I’m facing a challenge with my 3-digit Major system, and I’d appreciate your input.
To give you some context, I’ve mastered a reliable 2-digit Major system that serves me well in daily life. However, when it comes to memorizing longer sequences of numbers, it starts to feel repetitive.
Here’s what I’ve attempted to do to expand my 3-digit Major system:
I created a comprehensive list of familiar items, superheroes, and well-known individuals, and then converted them into corresponding digits (for example, SPiDer becomes 091).
I’ve tried to work through these numbers and transform them into words.
I even explored online Major system converters, but my success with them has been limited.
As it stands, my 3-digit Major system is only about 40% complete, which isn’t very impressive.
I’d like to hear your thoughts. Do you think it’s worth persevering and completing this project, or should I redirect my efforts toward the PAO number system?
Please share your ideas and opinions; your insights would be greatly appreciated!
Recently went through this same process! Here’s my 2 cents…
Depends on your goals and your tolerance for frustration and challenge.
The obvious advantages of the 3-digit system are less repetition and more data compression (33% more data packed into each element.)
The tradeoff is, of course, the time and effort it will take building your recognition fluency.
With 10 times the images to learn vs. a single element 2-digit list, plan on at least 10 times the time commitment to get the 3-digit system up to comparable speed to where you are now.
Only you can say if that will be worth it.
If you are ok with tackling a project like this and having realistic expectations about the pace of progress, then I’d say go for it!
Just a note on the process:
It is difficult and it takes a long time. It took me about 3 to 4 months before I had my single element 3-digit list filled in. Then I tackled about 100 images per week and learned the associations. So about 3 months to just initially learn the images. At this point I “knew” the image associations, but was still slow. Another 3-4 months to get these “fast” to where I felt it would perform better than a 2-digit. During that entire time I didnt miss a single day of review, averaged about 30 minutes per day. I probably could have saved some time by really trying to use and learn the associations AS I filled the list in, but I’m the kind of person that likes to take things in stages and finish one before the other.
You may have a better learning pace than me and be able to combine some steps, or it could take you longer, but consider the above just so you have a sense of the commitment you’re looking at.
In the end, even though it took a LONG time, I feel it was totally worth it in a couple ways.
It is definitely faster and more efficient. Yes, it took much more time to learn, but that time investment will in theory “pay for itself” over the course of using it. Eventually, if I use it enough, I’ll reach a tipping point where I’ll have saved more time and effort than I invested and from there its pure profit.
Even if I never see that actual “return on investment” it also was a super valuable process to go through. I treated it like a mental exercise and personal challenge to tackle, and because everything was built consistently from Major, there was no step backward, it was just enhancing my familiarity with the system, phonetics, etc of Major.
One last thought:
I’m unclear as to whether you currently have a 2-digit system with a single image per number (100 total associations) and are asking if you should create a PAO, or if you have a PAO built (300 total associations) and are asking if you should just focus on making it faster.
If you only have a single element 2-digit system, I’d advise trying PAO before jumping into the 3-digit effort, just so you have some comparison. This will be quicker to build and implement and in many cases is more than enough for phenomenal feats of memory. You could probably get a PAO up and running in a month or two as opposed to the much larger time commitment for a 3.
If you already have a PAO and are just “slow” at it, it’s up to you if you want to work some more to build that or take on the new challenge!
I appreciate your efforts in responding to my initial question, even though it was a bit vague.
If I understand correctly, you are suggesting switching to the PAO system, reserving the 3-digit Major system for potential future use due to its time-consuming nature.
Could you please provide more details about how you integrated the Major system into your memorization process? I’m in need of a structured approach; otherwise, it feels chaotic. Did you employ tools like Anki flashcards, or was there another method you used?
I’m also curious about how you selected which characters or items could fit into your Major system. Did you follow a strict order, like in the example of “SPiDer man” (091), where it aligns with the written word, or did you opt for a more relaxed approach, as in “sPiDer Man” (913), aligning with pronunciation?
P.S.
I’ve noticed that with a digit Major system, the items and characters assigned to numbers aren’t fixed. For instance, “20” could be represented as “NoSe” on one occasion and “NaSa” on another. Do you have fixed items/characters, or do they change based on context or preference?
I think this would be the most sensible next step in complexity for you. There’s nothing preventing you from jumping straight to a 3-digit setup, but a PAO would be a good intermediate step.
