It is scientifically proven that handwriting is better for your memory because it forces you to process the material more than note taking on a laptop.
That's... not true, and not supported by the study you linked.
In the study, there was no measured difference in memory between the two note taking styles; the groups' factual scores were not significantly different in any of the tests.
Where things vary is the non-memory questions: are the notes helping you understand and apply the material better, and how advantageous are they to your studying?
In both of those categories, handwritten notes win out.
Finally, there is no "because"; the authors can only speculate. I am not aware of any studies that can actually purport to say why handwritten notes are better.
I find handwritten notes far worse. For me, I'd prefer a full set of notes to a be provided if feasible (a lecture, etc.) but that doesn't work in everyday conversational meetings. I instead prefer typing notes because it requires little cognative load to accomplish and is quite efficient.
The point of notes for me is to refresh my memory after the fact because my human memory isn't reliable enough. They are especially useful for capturing finer quantified details.
During a typical lecture or discussion/meeting, I find it far more useful focus most my cognitative abilities on what's being described/presented to me and only commit critical information to memory. The majority of my energy spent is processing the language and concepts discussed, linking language and concepts togethe, connecting those concepts with previous experiences/knowledge, and generating new ideas/relationships... all in what seems a fairly random order as needed. This allows you to ask informed questions when I see things missing in the conceptual structure I have that I might otherwise miss later and have no means to extract that information because my notes may not have the relationship or fact I need.
Later on when reviewing the information, I utilize the critical conceptual structure/framework I created about the discussion to reason through it. If there are pieces of information missing, it's pretty obvious and I can refer to my notes. If I missed the concept I at least have a second shot at recovering the idea from highly detailed and clear to read notes I took.
I could not imagine trying to write LaTeX on the fly during a in depth mathematics discussion, I'd have far too much focus on syntax formulating correct notation structures than the concept at hand when it's far easier to translate using a camera phone or handwriting.
"Participants using laptops are more likely to take lengthier transcription-like notes with greater verbatim overlap with the lecture"
In other words, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with taking notes on a laptop if you don't copy everything verbatim. If you force yourself to process the material you should have no problem.
But they noticed that most do not go back to their notes as much as they should so a general advice, while typing is easier hand-written helps you learn and retain better using less exposure.
Assuming a class isn't already being recorded (many/most at my university were), the best solution is probably to record audio on your phone and take hand written notes. Then go back and transcribe the hand written notes while referring to the audio in to the computer.
Well, I started taking LaTeX notes in-class specifically because I couldn't refer back to handwritten notes later; my handwriting is atrocious at the best of times and when taking quick notes it was just unreadable. However, I did have to keep a notebook for diagrams as well, and my typed notes always needed cleanup afterwards. My eventual process was to type up a first draft before class while reading the material, supplement them with lecture material, then finish them after class. This won't work for everyone, but after I started doing this I would actually use my notes, whereas before I wouldn't, since I could actually read the darn things. Plus, I can type ~2.5 times faster than I can write.
If you're going to do that, your best bet is probably to take handwritten notes on a tablet while recording using an app that syncs the two.
I sometimes do this; it's also nice that I can snap a photo of a slide with the tablet and insert it into the notes.
TBH, I mostly type notes, in part because my handwriting is really bad and, if I'm going to write something up about an event cutting and pasting is easier. OTOH, I sometimes prefer to have fairly cursory notes knowing that I can always go back to exactly what was said if I need/want to.
Totally agree. Also handwriting is better for your handwriting! About ten years into my IT career my skills devolved into chicken scratch and I can't even read notes I wrote recently now. I need to do something about that.
As another reply mentioned, it seems like hand-written notes are good because the limitations on writing speed force you to synthesize information as it is relayed to you.
Outside of mathematical lectures, I find writing notes in something like notepad++ more fruitful. I can attempt mirror the structure of the speakers' argument using tabs/indentations, and quickly reformat the document as the logical structure becomes clearer.
"The Paris Agreement’s inclusion of 1.5°C has catalysed fervent activity amongst many within the scientific community keen to understand what this more ambitious objective implies for mitigation. However, this activity has demonstrated little in the way of plurality of responses. Instead there remains an almost exclusive focus on how future ‘negative emissions technologies’ (NETs) may offer a beguiling and almost free “get out of jail card”. This presentation argues that such a dominant focus, evident for 2 and 1.5°C, reveals an endemic bias across much of the academic climate change community determined to voice a politically palatable framing of the mitigation landscape – almost regardless of scientific credibility."
And if we were trying to do real science we'd have to actually find proof of cause and effect. I still have yet to find convincing proof that CO2 is the culprit. Te level of CO2 in the ar should be addressed, but I am worried that we have culturally painted CO2 as such a bad guy that the underlying cause of global warming will never be found
Bayer doesn't exactly have a good reputation either [1].
I don't think it is a good PR move at all.
There is some litigation going on against Monsanto and probably a lot more to come. In the news you will read Bayer now instead of Monsanto which is going to hurt the Bayer brand.
Buying slave labour from the Nazis, massive stake in the company that made Zyklon B, invented heroin, knowingly gave people AIDS with an anti-haemophiliac drug when it was banned in US markets. Quite the rap sheet.
The danger as a society we have to day is the people who grew up during those events are all passing away. We soon no longer will have people of any influence who experienced the horrors of a true world war. Names then have little connection to the past and companies "reinventing" themselves are only further opening this knowledge gap.
The danger as a society we have to day is the people who grew up during those events are all passing away.
This seems to say exactly the opposite of what you think it says. By your own admission, you're describing the actions of dead people. What does any of that have to do with the people running the company today?
I think at some point you might absolve the present-day organizations of the sins of their predecessors - organizations, corporations, families, countries are made of people, and the moral responsibility ultimately lies with the individuals who choose to act, to not act, or to allow others to do so.
But it's also the case that an organizations future is based in its past; even if the individual people who chose to act have long since died and there are none alive who know their face or name, if a group of people (an organization, a country, a corporation) has enriched itself through immoral acts in the past, even if it acts morally today, is it right to leave them with the fruits of its crimes? If a people has been impoverished by crimes committed against them in the past, even if no one today is still wronging them, is it right to leave them impoverished today?
https://www.google.com/url?q=https://linguistics.ucla.edu/pe...