Working memory is waaaay more critical than you might think to all levels of functionality. There are many basic tasks, like walking to another room to get something and noticing something minor, like a pen on a table that should be put away, and doing both tasks, that depend on working memory. The same with mentaly reasoning through a complex system. The reason abstractions are so valuable is that they allow for compression of something into working memory.
For me, personally, this is why I often approach things by scaffolding them into relationships with existing structures (mentally) - by integrating with an existing structure, I avoid a sort of fragmentation overload in my working memory.
Anyway, I think it's one of those things you don't really notice until it goes bad somehow.
Multiple small kids are incredibly disruptive to this. Just, a continuous "happening", constant out-of-context asks and "situations". 5 different things can happen between noticing or thinking of a task and being able to do anything about it. God help you if you have to go from one room to another because that in itself requires explanations (the best case is they quietly follow you to find out whats going on).
There are long stretches of my day where functionally, I have no free working memory at all. The main way I stay barely functional is by keeping memory "in the state of the world". The way I remember I promised to fix the tap today is by placing the tool kit prominently next to the tap, etc. As a last resort I try to write things down.
> The reason abstractions are so valuable is that they allow for compression of something into working memory.
I wonder if people with smaller working memory necessarily have more organized mental models, to facilitate the compression. People with autism [1] and ADHD [2] tend to have decreased working memory. Are their mental models more "optimized" for compression?
ADHD makes a mockery of working memory. The number of times I'll have to go back to see what the the fourth, fifth and sixth digit of a six digit sequence were is truly frustrating.
The article indicates that working memory can be improved though, going to have to give that a try.
Honestly, I don't find I have much of a problem with working memory. Sure, my ability to recall a meaningless number several minutes later is absolutely terrible, but a handling an analysis or conversation about a complicated subject (complex is a different matter that relies on raw intelligence more than working memory) with lots of important detail seems to be easier for me, to the point where other people tap out with "information overload" when I'm moving along just fine.
Of course, executing a complicated process is a whole different matter, because the ADHD brain quickly loses interest and focuses on something else.
I took a properly administered IQ test as part of my ADHD diagnosis. It was eye opening.
All through the test I felt like I was crushing it. Spacial reasoning, pattern recognition, memory tasks. When the results came back I got 135 on spatial reasoning but 89 on processing speed and working memory.
Looking back on my life I realize I had always made up for limited working memory with systems, mnemonics and other techniques. When you've lived your whole life with a limitation you can have a huge blind spot. You've never known what it's like to have "normal" working memory.
Well you're not just noticing the problem or you don't have ADHD because the working memory impairment is well documented and it's essentially THE symptom of ADHD.
What you say about being more easily distracted is a side effect of impaired working memory for example.
Regarding unconscious thinking: I've known for many years that if I'm trying to implement something and what I'm doing just feels wrong and I'm not sure why, it's time to stop and come back first thing in the morning. Sleeping on it engages my back-brain; and invariably the next morning everything makes sense, sometimes immediately, and sometimes with just a small amount of work.
Mind you, the solution I have in mind when I wake isn't necessarily the right one; but I get to the right one pretty quickly.
I get this even on a shorter timescale with compiler errors. So many times I have a near-subconscious feeling that something's wrong with the code, and as soon as I run or compile it, there it is, a syntax error. I've been trying to train myself to pay more attention to these gut feelings, so I can act on them before the compiler gets to it.
Time, doorways, and ritualized actions like sweeping, brushing your teeth, washing your hair, or walking tend to trigger those connections. Even going for a walk might set you right.
That’s usually when I would go for coffee when I worked in an office.
> "The growing trend, especially among young people, to multi-task may seem wonderful. But actually, multi-tasking is most likely to interfere with focused attention and, in turn, degrade memory formation, recall, and thinking quality."
Eventually I realized that parallelization is not really possible, you end up making a mess of everything, and trying to be a rapid context-switcher - similar to the illusion of simultaneous multitasking on a single CPU core - just takes too much energy and time - 15-30 min to unload, clear the slate and reload with something else seems common.
