Good memory sounds OK. But, isn’t that a prerequisite of being a “good” autodidact? As opposed to *being* an autodidact.

BTW, introspection says there are two main types of memory:

1) A big bag of trivia.

2) A structure that produces knowledge or memories on demand.

The former is used and consumed as material to build the latter. The latter makes up things that could be or could have been. We call those things “knowledge” and “memories”, respectively. Anyway, whatever. Off topic.

Me, I’m pretty happy with my software mental crutch. It keeps getting better (for me, at least) because I keep improving it.

I have an answer, but you’re not going to like it: be born with a really good memory. And if you’re not born with a really good memory, marry a woman with a really good memory and hope it’s dominant for the next time around the great carousel of life. There’s just no substitute, I’m afraid. Elaborate notecard filing systems aren’t going to help much. You are fundamentally limited by the information you are able to synthesize from disparate sources, on demand.

There are lot of links to advise educationalists how to teach self-learning. Let’s be fair and generous. Their advice might make sense to non-self-learners. But who cares? There are plenty of resources for non-self-learners. And, those who have to take an educationalist’s advice on self-learning are probably never going to self-learn.

There are stories about autodidacticism. But I didn’t find where anyone simply asked autodidactists how they do it.

Let me get the ball rolling:

If you’re a kid, forget grades. If you need grades to tell you whether you’re learning, take a class or be happy in ignorance of the subject.

Be curious. If you’re not curious about something, take a class or be happy in ignorance of the subject.

Find something out that you care about or would be fun to know. … Do it again. … Keep doing that.

Harry, do you have anything for the list? Anybody else? (I’m guessing the Isegoria venue is heavy on the autodidacts.)

I gave up on formal education in all its forms when I realized that I learned better via my own methods. Since then I’ve worked on refining my methods.

I think the big problem is the emphasis on drill. Drill is perfectly appropriate for certain things, particularly muscle skills. It only gets you so far in language learning, and it’s of no use at all to learn creative or analytical tasks. But drill is easy for the teachers.

The testing effect is all well and good once you’ve devised the right test. The controversy over teaching to the test misses this point. Get the test right, and teaching to the test will be meaningful.

Learning a foreign language, I had my time wasted in class learning words and constructs that people in real life don’t actually use. The same techniques would have been more helpful with the proper vocabulary. But even then, it would have been just drill.