This picture shows the basic types of linking techniques, combined with method of loci.
To refer them somehow I propose:
0 - no link (NL) (just seeing existing object and new object together)
1a - interaction method (IM)
1b - Link System (LS) or Chain Method (CM)
1a+1b - Pinned Link System (PLS)
2 - transformation method ™
Note that link in its widest meaning would be “seeing a connection between A and B”. E.g. bird flies, because it has wings. So, the type 0 could easily be made into type 0+: the phone lies on the sofa because it was left there (fell out of a pocket). Basic logic is also linking, without any “interactions” or “transformations” needed. ANY connection you come up with will strenghten your neural networks binding A and B.
**Click here to see a chart that compares IM, LS and TM (sorry about some new terms, they are translated here)
PLS Pinned Link System (in this example all objects are pinned).
Which one do you use most often?
What do you use this technique remembering for?
How has it worked for you (e.g. do you remember the links you’ve made, how many times need to revise the link, is this technique easy or hard for you … etc)?
Do you also combine the technique with method of loci (or with mind map/pegs or some other technique)?
I think many of us (especially beginner-mnemonists) would be very interested in getting know what linking other people prefer to use
So please share your experience
I remember physics and math (I am physics student). I have to deal with very many physical quantities (e.g energy, mass). If I encounter new physical quantity, let’s say magnetic field strength, then to visualize it, I pick some object from my memory palace (e.g a sword), combine it with some person’s face (e.g. the Architect from Matrix: Revolition) and let this new hybrid (Architect-sword) symbolize the magnetic field strength.
When I later need to use magnetic strength in another memory palace, I pick most similar object to sword (e.g a knife if I had it there, or a stick), and let it transform into sword.
It’s working well for me. In case I manage to find a knife in my memory palace and let it transform into sword, I need to revise only once, because it’s so natural for knife to turn into sword (similar tools both).
I really can’t imagine learning anything anymore without help of memory palace any more.
It’s interesting that the transformation method is your most often used method – It’s quite the opposite for me.
I probably use the chain method the most, but interaction method and no link are often used as well. Little use of the transformation method. So far I’ve just winged it, using interaction and story when I can come up with a connection. Otherwise, no link.
I’ve just begun filling a palace/journey with my math curriculum. I currently have some 40 loci filled. I find it harder to come up with fitting images for math than for less technical subjects. An example would be the formula for the Laplace transform of a function f(t), which is the integral of ( f(t) * e^-st dt ). I imagine “slide feet estimate” (integral-symbol looks like a slide). So the Tauren at the fire (cow-humanoid in World of Warcraft) slides down a playground slide while a goblin estimates the Tauren’s feet.
So far it’s working very well. I can see and hear them interacting; the goblin asking the Tauren to slide again, and the huge, manly Tauren giggling like a little girl while he runs back to climb the little slide.
I discovered memory palace technique a few months ago (from Sherlock ofc), but have only recently begun applying it to school subjects. So far, the method of loci is the only technique I’ve been using. I’m going to look into the Major System soon though, looks neat
EDIT:
Btw, that example was obviously a standalone locus, and had no connection to previous or next locus.
Also, isn’t chaining and interaction referring to linking between loci, while transformation is changing something about the locus to fit the image you’re trying to remember? I think I’m a little bit confused about the terminology
Actually none of these 4 methods require method of loci at all. I just used it in my picture, because this was the best way to demonstrate them.
If you place the objects in the chain into different loci (that don’t even need to be near each other), then there is greater possibility you can remember the chain (you could probably recall some objects after having forgotten the story)
Yes, but again, it doesn’t have to be locus. It could be also be your peg for number 5 or some random item that comes to your mind (e.g. H (magnetic field strength) transforms into sword, but this time the sword didn’t come from memory palace, it just popped into my head)
Well I’ve discovered that when using TM properly I have to revise less times (when compared to NL, CM and IM). Also, TM doesn’t need coming up with stories. It has certain rules that can be studied and effectively applied to your mnemoskills. Read about TM (and also some about CM and IM) here.
Followed your link to your google page. Interesting read! It really helps to understand the meanings and differences between terms. Gives a better overview of the subject (I’m quite new to mnemonics). I’ll try using your algorithm for TM in my math journey, although for now I won’t apply the first step, since I’ll be placing dobes at the next vacant locus sequentially. So potentially a lot of non-visual similarities?
I have a mini-journey for short-term storing where I mostly use substitution. I’ll try out TM instead. I’ll ask (or head over to your google page) if I have any questions:-) Thanks!
When trying to go really fast, there is sometimes very little interaction. Not advisable, but also unavoidable if you try to go much faster than you are able. CM if I can take my sweet time, and IM usually does the trick at a quick pace, though I always strive for CM, I’m usually just not fast enough to make something super sensible. Or I’m too fast, depending on how you look at it.
I added a new linking technique to my webpage, that I’m sure a lot of you already use it. I got inspiration from this comment. At my webpage I call it Pinned Link System (PLS) (correct me if it already has a name). In that system some images in the chain (of mnemonic link system) are “pinned” to pegs/loci. Under “pinned” I mean that they are really linked with pegs/loci (not that they merely act as holders of these images).
