Not sure if this is what you meant by "systemized", but here's my basic workflow for textbooks:

1. Read chapter (or, more likely, some 4-5 sections of a chapter)
2. Summarize/analyze chapter in an emacs org-mode document
3. Generate anki cards from the summary
4. (Optional) Expand summary with notes from lecture

Writing new cards takes a long time, so I try to spread out the work. Roughly speaking, one textbook chapter usually takes two days, and will generate 20-30 cards. (This is for physics and math, where I'm generating a lot of cards that are relatively basic formulas and constants.) Also, most of the work is in reading, understanding, and summarizing. Making the Anki cards does take time, but it tends to be less than the other parts.

I haven't done much to automate the process, although I'm working on autogenerating cards from the emacs documentation to learn emacs shortcuts. The most important modification I made to vanilla Anki was writing a very kluge-y plugin to allow full use of my commonly used emacs keybindings (mostly movement, killing, yanking, and deleting).

A few quick pieces of advice: * Learn the shortcuts. It's a lot less painful when editing to type Cmd-T + M to get into Latex math mode than it is to use the mouse.

• On a related note, if you're doing math, physics, or anything else with formulas, learn Latex if you don't know it. It's for more pleasant to review cards with pretty formatting than with ugly formatting. It also makes cloze deletion of formulas a lot easier (although I'm not sure how effective Cloze formulas are yet).

• Batch the steps of whatever process you choose. So, I do all the reading, then all the summarizing, then all the anki additions, then all the anki reviewing. It's much faster, and way less painful to review.

• I've found it to be easier to review old material and learn new material at the same time. Learning 10 or 20 new cards can sometimes be frustrating, especially when I basically wanted to brute-force memorize (as I did with trig formulas before starting Calculus, where I didn't care how they were derived). Reviewing, on the other hand, is generally pleasant, since I get to feel accomplished and intelligent.

• Think hard about what information is useful. I wanted to memorize the derivation of the formula for a ring of charge in physics based on the formula for a point charge. I initially tried to make a bunch of different cards that sequentially went through the steps of the derivation. What worked, though, was having one card for the general strategy and another card for the bounds of integration. Once I had those two pieces of information, I was easily able to reconstruct the whole derivation. Since there were 3 or 4 additional similar derivations, recognizing those pieces of information as being critical saved something like 15 or 20 cards, which is huge.

If you haven't read these yet, here's a list of 20 rules of formulating knowledge, with an emphasis on SRS. This is a much longer article by the same guy, covering basically the same information in more detail. I agree with gwern, though, that Cloze deletions are not the most effective way to learn.

Does the list of all articles include posts in discussion? If not, is there another list that does? Finally, is there some interesting reason that it stops in August 2012, or is that just a result of people not updating it? Thanks.

More broadly, I'm interested in hearing about the workflow of those who use Anki or some alternative regularly. I've used it intermittently but never felt like I was using it very efficiently. It may be that making cards always feels like that and SR's efficiency makes up for it but I'm curious to see how people have systemized the process if at all.

Also, this probably belongs in the open thread.

"I have a really strong positive affect towards ponies[...]

This example supports Warrigal's claim 'affect' as a psychology term is used incorrectly on the site. Vide beoShaffer's link to the psychology wiki, particularly:

... [A]s a usage note, grammatical convention holds that an individual self-report a "good mood" but never a "good affect." An outside observer can choose to declare that another individual is in a "good mood" (general colloquial usage) or "displays a high affect" (scientific usage).

The statement with correct usage would then become:

I have been told I display a strong positive affect when discussing or otherwise engaging with pony-related topics, so my assessment of their hygiene may be quite biased. I do in fact myself notice elevated mood upon concluding pony affairs.

There was recently a discussion of Lesswrong's use of the word "Signaling," and it seemed to me that upon consideration it was shown that we're pretty much using it to mean what it means in a broader academic context. See this comment in particular.

With respect to the use of "affect," I again disagree but there aren't really any examples I can point to. I think its use in many cases is very similar to "emotion," but I also think that its use fits pretty perfectly with your stated definition. For example, someone might say, "I have a really strong positive affect towards ponies, so my assessment of this fanfiction's quality might be biased" (I have almost no idea why that is the example I thought of), and this fits pretty well with " a subjective feeling experienced in response to a thought or other stimulus."

With "affect," I think we might have "good reasons" for using the word, but I concede that its use isn't really necessary and that its use probably is because people want "to seem Less Wrong-y."

Trivial point: Do you mean "Site-wide Taboos?" The current title is "side-wide taboos."

Otherwise, they would also include the happiness of family and friends after the frozen person is cured.

That only works if their family and friends are cryopreserved themselves, or live until it becomes possible to wake them up.

That being said, I don't think the pain of grief is comparable to death.

Technically, by following this argument, we also should stop curing cancer, because that money could also be used for Givewell charities and animal welfare.

And that's exactly why I'm against donating to cancer research. If I had the opportunity to funnel all that money to something useful, I would. If I had the opportunity to choose between cancer, cyronics, or the government using the money in another fairly useless manner, I don't know which I'd pick.

I generally agree, but I can see the point of making an exception in cases such as disclosure of confidential information, potential basilisks, etc.

On this site, rube generally means 'red cube', and I had to look up the word to figure out what you meant here. Though this still makes a bit of sense--you can't signal to red cubes either.