The Work Question

    What problems did you solve, preempt, and set in motion this week – and what did you do to expose your proposed solutions to criticism?

    Don’t just tell me what you did. Tell me how you changed the problem landscape. That is the real measure of useful work. A task list shows activity. It does not necessarily show impact.

    Solving a real problem does not simply remove an item from a list. It changes the situation. It closes some paths, opens others, and reshapes what matters next. Every solution creates new conditions. Every neglected problem has the potential to grow into a worse one.

      • What should our work revolve around instead of activity metrics?
        Problems.
      • Our job is to not only solve present problems but be aware of {{c1::future}} problems too.

    Of course, most real problems are not fully solved in a week. But that is still the right standard. A manager should emphasize outcomes, while making rational exceptions for work that clearly moves a hard problem forward. The point is not to reward people for merely naming the problems they are working on. It is to ask how those problems changed because of their work.

    So yes, results matter. But the results that matter most are not just completed tasks. They change the problem landscape.

      • Our work involves present and future problems, problems created by us and those that are not. What outcomes based question demands one think deeply about the problem landscape?
        What problems did you solve, preempt, and set in motion this week – and what did you do to expose your proposed solutions to criticism?

    Email example

    Subject:
    Weekly Check-In: The Work Question

    Body:
    Each week I’ll ask you one question:

    What problems did you solve, preempt, and set in motion this week – and what did you do to expose your proposed solutions to criticism?

    This is not a task list. I’m not asking for a summary of activity. I’m asking how your work changed the situation. That is the standard I want us aiming at, because useful work is not just doing things. It is making progress against real problems.

    I do not expect every week to produce a perfect answer. Some weeks are groundwork. Some important problems take longer than a week to move. The bar is high on purpose, but clear thinking and honest judgment matter more than forcing a strong-looking report.

    Solved: What problem did you close? What changed, and how do you know?

    Preempted: What problem did you see coming and act on before it arrived? What likely would have happened otherwise?

    Set in motion: What new problems or conditions now exist because of this week’s work or lack of action? Which are the healthy next problems created by progress, and which are consequences of delay or inattention?

    Criticism: How far did you push your ideas?

    Keep your answer short and precise. I value clarity over length.

    Links to this note:
    The Pursuit of Productivity
    Don’t Protect Your Ideas
    Documenting the Work Question, Replacing the Portfolio