Practically, this is why people working on difficult problems that require their full attention get really irritated by interruptions, and often prefer to work in isolation or only with like-minded individuals.+
From what I've read, the training isn't necessarily transferable. You just get better at these sorts of brain games, which doesn't necessarily mean your working memory is increasing.
Even while reading gwern's blog that seemed pretty positive of this kind of training, there was limited evidence that you shouldn't learn just a new instrument or language or new sort of math discipline.
Why do people keep thinking that "training" can improve working memory?
I can attest to the benefits of n-back. I've been doing it for a couple of years now, five days a week for 20-25 minutes. I've noticed a tangible positive difference in both my verbal fluency and my processing speed on days where I engage this protocol.
I agree that if you want to get better at specific things you should just do those things.
Usually when you "learn" something you improve your understanding of the domain, you start chunking things up into patterns and structures. This reduces your mental load and lets you use your "working memory" more effectively.
I think the intuition with say, "n-back" is that there's supposed to be no structure beyond the memory task, so any increase in performance _must_ be an improvement in some sort of generalised "working memory".
As I understand it people have shown that there is "transferance" between these various types of working-memory based brain games (i.e, getting good at one can improve your performance on others that you haven't done before). But no one has shown that getting good at (say) dual n-back produces a strong improvement in "real tasks" that aren't just memory games.
The evidence is mixed, but some studies (e.g. Jaeggi) did find transfer effects from n back training to fluid intelligence.
It only takes 40 mins a day for 8 weeks to test it out. Much less time than the commitment to learn a new language.
Having tried it, I wouldn't be surprised if the mixed results were due to improper adherence and misunderstanding of how n back works by some study participants. In other words, I think it's possible that results would be less mixed for someone who is already starting from a point of solid intelligence and who is driven enough to put in the hard,focused work to get to higher n back levels.
Gwern has a lot of research and meta-research about this (if memory serves, hah), and in general I seem to recall that doing brain games like dual-n-back makes you better at brain games like dual-n-back.
Concur seeing same research, a thought in the back of my head - does learning one of these games makes you faster at learning other games? Does that translate at learning faster in areas that would use similar recall patterns. There is some research that when you learn N>5 languages (https://news.mit.edu/2024/mit-study-polyglots-brain-processi...) the brain layout changes. What happens when you practice / master >X memory recall games.
I have found that setting to myself a limited, 30 or 40min window, where i am not allowing myself to do anything else but the task I have to do, is actually a sensible way to trick the brain to work on things. Then i swith context. Like coding for 30min,then filling a visa application
Readit News
For me, personally, this is why I often approach things by scaffolding them into relationships with existing structures (mentally) - by integrating with an existing structure, I avoid a sort of fragmentation overload in my working memory.
Anyway, I think it's one of those things you don't really notice until it goes bad somehow.
There are long stretches of my day where functionally, I have no free working memory at all. The main way I stay barely functional is by keeping memory "in the state of the world". The way I remember I promised to fix the tap today is by placing the tool kit prominently next to the tap, etc. As a last resort I try to write things down.
This is what I do as well. If things aren't exactly where I left them, I'll not only never find them, but I'm likely to forget they ever existed.
mise is kitchen French for like the IDE of a cook’s station
I forgot why I went somewhere, or worse I do something different upon arrival.
I wonder if people with smaller working memory necessarily have more organized mental models, to facilitate the compression. People with autism [1] and ADHD [2] tend to have decreased working memory. Are their mental models more "optimized" for compression?
[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7071553/
[2] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7483636/
So true!
The article indicates that working memory can be improved though, going to have to give that a try.
Honestly, I don't find I have much of a problem with working memory. Sure, my ability to recall a meaningless number several minutes later is absolutely terrible, but a handling an analysis or conversation about a complicated subject (complex is a different matter that relies on raw intelligence more than working memory) with lots of important detail seems to be easier for me, to the point where other people tap out with "information overload" when I'm moving along just fine.
Of course, executing a complicated process is a whole different matter, because the ADHD brain quickly loses interest and focuses on something else.
