Hi.
Thank you for any assistance you might offer. I know how time-consuming it is to help others, free of charge. And, if you are kind enough to do that, then you are very nice and deserve a pat on the back. But, please remember that unless you know for sure or at least very well the information you are teaching, then it could be harmful in that it could cost the person you are trying to help a lot of time and energy, which is discouraging if the results are not what the person is promised.
Imagine if you took math in school and at the end didn’t understand anything you learned. Or worked towards a university degree in psychology and at the end, couldn’t remember say two years of your four year degree. You would feel so let down. That is the kind of thing that can happen when a person who doesn’t know what they are talking about tries to help other people. So, although good intentions are kind, please remember that before you answer, just as you would expect of someone answering your question. It’s a simple rule, and I know it can be a little offensive to preface a question in so long a way and in a way that is so self-evident, but trust me, the longer you live and the more you try to learn, the more often you will see that a lot of people do that very thing. They respond without thinking and without even considering that they haven’t researched what they are saying, don’t have any training, experience, or have maybe only just begun a process and have not even the necessary results under their belt that would justify “teaching.”
Okay, now that my little rant is over, assuming you know the story I will explain, my question is relatively simple.
Apparently, a Dr. Yip Swee Chooi was able to memorize a Chinese English dictionary of some 1700 pages with some five or so thousand images. How he did this was to use each page number to recall an image, which he used as a location. On each page, there are maybe thirteen or so words that Dr. Yip Swee had to memorize, and so he used 13 images for those words and put the “word” images in his page location. To each “word” image, he attached, I assume, another image, which in turn triggered a vague concept to him, which was the definition of the word. I’ll be calling those “definition” images in this text, the other kinds of image being similarly modified.
If you watch this video, you can see his explaining his method towards the end of the video. Also, if you pay attention to the way he recalls the definitions, you see that he does it in his own words, rather than definining the word verbatim. This is an important point because it means that he likely only used a single image for each definition, possibly two. And, that single or couple of images triggered the definition in loose terms.
Here is a link to the Youtube video: Youtbe Video on the man who learned an entire dictionary
For the format of each definition, it makes sense that Dr. Yip Swee Chooi likely chose a single or couple of images to recall the basic concept such that he can explain the definition in his own words. A lot of people say that one has to understand what one remembers.
The dictionary I have, however, is not set up the same way as a standard dictionary, e.g. a collegiate, pocketbook or unabridged dictionary. It is a special usage dictionary, called a A Dictionary of the Roots and Combining Forms of Scientific Words. You can see the book here, A Dictionary of the Roots and Combining Forms of Scientific Words
In it there are some 12,800 entries, of which there are some 5,000 Greek and 5,000 Latin roots and combining forms. However, if you look on say the first page, which you can do by using the preview at Amazon, the link to which is just above, you see that the definitions are very different from those in a standard dictionary.
In a standard dictionary, again, the definition is composed of too many words to remember one by one, each word with a corresponding image. As well, definitions in a standard dictionary are able to be boiled down to much more simple wordings and sometimes simplistic concepts. For example, a bald eagle is likely defined with a few terms in even a collegiate dictionary, whereas if a person defined it, they would say something along the lines of, “a bald eagle is a huge black bird that has a white head and a yellow beak and lives in the United States, usually in the desert.” The average American could say more about it than that, of course, but that would about sum up the definition for most people. They don’t need to say any technical vocabulary to better identify the bird, really. With other words, it isn’t always that easy, as we know. When defining adjectives, most of us don’t start off with “of, pertaining to, or denoting…” Instead, a lot of us have to think of how to define such a word and start off with a sentence something like “it’s like, when you do this…” or, “it’s like…” “it’s when…” These informal, common ways of defining a word or concept don’t make them wrong, just imprecise a lot of the time and not very well understood or, at least, formulated, understandable, and usable.
In this dictionary, the words are not defined in the same way as they are in a standard dictionary, as I just said. Instead, each root or combining form is usually proceeded by at least two or three other words, most of the time all of which are different enough that they merit remembering, versus being able to be conflated.
I’ll give an example.
On the first page of the dictionary, one sees that -a or -an means not, there is not, or without. Here, the first two senses could be boiled down to one sense, and therefore at least one “definition” image, but the second sense would need (a) separate image(s), unless after enough thinking one were able to find some single image that could sum up both meanings. The second word is aages, which means unbroken or hard. It is true, again, that these are similar; but not enough that only one concept need be remembered, at least not in my case. Both are important. The third word (note, I am looking at Greek roots and combining forms only for this explanation) aapto, invincible, unapproachable, again two images at least would be needed. The key word there is, [at least]. At least two images will be needed.
