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