Notes for all mnemonists. Part I

General Memory Chat
1

Replying to one person about mnemonics I had the idea to write several threads on this forum + one new material that is rarely talked about.

I’d be happy if it helps forum members rethink their knowledge and understanding of what they do.
(you may also disagree with me).

image
image1024×1024 258 KB

  1. I have noticed that the forum discusses in 98% of cases rather superficial information about mnemonics or sports. Most of the information is superficial or subject to myths.

In Ru segment on mnemonics on the Internet also practically 96-98% of information about mnemonics is garbage.

Why is it so and what is “garbage”?

1.1 In the last century they started to print books on mnemonics under advertising slogans “super memory”, “memory training” and other attractive definitions. (Rewriting 19th century mnemonics books?)

In fact, medically, all people have a healthy memory. (without mental illness: chronic depression, dementia, for example).

The natural properties of the brain to fix and memorize - and is mnemonics, but without human participation.

THE RULE OF MAKING A CONNECTION IN MNEMONICS IS THE FOUNDATION:

What is connected simultaneously in space and time is memorized.

Black cat = image of a black cat in your head, sound image, textual perception. This is already mnemonics. Cat on the table = cat is connected with the object table and has a common outline, which confirms the rule.

Alphabets are pure mnemonics.

We call it - natural memory.

Now the definition of mnemonics.

Mnemonics - knowledge of creating neural connections. Creation, modification, “erasure”. Manual memorization, which occurs through the use of ordered systems and images into which information is encoded.

(It should be realized that we are not neurophysiologists and the concept of neural connections is rather oversimplified, but it shows what we do at the top level of abstractions)

A person can either forget = connections are not between 1 and 2 in ways not created.
A person can lose access to memories, but given a stimulus get a reaction back = people call this state “forgetting” and they need to be reminded (given a stimulus that will reproduce the reaction).

On the internet, mnemonics is presented in a truncated and harmful version. Popular books from the 90’s and their copying, remodeling in the noughties. Peak for 2011-13.

There are different methods, some of them are garbage and faux mnemonics (acrostics), some of them are used in not entirely productive ways (Loki/Cicero/Simonides for memorizing academic subjects in the long term)
There are different methods, some of them are garbage and fake mnemonics (acrostics), some of them are not used productively (Loki/Cicero/Simonides for long term memorization of academic subjects)

Commercial courses that have these features (it is enough to read 1-2 superficial books about mnemonics and realize that all copy the same thing, making mnemonics as a circus performance or entertainment.

Sports mnemonics. It requires image codes + Simonides(Cicero/locks) and practicing speed, volume of encoding, linking images. That’s it.

In fact, I’ve come to the conclusion that mnemonics is quite simple and accessible knowledge, but it’s hard to explain about it to beginners. There are also myths and concerns.

The most popular myths are :
1. A person can memorize ±7 elements at a time - a misconception of psychologists who could not deal with cases of “phenomenal memory” (circus mnemonists who learned about memorization through images and used for “tricks”).

It’s clear that a person can do more.

2. images should be vivid and move, or you need to create stories - lack of understanding of how the brain memorizes and references to popular books about “super memory” with ineffective techniques have given rise to this myth.

I memorize by connecting static_object_1 and static_object_2. They’re like a picture in paint, they have a common outline (take a pencil and pen, and overlay each other - it’s literally an illustration of the mental process).

If you’re going to try to make animations of them, you’re wasting 2 conditional units of energy.

If you’re making up a story, 3-5 conditional units of energy.
If you memorize without all of that, 1 unit of energy per item.

Now imagine that you need to memorize 200-500-800 images for 1-3 days, and then 4-7 days to strengthen the connections (remember without prompts) so that reflex connections and automatisms appear.

You will see at once what the problem of the first methods is.

6 Likes
2

I enjoyed reading part one -where can I find part two?

1 Like
3

I agree with you. But I think it’s wrong to repeat Alex’s narratives verbatim if you want to generate some original content. His points are very easy to debunk and they are on a very superficial level.

