Concerning today's discussion on reading/listening to internalize the material rather than forget it: is it possible that under some circumstances, there's simply too much material to internalize it all? It reminds me of the idea that high school is like sipping from a water fountain, college is like drinking from a garden hose, and law school is like trying to drink from a high-pressure fire hose. I'm making an honest effort to read for comprehension and understanding, but sometimes I feel like there's a bit too much for me to really remember it all.

-- WhytneBrooks - 23 Apr 2008

From my understanding of cognitive science, there is little variation in a person's genetic capacity to memorize things. Everybody has the potential to retain a tremendous amount of information and retrieve it quickly. Indeed, those are the two components of memory - storage and retrieval. Since the storage does not diminish in its organic substance, i.e. proverbial brain-cells-never-die-except-by-drugs-and-damage theory, information theoretically sticks with you forever. The retrieval part is usually what slows down some and speeds up others. Retrieval connections can be destroyed only to be restored again, or others impaired quickly and permanently.

The former process is quintessential to a robust memory. It is called the 'spacing effect' and was discovered by Ebbinghaus in the 19th century. You can optimize your retrieval strength by recalling information precisely when you are about to forget it. Repeating that process several times leads to permanent storage of information - Moglen's knowledge-in-action theory, otherwise knowledge dies.

The key to Ebbinghaus's theory is to learn, on an individual basis, when your forgetting moment occurs. If, through empirical observation, I forget information on the third day, I should relearn it then because that is the optimal moment of reinforcing and retaining knowledge permanently.

This is perhaps not useful, but at least it offers a multilayer approach to your question (whose short answer is no).

-- JesseCreed - 23 Apr 2008