Andrew Huberman· PhD
setting the level of difficulty of what you’re trying to learn to where ~15% of attempts are fails (& thus, ~85% are successful), is optimal.
Loading…
The evidence is convergent. Multiple independent sources reach the same conclusion, the underlying mechanism is well-characterized, and even the field's most cautious voices treat it as worth doing.
setting the level of difficulty of what you’re trying to learn to where ~15% of attempts are fails (& thus, ~85% are successful), is optimal.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
If they start failing about half the time, then probably what they're trying to learn is too difficult for them at that point.
Failing about 15% of the time seems optimal for learning.
the machine learning data that I'm aware of-- I don't know a lot about machine learning, but within the realm of neuroscience, say that a failure rate of about 15% is optimal for neuroplasticity and growth.