1 Like
4

Here are questions to think about

1. On the Claim that 96-98% of Mnemonic Information Online is “Garbage”

You assert that the vast majority of information about mnemonics on the internet, particularly in the Russian segment, is superficial or misleading. From a Pyrrhonian perspective, I question:

  • What constitutes “garbage”? You describe it as information rooted in superficial books from the 1990s, copied and repackaged, often with a focus on “super memory” slogans. But how do we definitively distinguish “garbage” from valuable information? Is it merely a matter of ineffectiveness, or is there a subjective element in deeming something “garbage”? For instance, might some users find value in simplified or popularized techniques, even if they are less efficient, because they are more accessible or motivating?
  • Is the prevalence of “garbage” universal? You claim 96-98% of online mnemonic information is flawed. How was this figure determined? Is it based on a systematic analysis of sources, or is it an impressionistic estimate? Could there be valuable mnemonic resources that are overlooked or underrepresented due to their lack of commercial appeal?
  • Counterpoint: From an opposing perspective, one might argue that the proliferation of “superficial” mnemonic content serves a purpose by making mnemonics accessible to a broader audience. Simplified techniques, even if less efficient, might encourage beginners to engage with memory practices, potentially leading them to more sophisticated methods later. Is it possible that what you call “garbage” is a necessary entry point for some learners, or does this dilute the discipline’s integrity?

2. On the Historical Context of Mnemonic Books

You suggest that modern mnemonic books are rewritings of 19th-century texts, repackaged under catchy slogans like “super memory.” A skeptic might ask:

  • How do we verify the continuity between 19th-century and modern mnemonic texts? Are there specific examples of texts that demonstrate direct copying or adaptation? Without concrete evidence, could this claim risk overgeneralization? Might modern books, even if inspired by older works, incorporate new insights from cognitive science or psychology?
  • Is the “super memory” framing inherently misleading? You imply that such slogans misrepresent the natural capacity of memory. However, could these slogans be seen as motivational tools rather than literal claims? From an opposing view, marketing terms like “super memory” might attract attention to mnemonics, even if they oversimplify the science. Is the harm in the slogan itself, or in the failure to deliver on its promises?
  • Counterpoint: Perhaps the popularization of mnemonics through commercial books, even if flawed, has increased awareness and study of memory techniques. Could the accessibility of these books outweigh their inaccuracies, or do they primarily mislead users into ineffective practices?

3. On the Definition of Mnemonics as “Natural Memory” and Neural Connections

You define mnemonics as the natural process of creating neural connections, either automatically (natural memory) or deliberately through ordered systems and images. A Pyrrhonian skeptic would probe:

  • Is the concept of “neural connections” a sufficient explanation? You acknowledge that this is a simplified abstraction, not grounded in neurophysiology. Could this oversimplification lead to misunderstandings about how memory actually works? For example, are there neuroscientific findings that challenge or complicate the idea that mnemonics is solely about creating connections between static images?
  • Is “natural memory” distinct from deliberate mnemonics? You suggest that natural memory (e.g., associating a black cat with a table) is inherently mnemonic. But if all memory is mnemonic, what distinguishes deliberate mnemonic techniques from everyday cognition? Is there a risk of conflating the two, making it harder to evaluate the efficacy of specific mnemonic systems?
  • Counterpoint: An opposing view might argue that deliberate mnemonic techniques (e.g., the method of loci) are not just extensions of natural memory but qualitatively different, requiring specific training and cognitive effort. Could this distinction suggest that mnemonic systems are more complex than “natural memory,” challenging the claim that mnemonics is “quite simple”?

