I guess the major difference would be that dating doesn't give you rapid feedback.

Fair enough, heh. But I wouldn't want to idealize the epistemic purity of engineering. Amusingly in this context, often engineering decisions are based more on precedent than science (has somebody else done things this way?), and it sometimes happens that there is a "bottom line" for which evidence is post hoc deduced (e.g., by relaxing the stringency of assumptions in a model in order to get the "right" answer).

Granted, such rationalizations usually affect risks only at the margin, but still...

I guess the bottom line is that engineering is not just science but also aesthetics, economics, and group coordination. To the extent that those things involve cognitive biases et cetera, engineering does too.

Thanks for the link, that was a very interesting read!

The generation technique reminds me a lot of active recall. In both cases doing some sort of work yourself improves retention.

I imagine it works best with theoretical material, and for many topics it would be near impossible to use. For example, recently I've been studying some nuclear physics, which it is very empirically based. The equations are made to fit the experimental data, and so are difficult to generate.

Seemingly a better way to use the technique would be for the material to be presented with key parts missing, and the learner would have to generate just those parts. This, of course, requires specifically prepared material, and not just the conventional textbooks I am using.

I have a system for reading difficult textbooks that I find works well. The basic idea behind my method is that the subject matter is easy once you have the right cached thoughts, so use spaced repetition to cache those thoughts before learning the difficult parts.

1. For the first reading, have a notebook handy. Make a note of all terminology, definitions, etc.. Don't spend too much time trying to understand it all, and don't do any of the exercises or problems. The purpose of this step is to identify any things that will help you understand the material. For example, if a derivation uses a math identity you don't have memorized, make a note of it.

2. The second step, which I usually do on the next day, is to take each item I noted in my notebook and put it into my spaced repetition software. This has the added benefit of making me reread just the most important concepts in a chapter. After they are in SRS, I'll do go through my SRS study.

3. The third step, which I usually do on the third day (after doing my SRS reps for the day), is to read the chapter thoroughly. This is where I'll do the exercises and practice problems.

Steps 1 and 3 take the longest, so if I'm working two textbooks, I'll have them offset on days, with textbook A will be on step 2 when textbook B is on step 1, etc.

This may not be fastest way to read, but I find it works well. It takes me about a month to get through a single textbook, which is why I read multiple texts in parallel-- it also takes about a month for me to read three textbooks. The use of SRS also helps with retention of the material after I've finished the text.

Learning and memorization.

Spaced repetition, the testing effect and the use of mnemonics has not replaced linear non tested study (where you read something over multiple times in a short period of time, don't test yourself and don't space the readings.)