MAJOR system VS PAO/DOMINIC and 00-99 VS 000-999 | Which combination is the best for studies?

General Memory Chat
,
1

Hello guys! Hope you all are doing fine.

I’m not the most experienced here so I would like to know your opinion on which system combination is better for “normal” use. It would be good if you could justify by saying the positive and negative points that you see in each technique or, at least, what made you choose it.

You are welcome to just pick your favorite without justification tho. The justification is just for newcomers (included me) to know better the benefit of each technique.

  1. Major system VS PAO/DOMIC
    Explanation: do you prefer a method based only in objects (major) or a person-action/person-action-objetic?

  2. 00-99 VS 000-999
    Explatnion: do you prefer a method with less digits or you think more digits are less repetitive?

Beside that, I would like to know if you need to choose a combination of 1 and 2 for studies not (for competition), which would you pick?

My thoughts: I would pick PAO/DOMINIC because to me is easier to combine persons to objects than object to object. I would combine PAO/DOMINIC with 00-99 because its seems to be easier to mantain.

I think this combination is enough for most to study and try memory sports. For the top level problably would pick 000-999, shadow system etc. Do you agree?

2

My answer in short is Dominic System for 00-99 (PAO). But I would rather used Major System for a 000-999 number system as it gives you more options.

Note: PAO is not the exclusivity of only a Dominic System. You could well created a cast of 00-99 PAO using the Major System. If you use the search function and put in the keyword 00-99 PAO you will definitely go down many interesting ‘rabbit holes’!

2 Likes
3

Absolutely! This was my approach. I think it depends a bit on how your natural instincts work, which varies from person to person. I liked the fact that with Major, I could just read the numbers. The phonetics made sense to me and were pretty fast to get used to reading. I liked how I could apply it to cards and just “read” a PAO sequence directly from the cards. I also liked how it easily applied to encoding binary sequences as well.

One thing that I did that is a little bit different is that I based every element of my PAO on Major phonetics, not just the person. A “traditional” PAO entails using system rules to generate a person and then determining an action and object that fits that person but doesn’t necessarily follow the system phonetics. I wanted to structure all aspects of the list from Major Phonetics and I think it turned out really well.

I’ve since started learning the Shadow System for cards, which is rooted in the Major System and also provides a simultaneous 3-digit system.

Ultimately, the specific system is less important that building fluency and automatic association. Incredible speed and accuracy have been demonstrated with a wide variety of systems and it’s more about the fit with your preferences than anything else.

Practical applications for students or number based information memorization is the main appeal of Major, I think. It’s pretty easy to encode stuff like the atomic weights and numbers of elements… planetary distance, diameter, and gravity… digits of pi… historical dates and sequences… All become pretty easy to visualize if you have a solid number based PAO system, whatever that might be!

3 Likes
4

Ultimately, the specific system is less important that building fluency and automatic association. Incredible speed and accuracy have been demonstrated with a wide variety of systems and it’s more about the fit with your preferences than anything else.

Thank both of you for answering my topic.

I think this should be a standard answer for many topics I read in this forum. You can do great things with any system. I asked just to know your guys thoughs of edges and drawbacks since my goalss are pretty much related to study and not for competiting in high level in memory sports.

2 Likes
5

Lol, it’s not really for learning. It’s for remembering exact numerical data.

I use 00-99, and 000-999. Tried PAO.
I can say this, it takes much less time and energy to memorize images of 100 numbers (with the right approach) than PAO. Perhaps there is a faster learning strategy.
No problem with changing the method. It’s an interesting experience.

Numbers 00-99 = in 1 day all the images in my head, it remains to strengthen the connections and train to automaticity of perception, which takes 4-7+ days, maybe two, there was a case of an acquaintance.
000-999 = Again in 1 day you load all the images in my head, it is more costly. Multiply all the work by 5 or 10. You can memorize by the hundreds a week or go straight hardcore to 999. It’s going to be a few months here.

PAO took a week+. All in all, the idea for cards is fine. But I didn’t like it. Even though I experimented for 2 clean months, memorizing only with PAO. The desired speed can be achieved there and here. I did not like the fact that I have to waste energy on “animated” connections. That is, I need to imagine 2 objects + action. Even though the images were faded and it’s all automated, compressed, it still takes time: 1) To get used to 2) Energy for connections.

The image should be simple, it should not be in motion, static.
The colorfulness of the image is not important - it is not important brightness, emotionality in the representation. ALL THAT MATTERS IS IDENTIFYING THE IMAGE. That’s what the emphasis should be on!