4. On the Myths Surrounding Mnemonics

You identify two popular myths: (1) the limit of memorizing ±7 elements at a time, and (2) the need for vivid, moving images or stories in mnemonics. A skeptic might question:

  • Is the “±7 elements” myth universally debunked? The idea of a 7±2 limit stems from George Miller’s 1956 paper on working memory capacity. While you argue that phenomenal memory cases (e.g., circus mnemonists) disprove this, could the limit still apply to untrained individuals or specific contexts? Are there studies that definitively show most people can exceed this limit without training, or is the evidence anecdotal?
  • Are vivid images and stories truly inefficient? You claim that static images are more efficient than animated stories, requiring less “conditional units of energy.” How is this efficiency measured? Could vivid, narrative-based techniques be more effective for certain learners (e.g., those with strong imaginative capacities) or for specific types of information (e.g., abstract concepts)? Is it possible that the preference for static images reflects individual cognitive styles rather than a universal truth?
  • Counterpoint: An opposing perspective might defend the use of vivid stories or animations, citing their ability to engage emotions and make memories more distinctive. For example, some memory champions advocate for bizarre or dynamic imagery to enhance recall. Could these techniques be valid for certain contexts, or do they consistently waste cognitive resources as you suggest?

5. On the Simplicity and Accessibility of Mnemonics

You conclude that mnemonics is “quite simple and accessible” but hard to explain to beginners. A Pyrrhonian skeptic would explore:

  • If mnemonics is simple, why is it hard to explain? Could the difficulty in explaining mnemonics suggest that it is not as simple as claimed? Are there underlying complexities (e.g., individual differences in cognitive abilities, the need for practice, or the variety of mnemonic systems) that undermine the idea of simplicity?
  • Is the accessibility of mnemonics universal? You imply that anyone with a healthy memory can use mnemonics effectively. But could factors like cognitive style, education, or cultural background affect one’s ability to adopt mnemonic techniques? For instance, might some individuals struggle with visualization, making image-based mnemonics less accessible?
  • Counterpoint: An opposing view might argue that mnemonics requires significant training and discipline, making it less accessible than claimed. For example, memory sports competitors often dedicate years to mastering techniques like the method of loci. Could this suggest that mnemonics is an advanced skill rather than a simple, natural process?

6. On Commercialization and Sports Mnemonics

You critique commercial courses and sports mnemonics as reducing mnemonics to “circus performance” or entertainment. A skeptic might ask:

  • Is commercialization inherently harmful? You suggest that commercial courses copy superficial books and oversimplify mnemonics. But could commercialization also democratize access to mnemonic techniques, even if imperfectly? Is there evidence that commercial courses produce worse outcomes than non-commercial instruction, or is the critique based on their presentation rather than their results?
  • Is sports mnemonics a valid application? You describe sports mnemonics as focusing on speed and volume of encoding, using techniques like the method of loci. Could this specialized application have value, such as pushing the boundaries of human memory or inspiring innovation in mnemonic techniques? Or does it inherently trivialize the discipline, as you imply?
  • Counterpoint: An opposing view might argue that memory sports and commercial courses, while not perfect, demonstrate the practical utility of mnemonics and attract interest to the field. Could the spectacle of memory competitions or the appeal of commercial courses motivate individuals to explore mnemonics further, even if the initial exposure is superficial?
3 Likes
5

Criticism is absolutely essential.

But so is precision in our language, especially when we’re navigating the deep and often muddy waters of memory training discourse.

To call 96-98% of material on mnemonics “garbage” isn’t just a risky generalization. It reveals a troubling certainty that closes doors rather than opens them.

Let’s be very clear:

No one truly knows what might be garbage for another person.

More importantly, no one knows what might flip a switch, open a portal, or trigger the exact transformation someone else needs. What one person dismisses as faux-mnemonic fluff might be the spark that leads another to mastery. And vice versa.

To those deeply committed to the craft:

Yes, it’s vital we challenge mythologies, expose superficial teaching, and shine a light on half-baked mnemonic quick fixes.

But we do this best not by tearing down others, but by building and demonstrating what’s possible when the craft is practiced with integrity.

Growth with memory techniques is rooted in experimentation, not dogma.

