The Link Method - Questions about combining it with Memory Palaces and about its stand-alone use

General Memory Chat
1

I read Harry Lorayne’s Memory book, and I was impressed with his advocacy of using the link method, and his claim on the lack of necessity to attach the images to any memory palace whatsoever.

Since I have a lot of things I really want to memorize, I always have the fear of not having enough memory palaces to use, and it is sometimes even a barrier that avoids me on starting to memorize things, since I don’t know how much loci I will have. You can imagine how such Link method appealed to me, even though I can see some of its flaws.

I do think that, in the end, memory palaces are the way to go. The structure that it gives to the information can’t be surpassed by any method. (I say so without having dived very deep in the use of the Link method. If some hardcore user of the Link Method disagrees, please, do indulge my skepticism… )

So, I was really wondering if someone with experience in combining the two methods could give a insight on its capabilities. For example, I think that using the Link method with the memory palace, one can greatly increase the quantity of images per loci. You could use one loci to put perhaps the main points of a entire chapter, or any information that, by its own logic and meaning, would benefit to be remembered together, and another loci for other chapters, etc.

If there is someone who only uses the link method, I would really like to hear about your experiences. For example, I don’t think that memorizing the main points of a entire book through this method (is it possible in the first place?) without making chains by chapter or any other logical subdivision of the content of the book would be wise. You would have to pass through the whole book to remember content in the later pages. Perhaps after you review the information a lot, you get more fluent and can jump through big chunks, perhaps even to individual images, very much like you can do with the memory palace. But considering that you can’t do that, I would imagine that you would do different chains of images for each section of the book or any other subdivision that would make sense to be able to recall together. If such is the case, how do you recall the different chains that you make? Can you recall very small chains easily? For example, a small string of images for various equations, that aren’t connected together, or even chains of two or only three images for hundreds of foreign words. (Even though I am completely crazy about learning languages, I have not attempted to use memory palaces to learn foreign vocabulary because of the already spoken fear of spending all the ones I have and not being able to use it for other subjects…)

Perhaps I got overly dependent of the structure that the palace gives, and I am underestimating our capabilities of just bringing to our head the info that we need (in this case, the specific chain that we want at the moment) from the “void”. For now, I tested with some small chains and I was surprise to see how it worked, but I still am not confident on using it with large chunks of information. Any sharing of experiences would be highly appreciated.

3 Likes
2

Great questions, @Vini_Villela!

I’m a big fan of the link method (aka chain method).

I’ve used it on its own and combined it with memory palaces.
Very effective.

Before I respond directly to your questions @Vini_Villela, if you’ll allow, I’d like to kindly propose that perhaps you are drastically holding your own mnemonic capabilities back by merely giving in to the fear of… I don’t know…are you afraid of doing something wrong?

Merely something to consider. Because if you’re truly open to experimentation, I have very good news for you:

  • If you’re willing to experiment for just one entire day, I promise the long term benefits will be drastic.

I don’t know you personally, obviously, but what you wrote feels very familiar. Especially this:

So, do yourself an honest favor and DO NOT read the following until you are committed to setting at least one day aside to only playing around with ideas, exercises, and experimenting.

Now I’ll share.

Only Read when you’re genuinely committed to some Experimentation Time:

First:

Ready to obliterate this fear legitimately? Because it requires a little work where you sit and write for a bit. But then this one is out of the way for a long time.

When you’re done, keep the results nearby anytime you have material to learn. And allow yourself to lavishly experiment and make mistakes, because some mistakes with memory palaces are unavoidable and avoiding those particular mistakes only slows mnemonists down. It’s like avoiding getting wet when you must go outside during a downpour.

Don’t do that. Live your life. Get wet. And get where you have to go.

Second:

I was really wondering if someone with experience in combining the two methods could give an insight on its capabilities.

My strong opinion:
It’s worth doing. And for multiple reasons.

On chunking:
Here is a specific post where I share my process for “chunking.”
I especially do this with the link method.
How often?
More often than not.

For the link method, make the first associations extra memorable:
Moving on to link-method specifics, I find it helps to have a clear “anchor” to remember the very first link in the chain. I also think that is exactly what the memory palace technique so conveniently provides. You’re in the habit of always associating a particular piece of information with a very particular locational space.

Quite literally, information gets its own bedroom.

