Memory hooks and why they matter

Sorry this statement was meant for the traditional approach not the reverse memory palace(because it isn’t true when you refer to the reverse memory palace [object location wise]).

Isn’t this statement just:

By lowering the amount of time you have for making this and other connections, you will fail at some time interval lets say this interval was 0.5 seconds to make it easier to visualise?

Then you are saying :

I mean sure 0.5 may be not the best number to visualise with but, isn’t that besides the point?

I don’t understand how you think that this running calculation example is any way simular to an argument or thought that I presented.

I seem to have mistaken your “rat” example for a 2 digit translation that is simply placed in a location (the mailbox). I further just imagined that you look at one 2 digit number and try to put in your memory as fast as possible and than after some distraction you see if you can still remember it. The 0,5 seconds doesn’t appear to be to fast to imagine. Just to make it very clear; i’m not claiming that if you manage this 0,5 seconds test, you can automatically memorise 1.000 digits in 500 seconds.

That is precisely my point.

I would imagine, that when you start a sentence with "let say… :

  • you run a 100 meter in 10 seconds;
  • you can bench 300 pounds;
  • you are monkey living on the moon.

… it doesn’t matter if you are not a monkey, for whatever argument that follows to be valid and understandable.

I feel that Mental Cal interprets what I write in a completely different way, than how I meant it.

Maybe my understanding of the English language is not as good as yours, but I just don’t feel that saying “pretend that you are…” is supposed to be taken as a statement, that in fact you are…

In Dutch: stel jij bent (are) een aap op de maan…

We don’t say: stel jij was (were) een aap op de maan…

because than we are talking about a hypothetical situation in the past. But it’s still hypothetical.

Erik in response to Nagime: I feel that Mental Cal interprets what I write in a completely different way, than how I meant it.

and you responded:

See previous reply… and that is also all I said in my very first reply already. Use the location itself for context (in your image) and you will be able to recall from the location as trigger.

My statement was about the “let say 0,5 seconds…” and you interpretation of it. Your previous response is not about this at all.

…that’s how we ended up you dividing things into “the best and the rest” and using absurd benchmarks.

This dividing was used by me as a reaction to your focus on people who do not have good memory skills for connecting objects to locations; My point was the complete opposite of what you make of it, as I was stressing that from the perspective of the theory I was discussing the only difference between the 2 groups is the time interval at which they fail to memorise. I have to admit, that I don’t understand how you go from a theoretical 0,5 seconds (with little to no specifications) to interpreting it as a “benchmark”. Like, I don’t even know what this word means in this context. I understand the phrase"MC Donalds is the benchmark in the fastfood sector", but that meaning doesn’t make sense to me in our conversation.

So, roll back the whole thing… you wanted to know if this was an issue (object vs location) and I gave you an example of how to make it a non-issue.

Again, you talk of an “issue” which I interpret as a “problem”, but I wasn’t talking about a problem, but about a difference in quality of memory hooks (object vs location).

This whole sentence is in the past tense, making it an unfair example; Furthermore, I would say that this is more old Dutch than present Dutch; non of my friends/coworkers talk like that.

This is a more (present tense) common Dutch sentence:
Hij praat over de bankoverval alsof het een zondagsuitje is.

Adding a few comments to this overall.

Personally, I think sentiment is more meaningful than wording. You weren’t trying to make fun of world records by estimating 0.5 seconds both in wording and sentiment.

Abstract considerations are still useful.

Ctrl + enter and my keyboard are not really compatible on this website.

Is a hand held model of a house an object or a location? As such, is size the difference of an object and a location? Finally, I can go back to the 13-year-old me reading that ‘everything is an object in programming’ and get some odd form of confirmation.

I appreciate your evaluation of this thread. I think we share the opinion, that this is getting in all kinds of surreal directions.

In situations like this I feel torn between two possible responses:

  1. react to every misinterpretation (regardless of who’s fault it is) or criticism;
  2. leave the thread for what it is.