Experimentation based on a variety of competing ideas is how we learn what truly works. Not just for memory sport, not just for school exams, but for language learning, long-term knowledge acquisition, and even personal transformation.

Yes, I’ve said many times: stories aren’t required. Movement and action can sometimes be overkill. Static association can work, sure.

But so does dynamic imagery for others. What’s needed is a precise understanding of the context, the learner, and the objective. That’s what leads to memory literacy.

And on the point of acrostics as “garbage”? They may be limited in scope and often misapplied. But that doesn’t mean they have to be diminished in this way. Real memory mastery isn’t about dismissing tools, but learning when and why to use them, or not. Anyone reading this would do well to think twice before dismissing them.

If our community truly wants to help people rethink their understanding of mnemonics, share what works for you without slapping the “garbage” label so readily.

Let others experiment.

Let them fail.

Let them find their own way through.

That way we can be more certain they’ll be in a position to truly remember. And perhaps go on to teach from lived experience, not abstract judgment.

The world is the ultimate Memory Palace. Let’s walk it with humility, not hubris.

6 Likes
6

I’m not sure I understand all the criticism – for example:

Why is acrostics “garbage and fake”? I still remember several from my school days in the 1990s, like:

  • (music) “every good boy deserves fruit” (the lines EGBDF of the treble clef)
  • (music) “Father Charles goes down and ends battle” (the order of sharps in the circle of fifths, and its reverse is the order of flats)
  • (maths) “Please excuse my dear aunt Sally” (precedence of common infix arithmetic operators)

Also what is unproductive about “Loki/Cicero/Simonides for long term memorization of academic subjects” – other than the usual error of memorising specific atomic facts without understanding the bigger picture? I’d like to hear more.

However I very much agree with the mythbusting part. In particular, the advice to make mental imagery as detailed and vivid as possible has always bothered me because 1) some people have very weak mental imagery (or even none at all, i.e. aphantasia), and 2) as you mentioned, filling in those details takes time, costs mental energy and risks overburdening one’s working memory with details irrelevant to what’s being memorised.
On that note, I’ve read about some research into the use of visualisation for learning fine motor skills (e.g. playing a musical instrument), and it seemed that just having a very basic, low detail image was most effective and practical.

Another common myth that has been discussed here is that one should try to make extreme, exaggerated imagery… but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence to suggest that this actually helps remember better. Personally I enjoy silly images and find it easy to come up with them, but it is indeed weird that the same advice is constantly repeated without evidence to support it.

1 Like
7

Anecdotally, it makes things much more memorable for me—I don’t know how I would “prove” this at a level acceptable to skeptics and I don’t have any plans to try, but I imagine a lot of folks would say something similar and I’m confident recommending it to people who are trying to improve.

I don’t really have input on the rest of the points made in this thread, being one of those filthy sport mnemonists and all :slight_smile:

1 Like
8

No evidence to support using elaborative encoding?

What standard of evidence are you personally looking for?

I can’t think of anything else that has been so well-evidenced and documented across thousands of years as the technique in question.

If you’re not satisfied by the brain scans and the memory champs who have submitted themselves to them (Katie Kermode recently posted that she’s been involved in another study)…

You might consider @LynneKelly’s The Memory Code, Memory Craft and The Knowledge Gene.

I see nothing weird about this matter being “constantly” repeated. It is a major part of the craft and from Jacobus Publicius to Giordano Bruno we find layers of nuance to it that have helped myself and multitudes of others give countless demonstrations.

As recently as yesterday, as it happens, I gave a more than adequate demonstration after 7 hours of live streaming that would not have been possible without having exaggerated my mnemonic images.

With all due respect, I find it profoundly strange to discount the accounts of thousands of people when it is matched by decades of memory competition records and more science than anyone has time to read.

Forgive me if I misread you, but if memory serves, this is not the first time you’ve engaged in what strikes me as special pleading.