So, when I use the link method I prefer to have some sort of multi-sensory mnemonic as an anchor to the first link to kick start recall.
Below is a post where I share how I use the link method with physical movement for the very first image. The associations come much easier once initial recall has started (i.e., if we immediately recall where the information “resides”):

Finally:

I think your instincts on the strengths of the memory palace are spot on.

And your instincts on the strengths of the link method are also on point. I agree with them. Not intellectually, though.
What I mean is: having used the memory palace and link methods separately and combined, I’ve found they support each other like two friends carrying a gigantic sofa.

Their efforts when combined is a result significantly greater than the sum of their individual contributions.

Considering what you’re currently working to achieve, Vini, I truly believe you can only harm your effectiveness and progress by:

  1. Avoiding setting time aside to experiment with methods (like the link method)

  2. Avoiding having a deliberate “palace finding” session (using pen and paper).
    —and

  3. Being picky about which palaces you use for which information.
    —As I mentioned to someone else, being picky is nice, but it slows things down exponentially.

Instead of being picky, I highly recommend, as your knowledge base grows, do yourself an easy favor, for each palace choose a nickname and make a simple numbered list of the palaces you have already used. Then write a brief description next to each entry of what you put in that palace (I usually just write the topic as a word or two).

It’s the simplest and easiest way to keep track of everything.
And don’t be perfect about it. That’s crazy and inefficient. :stuck_out_tongue:

Concluding this drama of words:

Vini, as humans we associate and adapt. That’s innate in the species. Trust that the associations will come, and when they don’t you will adapt, and you’ll naturally improve and make stronger associations.

There’s a lot humans aren’t good at:
We don’t fly. We don’t have night vision. We can’t smell one lone bag full of trash from a mile away.

:man_shrugging:
But we do have some natural strengths:
Humans adapt. Humans associate.
(among many other things)

Which is obviously good news for us aspiring mnemonistas.

So, keep going and keep experimenting.
Enjoy the new techniques and palaces!

Regards,
Beau

11 Likes
Tracking, indexing, or remembering all of your empty/unused memory palaces?
3

I will add that what @beau2am describe is exactly what I went through. I was doing the same avoiding using those technique because of the fear of not making it right and just got nowhere.
Then one day I was in the car talking with my mom and started remembering all the place we went together. I started writting them and couldn’t stop. I have 2 full page of palace right now. What I did is even if I remember only one thing I still use it and discover I remember more and more about the place. I discovered so much about my way to memorize but also I get to revisite those memories :slight_smile:

For the link method Im trying right now to mix it with my memory palace to learn sanskrit verses. Since I need to mix the sound, word and meaning I need multiple image for 1 word so I create a story. I still need to figure out how to make it stick as it require more effort and review then 1 image per locie. What I do is I use my alphabet peg for the first link and always place them from bottom to top seems thats how I work best.

4 Likes
4

Perfect answer, as usual.

I would like to add that, to me, Link Method is just a Memory Palace that happens to be in what I would call “the void”.

As if there’s a theater stage in the middle of the void of the universe, and the focus is on the characters and the story and their interactions.

Since there aren’t many things around for the characters to interact with, the focus naturally goes to them instead of the surroundings

3 Likes
5

Thank you for such a thorough and warm response! I will 100% apply the exercise you suggested. I keep a list of memory palaces, but I never have set aside time for specifically doing in the fashion you described. I can see that it will be way more harvestful in this manner. And thank you for showing your application of the memory palace with the Link method. You have pretty much hit all the nails in the head!

@Alzair thank you for the aspiring report on your experience. I will do the same exercise ASAP.

1 Like
6

Didn’t you had any hardships trying to recall information from the “void”? Saudações, conterrâneo!

7

Saudações!

If I’m using the Link/Chain Method in an isolated manner (not a regular Memory Palace, but in the void), it means I have a pretty strong trigger/gatekeeper that will lead me there.

Constellations, for example, would be something that I would use the Chain Method without a traditional Memory Palace. And the stars are always there, so if I remember in my long term memory any constellation (let’s say, Taurus), then I immediately have the the bull’s horns poking some scared twins that are falling together (Gemini).

We also need those triggers to “access” Memory Palaces. The physicality of it helps, because if you visit the place automatically you’ll start recalling, but it’s not much different from “the void” when you are far away from your physical MPs

2 Likes
8

I have a post where I discuss a technique that combines the method of loci with the link method. It might be relevant to what you’re exploring. In the post, I talk about how I enhance the method of loci by creating interactions between the items at each locus.

