From SuperMemopedia

Criticism

This text has been redacted for clarity with added chaptering and emphasis

in mail to Dr. Wozniak, an anonymous writer complained:

Dear Doctor Wozniak,

I have admired your work at SuperMemo for decades, purchased the product, got discouraged at using it as it had steep learning curve. With time I was surprised your learning methods and products did not make your company worth over $1B, but several fundamental reasons I can think of may have had put a stop to further proliferation of SuperMemo methodology of memorizing knowledge. I would not like to discuss those reasons (I'd have to be paid for that accordingly).

Right now I am appalled on how much misinformation you share and how scientifically flawed are some of your certain thinking processes, results of which you make public at SuperMemo Guru. Your articles content are not at a scientific level, they are at a level of a double-digit IQ blogger who does his/her best to be boring and ensure as few people worldwide as possible read his/her articles. With these criteria, you have achieved the goal perfectly. Regrettably, this is not the level of a person with higher education with a Ph.D. and fluent mastering of a thesaurus makes the content less accessible to certain users, while sounding expert-like where there is no expert, though his uninformed opinionated ego is difficult to miss.

With great interest I read the article on your Website that SuperMemo does not work for kids. I have a number of concerns about its conclusions though, which boil down to 2 points:

SuperMemo does not work for kids aged 2-4 (due to "childhood amnesia"). Surprise, their brain isn't developed yet (who knew? wait, does getting 18 years old and becoming legally adult have anything to do with somatic and neurological/emotional/intellectual development phases? how shocking; does the rest of 40 million Poland population REALLY already know about this?) Forcing the kids aged 2-4 to use SuperMemo can result in later in their life to a chronic dislike for the product and/or method.

Re. 1) SuperMemo does not work for kids

As you perhaps know, using electronic devices by kids aged < 12 years is detrimental to their brain development - WHO itself has an advisory for parents, that if their kids use devices like a smartphone/tablet/laptop more than 1 h a day (I'd have to check if it isn't 0.5h / day), their brain development often goes wrong and introduces addiction in child because of using the device(s) for extended periods of time. If suddenly a kid is deprived of the device, acute sudden withdrawal reactions may occur (aggression, etc.). It has been classified by WHO as a psychiatric disorder. I have not checked recently, DSM V may not have lots of info on it (given how long it takes for its authors to agree on a new edition, like it was with DSM V), but DSM VI will certainly address these research results and new ICD-10 codes will be introduced.

With that in mind, I am SHOCKED that you do not follow scientific news and WHO advisories, that clearly indicate, that - disregarding the research on impact of SuperMemo on 2-4 and older kids, with not fully developed brains - your product is not suitable for that age range. In fact, you should openly declare to potential users, that trying to use SuperMemo by users age lower than 12 years old should not be allowed except under strict and constant supervision from parents/guardians, because otherwise it may easily push them into getting distracted by other materials, readily available from the Web (YouTube with cartoons etc.) Yes, there are exceptions, but if 1 young person in the specimen of 100 people shows using your product is beneficial to their memory, it is no reason to inform the whole world your product may work for such audience, at the same time forgetting (or being unaware of) that the majority of the remaining 99 kids (test participants) may in the future suffer mentally from being exposed to Internet-connected smartphones/laptops. I leave to you doing research of the WHO advisory I mentioned and putting a warning on your website.

I would like you to take this information from WHO ** VERY SERIOUSLY **. What good comes from a 4 y/o being able to quote the US Constitution if the process of learning it would very likely lead to future negative consequences - to the emotional and social brain development phase of the kid?

What you should write in that article, as its main point, is that kids until getting older than 12 years (see the WHO advisory), should not use smartphones, tablets or laptops daily for periods of time longer than 30 minutes (see WHO advisory), as it tends to negatively impact emotional and social aspects of their brain development. As the second point, you should write that SuperMemo could be tried and used on small kids, under full control of their parents or legal guardians, but within the time constraints defined by the WHO. If SuperMemo works, then it's OK. But as you have already noticed, there are few instances when it was used with success on a small kid.

My point is: AS A SCIENTIST, BE RESPONSIBLE, WARN OF POTENTIAL HARM, DO NOT IGNORE IT. You are not an expert on brain development of young kids, please get informed on the topics from authoritative sources and correct your opinions and - even more important - article content to suit the current state of medicine, not the current state of your uninformed opinions.

