The only good argument as to why memory techniques aren’t used by the masses is the work vs reward argument mentioned by @QiJitsu.
More than 99% of jobs are made for regular people with regular brains. It is hard to convince someone to invest time in advanced mnemonics when rote memorization is enough.
All vegetarians EAT vegetables, it is not necessarily true that they LIKE vegetables.
You have to consider survivorship bias, some vegetarians who did not like vegetables did not make it to tell their story.
True, but literacy is more than 90% where I’m from, and I think that not all of the people there who can’t read yet are fundamentally incapable of learning to read. The Internet says that the literacy rate in Finland is 99% but I’m not sure if the number is accurate.
I think a closer example than a car would be walking somewhere along a familiar route. Driving a car requires real-time coordination and stress management on top of the navigation. Some people have trouble with the coordination part of driving, not necessarily the route finding.
You’re missing half the quote again…
it’s a simile… and when you say…
…it is more fitting to say LIKE instead of EAT. The survivorship bias being people who tried to be vegetarian but decided they like meat too much to remain vegetarian. Note that @Josh is saying “who uses” not “who tried”… some people may have tried and given up on the idea… kinda the point the author made in his blog; hence, survivorship bias.
Not exactly… a survivorship bias is a selection bias, but would apply more to my example than yours. That said, I don’t really understand what your point is here… I basically corrected an out of context quote that ended in “that” and now I’m correcting another out of context quote. We can of course take the whole thing ad absurdum…
Technically, they could just eat fruit… seeing how vegetarians are not restricted to just vegetables as their name might suggest.
No point. It was intented as a joke. Not very good, I’m afraid.
Hey ehcolston,
I find your article very interesting and I never thought about that, yet.
In my opinion memory techniques will work for smart people better, because:
Firstly, we need to define what we mean by the term “smart” or what “smartness” is.
If we assume the Oxford definition, than smartness means the ability to learn fast; to be quick at learning.
Deducing out from these information, we can say that smart people will definitely be able to learn faster (without memory techniques) and they will learn memory techniques faster.
Therefore, they will learn with memory techniques faster, because of their natural greater learning-speed and their speed of learning the techniques.
Secondly, if we define the term “better” as “speed”, then the smart people, who are faster at learning, as we assumed, will be better at memory techniques and they will work for them better.
But what if we define “better” as a better opportunity to increase learning-speed?
If you assume that there is no limit to the learning-speed of a human, than smart people - with the same amount of effort - will always be faster than the normal people.
However, if we assume that there is a limit to the learning-speed of a human, then it will work for the normal people better, because they “could have” more potential to increase their learning-speed.
Thank you everyone for reading this.
I hope you understood what I mean and you could follow my thought-process.
Yours Sincerely
I understood you. Yes, I absolutely agree with you. Now I want to teach techniques from memory using my mixed system. And it’s hard not to notice that someone understands their essence right away, while someone else cannot get it.
There are exceptions though. My mother has a very high intellect and a good imagination. But no matter how hard I try, she still extremely criticizes mnemonics and considers her stupid. Considering that she is already 56, smart people are more prone to pattern thinking. As a result, they are more likely to become victims of the inhibition effect. I’m sure this is exactly the case.
And don’t forget that smart people can be smart in different ways. Someone has developed verbal thinking. Someone’s visual. Of course, visuals will have the greatest advantage in this sport.
As for the learning rate. I think it is limited by the speed of thinking. It’s foolish to argue that Howard Berg can actually read 25,000 words per minute. And as he himself said: Scientists are right, no one can read at such a speed. But he doesn’t read, he catches the meaning of the text, just looking at the page. Over the years of training, he trained his mind for this.
So the limitation in the form of the maximum speed of the human brain works the same for everyone. But we are all so far from that. We don’t actually feel it.
Besides. It is necessary to separate mnemonics and speed learning. If I memorize numbers or cards. I just go from the first piece of information to the second at high speed. After all, my instruction is extremely simple - remember this as quickly as possible.
In the case of teaching, we really need critical thinking. In Russia, mnemonic techniques have long been developed that make it possible to memorize a paragraph of any book almost word for word. Somehow I’ll write a post about these methods. They really work. But, if you memorize a paragraph in a chemistry textbook, it will only confuse you more.
It will be much more effective to break it down into fundamental ideas. Remember them in sequence, what is connected with what. Then pay attention to the details to them. Associate these details with each item, etc.
In this case, mnemonics becomes a set of tools in which it is very easy to get confused.
Sincerely
Some are “so smart” that do not need memory techniques.
Especially Kim Peek
I recently read a book called The Mismeasure of Man by Stephen Jay Gould which addresses that topic.
Gould’s book goes into the origins of IQ testing, from Binet (who didn’t want the tests to be used as they are being used now) to the eugenicists who turned them into their current form of limiting the definition of cognitive ability in a way that lets them rank people by supposedly “immutable” biological traits. I’d recommend the book to anyone interested in IQ.
