You take notes in meetings because you think you'll remember more....
Nav Toor@heynavtoor
94 views
Apr 25, 2026
~4 min read
Advertisement
1
You take notes in meetings because you think you'll remember more.
Princeton and UCLA proved the opposite.
Laptop note-takers wrote down 65% more words than longhand note-takers. They also scored significantly worse on understanding questions.
A week later — with their own notes in front of them — they were still worse.
This effect has a name. It's not what you think. 🧵
Princeton and UCLA proved the opposite.
Laptop note-takers wrote down 65% more words than longhand note-takers. They also scored significantly worse on understanding questions.
A week later — with their own notes in front of them — they were still worse.
This effect has a name. It's not what you think. 🧵
2
The paper is called "The Pen Is Mightier Than the Keyboard."
Pam Mueller (Princeton) and Daniel Oppenheimer (UCLA), published in Psychological Science, 2014.
Three studies. 325 participants. The result was so counterintuitive it became one of the most cited cognitive-science findings of the decade.
The more you wrote down, the less you understood.
Pam Mueller (Princeton) and Daniel Oppenheimer (UCLA), published in Psychological Science, 2014.
Three studies. 325 participants. The result was so counterintuitive it became one of the most cited cognitive-science findings of the decade.
The more you wrote down, the less you understood.
3
Study 1: laptop users typed at 14.6% verbatim overlap. Longhand users: 8.8%.
Tested immediately after, both groups matched on factual recall.
But on conceptual questions — the ones that actually require understanding — laptop users scored significantly worse (F(1,55)=9.99, p=.03).
Facts survived. Comprehension didn't.
Tested immediately after, both groups matched on factual recall.
But on conceptual questions — the ones that actually require understanding — laptop users scored significantly worse (F(1,55)=9.99, p=.03).
Facts survived. Comprehension didn't.
4
Here's where it gets interesting.
Study 2: researchers warned laptop users not to transcribe verbatim. Explicit instructions. "Don't just type what you hear."
Didn't matter.
Warned laptop users still hit 12.07% verbatim. Longhand: 6.9%. The conceptual gap persisted: F(1,89)=11.98, p=.017.
You can't willpower your way out of it.
Study 2: researchers warned laptop users not to transcribe verbatim. Explicit instructions. "Don't just type what you hear."
Didn't matter.
Warned laptop users still hit 12.07% verbatim. Longhand: 6.9%. The conceptual gap persisted: F(1,89)=11.98, p=.017.
You can't willpower your way out of it.
5
Study 3 is the one that breaks people.
1-week delay. Participants allowed to study their own notes before the test.
You would think: more notes = more to study = better scores, right?
Wrong. Longhand note-takers who studied: z = +0.19.
Laptop note-takers who studied: z = −0.10.
Cohen's d = 0.64. A large effect.
1-week delay. Participants allowed to study their own notes before the test.
You would think: more notes = more to study = better scores, right?
Wrong. Longhand note-takers who studied: z = +0.19.
Laptop note-takers who studied: z = −0.10.
Cohen's d = 0.64. A large effect.
6
Even with a week to review, laptop users did worse on factual recall too.
Longhand-study group: 7.1 facts recalled.
Laptop-study group: 4.5 facts recalled.
Laptop users who studied their own notes performed worse than longhand users who didn't study at all on factual content.
The notes were actively misleading them.
Longhand-study group: 7.1 facts recalled.
Laptop-study group: 4.5 facts recalled.
Laptop users who studied their own notes performed worse than longhand users who didn't study at all on factual content.
The notes were actively misleading them.
7
Mueller and Oppenheimer's exact quote, from the paper:
"Laptop note takers' tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning."
Not "less helpful." Detrimental.
The faster you can record, the worse you encode.
"Laptop note takers' tendency to transcribe lectures verbatim rather than processing information and reframing it in their own words is detrimental to learning."
Not "less helpful." Detrimental.
The faster you can record, the worse you encode.
8
Now — what if the real problem isn't laptops?
In 2021, Grinschgl, Papenmeier & Meyerhoff (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology) ran a different kind of experiment. N = 172 across 3 experiments.
They measured cognitive offloading directly — offloading memory to any external store.
The correlations were brutal.
In 2021, Grinschgl, Papenmeier & Meyerhoff (Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology) ran a different kind of experiment. N = 172 across 3 experiments.
They measured cognitive offloading directly — offloading memory to any external store.
The correlations were brutal.
9
More offloading correlated with worse memory:
r = −0.54 to −0.80 across experiments.
p < .001 across all conditions.
In plain English: every act of "I'll just write it down so I don't have to remember" measurably weakens the memory you were trying to save.
That's not a metaphor. It's a correlation coefficient.
r = −0.54 to −0.80 across experiments.
p < .001 across all conditions.
In plain English: every act of "I'll just write it down so I don't have to remember" measurably weakens the memory you were trying to save.
