And yes, I am building up to it haha. The Solakios technique is my own contribution to the discourse and will come about in [Part V]. I’m trying to explain how I got there before just giving the answer away. I think if people see my thought process, and the research behind it, they’ll be more convinced by the conclusion.
I think when dealing with something like ‘photographic memory’ which is a highly sought after skill, but has not actually been taught (those ‘self-help guru’s’ have poisoned the idea of it) you have to be systematic. People are more than justified in being critical of these posts until I’ve justified how I got there.
If you want people to see this, you need to tell them up front what they’ll get if they spend their time reading it. There’s so much good content, and we all have finite time.
I skimmed this post, since I’ve seen treatments of all of these topics. It looks like a useful summary and reminder.
What’s missing is any discussion of the payoff: how well do these techniques work? Even a vague estimate of the payoff for effort spent would be useful.
I’ve never invested substantial time in any of these techniques (after finishing my PhD in cog. psych) because it’s unclear if that’s time well-spent. Do mnemonic techniques work better than ad-hoc study for getting important things done?
Excellent students use these memory techniques. But student excellence is usually measured by tests for which memorization works very well. Do excellent researchers or professionals use these mnemonic techniques?
It’s a genuine question. It’s not my area of interest but I don’t ever remember seeing any good evidence either way.
Good points. I’ll try cover some of this in my final post. I unfortunately haven’t tested this outside of my field, so it’ll be difficult. But I assure you, I will try.
Got it, will do. Thanks.
And yes, I am building up to it haha. The Solakios technique is my own contribution to the discourse and will come about in [Part V]. I’m trying to explain how I got there before just giving the answer away. I think if people see my thought process, and the research behind it, they’ll be more convinced by the conclusion.
I think when dealing with something like ‘photographic memory’ which is a highly sought after skill, but has not actually been taught (those ‘self-help guru’s’ have poisoned the idea of it) you have to be systematic. People are more than justified in being critical of these posts until I’ve justified how I got there.
If you want people to see this, you need to tell them up front what they’ll get if they spend their time reading it. There’s so much good content, and we all have finite time.
I skimmed this post, since I’ve seen treatments of all of these topics. It looks like a useful summary and reminder.
What’s missing is any discussion of the payoff: how well do these techniques work? Even a vague estimate of the payoff for effort spent would be useful.
I’ve never invested substantial time in any of these techniques (after finishing my PhD in cog. psych) because it’s unclear if that’s time well-spent. Do mnemonic techniques work better than ad-hoc study for getting important things done?
Excellent students use these memory techniques. But student excellence is usually measured by tests for which memorization works very well. Do excellent researchers or professionals use these mnemonic techniques?
It’s a genuine question. It’s not my area of interest but I don’t ever remember seeing any good evidence either way.
Good points. I’ll try cover some of this in my final post. I unfortunately haven’t tested this outside of my field, so it’ll be difficult. But I assure you, I will try.
State that upfront instead and give a short summary of the techniques that work, so we know why the details are worth reading and what the payoff is.
EDIT: Also, I’m feeling really excited about this post and am very happy you wrote it.
Will do, thanks for the advice.