A possible mistake I made in creating my 00-99 peg list

[paulvirtual (paul)]

Context: Used the Major system. Only talking about P in PAO right now.
I used initials; So 23 is Nelson Mandela.

I have a little more trouble with instant recall of my 3x people than others and I think it might be that I used 10 different names for them. Too late now for me, but I’m wondering, should I have tried to find 10 Marys or 10 Matts? Has anyone adopted that strategy? I think it would aid speed, but can’t experiment for fear of ghosting. So I’m doubling down on those below.

My first names are (from 30-39)

Miroslav, Matt, Martina, Marty, Maureen, Maya, Mick, Magnus, Marty, Mary

I’ll post the last names in a bit. But please think about the first question and reply to that too.

[TheHumanTim]

@paulvirtual

Too late now for me…

Definitely NOT too late to make changes. The brain is amazingly adaptive. It will resist for a bit, maybe a week or so, but soon the new associations will be stronger than the old and you’ll be locked in with the new ones.

I’ve broken down and changed systems several times including 3-digit number and 2-card systems numbering in the thousands of associations.

If optimization is important to you, make the change and don’t look back!

@paulvirtual

can’t experiment for fear of ghosting…

You’ll never make progress if you think this way. Experimentation is a MUST to determine what will work for you. Create multiple memory palaces and rotate through them to practice and experiment with a day or so in between reusing palaces for another run.

Your progress will be hampered until you work with it and find out what works and what doesn’t for your individual brain.

[TheHumanTim]

You can also use the major system to generate JUST first names and then match them to whatever person you wish.

So like:

MiSSy
MaTT
MaNNy
MoM
MaRy
MiLLy
MiTCH
MiKe
MaeVe
MoBy

In my view, this is simpler than trying to convert initials.

[Badr4sudan (Badr Ibrahim)]

I think you should use objects too in your list, it doesn’t have to be “persons”, only if you want to create PA or PAO
nothing is too late, I’ve changed my system several times, it only depend on your goals

[paulvirtual (paul)]

Thanks for reading this.

Understood. I weighed this tradeoff and decided to retain the 30s I have. I’ll lock 30-39 in. Have changed multiple items in my current PAO times in the last month already.

I was trying to bring forth an issue that might help others, earlier in the game, make decisions,

[TheHumanTim]

Often the most “sticky” words or images are what automatically pops in your head on first view. If you find yourself reflexively saying a different name than you built, try to go with it.

I built a 2704 element PO list for cards (1352 people and 1352 objects) and there were hundreds of those that when I started recognition practice, my subconscious just spit out something completely different. Going with those was much better than trying to force ones that I had intentionally designed but had no prior connection with.

Take advantage of your pre-wired associations and see where your instinct may take you.

[paulvirtual (paul)]

Thanks for reading and replying. Yes I do have a full PAO system. Just trying to keep the discussion confined. My objects are rock(37)-solid.

[TheHumanTim]

@paulvirtual

rock(37)

Do you mean 47?

[paulvirtual (paul)]

Thanks for the dialog. I hear you on sticky. I will listen in my inner mind for those. I have hand-crafted all my PAOs (cards and numbers0 so I have prior connection to every name and object in my PAO lists.

One reason that makes it a little hard is I’m planning to go/try/experiment with a 000-999 PA part of the system based on categories. And this puts constraints on the people in my numbers PAO. One issue with constraints is category overlap.

So the categories of my 00-99 people don’t overlap: there is only one hockey player, only one chess player, one male movie character, one male movie actor, one founding father, one post-atomic physicist, one WW2 figure, one Harry Potter figure, and so on. Then as suggested by Nelson Dellis, I will try categories to expand from 000-999

So if 37 is Magnus K., then 037 will be Magnus K, 137 will be Alekhine, 237 Botvinnick, 337 Capablanca, and so on. To make this work, I’ve found it necessary to sometimes use first names, sometimes use last names, sometimes use Major, sometimes use Dominic. But since it’s only 9 other names, natural memory helps alot. Dellis warned that a combination of Major and Dominic might be necessary. This planned usage is why I can only have one chess player in my 00-99 list.

Furthermore, I would not pick a cricket player, because I have no prior connection with cricket.

The thing I like about this is I’ve “found” learning a 100 10-lists is easier than learning a single 1000-list. It’s also incremental. I don’t have to learn it all to start using part of it. And if I find it’s not working, the category idea has helped strengthen my 00-99 list associations.

