The general problem of “how do you find the underlying pattern” is (probably) computationally intractable (in the general case) though it has not (to my knowledge) been proved (in the formal mathematical sense).
Using patterns to facilitate memorization can broadly be bucketed into two kinds.
Looking for real patterns. Looking for real patterns works well when there really are patterns (such as a language’s etymology or mathematics’ underlying structure). Identifying real patterns do make memorization easier, but much of the information is random or the underlying pattern is too complicated to be useful. Identifying real patterns is the best approach when practical.
Mnemonics is the invention of fake patterns. Mnemonics tend to be artificial, but there is no denying they get the job done. Competitive memorizers make heavy use of mnemonics and chunking.
Personally, I prefer spaced repetition software (pure rote) to mnemonics and chunking because mnemonics fills my head with extra intermediate junk that slows down recall speed and interferes with the identification of genuine patterns and connections.
There are other ways to improve memorization too (such as sexualizing things and engaging multiple senses) but they are beyond the scope of the question.
Thanks! There seems to be a lot of research into mnemonics/chunking and memorization, and surprisingly little-none that I can locate into finding/calling attention to true patterns.
Try the keywords “mnemonics” and “chunking”.
The general problem of “how do you find the underlying pattern” is (probably) computationally intractable (in the general case) though it has not (to my knowledge) been proved (in the formal mathematical sense).
Using patterns to facilitate memorization can broadly be bucketed into two kinds.
Looking for real patterns. Looking for real patterns works well when there really are patterns (such as a language’s etymology or mathematics’ underlying structure). Identifying real patterns do make memorization easier, but much of the information is random or the underlying pattern is too complicated to be useful. Identifying real patterns is the best approach when practical.
Mnemonics is the invention of fake patterns. Mnemonics tend to be artificial, but there is no denying they get the job done. Competitive memorizers make heavy use of mnemonics and chunking.
Personally, I prefer spaced repetition software (pure rote) to mnemonics and chunking because mnemonics fills my head with extra intermediate junk that slows down recall speed and interferes with the identification of genuine patterns and connections.
There are other ways to improve memorization too (such as sexualizing things and engaging multiple senses) but they are beyond the scope of the question.
Thanks! There seems to be a lot of research into mnemonics/chunking and memorization, and surprisingly little-none that I can locate into finding/calling attention to true patterns.