I worry that next we’ll be debating whether there is enough evidence for the effectiveness of rhetorical devices against cognitive fallacies…

Please advise…

3 Likes
9

Make that over 10,000 years! The evidence is in the books Anthony mentions of mine, (if you want to go fully academic, it is in “Knowledge and Power in Prehistoric Societies” (Cambridge University Press, 2015) plus the work of Patrick Nunn, Duane Hamacher and so many others on the way “extreme, exaggerated imagery” enhance stories for memory, and linked to the landscape. They are referred to as mythology when talking about Indigenous cultures, but they are not myths in the way Ganxel uses the word.

I found this method used to store vast amounts of pragmatic knowledge in memory - in every oral culture I researched, across all continents. And the evidence goes back well over 10,000 years - I expect it will go back much further as research continues.

For Australia, Aboriginal Songlines work exactly that way. Native American pilgrimage trails, Pacific ceremonial roads … I could write whole books on that topic!

Fantastic method!

1 Like
10

I have aphantasia and still use those methods very effectively, hence my involvement with aphantasia research. But I rely more on stories than images I can see in my mind’s eye, because I can’t “see” anything. My stories are packed with a huge pantheon of very exaggerated characters - I can’t imagine how they would work otherwise. Having aphantasia doesn’t mean that I have no imagination. I imagine differently.

I have about 10 km of memory palaces, method of loci, around my home, which I use for long term knowledge - the countries of the world, prehistory, history, Chinese (my largest palace), French, 1000 digits of Pi …

Lynne

1 Like
11

Do we have brain scans of people using exaggerated imagery vs people using more mundane images? That’s specifically what I’m getting at – I’m not suggesting that mental imagery in general is useless; just that perhaps the advice that it should be exaggerated might not be necessary.

Ouch, special pleading? Yes, we did discuss this topic before. At the time I looked for evidence one way or another that exaggerated mnemonic images provide more durable recall than non-exaggerated images. I couldn’t find academic research that seemed to settle the question.

Personally I do use “bizarre” imagery, but more in the story sense like @LynneKelly mentions, rather than forming extremely detailed visual images – that is, I’ve read “countless” (okay, they are countable, but quite a few) books on mnemonics that suggest making things gigantic, smelly, colourful, loud etc. Anecdotally, I believe my bizarre imagery makes it easier (and certainly more fun) to store and recall information, but that doesn’t mean it actually is.

Anthony, perhaps I’m way off here. But I would appreciate if we could discuss these topics openly and possibly enlighten ourselves (or just me if I’m 100% wrong), without accusing people of “special pleading” or “profoundly strange” behaviour. I respect your opinion and would not wish to insult you even if we disagree on important things, and hope you can show me the same consideration.

1 Like
12

I do feel we are having an open discussion, and I appreciate your engagement. What I’m trying to clarify is what standard of evidence you would personally accept on this issue.

Because when we say there’s “no evidence,” especially in a public forum, that’s a very strong claim.

More than strong, such an extraordinary statement risks dismissing entire bodies of historical, anecdotal, and experimental data – including cognitive psychology, behavioral studies, and self-reported experiences from elite practitioners.

Except, it seems, unless a very narrow kind of evidence is accepted.

That’s part of what I meant when I referenced special pleading in the technical sense: limiting admissible evidence in a way that favors one’s position while excluding equally valid forms of proof. We had best also consider selective evidence fallacy as well.

You mentioned brain scans. Fair enough, and I think they’re valuable too and await the latest neuroimaging study Katie recently mentioned.

While we await the publishing of that study, we should not sit her and allow the dismissal of centuries of consistent testimonial data, practical demonstrations across multiple domains (including education and memory sports), and increasingly robust studies such as those Lynne Kelly and others have contributed to.

“Ouch” indeed when someone repeatedly diminishes this wealth of evidence simply because one person claims they don’t fit a particular methodological framework.

And then there’s the inverse case, which I think is just as compelling: research like Dalgleish et al.’s on using the method of loci combined with emotionally positive memories to regulate intrusive thoughts.