[paulvirtual (paul)]

Argh. Of course I do. Maybe sandstone-solid, not granite.

[TheHumanTim]

I get where you’re coming from.

My first card system was category-based and worked pretty well. As you expand exponentially into a 3 digit system, there are some challenges that show up that are less apparent with a 2-digit one.

@paulvirtual

To make this work, I’ve found it necessary to sometimes use first names, sometimes use last names, sometimes use Major, sometimes use Dominic.

This is one of them…

It’s not too tough to mix systems or techniques with a smaller system as there isn’t too much to keep track of. When you get into 1000+ images it can get you tripped up trying to remember exceptions and which technique to use for which number. The more you have to use your active attention to translate and the more conversion steps you need to go through to go from number to mental image, the longer it can take and the more opportunities for mistakes there can be.

I don’t want to discourage you or your ambition, just keep in mind that 3-digit lists are a whole new beast and usually need a very well defined and consistent structure for success.

[fred2 (fred)]

I have seen a Nelson Dellis You-tube vide clip where he explained how you can broaden your 100 person peg lists by using the categorization method to get it up to a 1 000 person list. I recollect that he demonstrated this by using 10 scientists and mixed and matched both the Dominic and Major Systems to develop his list. Whilst I am an admirer of Nelson Dellis and his memory feats, I believe that mixing the Major and Dominic is not the ideal way to go. I believe consistency is key, so I would suggest sticking to either the Major or Dominic System and not using both in trying to get your 100 people pegs up to 1 000 by the categorization method that he is advocating. That’s just my opinion on it, far from me being able to critique Nelson Dellis but I believe he may have got things wrong on this one?

[paulvirtual (paul)]

Yes, I hear you. But I just can’t come up with 10 non-generic people in a category. I have to use first and last names. I have to use Major and Dominic.

So Vivian Leigh is 85. Her category is “classical actress” meaning before I was 18. Maybe before I was born.

Audrey (185), Bette(285), Cyd (385), Doris (485), Elizabeth (585), Shirley(685), Grace (785), Hedy(885), Narilyn(ha, 985). This are all Dominic and all first names. Unusual to have this consistency. I changed Marilyn to Narilyn, It’s funny and I remember it,

Bill Nye is 92. Science Populist is the category… So far I have: Asimov (185), , Mr. Wizard (385, so Major), Sagan(685), Gleik, (785), Hofstadter (885), Maybe I have to expand this to a broader category than Science Populist, but I’m pretty patient. My experience is that I don’t get confused because these people have to be unique enough and personal to me enough that I get quick recall. I might use a science teacher in high school. I have to be careful because I have scientists themselves as another category.

So this is kind of fun and if I abandon it, no loss or confusion. Just thinking about it really locks in 00-99 people in a different part of the brain than the other ways I’ve memorized them.

[fred2 (fred)]

What if you developed your 000 - 999 people system using Major System for the first 00 - 99 People, each of whom denotes a category such Vivian Leigh = 85 = “Classical Female Actresses”. You could then opt for ALL your placeholders for the hundreds place to use Dominic System in its entirety to denote each of the hundreds placeholders from 1 - 9 where: A=1, B = 2, C = 3, D = 4, E = 5, S = 6, G =7, H = 8, N = 9. Using the “Classical Female Actresses” first names only:
Note: 85 signifies “Classical Female Actresses” (085) = (0) Vivian Leigh MAJOR SYSTEM.
Now moving to Dominic System for all numbers 100 - 999, for the category “85”

185 = Audrey (Hepburn) = Dominic System first name only
285 = Bette (Davis) = Dominic System first name only
385 = Cyd (Charisse) = Dominic System first name only
485 = Doris (Day) = Dominic System first name only
585 = Elizabeth (Taylor) = Dominic System first name only
685 = Sopia (Loren) = Dominic System first name only
785 = Ginger (Rodgers) = Dominic System first name only
885 = Hedy (Lamarr) = Dominic System first name only
985 = Natalie (Wood) = Dominic System first name only

You could also incorporate a “Classical Male Actor” category in your 00 - 99 in Major System say James Dean as #61
Then:

161 = Anthony (Quinn) = Dominic System first name only
261 = Burt (Lancaster) = Dominic System first name only
361 = Clark (Gable) = Dominic System first name only
461 = David (Niven) = Dominic System first name only
561 = Errol (Flynn) = Dominic System first name only
661 = Spencer (Tracey) = Dominic System first name only
761 = Gregory (Peck) = Dominic System first name only
861 = Humphrey (Bogart) = Dominic System first name only
961 = Nathan (Field) = Dominic System first name only

Of course your original Major List should be as diverse as possible containing every possible category you can think of. For instance, as an example #43 could be the undefeated Heavyweight Champion “Rocky Marciano” (Boxer).