So, think about it. If I use his method, the method of loci, and say I only do the Greek words for starters, that is an average of about 20 to 40 words per page, (I counted). That means 20 to 40 “word” images per page, at least, since not every word can be remembered with one simple image. It’s not that easy. In a word like any of the three I just provided, maybe to remember that there is an A at the beginning, or indeed two, such will require an image, and the second part will require yet a second image, the two corresponding definitions of which, if one is fortunate enough to have only two, may in turn require not merely two more images, but six, even. Hence, one word with a mere two distinct senses may command a total of just under ten images. TEN! Hence, a page of even twenty simple words can easily become hundreds of images.
Now, the problem with this is not just the obvious WORK that would be required. However, it’s not like we see with the good doctor. He having dedicated himself to all that work was able to complete a page of about thirteen images, each with say one, possibly two added images, which were responsible for recalling the ENTIRE definition of the word, regardless of how complicated it was. If you look at how he defined each word, you see that he uses “it’s like,” and a lot of gesticulation to help. That’s fine, life is not a written book. But the point is that he is only recalling some 26 images per page. Not 100.
What this means in mnemonic order is:
1, page number, an image. This image acts as a location.
2. On the page, (for example) 13 words. These words have 13 corresponding “word” images that are placed in the location.
3. On those “word” images are attached one or maybe two more images, which are “definition” images.
Remember, these images recall different things. The number triggers an image. That image triggers a location.
In that location, each image triggers a word, or information that triggers the eventual recalling of the word. The image(s) there attached trigger yet more information, which should either be or should draw up the definition itself.
Now, imagine if the “definition” image is not merely one, or two, but ten in total! If the very first “definition” image is forgotten, then all the rest of the images attached to it are also forgotten.
This is the problem I ran into in trying to memorize the first two hundred or so Greek roots and combining forms in the dictionary I provided above.
My memory palace was made up of my walk to work. My first location image was a trash bin outside my apartment building. On it, I attached ten words, since I need to be able to organize the information and thereby later orient myself within it, if need be. However, even after encoding the first ten words, and repeating the images more than fifty times, going all the way through the images, from the image location itself to the images that represent the definition, over a period of several weeks, I repeated and repeated and repeated this simple group of ten words while also encoding groups of ten further on down my path. And, after I felt comfortable with the first set of ten, I stopped repeating and checking if I had them memorized. I felt comfortable and confident that they would be recalled whenever I needed them. And, after a few months had gone by, and I had encoded some two hundred words, I decided spontaneously to check the first set of ten, and low and behold, I had forgotten nearly all ten of them!!!
All that work. And I could not remember any better than had I done it by simply repeating and repeating, through the rote system. You can image the pang of emotion I felt after realizing that it wasn’t working, and how utterly PISSED I was. All that promise and fun-thinking I had enjoyed imagining having Greek and Latin under my belt, shattered! FORGOTTEN!
This got me thinking. When people use this system, the method of Loci, they are repeating and using the information they learn. No one is, for example, learning the entire French language to say an advanced level (which means thousands upon thousands upon thousands upon thousands of words, sounds, grammar, etc, etc, etc, etc) and yet at the same time, never using the langauge. No one is learning so many thousands of imagines and yet, NOT USING that information they worked so hard to memorize. Instead, what people are doing is learning information (via this system or any other) and then USING it, which means… REPEATING it, which means not knowing whether they actually could remember it in five months if they never use it after remembering it through the method of loci.
I wonder then. Does the method of loci really work? It certainly works for short term memory. And certainly for a mere ten images or words, one is more or less fine, provided that he use a location he sees every day, and with which he is fully acquainted. But what about for ten thousand images? What about for five thousand images? What about for five thousand images, locations one is not readily familar with, and information he won’t use on a daily basis but maybe once every now and again. Maybe not at all for six months and then suddenly, once, randomly. This is how life works, sometimes. And this is partly why learning things like ANCIENT GREEK is so hard. No one ever uses it in a systematic way, like in speaking, writing or the like. But, like a lot of kinds of information just like Ancient Greek, Ancient Greek is very useful for untold numbers of reason. And, as you might imagine, I have mine and the vocabulary therein means a lot to me!
So, if you have made it this far, as I talk too much when writing, then thank you. And, if you can see my problem because you know what the heck you are talking about, then please, good person that you are, help me.
I would very much like to use the same method as Dr. whatever his name is, by simply using the dictionary itself and every page number within it to help me with a location. How can I do this if I need so many images? Is there a way not to need so many images?
Thank you again. You don’t know me and words are just words, but this information isn’t easy to come by and should be easily understood as meaning a lot to me. So, if you can help, please do! In fact if you have a paypal account and what you say works - as I will indeed try it!! - then I would be happy to pay you for your knowledge and time!
Okay, well, thanks again.
Justin
Thank you for trying. All I asked was that you be sure you know what you are saying. I guess it would be like asking a stranger for directions and they respond with “im not sure, it could be over there, it may be over that way, or maybe back there too…” vs saying, “yes, it is just two blocks down and to the left, you’ll see it, it is a big yellow building.”