Seems like mnemonics are one tool to assist in memorization which is the fist step in Bloom’s Taxonomy of Learning. After remembering (or memorizing something) we’ll need to analyze it and eventually be creative with it.
Like Bruce Lee said: “Knowledge is not enough; we must apply.”
Roi: With mnemonics, as well as spaced repetition and other techniques.
decision_: Concurred. For me, half the purpose of rapid memorization is to free up more time for application and creativity.
This is an interesting discussion. I would agree with one of the earlier comments that it depends very much on the subject area. I have come to this field lately, having spent a life learning and teaching in the math / science / IT fields.
I think there is more to the topic than just the memorisation. As was expounded by the classical orators including Aristotle, having the knowledge in memory enables you to compose (the translation of their Latin) from it, to me that refers to creative thinking. I am memorising all the birds for our state in taxonomic order (405 of them), the 242 countries of the world in population order, lots of other stuff … and the example I will use here, journeys for all of pre-history and history. The last are two different blocks that I walk with the dog regularly. Having a poor natural memory, I am astounded by how rapidly I can add data to these mnemonic structures. Not just faster - it would have been impossible before.
As I add in more and more historical events, say, I am seeing patterns and comparisons which would not have become apparent any other way. I literally walk through time - Great Zimbabwe is flourishing when King John is on the throne in England and the Crusades are starting. The Ancestral Pueblo culture starts about the time Muhammad was born and churns on right up to near the end of the Middle Ages, when it becomes the modern Pueblos. That’s a seriously long time.
I could not get the feeling of time spans and events in any other way, I believe. I am seeing links and causes and asking questions in a way that was inconceivable to me before I used the Method of Loci for this.
Does that make sense?
Thank you for making me express those ideas. I am now going to add that to my new blog!
Lynne
They do say that the things you measure improve. And yet …
When I want to lose weight, I throw away the scale and notice how I look and feel. When the results are going in the right direction, I increase the pushups.
Same thing goes for studies. I watch the outcome and gauge the procedures in response based upon deciding in advance how I want to feel about my accomplishments at the end. Do I want a comprehensive knowledge of something or the sensation of mastery? These are two different things and can only really be measured along the way based upon decisions made about the outcome in advance.
As for Bruce Lee, knowledge can be enough in many different ways. Knowledge of how to break someone’s neck very rarely, if ever, requires application. This is the anti-application principle for which Bruce Lee was also famous.
“No self, no enemy.” Enter the Dragon.
The best word I’ve encountered to explain this effect is “rhizomatic.” That’s what the mind and the material in it becomes when you hold enough information to begin making connections. Although he didn’t use the word, Timothy (also in this discussion) talked about it with me on a recent podcast interview we did (info about where to find that in my profile).
A question for you: What do you think is the most important question that has been raised in your mind as a result of the effect you describe?
I had never heard the term ‘rhizomatic’, but have had a quick look online. I will have to read slowly, the explanations are enmeshed in language and concepts which are totally unfamiliar. If there is a clear explanation somewhere, I’d really appreciate a pointer.
Your profile looks really interesting. I have just been asked about learning languages using memory techniques and have no idea where to start. Languages were my great weakness at school. In fact, everything which didn’t have maths in it was a weakness. I shall follow up your links.
So many questions have arisen from the history walk, as well as the other memory experiments I’m doing. But I will stick with the one I described above. The most important question has been about influence on world events. There seems to have been individuals and groups who have had huge impact on the history of huge slabs of the world. But they were not necessarily from large, nor long lived cultures. Other cultures seem to have had little influence outside their own domains. Why?
This isn’t a judgmental thing - those who have had broad impact have rarely, if ever, in my limited assessment, done so for the betterment of those they influenced. Of course, I am not sure how much my assessment is based on what is familiar to me from a European bias. I am Australian, but our dominant culture is European.
Confucius, Jesus, Muhammad … I see them get born and their influence goes on for the rest of the walk. And it spreads across many cultures other than their own initial home. Others, such as Cicero, say, seem to have been hugely influential in their times, but not have the same broad and ongoing impact. Why?
My area of research is primary orality - how oral cultures communicate and store information when they have no contact with writing. Hence memory. As I walk the pre-history and the history block, I walk through time from 4,500 million years BC to today. I am trying to keep developments on different continents in my awareness as I do so. I’m not good at it yet, but every time I get struck by how some small countries are sending people all over the place and others are just doing their own thing, even if the population is much larger. Bangladesh is the 9th largest country in the world on population, but I can’t feel its influence anywhere beyond it’s own borders. Same with Nigeria at number 7. But is this because of when the countries were declared? I need to learn so much more. I could go on and on about this. Every time I walk the block, new questions arise.
I think I need to get a lot more data in yet to even see if my questions are real or just a result of the biased sources of my information. Sorry to go on and on, but this is a bit of an obsession with me.
Lynne
I can save you a bunch of reading through all the philosophical stuff (though it is well worth your time … maybe!):
Rhizomatic simply means “like a rhizome,” which is to say that it forms a network from which new connections form and flower without having a top-down, tree-root formulation. Mnemonics most certainly develop this aspect of the mind with regular use.
With respect to Cicero, arguably this discussion board would not exist without his contribution to the art of memory (see De oratore Bk II 350-360). It’s not a huge part, looked at from one angle, and some people might say that I’m exaggerating his importance to the memory arts, but his influence was still a foundational one (even a rhizomatic one), so I think your question should incorporate not only “what influence did so-and-so have” but “by what means can influence be defined and measured” and under what historical conditions.
As for the influence of Bangladesh, again “influence” must be defined so it can be measured. I would think that anyone visiting London, parts of Canada, readers of Salman Rushdie, or viewers of The Matrix series would definitely tell you that the influence of Bangladesh on the world is tangible, measurable and real.
All that said and set in this forum, let your obsessions continue and the (rhizomatic?) dialogue spread!
I am going to look into the rhizomatic concept in this context further. Fascinating idea.
I agree with what you say about Bangladesh and Cicero - I chose Cicero for his relevance to this context. The Bangladeshi relevances are all contemporary, not historic in the sense that I meant. I am not sure that my questions won’t simply be answered by the bias of the sources I am using. But that would be interesting anyway.
When I use general sources on the history of the world and add the events and people into the journey, then the effects I mentioned show up clearly. A small area of the Middle East, Europe, China … lots of references to them so they are constantly in play as I walk through time.
What is really strong is the impact of a few people. Cicero appears and is then never mentioned again. A few people stay in focus for a long time - why them? If you are religious, that will impact on your answer, of course, as most of them founded religions, deliberately or not.
While I’m watching the American southwest cultures flourish, I can see the rise of Europe and know that Spain will soon impact so hugely on the Americas. So I am asking questions about what it was at this stage in Spain which led to the need to go so far and do what they did. I doubt I am making a lot of sense yet, because I am not pushing these links in my brain yet, nor going in search of the answers. I am just adding more and more to the journey and seeing what impressions emerge. It is fun to wander through time!
Thank you for your feedback. So much to think about!
Lynne