Value-value-suit image connected to suit person in location

General Memory Chat
1

The idea of a 2 card system in which the first suit is translated as a sub-location (1 of 4) is not new. However I think there is a possible better version, namely by having 4 persons in each location with the following items:

:diamonds:

image

:hearts:

image

:spades:

image

:clubs:

image

So for example 5 :hearts: and 8 :clubs: :arrow_right: 5 = s, 8 = f, :clubs: = t :arrow_right: soft (… ice cream) for the person with a heart balloon.

image
image867×372 96.6 KB

So for a full deck of cards you need 52/2 = 26 locations * 4 persons/location = 104 persons. And you need 676 (13 * 13 * 4) images for the value-value-suit combinations.

I have no idea if someone perhaps has already tried this, but at least we now have some nice pictures demonstrating the system.

2 Likes
2

I like this idea as an alternative blocking approach to convey a data set split, like VIS, VSE, or Agent-Observer, Shadow Images, etc…

Thing is though, like some of those other approaches, this is still two specific elements needed to encode and decode for four pieces of information (value1, suit1, value2, suit2) in this case its 1 element for 3 pieces and 1 more element for the other 1 piece, and because these are intentional elements that need to be considered and added to each scene, it’s still a 2:1 compression.

You’d likely get the same results in terms of speed and accuracy with a single card PO system. 1 element for 2 pieces, plus 1 for the other 2. With that, you only need to learn 104 associations though…

I suppose it could be argued that these suit indicators become almost background reflexive like some of the other techniques with practice though, so it could be worth trying out at least to see if your brain takes to this way of conveying information better than the others!

3 Likes
3

I was gonna point out that this a kind of 1-card system since you got two images to encode two cards, but Tim has explained it already.

So I just wanna add that having only four objects means that they’ll repeat A LOT. A 1-card PAO would work better imo because of this.

4

So far I am not really disagreeing. However :joy:, there might be a somewhat different way of looking at this. One could argue that with a single card system (1 image per card) you are not just encoding each card, but also its position. Because the position of a card is automatically translated as a position in the memory palace route, that is sort of overlooked as being part of the encoding and decoding process. In “my” (still not sure if it’s original) system you are translating the first suit in combination with the position of the card into a position (each position already has a person in it) in the memory palace.

The difference with a traditional person-object/action system and this one is that the persons in this system are already part of the memory palace route in the same way Katiek uses her persons (as we have recently found out); the persons are the locations and the normal memory palace serves more as a grid/background to hold them in orderly fashion, but it’s secondary in the fast image to image (object to location/person) connections that are made during the actual memorization of cards.

Even though I have to translate both the first suit and the rest of a two card information, what I have to imagine is no more complicated than what a 1 card Katiek (persons as locations) system would require, namely connecting a single object (the soft ice cream) to a single person (Predator) that is already there.

In the decoding process there is a big difference between this system and a system in which the first suit is being translated as an actual sublocation. Those sublocation are bound to be similar in a way that persons are definitely not. So if you remember that you put an ice cream in the first location, it would be possible that you don’t remember if you placed it on top or under the table for example, but if you gave that same ice cream to Predator it would be highly unlikely that you do remember the ice cream (being given to someone in that location), but not who you gave it to.

… and because these are intentional elements that need to be considered and added to each scene, it’s still a 2:1 compression.

There is only element that is being added to the scene and that is the ice cream. The rest of the scene is fixed part of the memory palace.

5

Not true, as I already explained to Tim above, there is only one image, like the ice cream that is being added to the memory palace.

So I just wanna add that having only four objects means that they’ll repeat A LOT. A 1-card PAO would work better imo because of this.

I feel that you have misunderstood this system. Those four objects are used to connect each of the four persons in a location permanently to a suit. Those connections are made prior to the actual memorization of a deck of cards.