All through the test I felt like I was crushing it. Spacial reasoning, pattern recognition, memory tasks. When the results came back I got 135 on spatial reasoning but 89 on processing speed and working memory.
Looking back on my life I realize I had always made up for limited working memory with systems, mnemonics and other techniques. When you've lived your whole life with a limitation you can have a huge blind spot. You've never known what it's like to have "normal" working memory.
What you say about being more easily distracted is a side effect of impaired working memory for example.
Mind you, the solution I have in mind when I wake isn't necessarily the right one; but I get to the right one pretty quickly.
That’s usually when I would go for coffee when I worked in an office.
> "The growing trend, especially among young people, to multi-task may seem wonderful. But actually, multi-tasking is most likely to interfere with focused attention and, in turn, degrade memory formation, recall, and thinking quality."
Eventually I realized that parallelization is not really possible, you end up making a mess of everything, and trying to be a rapid context-switcher - similar to the illusion of simultaneous multitasking on a single CPU core - just takes too much energy and time - 15-30 min to unload, clear the slate and reload with something else seems common.
Practically, this is why people working on difficult problems that require their full attention get really irritated by interruptions, and often prefer to work in isolation or only with like-minded individuals.+
The trick is to pick a combinations that works:
* listening to a language lesson when cycling (learning+sport)
* repeating flash cards in a bus, instead of doomscrolling (commute+learning)
* listening to a language lesson when cycling to work (learning+sport+commute - whoa!)
* thinking about my programming project when cleaning my home (work+brainless menial work)
In most cases this involves something that doesn't require to much too much conscious attention and something that does.
Multitasking two coding problems at once completely doesn't work for me but what you described works and I do that all the time.
There seems to be a language disconnect for the type of multitasking that works vs. doesn't work.
ADHD is a blessing and a curse. I can hold every line of the codebase in my head but I can't remember what I was just doing...
You figure out how to work without working memory. Just offload it all immediately.
The lines of the codebase are also working memory, no?
So I'm happy that the article mentions another method. Apart from playing "Simon" (yes that circular game with lights), those are the only two I know.
Anyone know of any other methods?
From what I've read, the training isn't necessarily transferable. You just get better at these sorts of brain games, which doesn't necessarily mean your working memory is increasing.
Even while reading gwern's blog that seemed pretty positive of this kind of training, there was limited evidence that you shouldn't learn just a new instrument or language or new sort of math discipline.
Why do people keep thinking that "training" can improve working memory?
I've benefited so much from this protocol that I created a mini app just for myself (https://mind-workout.pages.dev/)* as I was unable to find a suitable app for mac. [On windows there 's Brain Workshop (https://brainworkshop.sourceforge.net/)
*This is a variation of the n-back task called triple n-back, which is much harder than dual n-back.
Usually when you "learn" something you improve your understanding of the domain, you start chunking things up into patterns and structures. This reduces your mental load and lets you use your "working memory" more effectively.
I think the intuition with say, "n-back" is that there's supposed to be no structure beyond the memory task, so any increase in performance _must_ be an improvement in some sort of generalised "working memory".
As I understand it people have shown that there is "transferance" between these various types of working-memory based brain games (i.e, getting good at one can improve your performance on others that you haven't done before). But no one has shown that getting good at (say) dual n-back produces a strong improvement in "real tasks" that aren't just memory games.
It only takes 40 mins a day for 8 weeks to test it out. Much less time than the commitment to learn a new language.
Having tried it, I wouldn't be surprised if the mixed results were due to improper adherence and misunderstanding of how n back works by some study participants. In other words, I think it's possible that results would be less mixed for someone who is already starting from a point of solid intelligence and who is driven enough to put in the hard,focused work to get to higher n back levels.
It's ironic that the page didn't exist and I had to go to a backup from 2014 in archive.org to find it.
https://sharpbrains.com/blog/2008/04/22/working-memory-train...
https://web.archive.org/web/20140713110043/http://sharpbrain...
Which is perhaps not without merit, but...