To add to Claudia points, let me suggest that interested parties
read the following:
Tulving, E. (2007). Are there 256 different kinds of memory? In J. S.
Nairne (Ed.), The foundations of remembering: Essays in honor of
Henry L. Roediger, III (pp. 39-52). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
NOTE: Th
Mike O makes a good point.
Another variant on his question is: What enduring information and thinking
skills do we want students to take away from our discussion of memory?
Cognitive scientists have gone back and forth or the number memories and
characteristics of proposed memories for over 80 yea
On Thu, 25 Aug 2016 07:47:39 -0700, Michael Ofsowitz wrote:
Hey Mike...
Hey Mike
as original poster you'll notice I never mentioned the number 7.
Actually, I did notice this and wondered why weren't being specific.
Not to act as a copy editor but I would have requested that you
re-phra
Hey Mike... as original poster you'll notice I never mentioned the
number 7. I'm aware of some of Cowan's work, so I took your post as
being tangential.
Yes, 4, 7, or whatever packs into 2sec. But is it relevant? What about
the less-easily quantifiable? (Visual experience, or implicit memories
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:39 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: RE: [tips] on STM
Mike, I have not been very active in TIPS in the past few years, but know that
your latest post on STM is the 110th 'Mike Palij' post that I have purposely
save
ure many others appreciate them as much or more than I do.
Miguel
From: Carol DeVolder [devoldercar...@gmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:46 PM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Subject: Re: [tips] on STM
I think one reason for the low r
. The lack
>of
>seriousness on George Miller's part is somewhat concerning but as he
>pointed out to Cowan, he was not that invested in the number "7" (though
>one would not get this from reading his article, at least I didn't).
>
>> Thanks for clearing
h
one would not get this from reading his article, at least I didn't).
Thanks for clearing that up, Mike[image: 👍]
You're very welcome. It's nice to know that I'm not just writing stuff
for
myself.
-Mike Palij
New York University
m...@nyu.edu
-----------
e: 👍]
> --
> *From:* Mike Palij
> *Sent:* Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:10:07 AM
> *To:* Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
> *Cc:* Michael Palij
> *Subject:* RE: [tips] on STM
>
> So, two days have passed and there has been no res
Thanks for clearing that up, Mike[??]
From: Mike Palij
Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 9:10:07 AM
To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)
Cc: Michael Palij
Subject: RE: [tips] on STM
So, two days have passed and there has been no response to
my post bel
So, two days have passed and there has been no response to
my post below. Now, I'm kind of curious as to why since the
original poster asked about the magical number 7. Cowan
and others have argued for the magical 4 (+/- 1) and one
can add in the process of subsidizing into the mix.
So, no opin
Many people in the field follow the research of Nelson Cowan
who has argued that the "Magical Number" is actually 4
(range 3-5) and not seven. This is hardly news as he laid
out his argument for this position in 2001. The reference
for this article is:
Cowan, N. (2001). The magical number 4 in
Hi
I'm not up to date on the latest views about STM or Working Memory. With
respect to the 7 figure, however, I know from my culture class that this is
very malleable across cultures. For example, languages that have shorter names
for numbers have much larger STM capacities than languages that
13 matches
Mail list logo
