wow. I can't believe how I keep being wrong at this. This has to be at least the 10th one I have submitted...

Which psychological findings have great practical implications, if they are indeed true?

Overjustification comes to mind, as an example.

On a related note: if it is true, does that suggest that, as far as we take the diminishing utility of money for granted, by using extrinsic rewards, we are reducing the number of extreme performers? (in so far as we can't keep giving exponential rewards, and money/tokens/what have you motivates in proportion to their utility) I have seen it argued, that if you are not doing well enough to be expecting a non-interrupted stream of extrinsic rewards, you probably shouldn't be doing that thing. Does that lose any validity in this context?

Still, it seems like whether it's true should have some implications.

A more certain finding seems to be the poor transfer of learning. It SEEMS like this SHOULD have implications for the education system.

What else would? (like, even if stereotype threat existed as a significant force, it seems far less clear to me how that finding could realistically impact any policies or our behaviors)

Anki has good statistics so it shouldn't be hard to get the number of daily time spent on reviewing cards. The fact that you don't know is suprising to me as I frequently check the Anki stats. Care to elaborate?

What skills are overwhelmingly easier to learn in institutionalized context?

(e.g math wouldn't count, because even if motivation is circumvented as an issue in institutions, you should be theoretically to study everything at home. Neither would necessarily the handling of some kind of lab equipment, if there was some clear documentation available for you, and (assuming that you took the efforts to remember it) if the transfer to practice was straightforward (so pushing buttons and changing settings would be straightforward, while the precise motions of carving a specific kind of motive into wood would be less so))

It seems like your approach would create a lot of cards. How much time to you spend per day reviewing your cards?

Also, mind sharing your cards for the holonyms?

I'm still at organizing my way to deal with the information. One example:

Card 1: Front: [anatomy] cubiti/joint.latin(Between Humeris and Radius)

Back (typing): Articulatio Humeroradialis

+Image

Card2: Front: [anatomy] holonym.latin(Articulatio Humeroradialis)

Back (typing): Articulatio cubiti +Image

Card 3/4/5: Front: [anatomy] cubiti/joint.latin(Image1/2/3)

Back (typing): Articulatio Humeroradialis

As far as images go I think 3D programs are the way to go. BodyParts3D is a promising project as it comes with an open license but unfortunately it's not complete and it's UI isn't user-friendly. BioDigital is my other source but unfortunately it has a closed license that prevents sharing of the finished deck.

While we are at the topic of the ontology of anatomy, what's wrong with the English language to have polysemy in "arm" and have it mean both the whole arm and the upper arm?

The thing is, different levels of availability require different rehearsal commitments. I've not seen any explicit support for varied automaticity goals in Anki or the other spaced repetition programs I've played with. The best I can do is try to decide on a review-by-review basis whether I should set the next interval of a given card more conservatively than suggested.

For normal Anki learning I think the solution is having redundancy in cards. I'm at the moment learning anatomy and I have lots of cards for every muscle and bone. I have graphics from different angles. I have cards asking for holonyms.

What non-english content do you consume?

I want to try out a new system I came up with: a 'trickle' system, with some kind of interesting, but short text landing in my email box(/or comparable) each day, the words the text uses automatically compared to the list of words I already know, and the disjunction automatically queried from wiktionary and made into one sided flashcards. (reason being: I realized I cared for receptive abilities, but not so much for being able to express my thoughts in a different language. If it was a free action, great, but I feel like it usually is not.) And these words learned BEFORE reading the text. (as to avoid having too many breaks in the flow)

At what age would you be confident that your child could handle living alone-ish?

Do you mean the age where the child wants to live alone or the age where they could handle it without too much damage?

How much distance between the houses are you talking about?

Parenting/Housing

I have been playing with the thought of instead of buying a house for a big family, maybe I should buy a small land/house for me and my potential fiancee, and seperate lands/houses for my children.

At what age would you be confident that your child could handle living alone-ish?

I plan to have a large family (this is coming from a childless person, so make of it what you will, but I am entertaining the idea of double digits...so what this means in practice, is that their number probably won't be bottlenecked by my willingness, and thus, the future possibilities vary quite a lot, and as such, it's harder to plan for them). I think the standard route is to buy a big-ass house which will fit all your future-kids. But, when they fly out of the nest, you are left with a house too big for you to maintain, and frankly, I wouldn't care much for a big house, if only I would be in the picture. Also, I would probably be delaying starting a family, until I've got enough money for the bigger house.

Now, I can think of some advantages to this (assume that the costs are equivalent):

• I wouldn't have to sell our house once they move.
• They would get to have their own houses: 1. land tenure is god (and oh my, did you ever see how involved kids get the moment you allow them to customize their rooms more to their liking? (even in dorm rooms, posters go everywhere!) I feel like they could really make something great out of a piece of dirt they can call their own. Having some free time helps a lot with that, too.) 2. past a certain age, kids really value some privacy
• They get to learn to be more independent early on
• There is an age until which kids are comfortable with sharing a room, and you have all this time to find a piece of land, so you will probably find better deals than if you'd to choose from the options on the market RIGHT NOW
• Getting together for a 'barn-raising' is freaking great!

Now, I'll be honest, I didn't think too much of why this might be a bad idea. There seems to be a spectrum from sharing a room, through using different rooms in the same house, or different buildings on the same family land, which I think are all pretty standard, to living in seperate houses on different plots. It does not seem THAT extreme to me? Now, if they were to live in a different city, I suppose I would get more uncomfortable?

So, uh, any thoughts? Is there something I did'nt think of?

Seperate but related ideas:

• phasing in/out liberties/monetary allowances gradually, as they grow up: when kids come of a pre-agreed upon age, you may start gradually decreasing the monetary support they get. The standard I usually encountered was that the moment kids start working, they start paying a fixed amount as 'rent'...or they can continue paying nothing.
• treating child/student-ness as a job: with allowances adjusted by performance (also involving them with the family business/whatever as such)