<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
<channel>
<title>Feedback &amp; Forgetting</title>
<link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/</link>
<description>How learning actually works — sourced, replicated, recomputed.</description>
<language>en</language>
<atom:link href="https://feedbackandforgetting.com/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
<item><title>Active Recall: Quizzing Beat Rereading Later in a 2006 Study</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/active-recall/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/active-recall/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>In the 2006 study, self-testing beat rereading on delayed tests while rereading felt surer. The reviews, read at abstract level, and a week-long recall plan.</description></item>
<item><title>Bilingual Advantage: Mixed Evidence on Adult Mental Control</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/language-minds/bilingual-advantage/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/language-minds/bilingual-advantage/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>By two reviews' abstracts, bilinguals' very small edge on mental-control tasks lost significance or left no evidence after bias correction. See the CSV.</description></item>
<item><title>Does Brainstorming Work? In a Review, Groups Had Fewer Ideas</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/creative-minds/brainstorming/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/creative-minds/brainstorming/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A 2018 review reports that talking brainstorming groups produce fewer ideas than the same number of people working alone. What was read, and what it covers.</description></item>
<item><title>Functional Fixedness: The Candle Problem Turns on the Box</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/creative-minds/candle-problem/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/creative-minds/candle-problem/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Functional fixedness in the candle problem: the answer uses the tack box as a shelf. Classic studies were readable here only as citations; a 2021 test, in full.</description></item>
<item><title>Cobra Effect: Did People Breed Cobras? No Record Found Yet</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/systems-loops/cobra-effect/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/systems-loops/cobra-effect/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Snake bounties in British India from 1869–1872 are on record. The cobra effect story of breeding cobras for a bounty has no period record found as of Nov 2026.</description></item>
<item><title>Critical Period Hypothesis: Does Grammar Learning Ebb at 17?</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/language-minds/critical-period-hypothesis/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/language-minds/critical-period-hypothesis/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A 2018 study of 669,498 grammar-quiz takers modeled grammar-learning ability as high until about 17.4, then falling. One study, one model; accent not tested.</description></item>
<item><title>Feedback Loop Examples: Which Ones Have a Test on Record</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/systems-loops/feedback-loops/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/systems-loops/feedback-loops/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Feedback loops in traffic, a steam governor, a thermostat, a bathtub and the beer game, each marked tested or untested, with CC BY loop diagrams and a CSV.</description></item>
<item><title>Feynman Technique: Its Parts Were Studied Under Other Names</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/feynman-technique/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/feynman-technique/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>The Feynman technique’s moves were studied as self-explanation, learning by teaching and the illusion of explanatory depth. What held up, and how to try it.</description></item>
<item><title>Foot-in-the-Door Technique: Later Tests Gave Mixed Results</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/influence-persuasion/foot-in-the-door/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/influence-persuasion/foot-in-the-door/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>The foot-in-the-door technique asks small, then bigger. One 1975 study’s abstract reports 51.9% vs 33.3% agreeing; later tests were mixed. See what held up.</description></item>
<item><title>Forgetting Curve: It Measured Relearning, Not Recall</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/forgetting-curve/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/forgetting-curve/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Ebbinghaus's forgetting curve tracks how much faster he relearned nonsense syllables, not what he recalled. See the 1885 data, the 2015 replication and a CSV.</description></item>
<item><title>Goodhart’s Law: Cited to a 1975 Paper on Monetary Policy</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/systems-loops/goodharts-law/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/systems-loops/goodharts-law/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Later papers trace Goodhart’s law to a 1975 paper on UK monetary management. The line about a measure becoming a target came later; papers credit Strathern.</description></item>
<item><title>Incubation Effect: The Classic Stages Came From Self-Reports</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/creative-minds/incubation-effect/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/creative-minds/incubation-effect/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Wallas built his four stages of creativity from Helmholtz's and Poincaré's own accounts. What lab tests of the incubation effect found, read as an abstract.</description></item>
<item><title>Learning Myths and Neuromyths: Some Began as Real Findings</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/learning-myths/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/learning-myths/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A scorecard of learning myths and neuromyths, from learning styles to the learning pyramid: the study behind each claim, if one was found, and its status.</description></item>
<item><title>Do Learning Styles Work? A 2008 Review Found Few Fair Tests</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/learning-styles/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/learning-styles/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>In a 2012 survey report, over 90% of 242 UK and Dutch teachers backed learning styles. Few studies ran the right test, and those read here found no clear gain.</description></item>
<item><title>Milgram Experiment: Obedience Ranged Widely Across Versions</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/influence-persuasion/milgram-experiment/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/influence-persuasion/milgram-experiment/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Milgram ran 23 versions of his obedience experiment. In the 21 a 2014 synthesis compared, 2.5% to 92.5% went on to 450 volts. See every version, with a CSV.</description></item>
<item><title>Door-in-the-Face and 5 Other Classic Studies: Which Held Up?</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/influence-persuasion/persuasion-classics/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/influence-persuasion/persuasion-classics/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>The door-in-the-face technique asks big, then smaller. A 2021 rerun’s abstract reports similar compliance; see five other classics and how much could be read.</description></item>
<item><title>Spaced Repetition: Should Review Gaps Grow? Studies Disagree</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/spaced-repetition/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/learning-memory/spaced-repetition/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>Spaced study beat massed study on average in classrooms. In one lab’s abstracts, growing review gaps didn’t beat equal gaps on delayed tests. See the studies.</description></item>
<item><title>Vocabulary Size Test: What Counts as a Word Sets the Score</title><link>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/language-minds/vocabulary-size/</link><guid>https://feedbackandforgetting.com/language-minds/vocabulary-size/</guid><pubDate>Fri, 06 Nov 2026 00:00:00 GMT</pubDate><description>A 2016 vocabulary size test put the median 20-year-old native speaker of American English at about 42,000 lemmas or 11,100 word families: the unit matters.</description></item>
</channel>
</rss>