Virtual Flashcards were super-helpful and it was pretty much exclusively what I used. Number on one side, IMAGE on the other. Since the end goal is to see the number and associate an IMAGE that you can then animate in a scene, I found it more helpful to provide that visual as the “answer” instead of just seeing the word. It forced me to practice directly converting number to image quicker. Being honest with your success/failure in working with the flashcards is very important since you should be prioritizing heavier review of “difficult” number/images. Also, it’s important to practice with randomized number order. If you only drill sequentially 00-99, you may develop a dependence or habit of having to “count yourself in” to the target number. Random review keeps you on your toes and helps develop DIRECT association.
For PAO specifically, here’s a link to some thoughts on how to practice independently associating each element with it’s number: Tip for practicing PAO
So the unbreakable rule I set for myself for my 3-digit system was that the FIRST three consonant sounds of the word(s) MUST indicate the number. I was fine with trailing extra sounds, like in the “SPiDer man” example (which I’d encode to 091) Since I knew that it was a 3-digit number, I just mentally discarded the “…er man” portion. I have NO plans to create a 10,000 image 4-digit system so I am unconcerned about those extra sounds causing issues down the road.
For my 2-digit system I was more strict in not having ANY trailing consonant sounds. So 12 would be something like DaNNy, not DaNiel. DaNNy is 12, DaNieL would be 125. This strictness did make it tougher to build the list, but I’m glad I stuck to it because there is no ambiguity with what number each element represents. I really tried to future-proof my 2-digit list so that I wouldn’t need to change previously fluent associations if I wanted to expand to 3-digits. (Here is my complete 2-digit system list if you’re interested: Post your 0-99 List here for other people to use... feel free to add - #14 by TheHumanTim)
In your example you mentioned the idea that “sPiDer Man” could represent 913. In my opinion, this is NOT a good idea because you’ve broken the consistency of encoding the first three sounds. You will drive yourself crazy if you introduce exceptions to your structural rules and then have to remember which images or numbers those exceptions applied to, especially if you do this within a 3-digit, 1000 image list.
Absolutely a fixed list for anything requiring speed. Improvisation is ok when there is no concern about time. More on that below.
If you want to increase speed, then a pre-defined fixed list is generally preferred. With a single element list, this does cause a lot of repetitiveness as you’ve noticed. This is why fast times with large digit sequences are almost unheard of with only a single-digit, single element system. Too much repetition and no data compression. A 2-digit, single element system is “better” but you’ll still get tons of repetition and inefficient scene construction with lots of extra “stuff” in your scene that doesn’t encode any information.
The fix for this is expanding to something like a 2-digit PAO. With 100 unique, fixed people, 100 fixed actions, and 100 fixed objects, there are 1 MILLION combinations for scene creation. Compare that with 1000 combinations for a 1-digit PAO, 100 combinations for a 2-digit, single element system, and only 10 in a single/single.
Just comparing a 2-digit / 1 element system with a 2-digit PAO, it is much less likely that you’ll find repetitive 6-digit sequences in whatever you’re trying to memorize (with PAO) vs. multiple instances of the same 2-digit single element… Even if there is only one digit off, the PAO scenes still become unique enough that they’re pretty easy to differentiate.
Example:
127497 - DaNNy CaRRYing a PiG
127197 - DaNNy CuTTing a PiG
Those two scenes are very different, and especially if they take place at different loci within a memory palace sequence, you’ll find they’re very easy to retain because its almost like you’ve come across DaNNy twice in your “story” and in each instance he did different things.
I memorized a ton of digits of Pi using 2-digit PAAO system, so sequences of 8 digits, and I came across many that started with the same person, had the same object in the object place sometimes with the same adjective descriptor, or the same action was performed many times by a bunch of different people in those mental scenes, but it never really confused me because each one stood on its own within the context of the location.
Now, if you don’t care at all about speed, then having a pre-defined fixed word/image set is less important than having a wider major system vocabulary. You can improvise in the moment and find a nice word that matches and fits well in context of the topic you’re memorizing. The trade off is that it will take you MUCH longer to encode your numbers this way. Having a preset list allows you to save a ton of mental effort generating the elements of your scenes. The numbers do that for you.