You make it sound as if during the memorization of cards I have to connect for example Predator to a heart shaped balloon (and also an ice cream), like you would have to do in a person-object system. It is not a person-object system at all even though it has persons and objects :wink:.

6

Ok, so let me see if my understanding is correct. you would have a 26-loci memory palace, where each locus has four people. Each person is going to hold one of four objects, which represent the suits. The people are there just to make it more memorable, right? Because you could just leave the objects alone if you wanted to, but I believe the idea is that having people would help making it more distinct, am I correct?

During encoding, you are going to pick each pair of cards and convert the value-value-suit into one image among the 676 you have previously memorized. After that, you’ll go to the locus that corresponds to the position of the card-pair’s (first pair means first locus, second pair means second locus, and so on). Inside that locus, you’re gonna see the four people, and you need to pick the one that is carrying the object respective to the first suit. Now you gotta create a connection between the image (value-value-suit) and the person carrying the object. You could do the search through the memory palace first instead, but the process is the same anyway.

Am I right?

7

So far, so good

The people are there just to make it more memorable, right?

Make what more memorable? I honestly have no idea what you mean here.

Because you could just leave the objects alone if you wanted to, but I believe the idea is that having people would help making it more distinct, am I correct?

Make what more distinct? please substitute the word “it” with what you actually mean by it.

During encoding, you are going to pick each pair of cards and convert the value-value-suit into one image among the 676 you have previously memorized. After that, you’ll go to the locus that corresponds to the position of the card-pair’s (first pair means first locus, second pair means second locus, and so on). Inside that locus, you’re gonna see the four people, and you need to pick the one that is carrying the object respective to the first suit. Now you gotta create a connection between the image (value-value-suit) and the person carrying the object. You could do the search through the memory palace first instead, but the process is the same anyway.

That is correct.

8

Sorry for that. I meant the image. You could simply associate the objects to the locations without any person, specially because the people don’t encode any information. I believe you let the people there to make the image more distinct and memorable.

9

Perhaps looking at 50 persons sequence in memory palace and 2 digit actions for max 100 digits memorization will make things more clear. In this post I suggested that having 50 persons in a memory palace acting as locations would be a great way to do things so to speak. Tim mentioned that Katiek used a similar method. Katiek said that she uses people as locations and only uses the memory palace as a background and to keep the order of people. I am inclined to think that this approach works better for me aswell for two reasons:

  • Many locations in my memory palace are not that distinctive.

  • Generally speaking it is just easier for me to connect an object/action to a person then to a location.

So let’s get back to the method we were discussing.

You could simply associate the objects to the locations without any person, specially because the people don’t encode any information.

You appear to be suggesting that the people are used to make the connection between the 4 suits and the 4 sublocations of each location more memorable. That is not the case at all; the persons are the locations. In this method I am not connecting the 676 different objects to sublocations that are tagged with the persons with 1 of 4 objects, but they are connected to persons with the corresponding suit object. When the 4 Predator location persons are standing in front of your house (first location of memory palace) they are not really each standing in a distinctive sublocation at all, because I don’t use sublocations; they are just standing in line in front of the door.

Some final thoughts. Even though I visualize Predator with a heart shaped balloon at first to remember he (I assume it’s a he) is connected to the hearts suit, once I have done a bit of training I simply know that he is connected to hearts without having to even visualize him holding that balloon.

1 Like
10

Btw, I wasn’t suggesting you to give up the people. I said that only to check if I had understood your method. Since the people don’t encode anything, their sole purpose is to make the images more memorable and distinct as you said here:

Yes, I got that.

I believe I understood your system, but it still doesn’t seem to be a 2-card system to me. I feel there’s a difference between people and locations. The sense of direction and position is implicit during memorization. During encoding, you don’t need to focus on where you are. You just go there once, and then you just “stay there.” When you review, you don’t pay attention to the location, just to the image in the locus. If it were a person, you’d need to focus on them through the entire process. You can read more on another discussion here.