I guess I chose the first response in this case, but I feel like “what is even the point”, but I also feel that at least the conversation appeared to be somewhat civilised.

I have had another “incident” on this forum in which I responded to a proposed memory system by another forum member. I reacted in a very honest, but also funny (at least that how it was meant) way. To make a long story short: it didn’t land very well with the original poster. It seemed like everything I said in the following responses was making things worse.

So, I’m counting my blessings with this one.

2 Likes

Ironically the most ‘of high replies’ I tend to partake in tend to be in ‘these kinds of incidents’. Even this post has 27+1 replies.

Sometimes it gives me the impression that aggravating someone is the easiest way to have more replies. Generally, when you have made a comment that isn’t taken well, it just goes downhill from there, almost like first impressions. Sometimes years later when the person has forgotten about it they are much nicer to you.

I don’t really think most people’s ways of life are so different that they can’t understand one another. In most cases it tends to be some misunderstanding, I think in this case even it might have partly been a misunderstanding among other things.

2 Likes

On the topic of memory hooks however, if you have seen the shaper system, how would you theorise its function in the sense that you can remember it much more easily compared to training an image system?

I think the kind of logic that causes the shaper system to be more memorable and trained on start should be applicable to other things.

2 Likes

Well, I have some things to say about this system, so let’s start somewhere.

It is my impression, that the name giver of this sytem thinks it is original (I have not read the whole thread, so I could be wrong). I don’t think it is. I have already made a 2 digit shape based system 10 years ago and I don’t think I came up with the idea myself. My version didn’t work really well, because I had problems with differentiating between left and right. So for example"38" was a snowman (8) with a broomstick (3), but “83” was something else (don’t remember what), but it also looks like a snowman. Also “01” and “10” created a problem as only one was a baseball bat and baseball, but they both look like this. I have to admit, that some of the images of the shaper system are better than what I came up with (I only spend 2 hours creating my version of this system), but also some of the sharper images feel not very intuitive to me.

There is also the problem of seeing multiple things in a number. So in the shaper system the “11” is drumsticks, but when you accidentally see a skier, you have to teach yourself, that it’ s not a skier.

I do tend to believe there is a major advantage in such a system, in that it completely gets rid of language. I feel that language in memorising numbers and in mental aritmetic slows everything down and makes it more difficult to do other things at the same time. I feel this even more after my experience with my own version of the number to sound method; it’s really difficult to combine this pronounciating with the mental gymnastics that one is supposed to do in a (reverse) memory palace to memorise numbers.

I’m probably somewhat biased, but I believe that a more powerful standard (number to object translation) shape based system exist, which is very simular to the way I intend to use the numbers in my juggling reverse memory palace method; making a mental image in which the 2 digits and the objects are connected in a way that is memorable. Some of my locations are basically objects in a fixed place, so I think they serve as a good example. Just to be clear: I don’t visualise the numbers in any other way than numbers (also no rotation like that of the “3” to make it look like an “m”), even though they may take on the identity of (or act like) objects in some abstract way.
11. stairs: the “11” is 2 pins stuck in the stairs;
17 mirror in elevator: the “1” is placed in the middle of the mirror and the “7” is placed in the upper right corner, matching the corner so to speak;
44. pallet with paper in the warehouse; they are pinned (just like “11”) in a box of paper.

I imagine (could be wrong) that most people think that for something to be memorable it has to be meaningful, in that for example a number has to resemble an object in some way. In my experience, letting go of this assumption allows your intuition to develop regarding how to place numbers in a memorable way.

The right placing of numbers requires patience in my experience. Put in a different way: if you give yourself a couple of days to come up with the right placing for each number/object combination, you will win in the long run, because they will be much more powerful. As a related topic, I would like to mention, that I have tried with some succes to memorise numbers in a memory palace as nothing more than (single digit) numbers. I managed 100 digits in 4 minutes, without any specific training. I think this simple method has the potential to be really fast for the obvious reason, that you don’t have to translate anything.