Another possibility would be to use surnames first as opposed to first names first:

Then:

143 = Ali (Mohammed) = Dominic System first name only
243 = Bruno (Frank) = Dominic System first name only
343 = Cooper (Henry) = Dominic System first name only
443 = Dempsey (Jack) = Dominic System first name only
543 = Ellis (Jimmy) = Dominic System first name only
643 = Spinks (Leon) = Dominic System first name only
743 = Gunn (Tommy) = Dominic System (Fictional character from “Rocky movies”)
843 = Holyfield (Evander) = Dominic System first name only
943 = Norton (Ken) = Dominic System first name only

My only reservation thinking about a 000 - 999 peg system is if you are going to use it as a PAO (Person/Action/Object) System, how are you going to find different actions, say for the 10 Heavyweight Boxers that you have compiled the lists on? Also what different objects would each Heavyweight Boxer use?

What application could the 000 - 999 peg system be used for? Just my thoughts on it.

[paulvirtual (paul)]

fred2: Very nice post. You picked up on all my vague name references----that’s impressive. I’ve thought through what you are saying before starting. Just made different choices on the importance of consistency. I’d rather use “persons” I already know than be perfectly consistent. I guess this goes to the importance of using personal PAO lists. Some categories are very personal: girls I knew before age 18, women I knew after age 18, neighbors growing up, daughter’s teammates. Some are fictional characters (Harry Potter characters is one category), some are real (US history circa 1776, WW2 figures). I think each everybody implementing such a system has to make choices to make the system work for them.

—x—

About your example of 10 different boxers: I only know of ( from personal experience) a few of the those boxers. The rest are obscure to me. I don’t want to use names I don’t already know in my PAO. I would rather use a mix of first and last names, and Dominic and Major to get people I already know of. I would get Tyson in there somehow. And even Rocky Balboa and Apollo Creed maybe. My permanent memory would handle the inconsistency I believe.

—x—

I (from my life experience) know of all the Classical Female Actors you mention. I don’t know who Nathan Field is though so I wouldn’t use him. He would not be memorable to me. I could learn about him, but to me that intuitively feels wrong.

I will not develop 1000 actions. Only stick with 100. They would not be distinguishable.

As to uses, I intend to use a 323 PAO system eventually instead of the 222 PAO system I am using now to more quickly memorize numbers in general. Don’t think it’s necessary for me though; I’m not going to compete except maybe online.

[fred2 (fred)]

@paulvirtual

I (from my life experience) know of all the Classical Female Actors you mention. I don’t know who Nathan Field is though so I wouldn’t use him. He would not be memorable to me. I could learn about him, but to me that intuitively feels wrong.

Nathan Field was an English dramatist and actor born 1587 died 1620. I was stuck on thinking of an actor, other than Nick Nolte, who would fit into the “Classical Male Actors” category. Nathan Field obviously predates any of my “Classical Male Actors” cited by about 300 years but then I thought, why not use him?

@paulvirtual

Some are fictional characters (Harry Potter characters is one category), some are real (US history circa 1776, WW2 figures). I think each everybody implementing such a system has to make choices to make the system work for them.

100% on the money. Any system is unique to the user themselves and we would all have different preferences of what categories to use. Following my suggested course of action at the blend between Major and Dominic Systems, I would definitely opt for a category of cartoon characters, maybe Major System #33 = Mickey Mouse, with the Dominic counterparts yielding the: #133, #233, #333, #433, #533, #633, #733, #833 and #933 as follows:

133 = Atom (Ant) = Dominic System first name only
233 = Buggs (Bunny) = Dominic System first name only
333 = Charlie (Brown) = Dominic System first name only
433 = Donald = (Duck) = System first name only
533 = Elmer (Fudd) = Dominic System first name only
633 = Snoopy = Dominic System first name only
733 = Goofy = Dominic System first name only
833 = Homer (Simpson) = Dominic System first name only
933 = Nemo = Dominic System first name only

@paulvirtual

As to uses, I intend to use a 323 PAO system eventually instead of the 222 PAO system I am using now to more quickly memorize numbers in general. Don’t think it’s necessary for me though; I’m not going to compete except maybe online.