I only found that study after its findings had played out in my own experience, and several guests on my podcast have described similar results. So we’re not just seeing claims in a vacuum: we’re seeing patterns, convergence, and practical application.

Have you considered the possibility that cognitive behaviour precedes mechanistic explanation? That’s exactly what we see here: with exaggeration in imagery showing up again and again as a reliable aid to encoding and recall.

That doesn’t make it mandatory for everyone (though some teachers do make passionate appeals), but at the risk of repetition, to say there’s no evidence is a very different thing from saying the evidence is mixed, or that the mechanism isn’t yet fully understood.

So yes, I believe it is important to name fallacies when they show up – not as personal attacks (which this never was), but as part of maintaining the integrity of open and accurate discourse. When the stakes involve how people learn and how we represent memory techniques to the wider public, clarity matters.

If you’re going to continue claiming that “there’s no evidence,” then I suggest you consider Hitch’s Razor in which the burden of proof rests on the person making that claim.

The beauty of my work and the work of my peers in memory is that none of what I say rests on our own opinions. And although we do quibble quite passionately from from time to time, it’s never over such a limited slice of the pie. At least not so far. Knock on mnemonic wood!

13

I do agree to some extent with Ganxel here, not necessarily with regard to what evidence exists (I don’t claim to know about that) but in the sense that this prevalent advice to make everything exaggerated and highly detailed isn’t necessarily the best approach for everyone. I believe there are different styles of memorising and would like to see more research done on that. I rarely make my ‘images’ exaggerated (often they are hardly even visual, although I have no problem visualising). In order to be memorable, an image has to be interesting. If everything is exaggerated, another exaggerated image can easily cease to be interesting.

Like Ganxel, my imagery is often more of a ‘story’. And like one or two other memory athletes, I often perceive the word first and foremost, which I realise is hard to explain. I would find it interesting to examine this more - e.g. by looking at recent attempts and noting what type of imagery we used and how visual or exaggerated or word-based it was, and seeing which images ‘stuck’.

3 Likes
14

Yes, fair point. “No evidence” is unfairly dismissive of thousands of years of traditions and practices with astoundingly effective results.

However what I was trying to get across was that this vast body of data is proof moreso that mnemonics in general work, rather than specifically that exaggerated imagery is necessary for it to be effective. Of course, that’s not to say that people were doing that for no reason for thousands of years. People rarely do things for no reason. But sometimes it’s not the reason we thought (for example, I use exaggerated imagery because I personally find it fun).

I’m a (recovering) academic, so really what I was looking for is a specific test of mnemonic imagery with exaggerated imagery (giant cat eating a piano in one bite) VS mnemonics with more mundane imagery (cat sleeping quietly on top of a piano). My limited searching failed to turn up anything solid in that vein, and that’s what I really meant by “no evidence”.

And you’re right: absent the availability of such proof, it’s not fair to handwave away all of the prior art and practices. But I think it is fair to question specific aspects of it – for example, I think in the previous thread, someone mentioned finding violent or very weird imagery offputting, which is a shame if most books on mnemonics advise constructing images that way.

3 Likes
15

A “shame” from one perspective, one I would suggest we avoid totalizing.

True, that can be hard for recovering academics to do.

But even within the ivory tower, I can share with you a powerful lesson I learned during my prep for the PhD field exams many years ago.

My grad committee was discussing my reading list, and one of the professors said, “You have nothing here about x, y or z.”

I said, “there’s nothing on those matters, which is why I’m tackling the topic.”

“Young squire,” she said (thought not exactly in those words), “you ever catch yourself saying ‘nothing’ like that again, you had better give your head a shake.”

Without going further into the exact matter, she was right and I was wrong. More than wrong, I was an utter fool who really hadn’t done my research and she exposed it.

Good for her! That’s what we need! Robust, courageous discussion that leads to the unhiding of what’s often right in front of our eyes. It’s getting harder and harder to find it due to the degradation of search, so we need those of us who remember what exists to speak up more than ever before. And for those who know better to show restraint instead spreading generalizations that are highly unlikely to be true, especially when going around with standards of evidence that aren’t fully expressed or in some cases not even relevant.