I don’t think there is evidence of an IQ difference by race that can’t be explained by environment (a couple of generations that get proper nutrition, sleep, exercise, and lack of poverty) and culture (do the parents read to their kids daily? do they foster respect for teachers and education? do they expose the kids to new ideas and constantly challenge them? are the parents educated?).
Also, I think IQ is badly named. “IQ” doesn’t mean “intelligence”, that cognitive ability is immutable, or that people who score well on IQ tests have good ideas or good sense. Sometimes it just gives people the ability to produce syntactically complex nonsense. There is more to cognitive ability than things like mental processing speed.
There’s a short video here that is worth checking out:
The modern concept of IQ came out of the US at a time when there was a large eugenics movement. Even worse than the blog post on memory techniques is that the site features the logo of the 1921 International Eugenics Conference (USA) in the sidebar.
To see how terrible the eugenics movement was in the US at that time, check out this article. Wikipedia also has a page about eugenics in the US that is worth a read. IQ testing had its role there — it was a tool used to classify people as “feeble-minded” for sterilization.
When you hear someone put too much emphasis on IQ scores (like in that article), I think it’s good to be wary. If you pry under the surface a bit, there is often an agenda.
Interesting. I think I see what he is trying to say. However I believe he may have made some assumptions that may have led him astray.
Allow me to define some words so I am clear.
Talent: Abilities that you are born with and may maintain throughout your life baring injury\illness.
Skill: Strategies, or techniques that allow you to efficiently apply your talent in a particular field of endeavor.
So for example Basketball. The talent for basket ball is your innate ability to coordinate your body in response to an external stimuli, the ball. Some people are naturally more coordinated than others. So they are seen as very talented. Thus they have a initial advantage over others.
The skill now is built on top of this talent ( no matter how much you have). Without the skill set for the particular sport all the talent in the world will get you no where.
the above skills are fundamental to the particular game of basketball. However they are based on the underlying talent of coordination. Which can be applied to many disciplines. This is why many athletes can and do participate in multiple sports at a time, like baseball, football, basket ball, cricket, volleyball,…etc.
Now, apart from the obvious ability to coordinate, a person can be born with some thing extra that may give them an advantage in a particular sport\endeavor.
In basketball the taller you are, the larger the advantage you have, when coupled with high coordination.
As a result the best in the world are typically above 6 feet tall, as seen by those that play in the NBA.
In the case of memory, we can see IQ ( I have issue with the use of IQ but that is a different matter ), we can see that as you talent. The higher it is the better for memory and brain activity.
The skills applied to that talent can be numerous:
Just like in basketball the the more talent (IQ) you have the more of an advantage you have.
However no matter what level of talent \IQ you have, you can improve the results you get by applying skills needed by the particular endeavor you want to do well in.
It seems he only looked at memory champions or studies that only involved memory athletes.
As a result it would appear that only high IQ people have used the techniques.
That is erroneous, as I have been in courses with folks that admitted they do not have high IQ results and they did really well with memory techniques.
As a matter of fact they came to depend on the techniques with their jobs or getting certificates.
I even taught a few children some memory techniques and the improvement in what they can remember was hugh.
Most of these people will never contemplate competing but their lives have improve from the use of the techniques, as have mine.
Not everyone is looking to be an NBA player, however millions of people love to play the game, and have learned to apply the skills so they can play at levels they would not be able to without.
The same can be said for memory techniques. People have applied these skills to their lives, and gotten promotions, memorize entire books, gotten certificates, remembered information about family members, like birth dates, phone number, license plate numbers, etc that they would normally forget.
What I do agree with him on, is interest. If a person does not want to improve, or can not see themselves improving they will not apply the skills. If someone has an interest then they do well.
This happens for any endeavor, not only cognitive ones.
That was sort of my point it is about culture and not DNA. I was actually arguing against nature and for nurture so the opposite of Eugenics. IQ is not a good measure because you can practice and get better at taking the tests. The really interesting thing would be is the journey in our DNA? Bees do it so memory could have a DNA component.
The main problem with what he is saying is that the smartest person in the world at some point was a farm worker. Alan Turing may have been the smartest man in the room however it was Gordon Welchman who would have the most effect on the world.
I think there maybe other components in there as well like desire or motivation. How much do you want it?
Ask any top athlete and they all can talk about that one guy who was better than them. Maybe they got injured or they got drunk the night before a game. Micheal Phelps missed a half a training session in 12 years. Steve Redgrave talks about the fact that it gets harder and harder to give up 4 years for 1 Olympics.
There is also the relationship between skills. I cannot remember (LOL) the stats however almost anyone can get above the 80% of a skill however the amount of effort it takes to go from there to the 1% at the top just increases and increases. I think from there it doubles at every percent so the effort to go from 2% to 1% takes double the effort that you have already put in to get to 2%. Also the difference between the top 1% is so small that anyone can win anything at that level. There was a book recently that talks about this and says that a lot of top performers are not the top. They are good at 2 or more things which combine into their own niche.