Well that gets you from 6 numbers per loci to 8 numbers per loci so there is definitely economies of scale to be had there!

Good luck in fleshing out your system further.

[TheHumanTim]

@fred2

Nathan Field was an English dramatist and actor born 1587 died 1620.

A concern I’d have is that even if a name fits, can you instantly form a clear and distinct image of that person, so much so that you would have zero problem telling them apart from any other person in your list?

Could your really imagine this random actor from the 1500s in such a precise way as you’d know without a doubt it was him during recall?

Same for a category setup with 10 boxers or 10 scientists or 10 military commanders. One of the inherent weaknesses to that kind of system is that when going for speed, all you may retain is a feeling of the person as militaristic. If you have 10 or more people like that, how do you tell them apart? You don’t want to have to guess. You want unambiguous people in your list, especially of you’re going for 1000 of them.

Its one thing to have their name or occupation or whatever fit whatever systemic rule(s) you go with, but they have to be distinct enough to recall them effortlessly and not confuse them with others. I hope you prove me wrong, but this ambiguity, on top of mixing systems seems like a setup for tons of difficulty in both learning and application.

[fred2 (fred)]

@TheHumanTim

A concern I’d have is that even if a name fits, can you instantly form a clear and distinct image of that person, so much so that you would have zero problem telling them apart from any other person in your list?

Yes Tim. I can distinctly see an effeminate kind of man (dramatist) of the early 1600 period dressed in a “Ruff”, as men in his period would - absolutely no problems in conjuring up that image whatsoever!

@TheHumanTim

Could your really imagine this random actor from the 1500s in such a precise way as you’d know without a doubt it was him during recall?

He is an effeminate looking character wearing a 1600 period costume with a “Ruff” (collar) not to difficult to see in my mind’s eye:

@TheHumanTim

Same for a category setup with 10 boxers or 10 scientists or 10 military commanders. One of the inherent weaknesses to that kind of system is that when going for speed, all you may retain is a feeling of the person as militaristic. If you have 10 or more people like that, how do you tell them apart? You don’t want to have to guess. You want unambiguous people in your list, especially of you’re going for 1000 of them.

Concerning the Boxers I had given, I can again clearly distinguish all of them apart from one another as characters.

143 = Ali (Mohammed) = Mouthing off like no other Boxer. “I’m the Greatest!”
243 = Bruno (Frank) = Muscular beyond all other Boxers
343 = Cooper (Henry) = Full of Blood on the face. He cut easily.
443 = Dempsey (Jack) = Always fought in Black shorts without socks
543 = Ellis (Jimmy) = T-Bone (sideboards) and Afro hairstyle
643 = Spinks (Leon) = No front teeth!!
743 = Gunn (Tommy) = White Heavyweight = (Tommy Morrison an actual boxer)
843 = Holyfield (Evander) = Van Gough like features (ear bitten off by Mike Tyson)
943 = Norton (Ken) = Hard hitting Jaw-breaker (Broke Mohammed Ali’s Jaw)

Each of the above boxers are distinctly memorable from one another from the characteristics I have given above.

Who are these boxers:

answer: Leon Spinks - No front teeth

Jimmy Ellis - T-Bone (Sideboards)

Henry Cooper - Always Bled!

Frank Bruno - Muscular - Could have won body building contests if not a Boxer!

Etc. Etc.

@TheHumanTim

Its one thing to have their name or occupation or whatever fit whatever systemic rule(s) you go with, but they have to be distinct enough to recall them effortlessly and not confuse them with others. I hope you prove me wrong, but this ambiguity, on top of mixing systems seems like a setup for tons of difficulty in both learning and application.

I can tell all 10 of my Boxers clearly apart from one another, so I’m failing to see your point here Tim? I understand that 10 images of 1 000 images only represents 1% of the total number of images but I am only addressing your critique of the 10 Boxers I had given by way of illustration. Of course each of the categorized characters would need to be distinctly different from one another, that point I am not arguing but I believe it could be done scientists and all!