something_else

@Leo Gura Criticising materialism doesn't trigger people's defence mechanisms as much though. It might be an easier way to get through to people. The quantum mechanics video you made was the one that finally opened my mind, and if I remember correctly that was because it made me question materialism. I don't think it's as hard to make people question materialism because it's more abstract and inherently philosophical, so people are more open to discuss it. Compared to when you question science and people freak the fuck out because their worldview is built on all the cool shit they attribute to science. Obviously that fact itself is why it's important for people to address how they view science, but I think discussing the idea of reality not being perfectly material is a better way of opening people's mind in the first place. It worked for me, and that approach helped me have some cool discussions with my friends where they were able to acknowledge that there are lots of ways in which materialism doesn't really make all that much sense.

@Leo Gura That's a cool idea actually, and I agree with its inferiority when it comes to measuring someone's in the moment wit for sure. Along with Fischer chess, another cool variation I saw recently which works around the same concept was Fog of War chess, where you can only see your opponents pieces that are in the line of sight of your own pieces. https://www.chess.com/terms/fog-of-war-chess Similar idea to Fischer chess where you can't reliably prepare, but rather than initial randomness you have partial observability, it really fucks with your mind and leaves a whole shit ton of room for creative strategies. I would also say that the preparation component of classical chess still has merit, surely planning counters to your opponents preferences is an important part of strategic thinking, even if that works out as raw memorisation in this case.

@Leo Gura It's a huge part, but there are more possible chess games than atoms in the material universe, and that figure was a napkin math estimate. No one actually really knows even roughly how many possible games there are. So yea, raw memorisation is essential at the start and middle of pro games sure, but at some point in the game the players have gotta start using human heuristics to narrow the search. By the time an endgame is reached memorisation can't be a factor unless it's the memorisation of an algorithm or set of principles. Also, what happens if your opponent plays a completely unexpected move? Even after a few moves, there are more positions than you could feasibly memorise in a lifetime, at that point the heuristics and principles are required too.

It depends what you want to memorise. Method of loci is a way of making your memory intentional and controllable instead of wishy and washy. For it to work, you need to be able to break a concept down into specific chunks that can be stored and recovered to reconstruct the original concept. That makes it great for concrete things like names, procedures, vocabulary, cards, numbers etc. Once you get into more complex topics, the effort of breaking the topic down into chunks that can be stored easily in a memory palace is usually greater than the effort of just using your regular old memory. However even in these cases it is a fantastic tool for memorising summaries of a complex topic. This gives you more confidence in your natural memory for the topic as others have alluded to being effective earlier in the thread. It's not difficult to learn, visualise leaving your phone somewhere in your home and capture that feeling. Remembering where you put something extends to the mental model you have of the world as well as the physical world, it's really quite neat how your brain does this. Then all you have to do is replace the phone with some kind of symbol that reminds you of an idea/name/number etc. And use free resources, like artofmemory.com and their forum, the core technique is so simple that anyone selling you a course is probably trying to teach you extra crap you don't need.