If you present an image that you identify, and therefore distinguish from other images on your mental screen - you automatically see it as vividly as you should! No more, no less. That is, brightness, detail, volume, color, and detail are automatically respected. You don’t turn on each of these parameters, you don’t set the value of these parameters, but as if you press one button and these parameters automatically start with the right values. It’s like not tuning the equalizer for each song, but setting it to rock, jazz, metal, or just “auto.”

As a result, the performance process is automated and doesn’t require energy-consuming parameter adjustments. Especially when there is no feedback, i.e. it is impossible to be 100% sure of the connection created or not. And an experienced mnemonist, with the right representation, feels, and can even tell with minimal error after memorization, how many numbers he memorized in a minute exactly 50 or 47.

Also, one experienced mnemonic coach told me this thought: "Three-digit codes are the best code system for memorizing numbers - there is no better. It is the system that holds the world records in mnemonic sports. I have not checked the information for records, but in general I do not deny that it can be so.

And don’t write 100 vs. 1,000. That’s not correct, huh. Because the principle is the same, just as an upgrade. You can create 9 links in double digits, or you can make 3. Saves time in the long run. So learn 00-99 and then 000-999. For hardcore lovers, you can start with 000-999, but only if you understand the principle of memorizing image codes and have already encountered them in practice.

6

For study, a detailed giant number system isn’t necessary, but the fluency for decoding is. You can take time to craft scenes more carefully and then as long as you can remember how the elements of your scenes decode into numbers you’ll be golden. More important techniques are probably linking, soundalike, and memory palaces for reliable storage and retrieval.

3 Likes
7

Memory Palaces are not meant for study. Spending energy on running around the locations is worthwhile in cases of training (sports). And for trivial tasks, remember → write down → forget.
On the whole, the advice is ± correct.

8

Thank you for answering in this topic. Apreciate that you spend some of your time to contribute. :+1:

1 Like
9

Wholeheartedly disagree. Well organized palaces based on subject matter are some of the best tools you can use for retaining and accessing information.

2 Likes
10

Could it be that we are putting 2 different meanings into one word in essence? Palaces refers to a sequence of locations, routes.

There is a system of highlighting parts of an image. On the parts, new images are made. On one of these images you can allocate from 1 to 10+ parts. On one part, 10+ images can be memorised (units of compressed information). And now let us see how much space we have in the end for memorising practical and learning information. Considering that the images can be anything, without any connection to the subject you are learning. After all, the information itself is remembered in parts of the subject.

We call it a mnemodisc, a mnemodiscette. I haven’t come across any information about this method on this forum, only palaces. The fact that you can memorize on them too, is not denied and also a fact. But the question of efficiency and optimizing the process.

Note, to memorize conditional 1000 units of information, which should be brought to automatism (at need) it is possible and 1 and 2 methods. But I think that you quickly get bogged down with views of 1000 locations (I have them 1108) where each location has an image … and this image will be refined in the form of others. You need to make the neural connections strong. The 2nd method requires less energy to view your “floppy disk” and the information encoded in it.

It’s still a mystery to me why people on this forum advocate palaces so strongly as the best means of remembering learning information. From my point of view it’s ineffective and shows an incomplete knowledge of mnemonics. That’s why I join in the criticism.

There may be misreadings and misunderstandings, and describing a mnemonic in a foreign language is not an easy task. There was an article and a recent discussion in the comments to it, just on this topic.

What do you mean by palaces?

11

It’s still a mystery to me why people on this forum advocate palaces so strongly as the best means of remembering learning information. From my point of view it’s ineffective and shows an incomplete knowledge of mnemonics. That’s why I join in the criticism.

Please could you create a topic with detailed information about the method you consider better than memory palace? Maybe we don’t know it yet and that is the reason of MP being the favorite one so far.

Lately in this forum some users bring new billion/trillion memorization methods without the proper details. So in the lack of better detailed method the MP seems to be the best (and most proven) out there even because it is widely used by the memory champions.

2 Likes
12

If there is a best, it probably goes by the name “experimentation.”

@NekroFernus might be missing the serial positioning/primacy/recency possibilities MPs provide without recourse to spaced repetition software.

Without them, the Memory Palace is indeed deeply diminished.

With them, then every letter of the alphabet, every mnemonic image, and every nail on every finger takes on a special property when used to help maximize the power of active recall for faster, deeper and much more fun learning.

4 Likes
13

Yes this is what I mean. A well organized set of loci, relevant to subject matter will allow both sequential and random access of information.

I have over 1000 loci spread across numerous palaces and I never feel overwhelmed or lost. I also never have a confusing or overwhelming bird’s-eye view of all of them at once. That seems like an odd assumption.

I view my palace and loci organization almost like a well indexed computer file tree.

