I also find my memory is nowhere near adequate to store all the information I need, but I've adopted the strategy of explicitly outsourcing that function to the machines; like you, I write down to-do and how-to notes etc (in text files), but things that are public knowledge like foreign language words I just rely on running a Google search whenever I need the information (or for more technical information that's described in a paper, I download the PDF, rename it to something more descriptive and put it in a documents folder). I don't bother trying to memorize things.
This is certainly slower than being able to recall stuff from on-board storage, but in practice I don't find it makes enough difference to be a major productivity bottleneck. I don't off the top of my head have a theory about why our experiences differ in that regard. I don't suppose you have any idea whether you have an unusually large working set?
Interesting, perhaps our views differ mostly in how much benefit we believe we could get from a good memory. Some of my reflections:
When I have managed to join previously disconnected concepts during my research, it's been productive. This suggests to me that a better memory could help me connect many more ideas and hence improve my productivity. The N^2 search over all pairwise concepts is really difficult to execute with off-board memory.
When I write papers or blog posts, I spend most of the time chasing down studies/essays/articles that I remember t
I suspect that forgetfulness is the single largest hindrance to me improving my rationality. This isn't something I've seen others report on LessWrong, so I'm suspicious that I'm in some kind of self-serving spiral, or that I'm doing something obvious wrong. So, I'm seeking feedback on (a) whether the above statement is true -- whether forgetfulness is likely to really be a dominant hindrance; (b) what I can do about it; and (c) why others haven't reported this.
Ways that I suspect forgetfulness harms me:
Steps I've taken: