I agree.
Perhaps it makes sense to say a couple of things before reacting to the rest of your statements. I usually make a post if I have an idea that pops in my mind even if it isn’t the most groundbreaking new thing in the world of mnemonics. I am always hoping for other forum members to play with the ideas I am suggesting and come up with something similar but better, but that doesn’t happen all that often.
Anything that you can do with a peglist can also be done with a memory palace (probably better at most cases), but since I don’t have a large memory palace, I thought of how to create a peg list of reasonable size that would also be structured so that you can more or less keep track of how many pegs you have used at any point of the list. So I thought of physically chunking 5 objects together in a hopefully memorable way.
The initial responses in this thread appear to be in the category of “either they don’t understand what my idea is and/or I don’t understand what they are trying to say”. The last responder is in my humble opinion deliberately misreading what I have said and making absolutely pointless rhetorical remarks about the existence of super objects (it’s just a word that seemed appropriate for the imaginary image collections I created). So that is why I said:
I am ending this topic at least as far as my contribution is concerned.
The Human Tim:
I don’t really see how this is functionally any different than creating a memory palace with X number of rooms and designating 5 loci for each room. In this “super object” approach, those “loci” are random objects instead of things that would logically be found in that type of room.
I agree.
The big question, and I think what Celtic was getting at, would be: is there a solid advantage to creating “super objects” with 5 “sub-objects” that are unrelated to the “anchor object” versus using a familiar object with 5 distinct details?
I think that you are giving Celtic too much credit. For starters, he implies that most objects are super objects:
Aren’t most objects ‘super objects’?
… and in order to prove this he gives an example of one object with 5 pegs and one with 4.
He ends his first response with a sentence that is just rhetorical nonsense:
I don’t think there are ‘super objects’ as distinct from just objects
I am aware that you can use a car for example as a peglist with 5 (or more) pegs; I probably have mentioned in some post that I have used my car at the parking place at work for 10 loci as part of my memory palace. The big question is “can you make a 100 pegs long list with 20 5 pegs natural super objects?”. The answer is going to be very subjective based on what you consider to be a good peg and how easy you can visualize certain complex objects. Just like you said:
The answer will vary person to person (as is almost always the case with anything related to memory techniques.)
The Human Tim:
For me, it would take a lot of effort get the “telephone booth with the christmas tree, showerhead, shoebox, hand, and buzzsaw attached” to a point of practical usability as compared to something like a “car with headlight, door handle, steering wheel, seat, and cup holder.”
The objects that I chose are not random, but it is not easy to explain my personal logic for why I chose this sequence. I agree that even with this logic the car with multiple pegs may still be easier to work with.
I was kind of hoping that other forum members would make an attempt at making their own innovative image collections. Like this whole topic was nothing more than a “here is an idea that might be worth exploring, let’s find out how far we can take it”. Instead it has become a pointless discussion.
At the risk of offending just about everyone in this thread, let me just say that you are pretty much the only responder that is both constructive and capable of communicating in a way that I can fully understand 
.