If I want to browse my knowledge of the table of the elements I transport myself to the palace that contains them. If I want a specific element, say “Boron,” the links I’ve created with soundalike, major system, linking, and loci, all combine to guide me to a specific loci where I can find the images of aDheSiVe DiCe telling my the atomic weight, han SoLo giving me the atomic number, the book of aNaToMy he’s reading indicating the elemental coordinates within the periodic table, the image of the red Baron giving me the name Boron, a giant flag with a big letter B flying behind his plane for the symbol… If I want to browse around, I can travel sequentially or jump around at will.

If I want to access information about the Superbowls, I transport to that palace and those loci will trigger the information I’ve stored there.

I approach them like a descending, increasingly specific file pathway. “overall large subject palace metalocations → subsections or areas that delineate individual more nuanced topics within that heading → individual loci for a specific smaller scale more focused set of information → the imagery stored at that loci for details however granular I want to get.” So far, there is no problem going from the top down or jumping right to the relevant subfolder or loci.

The human mind’s natural proclivity for spatial memory is what makes this technique so powerful and the main reason why you are unlikely to find a more effective technique.

Call it what you want, but tying representational imagery to spacial memory seems to be the most effective and least convoluted approach to quick and effective encoding and decoding of nearly any type of information. The systems to put it all into imagery may differ and may be endlessly debated, but ultimately it seems to keep coming back to this basic strategy.

2 Likes
14

I agree with this. I’m experimenting systems and methods these days and MP (combined with others) is working best for me so far. Memorize lots of concepts for oral exames is easier using memory palaces if it is well designed.

I will be glad to hear more about NekroFernus method tho. Would be good to have other aproaches to give us even more tools for memorize numbers, subjects, concepts etc.

2 Likes
15

Understood. I can say that both methods work because of the basic principles of how our memory works. And they are about equal in effectiveness.

The method I described is more compact, when the information is only remembered you can find the right place quicker and strengthen the connections. I’m talking about situations where you gradually need to memorize 200-500 connections in 2-4 hours.

2 Likes
16

But this is not my method, but a common one for mnemonists. A basic one, made on a combination of linking + highlighting parts in an image.

17

This is not experimental. It has been used for a long time, but the authors of superficial and popular books about mnemonics do not write much about it. Although stimulus systems are one of the key topics in teaching mnemonics.

Stimulus System
Examples: Cicero, mnemodisketa (no clear name, a system of reference images), also, the human body, as a very simpler version.

Once upon a time long ago, I studied mnemonics and started with the Cicerone method, which was used to practice different methods of linking images, as well as just remembering information. I remember memorizing the 50 states of America on Cicero (palaces). After that, I switched to the above method.

During the first month of working with mnemonics, I formed a division into sports and practical memorization. I will not describe again why palaces are classified as sports. This is more convenient for me and I find it optimized. The main thing is that it works and does not take much time and energy. For a person to remember.

Why does the mnemonic need repetition??? 0_____0
What does active memorisation mean?

image
image1148×698 132 KB

It is similar in principle to these illustrations, only there are elements of hermetic

18

Thank you very much for sharing the link :handshake:. I gave a look and it seems to be very interesting. I will read more carrefully tomorrow. Really apreciate your contribution :hugs:.

However I must say with all do respect you changed your mind pretty fast.

First you said:

It’s still a mystery to me why people on this forum advocate palaces so strongly as the best means of remembering learning information. From my point of view it’s ineffective and shows an incomplete knowledge of mnemonics. That’s why I join in the criticism.

now you said:

Understood. I can say that both methods work because of the basic principles of how our memory works. And they are about equal in effectiveness.

Afterall… is MPs effective or not? People here have incomplete knowledge or you have? I don’t get it :thinking:

19

I think @concurseiropgfn raises a good point.

I don’t know for sure, but it seems like all knowledge is incomplete. If that conclusion was good enough for Gödel, who are we to disagree? :wink:

2 Likes
20

I wrote “roughly equal” more out of politeness and reluctance to create an argument.
No, I haven’t strayed from the original thesis. Don’t worry :smiley:

If a person writes that he remembers it this way and he’s doing well, let’s say. Then it works too. Because image connections are a basic thing and work there and there.

And that’s who wins in practice in terms of time and efficiency…mnemodiscs are much faster to create. You don’t have to search for 1000 locations. You use a few items and remember them. It’s compact and fast already at the start.
To scroll through 1,000 locations you need 17 minutes
(1 second per location). In those 17 minutes you can already create ready-made “mnemodiscs” and fix them + start memorizing. Already saves energy.

You don’t even have to bother with the labels for the sciences you’ll be memorizing or other information.
You can create another one. Pictures from the Internet in good quality to help.