It’s worth noting that with the link method, you need to be careful when dealing with repetitive items. If the mental images are too similar, it can sometimes lead to confusion. This is where the method of loci can really help, as it provides a more distinct structure to each memory, reducing the chances of mixing things up.

2 Likes
9

I use the exact same term, because by default my imagery all takes place without a background. Everything is black, yet the images are lit just fine. There is no problem with a sense of scale or distance. When there is nothing there, it doesn’t seem empty.
When I do a good job concentrating on something it’s as if the void wraps around whatever I’m focused on and makes it much more solid than casual imagination.

Spent way too long thinking about this in the past and came to the conclusion that “I” exist within my mind like a large free floating pearl. This void with it’s odd qualities and imperceptible edges is the rest of me… In periphery.

3 Likes
10

It is mind-bending to know that someone without aphantasia has the same way of imagining things. I don’t see the black background, and things don’t get particularly solid to me. I simply know they are there in that way. Wild.

You got philosophical there, but I get you. Focused consciousness is the free-floating pearl, and it accesses qualia/memories/subtrees-of-neurons by navigating the void. The rest of the network is still you, just not you at that exact moment. That’s amazing.

11

Link method user here since reading Lorayne’s books at school in the 1990s. I’ve rarely had problems with it and find it preferable to the method of loci, but there is the possibility of forgetting a link, which can prevent you from recalling the remaining items.

In practice, when this happens I’ll remember an item later in the list and work backwards to recover the lost item. In this regard it actually has an advantage over the method of loci, since you have two images for every item except the first and last, which gives you a greater chance of recovering a lost image.

I’d suggest experimenting with both methods. I tried the method of loci for Rubiks cube blindfolded solving and it worked great too.

5 Likes
12

My linking method is very harmonious with the location method. Technically, in void, you link one object to another in your imagination. But, I’ll list some features you can use.

  1. Since the linking system itself implies that you are following a path of objects, from one object to another, you can’t use images you’ve used before, you just won’t know “which path to take next”. The reference system itself is similar to obsidian. If you use the location method, you may encounter the same images on the path, and it won’t be a problem because they are connected to the environment, but if the images are connected “in the void”, you have to take this into account. It is possible to get around this, for example, by modifying the images, because when memorizing a chair, you can imagine it in different ways, it can be wooden or bar.

  2. You can think of the objects themselves as mini memory palaces, because we remember what the objects look like and what is where. Imagine a chair, then focus your attention on a place and zoom in on it. You have many places to put information. It is always better to stick to an algorithm of images, such as top-down. Think of the chair as a memory palace. If you need to artificially create a lot of these mini memory palaces, you can simply create a new object that you associate with the current one, for example, if you are on a washing machine, the following artificial images can be: dirty laundry, a basket for things, washing powder. If you have selected a basket, and filled it with images, you can then select something related to the basket, such as a handbag.

  3. The link method can be hierarchical. Imagine a chair, bring your attention very close to the nail hammered into the chair, so that the other elements of the chair disappear. Associate the ball with that nail. We have made 2 associations with the nail, with the chair and with the ball. However, when we think of the nail, we can only go the way of the ball, as we will not see the huge object (the chair) in our imagination.

  4. With the reference method it’s hard to use the major system, because you just get confused which path you should take if you use the same number several times. But this can be solved, as I said that objects are mini memory palaces. It’s enough to not make numbers transitions between images, but to put them inside the palaces. Like one: cat → big chair as a memory place (13, 99, 91, 32) → pencil. So we have a cat-chair-pencil bundle. You could also do it differently, and at the end of the sequence of numbers put a pen as a small object of the chair, enlarge it, and fill it with numbers, and so on to infinity.

1 Like
13

The memory stations are the same as The Memory Book’s “pegs” (the book uses the Major System to create toe 1 to 100 pegs, the alphabet to create 26 more, and an additional 100 box grid combining letters a-j with digits 1-[1]0 [ate, awn, air, ale, ash, ache, ave, ape ace]). They’re all pegs.

So each loci (station) is a peg. The linking method is a way to enhance pegs. Memory pegs are anchored starting points for lists or other information you’re keeping in your head, whether ordered or not (depending upon your specific requirements).