A PAO system will generate the entire SCENE for you. “Person does Action to/with Object.” Once your list is fluent, the only brainpower you need to use is translating those prompts into a memorable visual. This is the big advantage of PAO. You can outsource the scene construction to the system and just basically read a description of the scene within the number sequence.
I know this was long. Hopefully it helped clarify some of those questions!
You’ve got a good point there about fixed sets making things faster. Honestly, I never really thought about it that way before, which might explain why it takes me forever to turn data into mental images.
Speaking of fixed sets, do you think the loci stations have to be fixed too? Just to give you some background, I’m an accounting student, and I use loci and mental images to remember important concepts and ideas. Here’s how I do it: I read something, then I link it to a specific place in my mind, and finally, I imagine something to represent it.
But when I try to make the locations in my loci fixed, it gets confusing. I start wondering about the order of locations and if I missed something important.
Here’s a quirky question I’ve been pondering: When you’re moving through your loci mentally, do you see all the locations from one viewpoint, like a photograph that captures everything at once? Or does it feel like the scenery is changing, zooming in and out as you move? For me, it’s more like I’m taking a virtual stroll through rooms, which might be overdoing it.
And when you’re picking loci locations, how far apart do you keep them? Are they distinct items, or just empty spaces? Thanks a lot for putting up with my questions, even if they’re a bit dull.
Not entirely clear on what you mean, but yes the main idea of using a memory palace/journey/path approach is that you have a very well defined sequence of loci that you’ll cycle through the same way every time. Having a specific path that you follow that doesn’t cross itself or jump randomly around the space is important. You want to have absolute certainty about which loci is next so that your attention can be on crafting scenes which interact strongly with those loci.
If I’m not trying for speed, its more like a walk through, but really the focus is on the loci. Most of the time the non-loci transitional areas are blurred or fast-forwarded when I “navigate.” For example, I use a front door, a couch and a fireplace as three consecutive loci. There are things in between those, like an end table or television, but I haven’t picked them as my loci so they don’t really actively exist when I’m traversing the path. Those areas are ignored or blurred so there is no confusion. After a few practice runs through, it’s a non-issue and the focus stays on the loci that I’ve designated.
If I’m going for speed, its very much like I’m just flash teleporting to each loci in sequence because I don’t want to waste any time having to transition between them.
When I’m choosing a memory palace for more long term use, I’ll explore it from a variety of viewpoints. I like sketching or visualizing a birds-eye view, almost like a top-down blueprint of the area with labeled loci and arrows designation the navigation directions. This helps define the path and isolate the loci that I want to focus on.
If I’m designing a “fictional” palace from scratch, I’ll come up with a list of loci first, then sketch out a map/blueprint of how I want to arrange them. Doing this lets me start to see the space in my mind’s eye and helps with placement and spacing of the loci.
Scale is subjective when creating and navigating for me. I try to make the feel of my loci similar in space and scale. I don’t like to crowd loci together, but even if in “real life” they are closely arranged, that doesn’t mean they have to feel that way when in memory palace mode. I can create artificial separation, or shift things around slightly in my mind. The memory palace spaces don’t have to be a perfect representation of how things actually are in reality.
Always distinct items or areas for me. This facilitates interaction WITH the loci which I think is super important. If you just “place” your imagery “at” a loci, there’s nothing really about that loci that will trigger the recall of the imagery. Remember that when you’re in the recall phase, you’re navigating the loci first and foremost. Its the loci that you are keying off of. Its much easier to remember a thing that shredded your sofa and threw the stuffing all around the room than it is to try to remember what the thing was that was just sitting on the sofa and not really interacting with it. If you just have empty spaces that you place your images at, nothing about those spaces will help you remember your scene. The loci provide the context of the scene and the interactions WITH the loci help draw that scene out easily when you try to recall.
Thanks for breaking down the loci method, it’s been super helpful!
So, here’s a thought: considering it’s easier to remember stuff when you’ve got a preset set of images, what do you reckon about making some quick mental images to turbocharge word memorization?
Let’s say we’ve got a word like “FOSSE.” If I want to remember the meaning, maybe I picture fossils. But what if I want to recall how to spell it? Well, now we need separate mental images for “FOS” and “SE.”
Right, “fossil” is a great soundalike substitute image that is vivid and can be animated to trigger meaning. A “fosse” is a “long narrow trench or excavation” according to my googling. So I’d picture a fossil coming to life and digging a trench and excavating its friends.