But here’s the very good thing:

The opportunity this discussion presents is to shift our focus to the poor form of mnemonics like “giant cat eating a piano in one bite.”

That might be okay for some people in some contexts, but for many of us, that kind of associating will need precisely the extremes of exaggeration that are well known to be of great assistance.

So I would humbly suggest that both of the mnemonics you have given are weak, when both could be intensely strong. There are endless guides that can help in this regard and I’m thankful for them.

16

Lynn I have aphantasia too. Would you please communicate a little more on how you get around it while remembering things as well as memorizing things. I simply Think of an image in an unusual way, with say action, out of proportion, etc to memorize it. Many thanks John L

1 Like
17

Hi John,

I think the main difference is that I don’t have an image of the full location, but identify a single feature which becomes the defining feature, and is named. So in the Countries memory palace, I name each house / shop / space for the country but associate one aspect - the fence, a door, the roof … and then add more detail as I notice aspects which suit the thing to be memorised.

So Liberia is a mesh fence. I have no idea about the house because I can’t picture it. I added Monrovia for the capital. But that just became a man roving up and down the fence, so still no house.

I also act out the actions when I use a People-Action aspect, as is the case for all my locations for Chinese and French - although my People are nearly all animals. Very active animals, each with a lot of personality.

The stories just build. I am not sure if I then remember more about the location because of the story or more of the things to be memorised as I notice more of the location. Or a bit of both?

I hope that helps.

Lynne

2 Likes
18

Lynne many thanks as that is of help. I saw and posted this morning on the forum that I saw an article in Neuroscience News June 9 edition on Aphantasia thinking that those that are interested would have a chance to read it. The article mentioned that 4% of the population are born with it. See Neurosciencenews.com if it is of interest. Again many thanks John. PS I found your book in our library and will check it out

3 Likes
19

That’s a really interesting article, John. Thank you for the pointer.

I am not sure which book you mean, although the practical one is “Memory Craft”. In one chapter of “The Knowledge Gene” I look at why evolution has favoured the neurodiversities - especially autism, ADHD and dyslexia - all of which are invaluable for non-literate memory systems.

But I also talk about aphantasia. Having 4% of the population with this diversity is, according to the researchers, because we don’t tend to get post traumatic stress. We can’t replay traumatic events and so recover faster. If our band, when humans were still in subsistence mode, was attacked with ghastly outcomes, we would recover and help the band carry on. This makes sense to me from life experiences, talking to others with aphantasia and from the research.

Each of the cognitive diversities serves a purpose for the group, if not for the individual.

Hope that makes sense!

Lynne

1 Like
20

I wonder if the traditions that include “thought termination” methods unconsciously or were/are driven by evolution needed this for survival outcomes.

The age of the Ribhu Gita is not agreed upon, but it’s quite old and maps onto other traditions where the goal is an empty mind.

The Sanskrit has a line with close fidelity to “thought termination” in it, the promise of what it basically calls “scientific” analysis of the self as a construct.

In that case, the word “shastram” doesn’t have quite the same fidelity to “science,” but I’m happy with that translation in the classical sense of applying a systematic body of knowledge to gather enough evidence about what the self is/is becoming to solve its appearance as a kind of problem.

Additionally, lots of the Nei Gong I’m studying now is filled with exercises that explicitly require no attempt at visualization.

Anyone interested in hearing this instruction in our time from someone who has studied the ancient Doaist texts would do well with Damo Mitchell’s books and videos.

In any case, I have found a fair amount of people who ask me about aphantasia find some solace in learning that their are droves of people trying to get rid of the tyranny of images.

Now that I experience them intermittently, rest assured, I’d rather I didn’t. They slow down my encoding practice and pose challenges for my memory-based meditations… though I have had quite a bit of progress lately in escaping mentation for longer periods than ever before.

It is, as the hip kids say, bliss.