The advantage to memory palace loci / stations / pegs are that you can study / rehearse your links anchored to the pegs without having to refer to index cards, memory journals, or notes of any kind (except when you haven’t manufactured strong enough associations - then you just have to jot down the loci real quick and go over it when you can - and move on with your mental rehearsal).

I absolutely agree with you that memory palaces are great when combined with links.

I can’t say with any certainty why The Memory Book doesn’t seem to have a stronger push for using memory palaces. I think it might be because the main focus was on the Major System - which is an advanced system BUT which is itself dual purpose either for chaining into converted numbers for precise memorization OR for use as pegs (tie, noah, ma, rye, law…)

At the same time though, when first learning fluency with the Major System (in the first week, about 50 years ago) I struggled a bit until I chained/linked all the 100 peg words together into a story I could see in my head - and these objects themselves became an imagined memory palace.

The only thing I can say beyond that, at the moment, is that stations/loci/pegs are fixed points, and that links are fluid.

You can later turn a link into a peg if you want, and even incorporate multiple layers of child pegs under another peg and load the whole master peg up with child pegs containing as many additional links as required by you. (That’s something which I do, and refer to the child pegs as “container objects” because they’re nested underneath a master peg, and each child peg “contains” it’s own linked data).

4 Likes
14

Harry Lorayne, author of The Memory Book, has said on multiple occasions that he never uses memory palaces and that he considers them to be old-fashioned and outdated.

Bob

4 Likes
15

Thanks. Interesting that he’d have made such a claim. There’s virtually no learning curve creating loci in memory palaces. He’s the reason I didn’t use them for the longest time.

2 Likes
16

Just a update from almost a year afterwards: I experimented with a lot of things throught all this time. But I gave another try to the linking method, in conjunction with the memory palace. The outcomes have been fantastic.

I memorized what would take me approximately at least 75 loci(quite probably more) in 9 loci. I had the exactly problem that most of you mentioned: forgetting one image and not being able to go throught the chain; I managed to remember the missing links by going backwards, althought with some difficulty. But considering the advantages acquired by saving this much space, it is gorgeous. I will find some way to prevent this break of links in some way, probably making some very short notes: maybe the sequence of the characters that appear, without going in exactly what they are doing; any suggestions about other ways to recover this missing link when it happens will be very appreciated.

My main concern with memory palaces, even with all my love and enthusiasm with it, was having enough loci. Even with all the positive messages here, I confess that they didn’t allayed this fear for very long.

And I think that I wasn’t wrong about being squeamish about it either; in this year or so, I converted all my notes on flashcards: at this point, I have 32000 flashcards. And considering that only sometimes I can combine two flashcards in a locus, and some of this flashcards are lists, with more than 3 itens to remember, I would probably need, being very optmistic, 25.000 loci. Probably way more. So you can imagine why I was worried, even though I know it is quite possible to have that many loci. Now, with the linking method, the number of loci can be greatly reduced, and I probably can do even better ratios of economy than the one I just did (It was my first attempt in the linking method without considering the examples from Lorayne’s book).

2 Likes
17

Hey Mr. Beau,

Just wanted to express my appreciation for the thorough explanation.I had been suffering from the same dread of palace deficit after creating my first few palaces hehe

18

Hi.I picked up Mr Lorayne’s book yesterday. Read a few chapters and decided to read the entire thing end to end today.

Just want to share a few thoughts,since I plan to use the linking method more extensive in future.

-always form absurd links

-always form links such that the items form cause-effect relation

-convert abstract words into sound-alike tangibles(don’t use symbolism)

I suffer especially with point 2 and 3.

I think keeping in mind point 2 might prevent the missing link situation that has been described here,so that you can ask ‘what does A do to B?’(forward) or ‘Where does B come from?’(backtrack)

And for point 3,I mainly used some symbolism for abstract terms,for instance,Equality would be a physical balanced.

But I find that using sound-alike words work better for me in long term

2 Likes
19

I have not felt the necessity of making only links with cause-effect relationship, since mostly the own context of the informations generally make such relations clear when you are reviewing them, and you can always make a special image if you want to clearly distiguish a situation of cause-effect. But if you find that not doing this way might cause harm to your retention, do stay, of course, in your way of doing it. I only posit that you might try and see if it can be done in other way, so that it can be more flexible and, thus, more useful and practical. Solid principles to build upon nonetheless.

1 Like