Also, I feel like there would be a lot of training involved when compared to a normal memory palace. Our natural memory apprehends the places easily, but the images require more review. For instance, if you don’t practice, you’ll forget the images faster than the palace itself.

Lastly, if you were to do 1-hour cards, these images would repeat really many times, unless you make the people in each memory palace different, which means even more upfront training, so you would be better off getting a 2-card system from the start.

All that being said, I do think your idea works. Depending on your personal preferences, you may even like it more than a standard 2-card system. I just don’t think it’s as efficient as the shadow, Ben, or even the Double-2-Block system.

Btw, I remember Katiek said in the forum that she built a Ben System really fast, so I believe she uses it. I believe her memory palaces aren’t intended to substitute a 2-card system.

11

You keep, dare I say, using words in a way that leaves me guessing what you are referring to. I said that the locations are not very distinct in my memory palace . You are now talking about images not being memorable and distinct. So this leaves me guessing what images you mean. Like are you talking about the images you place in the memory palace? That is clearly something different than what I said.

I believe I understood your system, but it still doesn’t seem to be a 2-card system to me. I feel there’s a difference between people and locations.

So it’s not a 2-card system, because of the difference between people and locations? What does that have to do with a system being or not being a 2-card system?

The sense of direction and position is implicit during memorization. During encoding, you don’t need to focus on where you are.

I don’t understand what you are comparing here. Is it people vs locations in general or using people as sublocations in a location? Are you for example suggesting that when Katiek goes through her memory palace from person to person, she can’t do that implicitly and without focussing on where you are as you put it?

If it were a person, you’d need to focus on them through the entire process.

Why?

Also, I feel like there would be a lot of training involved when compared to a normal memory palace. Our natural memory apprehends the places easily, but the images require more review.

After 15 minutes of placing 50 persons in my memory palace, I can already remember 2 digit images faster than without them (for the reasons I mentioned). I can jump from person to person just as easy as I can from location to location.

For instance, if you don’t practice, you’ll forget the images faster than the palace itself.

By the time those images are gone, I imagine, so will the images connected to your numbers and cards. So your memory palace, that wasn’t so good to begin with (hence the reason for placing people in it) won’t be of much use any way.

Lastly, if you were to do 1-hour cards, these images would repeat really many times, unless you make the people in each memory palace different, which means even more upfront training, so you would be better off getting a 2-card system from the start.

Again you are talking about images, but it seems like you are talking about persons. It is not a system fit for large amounts of data memorisation, I agree with that. I am not sure a true 2 card system (I don’t know what you think would qualify as such apart from the Ben system) is better for example for single deck memorization.

Btw, I remember Katiek said in the forum that she built a Ben System really fast, so I believe she uses it. I believe her memory palaces aren’t intended to substitute a 2-card system.

But she is using people as locations. Do you think that is a problem as you seem to think it might be for my system?

12

Sorry, I wasn’t consistent in my use of the word “images.” I meant that your use of people is intended to make the final image (people/locus + card pair) more memorable than in a normal memory palace (locus + card pair). Right?

There are two intentional elements to encode two cards. If there was a single image to encode two cards, it would be a 2-card system.

Both.

Tbh, I know very little about her system, so I can’t say for sure.

That’s how I feel it would happen. For instance, I’d probably try to connect the image for the card-pair to the person of that position, which would require me to pay attention to the person as I made the connection. If you don’t feel that way, then that’s great.

That’s why real experience with a method is better than just theoretical assessment.

Honestly, I find using normal locations very easy, so I prefer to stick to the standard memory palace. As I said, I don’t know much about her system, but I’d guess the advantages/disadvantages would be similar to yours.

13

If with “people/locus” you mean people used as locus, than I agree, if however you are suggesting that this image is a combination of a locus plus person plus card pair image (there is no actual card pair image, just value value suit images) than I don’t because the physical location isn’t really used as part of the image.

There are two intentional elements to encode two cards. If there was a single image to encode two cards, it would be a 2-card system.

