First of all, I must tell you that I am the author of several books and video courses on memory techniques, in which I present these methods starting from the classification above ( I won’t mention my books here since this isn’t the subject of this topic). These books were written for the purpose of putting some order in this quite hermetic field and presenting all (or most) memory techniques in a logical manner.
After some time, I realized that what matters most is how efficiently each method works for the purpose for which it was designed.
In order to memorize long materials effectively (especially if the material needs to be memorized long), I realized that it is useful to combine several memory techniques. The simplest combination is between a location and an image, which is why I divided the techniques into two categories: structural techniques and encoding techniques.
In addition, I tried to summarize some steps that can be taken by anyone to approach the learning process systematically, by combining the memory techniques. This is how the SCALM method (Structure-Chunk-Associate-Locate-Memorize- which you can read more about here), a very efficient learning method was born.
SCALM has a step-by-step approach, beginning with an overview of the material, then chunking the information into easy-to-manage pieces, and encoding each chunk using various encoding techniques (for example, the Major System is used for memorizing numbers and data, the Sound Alike Method is used for learning unfamiliar words, the Acronym Method and the Sentence Method are used for lists, and so on). In the next step, you will place these images into a memory palace, after which you will walk along the mental route a few more times and you will remember your entire text.
In response to your observations on this topic, I would like to share some thoughts:
I prefer the word conversion as encoding might assume that the end product is not recognizable (I was a cryptanalysist in the military) and then decoding would be to make it understandable again.
While I agree with your nuance, the process of associating abstract concepts with images of people, things, or animals seems to me quite similar to cryptography (Encoding-Decoding). In fact, this is how our brains translate abstract notions into images that they use as an alphabet. Let’s take The Major System as an example. This technique encodes numbers into letters, then into words and then into simple images. When we want to remember the number, decoding from images to word and then to number again is as straightforward as the initial coding.
But I don’t see how the linking method (a story) or the PAO method (a chunking variation of a peg system) is a conversion.
Several memory techniques must be combined to achieve the best results. In other words, the little story you create with The Story Method (a variation of the Link System) will be easily recalled if you place it in a memory palace. Your story encodes your information in simple images, which you then structure in a logical manner (in your memory palace). The main purpose of the structural methods is to ensure the order of the images obtained with the help of encoding techniques.
As for the PAO system, it is only effective when you use it in combination with a memory palace, i.e. when you place each of your people doing different actions to objects in a location. Memory athletes place 2-3 or more characters in each location.
I also see the palace as a peg system of terrains/loci and mind maps as a tool to create candidate associations which then become a virtual palace or story.
I would like to remind you of the origins of each system. Memory palaces were created by the ancient Greeks and used throughout history by many orators and scholars, while the Peg system was created in the mid-1600s.
Furthermore, the locations used distinguish these two methods. While Memory Palace uses physical locations (which are also very memorable), the Peg system combines physical locations (e.g. body parts ) and abstract locations (numbers, letters of the alphabet, etc.). In general, the Peg System is quite limited in number of locations, while a Memory Palace that can have hundreds or thousands of locations.
It’s great to have another like-minded analyst to talk with and after building and re -building systems for several years, I look forward to hearing some feedback from you.
I am also happy that I found a person interested in classifying memory techniques as clearly as possible and I can’t wait to discuss other aspects related to this field in the future.
