internet as transactional memory, atrophying individual memory?

Nothing groundbreaking, but a [really nice description](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/study-why-bother-to-remember-when-you-can-just-use-google.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss) of [how the networked and shared access](http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2011/07/13/science.1207745.abstract) to all information ever captured is shaping our individual memory and information retrieval strategies.

Or something. I don’t have the attention span to actually read the article. Or the short article summarizing the article. Or, really, to write a proper blog post about the short article summarizing the article.

I know I think of memory first as query structures. I’d be hooped if teh googel went down.

From [Kyle Niemeyer’s summary of the article](http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/07/study-why-bother-to-remember-when-you-can-just-use-google.ars?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=rss):
>The results from all four experiments suggest that people expect computerized information to be continuously available, and actually remember less when they know they’ll have access to it later. We also seem to remember where we can find information instead of the information itself.

Duh. Again, this isn’t exactly a novel finding. But having some experimental data showing how we remember and search for stuff will come in handy.

more Papers love

I’ve been slowly working on my MSc research proposal. Still **far** to early to post any of it online, but it’s starting to take shape. I’m using [Papers](http://mekentosj.com/papers/) to gather journal articles for reference as I’m working. Today, I added 33 articles to the stack, on top of the 63 I’ve already gathered. That’s not manageable. But Papers has some great tools to help cut through stuff quickly. I can sort the articles by the number of citations they have, which pushes “important” articles up to the top of the list. Then I can work through them all more effectively, without worrying about missing anything important.

Of course, Papers is also to blame for the tall stack of papers to read. It makes it almost **too easy** to find articles.

A giant list of 96 papers with 33 new additions becomes a filtered list of 31 papers to read first, sorted by “importance”. Now, if I had an iPad to read the papers without being tethered to a computer (or killing a forest of trees, and draining several unicorns of their blood for inkjet printer cartridges…)

Papers_sorted.png