If you read about British Cycling, the Chimp Paradox is a good start, one of the big components at the top level is the smallest detail has a massive effect. Eniola Aluko talks about losing the league with Chelsea women and it being all mental. Chris Hoy in the foreward to the Chimp Paradox (I think) talks about the mental side being the difference between him and everyone else.
I think you are right however I really think there are a lot more components that matter to make someone good at something. There is a thing about the fact that almost all first time patents fail and it will be the second or third person who is successful. Dyson is the perfect example of this.
You are, in my view, not born with many abilities, apart perhaps from the ability to learn. Usain Bolt was a poor runner when he was born compared to almost every adult. I am not sure if perhaps you are referring to genetics when talking about “born with abilities” as a likelyhood of being good at some things in a certain time of your life, in which case we may not disagree as much. However you also say “…maintain throughout your life baring injury\illness”. There are many counter examples that I can think of that go against this life long ability requirement for calling someone talented:
Skill: Strategies, or techniques that allow you to efficiently apply your talent in a particular field of endeavor.
Many succesful singers have never had any type of singing related technique or strategy training ; I remember interviews with Tom Jones and Lisa Stansfield for example in which they stated that they never had to learn how to sing. You are of course free to choose your own definitions, but i find it strange (meaning it feels like the wrong usage of words) that If I were to learn singing techniques I would become a more skilled (as in knowing more techniques) singer than Tom Jones, even though I can’t sing at all.
The talent for basket ball is your innate ability to coordinate your body in response to an external stimuli, the ball.
It is not clear to me if you a re referring to the ability to move or the neurological underpinnings of those movements. They overlap but are not the same. Michael Jordan is an example of an extreme case of perfect body and perfect brain, but there are many examples of less coordinated players, who are physical specimens/ demigods like Shaquil o 'Neal; could not do free throws if his life depended on it, but it would take a silverback gorila to stop him from dunking in his prime. And on the other side of this spectrum we have players like Larry Bird, who are extrely well coordinated, but can’t run or jump much better than “normal” people.
*Dribbling the ball
*shooting the ball
*passing the ball
*running to get open for a pass or a shot
*understanding the flow of the game
*Defending the basket
above skills are fundamental to the particular game of basketball. However they are based on the underlying talent of coordination.
I feel you put to much weight on coordination. Running to get open for a shot requires running ability; running ability and coordination overlap but are not the same. Defending the basket is usually left to the tall guys who are not really known for their coordination.
In basketball the taller you are, the larger the advantage you have, when coupled with high coordination.
The advantage is probably higher for players with low coordination. There are examples of extremely tall players in the NBA that are also extremely uncoordinated. Being tall for them is not so much just an advantage as it is the only reason for being in the NBA.
Also, Basketball (like american football) has different tasks for different people. Guards for example are on average shorter than centers. Your statement also leads to weird conclusions, like if Michael Jordan (1m 98 cm, not extremely tall for a basketbal player) was taller he would have been a better player. He would lose a lot of his running and jumping ability had he been a lot taller.
Just like in basketball the the more talent (IQ) you have the more of an advantage you have.
IQ tests, as I understand them, are based on a selection process in which the tests that seem to predict things like education and financial/job succes the best (high correlation) become the standard. This selection process requires large numbers of tested people; the extreme IQ people on both ends of the spectrum are never going to have enough samples for an IQ test to be of much value to this selection process, so you can’t really say much of the advantage of an extremely high IQ.
You could also make the case that having an extremely high IQ likely comes with all sorts of problems, like being unable to relate with normal people.
The article is disconcerting.
In my humble experience, the real issue appears to be timing above all. What doesn’t make sense to a person on Tuesday afternoon due to tiredness, indigestion or any number of issues can and often does make perfect sense the next day. But in the great pinball/lottery ball machine of the world, the knowledge might not meet with them when the time is optimal… and potentially never again.
If there is anything to this explanation (and even if there isn’t), I feel we would all do well to reflect with gratitude that the timing was right for us and that enough transformation occurred to keep us “hooked” on the study and practice wheel that makes it impossible not to get results from memory techniques.
We also owe it to others to teach the techniques as much as we possibly can because no one knows when the moment will be right for the person we’re explaining them too. The more people teaching these techniques, ideally from experience using them, the better.
Usain Bolt is a very interesting example because he does not fit for his sport. His build means he should run longer distances however his talent came out when they let him run the short distances.
Redgrave, Phelps and Froome are all the prefect physical model for their sport as there is a weight to strength to reaction ratio that makes a big difference. Female gymnasts are especially venerable to a strength to mass problem as they age.
There is a thing about the right sort of training as a lot of sports have experts who will to take all that natural talent and make you better. These are really big in Baseball and American Football were your sprint speed or a mile an hour on your fast ball can make you a lot of money.
I actually think this might be the best example of what we are tying to say versus what the article is trying to say. If you ask a trainer anyone can learn to sing. Obviously there are people who just naturally can sing however they often learn to sing after they become famous. There is a really big thing in this when famous people take on musicals in that they can sing will enough to get the part however they need training to perform the role.
My point being that some people are just good at certain things however anyone can get good at anything. They just may never be able to catch up or over take that talented person.