In the picture I gave you the first image (hammer) is linked with locus (vase). But we could also link each one of them with locus (see this picture).
I’m not sure how many mnemocompetitors bother to also link P or A or O image (of a PAO combination) to the locus, because it would require one extra image and would slow them down.
And don’t forget to update this topic with more ideas about linking. If you add more ideas then I can also update my webpage.
What's the difference between linking and method of loci?
Recently a question was asked about it. I'm trying to answer it as good as I can.
What we do know that both methods apply visual skills, both have mnemonic images in it.
What linking always has, is some kind of association between two mnemonic images. That may be: interaction, similarity, transformation, or just something that makes you think that after thing A comes B.
What method of loci has, are two things: spatial relationships, and backgrounds.
Spatial relationships: my car is stays by the road, which is next to my garden, which is next to my house, in house there is 1 floor, 5 rooms, in the center of the living room there is sofa. When sb asks you: “Where is the sofa?”, you automatically get this sense of location, and can mentally travel through the whole path to it. A mental map is formed in your head.
Backgrounds: When you think of a location, your mental screen is filled with a picture. When you think of a pillow on the sofa, background is everything that is around the pillow.
So, when later placing image on the pillow, both factors play their part. You think:
What was on THE pillow (the one that is on THAT sofa, which was in THAT room)
The background around the image is also helping you to recall it, it "fills in" the missing spot
When linking, the sense of location is lost. Instead you think A->?. The background thing is still largely present. You think: What did Einstein do? - He was moonwalking. You subconsciosly attached some background to Einstein, like he’s doing it on a floor, in a room.
Or when I say Chuck Norris is kicking the gold teeth of Tywin Lannister in, so he really ■■■■■ gold, then you probably saw an image of Chuck, then Chuck jerking his hand/foot, image of gold teeth, Tywin Lannister, then Tywin sitting somewhere (a glimps of toilet hole/pot?) and golden poo-poo coming out. A lot of images, a lot of backgrounds (golden teeth being hit by sth, Tywin surrounded by toilet background, golden poo-poo having the background of Tywin’s ass). We don’t consciosly think about the backgrounds, they happen naturally, yet they (subconsciosly) play an important role when later recalling the joke. Yet it isn’t necessary to think about locations: where every image is positioned, perhaps see something like this:
So, yes, what you actually have is not a sense of location, rather sense of background (it was in A forest, but you don’t know what else was in that forest, where was that forest located and so on).
However though imaginary locations and stories can overlap. Perhaps Delay placed sth else in that forest also. Like suddenly below the three was a worm who crawled to the apples and ate them all. Then an eagle came from a nest on a tree next to the apple tree, crabbed the worm and fed it its Hitler-faced sons, who instead ate their mother. We already have sense of location for 4 things: rider coming into forest, the apple tree with its apples, a worm that used to live below the tree, and an eagle nest on a tree next to the apple tree.
More and more locations. Bateman’s Getting Started example is built the same way.
However, it’s very easy to continue with the initial technique;
Rider picked an apple
Apple was eaten by a worm
Worm was caught by an eagle
Eagle was eaten by Hitlers
whole chain created without using locations at all.
That’s how you do it when you’re in hurry, you just see those scenes, each scene containing 2 images interacting with each other. Thinking about locations strengthens the links, but will slow you down a bit.
Starting from here is a discussion how to link these items: elephant-butter-watch-bus-salt-cow-grawy-pistol-flag. The 2 ways that are used there are quite similar to the forest example: one of them just concentrates on two items at a time (“Link Method”), the other (“Story Method”) is not so specific, but has a bit more sense of location (elephant wearing a watch made of butter that melts onto a bus, that I pick up and use as a salt shaker on a cow, whose udders squirt gravy onto a pistol which fires a).
I think this is a quite good terminology - link method for linking 2 things, chain method/link system for linking more than 2 things using link method, and story method for doing the same but not so strictly + having a bit sense of location.
I think pure linking is good for linking two or three items together. Terms and definitions, vocab words, and foreign words all seem to work well with this method. Journeys are cool, but I think you only need them if you have to remember the order of things.
i really do not linking more than 2 objects because when i have linked say…
hammer–butter–bat
then i get hammer linked to butter then i need to make another picture of butter, maybe a different image of butter and relate it to a bat.
I would rather have the hammer interact with the butter and i can then follow that butter and watch it interact with a bat. That way i do not have an empty screen where i need to recreate a picture of the middle term. And things change or get lost in this recreation of the middle term (butter).
Learning lists of philosophers, amateur scientific subjects, soccer tactics theory, religious rituals
I feel that to many things slips my mind. Using anki my correct answers are 75% for mature, 93% for young and 89% for learning which may sound ok, but i hardly learn new stuff because i tend to want the older stuff to be 100% learned before going on to new subjects.
Yes - always
One question to r30’s algorithm:
When using a alternative to task 3 by letting the dobe taking the shape on the base and not the other way arroung, would You still place the dobe inside the base (task 2) or would it be more natural to switch task 2 when ever you switch task 3?
I’ll be honest, I used Google Translate to understand you because I don’t speak English, and I didn’t understand anything. The only thing I understood was that there’s a way to connect, and that’s to create a story. I always use that.