1 Like

I have also made a shape system or rather theoretic over 10 years ago but I didn’t really name it this or even applied it to digits. I think this is the first formal naming of it, I’m sure we all have ideas at some point of time that are named after. For example, when I look at a lot of the neuroscience advancements over the last 10 years, I see at least 20 of my ideas being ‘discovered’ years after I have had them. Realistically though it doesn’t matter too much, if we are really picky on how its named, we can use the name we want while others use another. I used to think the shaper system was called the sharper system. I have just realised you also think this:


I personally never have had this problem, but I imagine this may be also based on how you are placing objects in your palace. When I traverse through mine, I usually go in a very sequential direction so I always know I am processing the images forwards.

The reason I mentioned the system is because the very first time I looked at it, I took around 2 minutes to entirely remember the system. Single 2-digit image recall was also at around 0.4 seconds, whereas when you have an image number association usually the first recall speed is around 1-2 seconds, particularly if you have multiple numbers to learn ‘before you officially train’. What really struck me about this system isn’t so much the system but the fact that you can get to a post training stage in one aspect with this system right away [recall rate]. Something like this is very unusual, so it gave me the consideration that the logic that causes this to function must be applicable on all other stages to some extent.

As for the drumstick and skier, I don’t think it really matters which you are visualising since they both represent the same number, it may even be more memorable to swap between representations.

I just call every shape-based system a shaper system now. So, when I do say shaper system, I don’t refer to the exact numbers, use or etc but the system in general [shape-based system]. For example, I would say shaper system when I am actually referring to encoding japanese characters based on their shape. This however is just out of habit.

I mean, considering that I have spent a large amount of time with rote successfully, I can guarantee that even if something wasn’t memorable you can keep the information for a very long time if you review it appropriately (perhaps forever really). My personal view on this is more or less that when you make something more memorable you shift the forgetting of it to a longer time. So, something that lasts 20 minutes recalled at 20 minutes > something that lasts 40 minutes but is not recalled within 40 minutes. Along with this some interference theory which I have tested myself. As such personally I don’t really feel that spending a couple of days to come up with the right placing for each number/object combination will win in the long run over what is reviewed.

This said :

At first it seems intuitive to dismiss this as, when you are dealing with 10000 digits rather than 100 it will not function, but when I think about it there is a kind of ‘bonus’ to this idea that is easily overlooked. It is the same kind of thing as when you play chess, where you are going through the same moves but start becoming able to chunk the entire board. Perhaps it is indeed possible that this approach will allow you to use such chunking and, in this case, I see it being able to outperform standard memory palace variations, this is of course if it works.

This is actually a very interesting point because single digit numbers mean that if you had a 3-digit system you would have done this is one third the time or otherwise 300 digits in 4 minutes without much training.

Sound is not as slow as it seems but I do agree. My main goal with memory techniques is academic so I have kind of developed an intuition to be able to reason in images and think in images. There are obvious downsides and positives to this, but it is very functional, in the worst case you can visualise language rather than saying it, which I find for me is faster. I find if I were no longer able to use sound to think/encode I could definitely still live with image based reasoning.

I find interference is generally making things harder. If I am doing something entirely visually using visualisation I do not have any problem including language capabilities and vice versa. If I am doing something that requires verbal language and I am visualising text I do not have much of a problem doing these things simultaneously. It’s really where they cross that it has some issues for me.

I do think however that mental arithmetic being verbal isn’t the most functional. Abacus records claim computing 3 digit sums at a time in as little as 0.17 seconds. If I try really quickly to say 3 digit numbers on a stopwatch I can somewhat just scrape 0.11 seconds (this is starting to make me think that verbally sayind threehundredandthirtytwo is faster than threethreetwo ), this is however a far cry from calculating the sum of this along with another 3 digit number. I can visually just about scrape seeing 3, 3 digit numbers in 0.13 seconds visually in my head (using a stopwatch). This is one after another, if I displayed the numbers together at the same time this would be around 9x faster overall. It would be kind of interesting if you verbally read numbers simultaneously and could still functionally calculate but the kind of ‘fast’ pace I can’t really maintain verbally and only do in bursts. visually I at least managed to have 3 iterations. It just seems more efficient to do arithmetic visually. To be honest I do have a little temptation to try seeing where verbal arithmetic ends up when trained, especially since I find it rather easy to train verbal associations and can play multiple language sounds at a time verbally.