Re. 2) Kids may hate SuperMemo

The 2nd conclusion from that article, "due to its futility, [pressure to use it] may spark the hate of SuperMemo", is of the "stating the bleeding obvious" kind. Isn't forcing kids to do anything against their will a way to create dislike/hate/trauma later in their life? The same mechanism works also for adults. That conclusion sounds as if the author of the article suddenly learned what the rest of the world had known for millennia and decided to share his revelation.

SIDE NOTE: SuperMemo is boring

SuperMemo was always difficult to use and I see no reason why a kid (from beyond the part of kid population that become geniuses or near-geniuses at a very young age) would get interested in using the app. It's just plain boring, UX-wise badly designed (I'd rather call it "put together", since it looks like a result of a Ph.D. dissertation than a commercial product designed by UX experts). Forcing a child to use it is a form of punishment. I am surprised that you have publicly concluded that the grass is green and posted it as a revelation. A few billion people, most with less formal education, were kind of already familiar with that.

Sincerely

anonymous

Reply from SM users

The critic states he admired Dr. Wozniak's SuperMemo, but couldn't get past the learning curve for the program. Given that the program offers a "beginner" level interface option while the program feeds flashcards automatically, perhaps it's the critic who has a double-digit IQ. My IQ is probably not that high and yet it took me only 2 full days of learning until I was using most of the functions in SM: collection trees, Planner, Sleep Chart, and some degree of incremental reading. I've been using the program consistently for 228 days and I thoroughly enjoy it. It's one of the best discoveries I've made in my life. The more I use it the more I understand why the UX is designed the way it is. It's extremely hard to improve without significantly reducing functionality.

The critic wants to get paid for his "fundamental reasons" that could help proliferate SuperMemo... I doubt anyone on earth would want the advise of such a hostile and insulting person, let alone work with them. Perhaps you can make good money selling your wise advise to a competitor.

The critic is "SHOCKED" that Dr. Wozniak does not follow the same scientific news and reads the same articles as he does. In case you haven't noticed for the past "decades" of admiring the work at SuperMemo, people like Dr. Wozniak engage in discoveries beyond current scientific consensus. Also, if the critic were honest, it would be found that Dr. Wozniak's tone from all the articles he writes reveal an extremely reasonable person willing to engage in discussions.

If the critic feels so strongly about certain points and disagrees with Dr. Wozniak, perhaps he should engage in a civilized discussion, start his own website, or sell his own product, since he claims to have such valuable insight.

The critic insults Dr. Wozniak's views on coercive methods of education by claiming that the rest of the world has always known that. If that were true, then the education system would have changed, but instead it continues to coerce the youth into learning uninteresting and many useless things and then proceed to test them on how well they can regurgitate. Dr. Wozniak makes it clear in his articles that his views on the modern system of education were shaped by pioneers who came before him, and he simply refined his own opinions based on the understanding he's gained, and his personal reflections.

Reference

For reference: WHO Guidelines

Reply from Dr Wozniak, May 1, 2019

Dear Sir,

Your interesting mail provides fantastic inspiration. However, its effect on my thinking may be the opposite to the one intended. In short, I sense that you agree with my claims entirely, and add a bit of your own narrative that, in turn, I strongly disagree with. Here comes the inspiration! I am just working on an article that criticizes imposing screen limits on children. This article will be a good reply to your text, I believe. I am not sure if I finish that article promptly (the nature of incremental writing allows of working on many ideas/articles at the same time). However, your text adds extra energy to that effort. The purpose of my "blog" is to primarily discuss areas where I have doubts about "scientific consensus", or where I have new own research to present, or where I see an important gap in public understanding. If I wanted to stick with mainstream thinking, I would rather write for Wikipedia, which I love too.

I need to add that I am delighted with "Reply from SM user(s)" above. It is a clear proof that my words do not die in vacuum, and there are more of us trying to improve education, or free the young generation of the adult "oppression" (incl. screen limits).

Please keep writing. I find critical mail highly valuable in improving my own thinking!

Thank you

Piotr Wozniak

P.S. November 15, 2019

If you google for "consensus" on screen time, you will learn that it hurts the brain, development, mental health, etc. As promised, the article at SuperMemo Guru goes exactly against that consensus. WHO guidelines are discussed in a separate section. See: On screen time limits