Still has nothing to do in my view with using locations vs people as locations as you appeared to imply originally. I agree that every two cards have to be read as two parts, one being translated as an image and one as a sublocation being a person. There is however only one image that has to be added to the memory palace and that is value-value-suit image.

image
image1056×202 22.1 KB

I have a feeling you have never placed persons or images in your memory palace as way to help learn your card or number images. My experience has always been that after a couple of days those images and their (relative) locations are so intertwined with the memory palace that you can feel where everybody is without even visualizing the memory palace.

image
image1079×211 22.3 KB

I understand you have to focus on a person when making a connection to that person. My “why” was a reaction to why that, according to your statements, is not the case when the person is replaced by a location. How do you connect an image to a location without focussing on that location?

14

Yes, exactly.

If you define a 2-card system as one that needs only one image to be added to encode 2 cards, then that’s totally fine. The definition Tim and I were using is more based on the distinction between elements, loci, and blocks as the post I linked explains. That’s totally about semantics, and it doesn’t matter much anyway. What truly matters is if it’s as fast as the others, which can be seen through practice only, not just theory.

Yes, you’re right. I haven’t done that. That’s why I said my observations are just theoretical assessments. The closest I’ve tried are peg lists using a memory palace only as a background to memorize the countries and the periodic table. However, they didn’t work as well as I wanted. Now I prefer memory palaces much more. You are coming from a different standpoint since you said your locations are too similar, which is a problem I’ve never faced (unless when I zoomed in too much). Because of our divergences, it may be that your idea works better for you than the memory palaces you have.

I hope you understand that my goal isn’t to speak as if this method doesn’t work at all. I, a mere poor and insignificant peasant, am not gonna come here and say that Katie Kermode’s system doesn’t work. It certainly does work, and she’s a proof of it. Of course, most memory athletes don’t use her system, so not using people as loci also works. It’s just that I prefer to sit with the latter group, and my observations are simply the reason why. I’m saying this just to make sure you don’t think I’m ruling out the possibility of this system working effectively.

You’re correct on this. Both the person (as a locus) and a normal locus need to be focused on to encode the image. It’s during review that the difference becomes clearer. When you review the interaction between the image (value-value-suit) to the person (which is the real locus in your system), you need to focus on both of them interacting: “predator is smashing a banana with his foot” (please, I want you to stop and imagine this scene vividly in your mind now. This will make more sense later on). When you review the interaction between an image (in a 2-card system) to a normal locus, you only focus on recalling the image, and the location is visualized automatically: “there is a banana.” Another thing that distinguishes people (as loci) and standard locations is that you’re inevitably using your sense of direction in both cases, so the standard memory palace simply makes use of something that is already there. When we visualize, ideas like left, right, up, and down are implicitly visualized. Even in your system, the images are interacting with the objects in a mental image seen by the mind’s eye. That visualization naturally stores a sense of direction. For instance, I bet you can still remember if the banana was to the left of the predator or to the right. The memory palace is simply the consolidation of the inevitable spatiality of our sight in an orderly way. I talked about this on that Tim’s post I linked earlier, btw.

Anyway, as I said before, all of these are theoretical assessments, but I may be wrong, or maybe it’s just that these things don’t apply to you or to your context. If you get a better performance with this system, go for it and have fun!

1 Like
15

One of the problems of this back and forth discussion is that you (as in people in general) seem to forget what the original discussion was all about. You appear to be keen on proving there is a meaningful difference between persons used as locations and simply locations in the favor of the latter. I on the other hand am keen on proving that for some people like Katiek and myself the former may have an advantage. Your assumption that the image connected to a person has to be some kind of interaction between person and object doesn’t strike me as something that favors your position; the interaction is what makes the image stick to the person (and vice versa). However I have noticed that the faster I go the less I am inclined to visualize much interaction, most notably if the sequence I try to remember is relatively short; I can simply visualize a person and then simultaneously think of an image and the two get connected together perhaps in the same fashion you connect images to locations.