There is something I have always been meaning to investigate but never truly got a chance to because it takes too long to do and is tiring. However, It notably proves to me that high-speed verbal processing is a lot more resource consuming or otherwise tiring than visual processing may seem to be. I think I might make a post on this and one of your posts about high maintenance with a twist on it and investigate both things

3 Likes

I’m not convinced about that either. The more i think about it, the more I can remember from the shape based system I read about. Like for example, number 44 was a sail boat in this version. I imagine it was probably something like “2 digit shapes system”.

personally never have had this problem, but I imagine this may be also based on how you are placing objects in your palace. When I traverse through mine, I usually go in a very sequential direction so I always know I am processing the images forwards.

The problem is not related to the memory palace, it’s just that reverse numbers (83 and 38, 01 and 10, etc) can be translated in the same objects, based on their appearance; so why is “38” a snowman and not “83”?

As for the drumstick and skier, I don’t think it really matters which you are visualising since they both represent the same number, it may even be more memorable to swap between representations.

I think this problem is related to the paradox of choice; to much choice is not good and in high speed translating of numbers any choice may cause friction.

I just call every shape-based system a shaper system now. So, when I do say shaper system, I don’t refer to the exact numbers, use or etc but the system in general [shape-based system].

If my system qualifies as a shape based system, than some of the number to letter systems might also qualify as such, if the number to letter translation is shape based; 0 = o , 1 = l/i, 2 = n, 3 = m, etcetera. I’m afraid any classification method will lead to all kinds of overlap between classes.

I mean, considering that I have spent a large amount of time with rote successfully, I can guarantee that even if something wasn’t memorable you can keep the information for a very long time if you review it appropriately (perhaps forever really). My personal view on this is more or less that when you make something more memorable you shift the forgetting of it to a longer time. So, something that lasts 20 minutes recalled at 20 minutes > something that lasts 40 minutes but is not recalled within 40 minutes. Along with this some interference theory which I have tested myself. As such personally I don’t really feel that spending a couple of days to come up with the right placing for each number/object combination will win in the long run over what is reviewed.

My reason for switching from a word/sound based system to a(n) (actual) number (placed in the locations) based system has nothing to do with memory, at least not in the common meaning of the word. It is mostly about translation speed (I used the word “powerful”, that was a bit vague, I admit); it is my educated guess, that when you make the numbers a real part of the location (as opposed to for example a small label on your front door with your house number on it) like the 2 “4’s” on top of a pallet with paper, you will be able to look at any 2 digit number and actually see (part) of the location. I already know all the numbers of my locations, but it when I actually try to memorise a number sequence the translation speed feels like the biggest limiting factor. My goal is to get close to or break the world record some day (I’m not making any claims of probability in this regard, think of it as an aiming point, like shooting for the stars) and the only imaginable way of reaching this goal is to eliminate every little friction (no matter how small) from my system; the alternative is training (I don’ t even have the time for that) a huge amount with a half baked system (also; I’m not claiming my system is now fully baked) like so many other memorisers are doing likewise.

This is actually a very interesting point because single digit numbers mean that if you had a 3-digit system you would have done this is one third the time or otherwise 300 digits in 4 minutes without much training.

Any 3 digit system I know requires translation (not to mention a great deal of pre-memorisation), so I don’t think it’s fair to attribute that ability to me; I 'm not that special.

Abacus records claim computing 3 digit sums at a time in as little as 0.17 seconds

I feel a need to point at the big fat elephant in the room so to speak. And I get the feeling we share this sentiment: as much as I appreciate the performances of memorisers like Alex Mullen, it is my gut feeling, that the mental aritmetic performances like the flash anzan world records are on a different level, despite this being somewhat of an apples to oranges comparison. I have tried some flash anzan/mental abbacus training and i feel like if I train a whole year I might be on the level of the average 8 year old child in the countries where this a part of elementary school. I think that when entire generations of multiple countries are trained in memory techniques from a young age every current memory world record will be surpassed in ways that will blow everyones mind.

