Over the past week, I have thought very much about some of Ben’s responses to my questions on his thread. I saw he did things a lot differently than me, particularly in his using objects that are sometimes bigger than the loci that “contain” them. And I have thought of how to improve my memorization, and I think I reached a higher level of understanding about what Ben was talking about. Maybe not, but I’m still on to something pretty neat.
At the local library this morning, I read a few chapters of a book called “Brain Booster.” The advice for names and faces and random words was really good, (really typical) and on the whole it was on the money with everything, though it focused a whole lot on linking and didn’t mention the method of loci at all. There’s nothing in the book you couldn’t find on the forums, but I did pick up one little detail, that I had heard before, but it seemed so obvious that it never seemed to be worthy of contemplation.
It was teaching how to remember a list of words, I’ll post the example in a little bit probably, but it said “take this first object, and connect it to this second object in a very unique and memorable way. Be as vivid as possible, take your time, just make sure that every object will remind you of the one that follows it.”. You can even transform or morph one object into another, as long as you can see it.
But here was the important phrase that is so easy to dismiss as too obvious to consider further: “Make sure to see the first object very clearly, because there will be nothing to remind you of it.” Obvious, right? Well, he is right - if you don’t have that first image firmly in place it can easily be forgotten. But this was written by a person who seemed to be totally ignorant of the Method of Loci. There are wonderful implications!
I was copying Ben’s methods as best I could - focusing on the links between objects more than their spatial position in the palace. And it worked well, though a bit slow. But I learned all of these techniques with the mistaken “understanding” that being fully engrossed in a very realistic palace is the key to memorizing well, so when I memorize, my palaces are extremely clear, and it was awkward to try to do away with the environment to some degree for reasons that I didn’t completely understand. And yet, when I forget cards or digits, I almost always forget an entire loci, not just one of the images in it. So what’s the point of such a clear palace if loci still wind up blank?
Today, doing those “pure linking” exercises slowly, I saw how loci are unnecessary. They are useful.. But not necessary. you had the time to spend, you could memorize a very long list of objects just by linking each object to the one that follows. The danger would be that one link along the chain could accidentally be skipped, and there would be no reference point to know where it was. Loci diminish this danger greatly.
That first image in a chain of linked objects really mustn’t be forgotten. I’ve recently been trying to transition out of the ‘PAO mindset’ that doesn’t totally apply to my new method of just memorizing objects. An example would be that in PAO, all three cards must be connected as one image. The first card is acting upon the third. And it’s probably best if the whole PAO image is visible at once.
See if this description of how to think about memorizing in loci is as new to you as it is to me:
Instead of thinking of the palace as a thing you can walk through while observing/visualizing wild happenings, what if the loci in the “palace” were nothing more than an orderly list of “first objects.” What if it didn’t matter if the loci could be walked through in a linear fashion? What if the only benefit of their existing along a path was that it made it easier to remember which loci followed another?
For the past few hours, I have memorized with this mindset. The first loci is my table outside. So I say, “How can I make this table remind me of a vampire?” Usually, I would just put the vampire on the table, prepared to act upon the object that follows in some way - probably biting it. That’s the PAO mindset. But in response to my own question, I thought “Well, if the vampire bit the table, that would probably do it.” So right away, the way I am using the objects is different. Then came “pacifier.” How can the vampire remind me of a pacifier? He just sucks it - the mouth of a vampire is very important to begin with. Then comes “Nurse.” How can I make a pacifier remind me of a nurse, specifically? She removes the pacifier from his mouth and replaces it with a thermometer. All of this is occurring in a kind of “Nether space.” It doesn’t matter that all of this is happening in the palace - all that matters is that each object reminds me of the next.
Before these thoughts occurred to me, I would have had the vampire standing on the table, picking up a pacifier, and putting it in the nurse’s mouth. It’s not incredibly interesting, but it is logical. It is true that the vampire and nurse could really be interchangeable with any other human or humanoid figures, but “why should that matter? I am relying on my ability to see these figures clearly, and if I do, they’ll be memorable.” That’s the PAO mindset I have been used to, but please notice that the conclusion does not follow from the premise - why on earth should such a statement be considered categorically true? Isn’t ‘Image B’ going to be more memorable if the impetus behind its conception was the question “How can I make this ‘Image A’ remind me of the ‘Image B’ that Is to follow?” as opposed to “How can I make this image look/feel/sound as realistic as possible?”
The loci becomes the first link in the chain, and all of the images that follow in that locus may or may not occur in the loci at all - for me, they don’t. Picturing them in the loci has become unnecessary, so it is a waste of cognitive resources. Also, linking the last object of one loci to the first object of the next has become unnecessary. You already know what the first object is going to be - it’s going to be the loci itself. And if that locus reminds you of the next image in the chain - you’re in business! Don’t depend on seeing an object clearly in front of a locus being sufficient to remember it! Make sure that the question of why the loci will remind you of the first object is answered by something other than “because I visualized them near each other.”
This change in attitude has enabled me to put 4 images per loci instead of just 3, (which I have wanted so badly to do!) without adding any time. Four objects were always so hard to visualize all together in a chain that logically connects the first image with the third, and fourth, so that they could be seen together. I just couldn’t do it. And I still can’t, but now I know why I don’t have to.
Is this as profound to anyone else as it is to me, or have I just stated the obvious?
and it’s not obvious. The best learning is what you find out for yourself.