When you review the interaction between an image (in a 2-card system) to a normal locus, you only focus on recalling the image, and the location is visualized automatically: “there is a banana.”

I can just take your sentence and substitute one word without any apparent reason for why your sentence is correct and mine is wrong.

When you review the interaction between an image (in a 2-card system) to a normal person, you only focus on recalling the image, and the person is visualized automatically: “there is a banana.”

You are trying, as it appears to me, desperately to attribute magical qualities to memory palace locations that don’t actually exist. The focus on recalling the image (what image? Oh wait the image connected to a particular location) without focussing on a location is just playing with words in my opinion.

Another thing that distinguishes people (as loci) and standard locations is that you’re inevitably using your sense of direction in both cases, so the standard memory palace simply makes use of something that is already there.

Question:
What is the difference between an apple and an orange?

Answer:
They are both pieces of fruit.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make.

16

What I said there connects to what I said in Tim’s post, which I linked a few times here already, and idk if you read it or not. I’m gonna leave it here again. The point is simply that direction is aways present, so things like variable spatial encoding should be seen as blocks. Images as loci is more like an intentional element. It was your comment in the original post that motivated me to answer it:

Tbh, I’m not keen on proving anything here. My goal was just to share a few observations, but this discussion has been going on for longer than I expected, so I’m gonna end it here. As I said before, my comments are theoretical, so I think you should follow the insights from your practice instead. If it works for you, it works. I wish you good and fun training!

17

image
image1086×242 34.2 KB

It is nice that you refer to a link that somehow explains your statements that on their own don’t make any sense to me. I mean I was responding to this sentence.

image
image878×115 10.3 KB

I appreciate you corrected your inconsistent use of the word “images”, but I feel that the above sentence is even more confusing. In my opinion, your elaboration doesn’t change the fact that this sentence is self contradictory.

Images as loci is more like an intentional element.

I feel like I’m in that Groundhog Day movie again. You are using phrases that leave me guessing what you mean by them. People in my system and the systems used by Katiek are intentional elements when we put them in the memory palace to make the actual system; we intentionally put them there. But when we are actually using these systems to memorize numbers or playing cards those people are just as much already part of the memory palace as things like a door, a hallway and so on. Referring to them as intentional elements makes no more sense at this stage then me claiming that your blocks are intentional. How am I supposed to know what kind of intentionality you are referring to?

Tbh, I’m not keen on proving anything here. My goal was just to share a few observations, but this discussion has been going on for longer than I expected, so I’m gonna end it here.

No problem.

1 Like
18

Hi, @erikfromholland ! I know we already ended this discussion, but I wanted to come back just to say that, after some personal observations, I think you’re right. Having people as loci seems to be as much of a block system as sub-loci are.

Best regards,

Maike

1 Like
19

I barely remember this thread, not even kidding. Everytime an idea pops in my head regarding a possible memory system, I just post it as it forces me to articulate my intuitions in a precise manner. Since I have so many ideas popping in mind, I can’t remember all the systems I have posted.

I feel that discussions about whether or not a system qualifies as something, comes with the risk that conclusions are drawn based on subjective classifications that are not connected to reality. Tim, for example, puts a lot of effort in convincing people about what qualifies as a single piece of information (I don’t remember his exact wording). In my view there is no objective way to make that distinction. Obviously a 3 digit PAO system that translates a 9 digit number as Michael Jackson jumping with an umbrella in his hand is not a single piece of information that already existed in your brain as a unique idea before the translation. However when for example you have a single digit object and 2 digit person system, it is possible that every combination is as unique and already existing as a single idea in the brain as the images of a 3 digit person.

Regarding the block systems, I remember one system I proposed in 2020 that not many people seemed to understand or appreciate (What was I thinking?) :joy:: The super position 2 card system.

1 Like