Thanks for the discussion

2 Likes

I personally wouldn’t encode as a snowman, however if I did I could imagine a snowman with a trident edge in a 3 shape stuck to it to the right. Therefore I wouldn’t process a trident stuck the other way as 38 but rather a different image, it also wouldn’t make sense as the same trident because the direction would be different (in 38’s case the harpoon edge would be floating).

My experiments have shown that its faster to alternate choice when you have mastered two systems. So having more choice is better than having less choice for speed if you have mastered both variations is what I have experimentally found. Similarly also that for recall too much similarity is not optimal, I found that if I used different images for the same digits I surprisingly didn’t slow down but also that I was much better able to recall the sequence before having to do any reviewing. This is just to say it might not necessarily be bad. A much simpler variation of this experiment is to try writing multiple 1’s as quickly as you can on a sheet of paper and then try writing alternating digits which you may find more difficult such as 12341234. I find even though I would believe writing 1’s to be much quicker the stopwatch clearly makes the distinction that this is not true.

Yes this is true, but this is just like you wouldn’t exactly call the major system a sound system. Surely you could but there are not so many systems that this is a problem either-way. It’s kind of like how you can have animals be animals but also have a poodle, at least that is how I view it.

I don’t really think this is of much consideration though, depending on where I am writing things I would use the appropriate reference.

How do you mean a real part of the location vs label? I find that a label equivalent gives pretty instant location recall at the cost of being easily forgotten, similarly does the visual perception of the image from the digit if it has the same shape. Besides this I have mainly found training is the only alternative.

Perhaps there is a way to avoid this or speed up training.

I think it’s feasible to do 3 digit image placements in 0.1 second. This would completely blow away world records.Using abacus logic this should also be feasible in groups of 3, so something like 9 digits encoded in 0.1 seconds, I believe is feasible. This is then 90 digits in a second. Personally I like the sound of these kinds of results so they get me much more motivated than others.

It is indeed true, I haven’t seen many things comparable to flash anzan where someone who hasn’t practised is not only a lot less accurate but over 100x slower in some cases. It’s also not just one person but the records are actually being beaten by others and there are quite a few at this level.

This said, its not as though people who read books at a young age even excessively for years, start becoming 10x faster than others who are reading books. This comment is just to say that there is more than ‘frequency’/‘starting early’. Perhaps the ‘real reason’ why the abacus is functionally trainable to this extent translates to memory techniques. I have tried to find a lot of logical explanations and have found some but I don’t really have anyone who is below 0.2s 3 digit additions to confirm my deductions with. Perhaps I will take it upon me to master the abacus and confirm for myself or directly deduce the applications to memory techniques.

4 Likes

This discussion about flash anzan/mental abbacus, has in a semi logic way triggered my enthousiasm for the single digit (just placing the actual numbers in the memory palace) method. To start with; the (mental) abbacus is in fact a single digit system (every column represents a digit, by means of the positions of the beads) and it’s potentially amazingly fast.

Just five minutes ago I did a test run while eating diner; thinking of random numbers at what felt like one digit per second for a total of 23 digits (I failed to keep track of the number of digits and I also skipped locations in my memory palace; I haven 't used it in the normal way for quite some time). I managed to recall all without any problems. I realize reading numbers from a paper is more difficult, as it makes the visualisation harder (than when having your eyes closed), but still I feel this may be something to persue. One of the biggest surprises is that is actually more fun, than the translating numbers into objects methods.

