The faster you learn something, the faster you forget it?

[Le Baron]

Of course, this situation is hypothetical, but I still think it's a useful question - is there any advantage/disadvantage, retention wise, of spreading the same number of hours over 3 years rather than 1 year?

When you say 'retention wise' I'd have to admit I can't say either way, I would think however that under conditions of active study there is just more time and therefore more opportunity for repetition, which is an important part of retention. It's not an easy question.

[smallwhite]

There’s forgetting, though. Lesson 1 was 3 years ago, and 66% of your exposure was over a year ago.

But,

If you use SRS flashcards, you remember all your cards the same well on a given day. But the 3-year person’s cards are more mature than the 1-year person’s, so the 3-year person retains more after 3 months of no study.

[księżycowy]

Even accepting the variables as the same, I think the key issue is one year is reasonable in this scenario.

When I first read the OP I was thinking of something like Benny's "fluent in three months". If you somehow actually got to even B1 in three months, that would be a true cram session, and I'd assert that the learner who did that would lose it faster.

Given that the amount of time is the same (3hrs x 1yr; 1hr x 3yrs), I'm not so quick to say the person who spent three years has it more "baked in". Assuming that the use of the language and any contact with it was strictly kept to that 1hr/3hrs to truely keep it the same.

EDIT: As the scenario currently is, I wouldn't necessarily expect either of them to lose it faster than the other solely on the basis on one having studied for 3 years and the other having studied 1 year. The amount of time is the same, and I'd surmise that a year is sufficient time to "adhere" a language to your brain well enough.

[JLS]

I didn't think of that - are there any studies showing additional nights of slumber improve retention?

My response is more anecdotal. I find that lengths of time--even when there's little review--still embed the material in the mind. Like paths through the woods, the more you walk on them the harder it is for them to wear away. A little review and then it comes back.

But I've also found intense, focused, consistent practice over shorter periods of time to do wonders. I learned Japanese hiragana and katakana a few months ago (92 characters in all) and really drilled them. My goal was to be able to write out all the hiragana and katakana at least 6x each from memory. That was a few months ago. I dropped Japanese completely for a short time, ie. 2-3 months. I went back on Saturday to review them and realized I remembered only a few. However, it took amazingly little effort for them all to come back to memory. I was once again at least sounding out hiragana on Wikipedia with ease; yet all I did was "brush up the trail" I had so intensely stomped out before.

Maybe the whole question is theoretical, and perhaps not all practical. Whether over one year or three, it's good study--and not just study per se--that makes the difference.

[tungemål]

Yes, there have been studies on learning. You remember something better if you learn it, then forget it, then learn it again.

Language learning is mostly a memory test, creating pathways in the brain. Lets say you learn a word or an expression from a book. You look it up and try to remember it. The second and third time you see the expression you might remember that you've seen it before, but you need to look it up again. The next time you see it maybe you're able to remember what it means, and the connection is strengthened. After lets say 7 times the pathway is automatic - you see the expression and immediately you have a feel for what it means.

[jimmy]

I disagree to the idea. Because there are some profiles who almost never forget something/anything. I may prefer some wordings across such people that they had super memory.

Find please a better research issue for yourself: For instance, assess whether forgetting anything might particularly/directly be considered as an illness.

[dml130]

Just my gut feeling (I have no studies to back it up), but I selected learner 2. My sense is that the "learning" in the brain continues in between study sessions even without deliberate study, so, potentially, there is more time for the language to embed itself into the brain of the person studying for 3 years versus the person that studied more intensely for a shorter period of time. I could see a case for counterarguments as well (higher intensity, as long as it's over a long-enough period of time, could have certain advantages as well), but for now, in the absence of solid evidence one way or another, I think I would go with lower intensity over a longer period of time.

[Granrey]

part of the problem is the confusion about learning.

If I tell you, x+y=15. you know it now but will you remember 15 mins later?

If you dont remember it 15 mins later, does it mean that you learned it and forgot or that you understood but not learned it.

You can try this with Anki. I notice Anki gives me a new word today, and I keep forgetting the meaning the next day but there are some that though I forget the meaning, I still remember the word. Empecher is a verb that means like avoid or prevenir. I forget the meaning often but I do remember the word.

That's why I prefer to do the recomended amount of lessons per day for each app rathen than doing lots of them

[tarvos]

Learning is partly review. So unless you're a memory master, you're going to have to repeat things for them to sink in. Give things time. People are so impatient these days...

[iguanamon]

Learning is partly review. So unless you're a memory master, you're going to have to repeat things for them to sink in. Give things time. People are so impatient these days...

I agree. Welcome back, tarvos!