I’m pretty good at finding connections and images for stuff like that, but mnemonics for SPELLING is something I’m not too familiar with, so I’m probably not a great person to ask on that specific topic.
I think you’re on the right track though, either break a word into components that could be visualized or look for maybe a word that rhymes and is spelled the same or is one letter off, like FOSSE is close to POSSE, so maybe you picture a posse of cowboys getting off their horses and digging a long narrow trench. (Assuming you already know how to spell “posse.”)
You’ve actually already tapped into a big reason by, in my opinion, 3-digit is superior - the repetition of images with a smaller system. It gets BORING, especially when memorizing something big, to see the same images over and over. I use a 3-digit Major System and 2-Card System, and I have to say, having 1000 images for numbers and 1360 for cards is AWESOME. Now, I say this as a memory athlete, so I am memorizing regularly. But this is especially awesome during the marathon events, like 1 hour cards, 1 hour numbers, 30 minute binary, or spoken numbers.
So you’re 40% done? That’s great - you’re almost half way! It’s a heck of a lot better than 0%
I find, a lot of people who ask this question, about sticking with PAO or switching to PAO instead of a 3-digit system, they do so because they want other to reinforce what they want to hear, that PAO is fine, so they don’t have to keep grinding and putting in the massive effort of creating, learning, and maintaining a 3-digit system. But this is worth undertaking, trust me. Taking on a 3-digit/2-card system changed everything for me. I don’t know what your goals or plans are, but I think it’s worth toughing out. But, if this is nothing too serious, a simple 2-digit or PAO system is more than fine for most people.
I have a lot of images that don’t conform perfectly to the Major System phonetics, I had to get creative and cheat a little. So if you can make peace with that, think outside the box, and get to work my friend!
I’d like to chime on this too. I, like @TheHumanTim, usually stick to hard and fast rules. But there are some phonetics that are just impossible. All my images have the first consonant as the first number, I don’t think I skirted around that. But I have some words where I skipped a consonant just to make it work.
For example, 368 for me is MisCHieF (I skip the ‘S’). For 106 I use ‘DiSc Jockey’, skipping the hard C’ in that case. I do use lots of trailing ones too, like for 365 I use ‘MiCHeLin’ and the ‘n’ here isn’t used. Same with ‘SPiDeRman’ for my A Q / A Q
I do also use multiple words, like for 253 I use ‘aN eLMo’ and I picture ‘Elmo’ or 244 is ‘aN aRRow’. I sometimes use consecutive consonants as 2 numbers (like in aRROW here), and sometimes I use it as 1 number, like for 095 - ZePPLin. You just gotta be flexible imo and open to having exceptions to your rules, and exceptions to your exceptions haha. It can get confusing, but the one off ones almost stand out more since they aren’t common.
Although, I think my only exception in Shadow where I skip a consonant sound is for K 6
The “rules” say that should be H06, but for the life of me I could not find a matching word/phrase. Whenever I sounded it out to try to come up with something I kept landing on “HoStaGe” even though that T in there should be an encoder. HoSTage “should” be H01. After a few days I was just like screw it, my brain wants H06 to be “Hostage” so thats what it is.
It actually ended up being one of the easiest associations to get to stick, haha!
I just had to make sure that it didnt cause confusion with H01, (HeSS Truck) but it was fine.
So yeah, there’s nothing forbidding exceptions and adjustments. It worked well for this one, I’d just use them as sparingly as possible. If there were dozens and dozens of differently formatted words in my list, I feel it would be much more difficult to learn.
I think what most of us eventually come to realize is that the end goal of a system is for the system to disappear and leave you with a direct line association from number to image or card to image. Once you’re there it doesn’t really matter how you got there.
Some folks (like me) want that carefully defined structure during the learning process. Others have no problem with exceptions of more intuitive, freeform systems.
You just have to experiment and see what sticks more naturally for you. There may be a "right, “wrong,” or “better” system for an individual, based on the way their brain processes things, but there is no “one-size-fits-all” approach that is perfect for everyone.
Thats why I really enjoy this forum and hearing about all kinds of different ways people learn. Some make me initially go “there is absolutely no way that would work” and be super skeptical, but then I try to reframe it as “there is absolutely no way that would work FOR ME” and try to look at things more objectively. It has been cool to have my mind opened to some of those different ideas!
Q 
/ A 
6