To give you an idea of the way I did things, here is the first 10 digits and my intuitive number story:
753 198 469 5
I’m using the 7 to polevault over the office building fence;
the 5 picks up my car and trows it an the side;
the 3 is scratching the glass sliding entrance door;
the 1 is piercing through the reception desk;
the 9 is sliding down the stairs;
the 8 is growing inside the elevator and is getting stuck;
he 4 is slicing the toiletpaper in the toilet room;
I place the 6 over the toilet and use it to pull it away;
the 9 is jumping on top of my locker;
the 5 has hooked my locker door and has pulled in in to the air.

To end my enthousiastic review of this single digit system, I would like to say that it seems that it may not be important to obey the 1 digit per location rule. In my test run I skipped multiple locations without negative effect and I imagine, that I could do the opposite as well, like hook the car with the 5 and let it rest on top of the 3 or pierce the 1 through the desk and hammer it further with the 9 as a hammer.

The end.

4 Likes

You’ve written a lot of words here on the shaper without having to read the whole thing :slight_smile: . No probs, I don’t mind explaining it further it it helps.

The answer is no. I don’t think It’s original, I also mention that in the thread, so please have a read and you’ll have a better understanding of how the whole thing had started.
I also thanked all the board members who were involved in the brainstorming of creating and coming up different shapes. I’ve spent a huge amount of time thinking about this, and a huge amount of time finding the numbers shapes that was above 0-9.

to give you a quick idea; It’s an improvement to the basic number shapes, but also with a few added methods to how it can be used in many ways, and has a few benefits one of which is that it can be used in most languages. So it’s an advanced version of the basic one to generate images from the numbers that covers 00-99 which I think is simpler than major. It’s up to the individual to decide it’s better, slower, faster, etc as we are all different.

One of the added methods is The Clue Shape method.This is where you’d a see the 2 digit clue on the next object as it’s planned with it’s premade actions and the clues it would leave. The clue method can be used with any system with anything that makes sense to the individual. With the shaper, those images with its clues can be used in major or dominic system as well its ownself. Because we already have the shapes, and the clues, it’s kind of a ready made system in a box. Out of the few of the added methods to it, there is one more which I have yet to release but working on it is a method I’ve not seen on the forum or on google searches, but it’s so powerful it would be difficult to forget what you have just memorised. So it’s still in its unfinished but almost finished stage, and I’ll create a thread on releasing all the methods and how they can all be used.

Thank you. I have spent over 3 months on them, and a further 6 months to match the real images from the shaped images.

The shapes/images are what I see, and most people are able to also, but there are some people who sees different shapes in different numbers. So the idea is to change number shapes to the ones that is easier for the individual to see. There is no restriction :slight_smile: In fact while it was in a brainstorming session, other board members created their own, and we used each others shapes.

Well, change it to what makes sense to you. Those images are there to guide and to use if you like to. Another thing I do is to use any other shape that could be used again later on, so I actually use 2 or 3 images for the same digits if I have them or added them in my shapes library. It may be confusing how this is used, I’ve already explained this in another post, but to give a quick example; 11 would be to used as drumstick on the next object, and then if 11 is seen again, this time you’d ski on the next object. Do you get confused when recalling? I don’t. And I have a student who use the shaper also dont get confused with it, but if anyone does, then simply use one shape/image.

It does. An elephant looks the same to all people in the world, so if 19 is elephant, its is very easy to imagine it soon as you see the digits. So I think another advantage is that it takes less time to learn, some learn it almost instantly by the time they get to 99.

I strongly agree, you can in fact use single digits and place them in a memory palace and recall them with almost no issues. If anything; its is the easiest method and will work. Not only the single digits, you can also use that method for memorising cards. Simply use an image for every a single card at each spot in your memory palace. 52 image & 52 locis. it’s is a very powerful method.

However, if we want to memorise more digits a little faster, and with using less locis & rooms in a memory palace, then we have to “compress more digits into a single image”. This of course can be accomplished by using the 2 or 3 digits systems available, and by applying the methods that works for you. When I’m competing I memorise 4 digits at a time. If I’m not competing, to compress more digits into a single image/scene I use 5 digits at a time which is far easier than 4 digits with using the middle digit as the action. So I think this all depends on the individual and what works best for them.