That's not a metaphor. It's a correlation coefficient.
10
The researchers then did something cruel.
Experiment 2: told half the participants they'd be tested later on the same material.
Everyone knew a test was coming. Everyone had motivation to remember.
Result (verbatim from the paper): "offloading behaviour remained detrimental for subsequent memory performance when participants were aware of the upcoming memory test."
Knowing didn't save them.
Experiment 2: told half the participants they'd be tested later on the same material.
Everyone knew a test was coming. Everyone had motivation to remember.
Result (verbatim from the paper): "offloading behaviour remained detrimental for subsequent memory performance when participants were aware of the upcoming memory test."
Knowing didn't save them.
11
Why does this happen?
The mechanism is the generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978; meta-analysis Bertsch et al., 2007, 86 studies, d = 0.40).
Memory isn't built from recording information. It's built from generating it — retrieving, reframing, struggling.
Transcription bypasses the struggle. The struggle is the encoding.
The mechanism is the generation effect (Slamecka & Graf, 1978; meta-analysis Bertsch et al., 2007, 86 studies, d = 0.40).
Memory isn't built from recording information. It's built from generating it — retrieving, reframing, struggling.
Transcription bypasses the struggle. The struggle is the encoding.
12
So what actually works?
Mueller & Oppenheimer's Study 3 identified it: the longhand advantage disappeared when laptop users slowed down and processed.
The mechanism, from the paper:
"Those whose notes had less verbatim overlap with the lecture also performed better, β = −0.43, p = .005."
Less transcription → more understanding. Every time.
Mueller & Oppenheimer's Study 3 identified it: the longhand advantage disappeared when laptop users slowed down and processed.
The mechanism, from the paper:
"Those whose notes had less verbatim overlap with the lecture also performed better, β = −0.43, p = .005."
Less transcription → more understanding. Every time.
13
The evidence-based protocol:
1. Write less, think more. Target under 10% verbatim overlap. Paraphrase in your own words.
2. Delay recording. Listen to a full idea. Then summarize in a sentence — not bullet points.
3. Review by recall, not re-reading. Close your notes. Try to reconstruct. Then check what you missed.
This is the generation effect weaponized.
1. Write less, think more. Target under 10% verbatim overlap. Paraphrase in your own words.
2. Delay recording. Listen to a full idea. Then summarize in a sentence — not bullet points.
3. Review by recall, not re-reading. Close your notes. Try to reconstruct. Then check what you missed.
This is the generation effect weaponized.
14
The dark implication:
Most professionals spend meetings in what cognitive science literally classifies as shallow processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
Every meeting where you typed notes to "remember" was probably a meeting where you remembered less than the person doodling beside you.
The productivity ritual is an amnesia ritual.
Most professionals spend meetings in what cognitive science literally classifies as shallow processing (Craik & Lockhart, 1972).
Every meeting where you typed notes to "remember" was probably a meeting where you remembered less than the person doodling beside you.
The productivity ritual is an amnesia ritual.
15
The counterintuitive finding:
The confidence you feel while taking dense notes is the opposite of the signal you want. Your brain equates effort-of-recording with effort-of-encoding. They're not the same. They're often inverse.
Write less. Generate more. Close the laptop.
Your future self will remember more of this meeting than you will.
The confidence you feel while taking dense notes is the opposite of the signal you want. Your brain equates effort-of-recording with effort-of-encoding. They're not the same. They're often inverse.
Write less. Generate more. Close the laptop.
Your future self will remember more of this meeting than you will.
16
📄 Mueller & Oppenheimer (2014), Psychological Science 25(6): 1159–1168
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614524581
Paper: brucehayes.org/Teaching/paper…
📄 Grinschgl, Papenmeier & Meyerhoff (2021), Q J Exp Psychol 74(9): 1477–1496
PMC Article: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC83…
📄 Bertsch, Pesta, Wiscott & McDaniel (2007) — generation effect meta-analysis, 86 studies
📄 Slamecka & Graf (1978) — original generation effect paper
HBR summary: hbr.org/2014/05/youll-…
Every number above is verbatim from these sources.
DOI: 10.1177/0956797614524581
Paper: brucehayes.org/Teaching/paper…
📄 Grinschgl, Papenmeier & Meyerhoff (2021), Q J Exp Psychol 74(9): 1477–1496
PMC Article: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC83…
📄 Bertsch, Pesta, Wiscott & McDaniel (2007) — generation effect meta-analysis, 86 studies
📄 Slamecka & Graf (1978) — original generation effect paper
HBR summary: hbr.org/2014/05/youll-…
Every number above is verbatim from these sources.
17
I hope you've found this thread helpful.
Follow me @heynavtoor for more.
Like/Repost the quote below if you can:
x.com/19169047262954…
Follow me @heynavtoor for more.
Like/Repost the quote below if you can:
x.com/19169047262954…