@pointlesswindows said in #11:
> "Step 1 – Study With 107% Attention" that's exactly where I stopped to read. What's your point? Maybe better 200%
After reading your comment, I did read further. From what I can understand, If you study neuroscience and skip dinner and taking notes, you can get to 107%.
Or this is poorly written BS pseudo science.
I guess if you quantum unlock your mind with the right chakras, you can get to 200%. But I'd rather wait some random chess player explains me how this works XD
> "Step 1 – Study With 107% Attention" that's exactly where I stopped to read. What's your point? Maybe better 200%
After reading your comment, I did read further. From what I can understand, If you study neuroscience and skip dinner and taking notes, you can get to 107%.
Or this is poorly written BS pseudo science.
I guess if you quantum unlock your mind with the right chakras, you can get to 200%. But I'd rather wait some random chess player explains me how this works XD
@TurtleMat said in #12:
> ...
After diving into your comment, I attempted to unlock the hidden secrets of neuroscience while skipping dinner and taking notes. Strangely, I only reached 99.9%, and I'm pretty sure I missed a step – maybe I should have skipped lunch too?
By the way I'm still figuring out which aisle in the grocery store sells the right chakras.
In the meantime, I'm considering hiring a chess-playing guru to teach me the ancient and mystical ways of reaching 200%. I just hope they bring their chessboard and not a crystal ball.
And my friend, may your mind always be 200% skeptical, if not quantumly enlightened. XD
> ...
After diving into your comment, I attempted to unlock the hidden secrets of neuroscience while skipping dinner and taking notes. Strangely, I only reached 99.9%, and I'm pretty sure I missed a step – maybe I should have skipped lunch too?
By the way I'm still figuring out which aisle in the grocery store sells the right chakras.
In the meantime, I'm considering hiring a chess-playing guru to teach me the ancient and mystical ways of reaching 200%. I just hope they bring their chessboard and not a crystal ball.
And my friend, may your mind always be 200% skeptical, if not quantumly enlightened. XD
I think I would always look at openings and memorize all of the moves at the opening so I can play in a chess match.
<Comment deleted by user>
<Comment deleted by user>
From the photo in this blog, I am 107% convinced that Vladimir Akopian is Old Eric Rosen.
Attention engaging task to take note, if the problem is one of understanding, as requirement before performance memory recall. If the thing does not need problem solving and can be directly stored from sensory exposure, sure, then don't take notes, the goals is to keep in storage, not understanding anymore.
I can refer to a lichess blog that had the same argument and a counter-point ulterior paper, that made a given of the scientitic paper arguing for closed book study a factor of the experiment. The nature of the task to be measured as outcome.
I would argue that problem solving and understanding are closer to each other than pure memory retrieval task.
Would you like me to find the above references? Science rarely stagnates, and previous assumption can always be further dissected for discerning factors. Well always, is the belief. It is part of the wheel of theory generation and empirical testing.
It does not say that the previous is wrong, conclusion but it may have been overgeneralization of the experiment results, from conflating different tasks.. or generalizing from one task to another task. It seems that here, we have some combination of tasks.
I can refer to a lichess blog that had the same argument and a counter-point ulterior paper, that made a given of the scientitic paper arguing for closed book study a factor of the experiment. The nature of the task to be measured as outcome.
I would argue that problem solving and understanding are closer to each other than pure memory retrieval task.
Would you like me to find the above references? Science rarely stagnates, and previous assumption can always be further dissected for discerning factors. Well always, is the belief. It is part of the wheel of theory generation and empirical testing.
It does not say that the previous is wrong, conclusion but it may have been overgeneralization of the experiment results, from conflating different tasks.. or generalizing from one task to another task. It seems that here, we have some combination of tasks.