Btw, I do like your reverse memory palace method. A lot!
I also have a good idea of the order of which the digits can be memorised while using the reverse place method. I think it can be a powerful method, and perhaps can also be used in competing. I’ll be doing some experiments I really like the idea.

2 Likes

You are right, but I was asked what I thought of this system and I had to choose between speed reading your Shaper system thread (I had allready read your original post, but not the entire thread) and reacting in some interesting way or reading it really well and not having time to react at all (or at least not that same evening).

However, if we want to memorise more digits a little faster, and with using less locis & rooms in a memory palace, then we have to “compress more digits into a single image” .

Those are 2 assumptions that I imagine the major part of memorisers hold to be true and I used to be on the majority side untill recently. But now I feel both assumptions might be wrong. Let’s look at both:

  • memorising faster means compressing more digits in an image.

Allow me to state the obvious: if you can memorise a single digit (using a single digit system; numbers as they are) more than twice as fast as a 2 digit number (using a 2 digit shape or number to letter method) the statement is not true. I have not done enough testing to make any hard claims, so the following is just my intuition translated in words. I think that it is possible to create a single way to memorise each single digit (without changing the look of the numbers; so no translating into objects), that will allow for a speed that is more like that of the mental abbacus (flash anzan) stars than of the typical 2/3 digit system users. The mental abbacus is a single digit system (for calculation), but I don’t think these practitioners manipulate only one digit at the time because of that.

  • When you want to use less locis & rooms in a memory palace you have to compress more digits in a single image.

Allow me a chance to change your mind on this statement by means of an example. I will first give you some ways to memorise a couple of single digits (keep in mind these are literally prototypes; I intend to do some brainstorm sessions trying to come up better ways for each single digit).
0: a ball with magical qualities; it can bounce, but it can also penetrate trough every object;
1: a speer/pin;
2: a sharp hook, always pulling in a downward way (5 is also a hook, but is pulling upwards);
4: a mini skateboard ramp.

Let’s use one textbook loci, “the front door of your house” and the number sequence: 41102.

This translates into:

jumping over the 4 (ramp) like a skateboarder, throwing 2 spears in the right side (just based on intuition) of the door, throwing a ball through the left side of the door (resulting in a round gap in the door) and finally watching (“2” acts autonomous, again just a prototype, so who knows how this may change) the 2 cut the middle of the door and and slicing it all the way to the ground.

So that’s 5 digits in one location.

I have a lot more positive/promising intuitions about this system, but I don’t think I know how to put these into words in a convincing way. So this is basically what I can offer you in terms of making a case for this system.

Thanks for your reply.

1 Like

This seemed like a bold statement. I’m afraid, you didn’t change my mind at all. I am still sticking to what I have written. With No disrespect.

Your example displays the basic Linking method. That is the basics of memorising a single or more items in a single location.

You can in fact add countless amount of digits in a single locus if you can keep the story going by linking them.

I would like to invite you to join the Memory League if you are not there already. Practice all your systems, be it 1 digit or whatever, try to compete with other users every so often, and then come back and tell us your experience with your scores and timings along with the systems and methods you have used.

2 Likes

My intention is to aim at sort of a hybrid between linking and connecting to the memory palace. In my example everything is connected to some part of the same loci but it is obvious that the story is vital in fast memorisation and remembering of these 5 digits. Simply putting every single digit in a location and disregarding the surrounding digits will probably not work as well.

I’m afraid, you didn’t change my mind at all. I am still sticking to what I have written. With No disrespect.

I don’t think my former self (even from just from a few months ago) would be convinced when reading my post (from the present me).

I would like to invite you to join the Memory League if you are not there already. Practice all your systems, be it 1 digit or whatever, try to compete with other users every so often, and then come back and tell us your experience with your scores and timings along with the systems and methods you have used.

I hereby promise, that if my 1-digit system gets up to some speed I will join and tell all about it. It won’t be very soon I’m afraid; work has been kind of crazy (in a good way) so I don have the luxury of spending much time on a daily baisis to memory sport.

1 Like