Everywhere one looks, one sees empty hard drives and overflowing brains.
The Supermemo workflow, exemplified by its creator, doesn’t solve this problem, because it focuses on the wrong theme. The existence of savants with photographic memory demonstrates that the goal isn’t worth attaining. The human brain, while highly flexible, is finite. It can accomplish amazing feats, but there is an outrageous cost. Becoming an extreme mental athlete is as unhealthy as becoming an extreme physical one.
At present tech, one can’t rely on a computer to fold sweaters or write Turing-sensible prose. Likewise, one shouldn’t ask one’s brain to compete with a hard drive at memorization. Let the computer do the memorization, and the brain do the interpretation.
What is the benefit of memorization? Faster access? Memory competes with a keyboard and screen, which can retrieve effectively unlimited info in negligible time. Reading is easier than recalling, too.
The problem is not memorization, but intelligent processing. Processing requires flawless recall, facile manipulation, comprehension and creativity. Computers can do the first two, brains can do the second two.
That’s why Textmind is built on the daily processing loop. To mitigate exponential memory decay, the user processes yesterday’s chronological sprint into packetized thoughts suitable for JIT rapid iterative inductive sorting into a grand outline, that evolves in sync with his mind.
What is important to memorize is how to manipulate that outline to execute adaptively. The act of using the outline naturally builds this intuitive sense. The result is that one memorizes a rough sense of where to retrieve information, rather than the information itself. Very little actually needs to be memorized.
For what remains, it appears that Supermemo is the best tool for the job. Especially when it isn’t choked with volumes of information it simply wasn’t designed to handle. And for good reason. Does anybody want to compete with RMS to write a text editor? I don’t.