Dear reader,
well, it's not mine. The experiment is old, of course. The magicians Penn & Teller did their version in their series "Bullshit" (season 7, episode 2: Astrology). Derren Brown shows this experiment as part of an episode of his series "Trick of The Mind" (season 3, episode 1). Which are only two that come to my mind right away, which I've seen myself. Others have done that experiment, too and towards the end of my studies at uni, I did as well.
I talked to the professor of a psychology class. The class was, at least in theory, about doing things and not just teaching and theory. The right course for my experiment, I thought. So I asked the professor if it was okay if I did a little experiment I had thought of doing for a while already. She agreed, so the week before easter holidays, I came in with yellow index cards I told others that over the course of the semester holidays, I had worked on creating a personality test program and would like to test its accuracy with them. I told them to write down: on the left top corner the day of birth, should they know it, also the time. But it wasn't necessary for me to have the time. On the right top corner they were to write a code of any combination of numbers and letters. Just so they knew theirs. In the middle they should write one short sentence that described them. (I should give Penn & Teller credit for that one. In their Bullsh!t episode on astrology, they let a psychology professor do exactly that. Since I couldn't come up with anything else as a basis for information.)
Then the easter holidays came and then the first day after the holidays came and the seminar was later that afternoon. So plenty of times for fellow students to approach me and ask about the test. Well, two came up to me right after the first seminar that day. One saying that she changed courses, but should I have the results, she'd like to know hers. I gave her her index card. The "result" I had stuck on the back of it with a paper-clip. I told her the truth right away that the twist to this wasn't so much the text, nor the test, but how they reacted. Another girl approached me saying she had an appointment at the doctor's. She'd try to change it, but couldn't. I desperately hoped the wouldn't tell the others about my text!
Anyway, I came into the room where the seminar would be held. One girl came to me and asked me about three times, "Are you going to tell us now?" She was really eager.
A short break time during the seminar was my time. I said, "Last time I asked you to fill out index cards for me for a personality test. I've got the results now. Please, pick your card and read it quietly for yourself. Don't share it with others. I want to ask you for quick judgment about how well it fits you." They went and read their card. I asked, "On a scale from 1 to 5, 1 meaning doesn't fit and 5 means it fits, how many think it sucked? 1?" No one. "How many say: a bit? 2?" Still no one. "How many say: so and so? Kind of half half? 3?" Two or three raised their hands. "How many say 4?" I didn't count, a good deal of people. "5?" The rest of them. One half joked, "Mine's like 4.5." That got a laugh. I said, "Of those, who say it's 5, would any of you care to read like the first two or three sentences for us? Just to show how a well done one would have looked like?" One started reading hers. The others started smiling and looking at each other. The reader asked me, if she should go on. I thanked her and said, it was enough and that the reason why the others smiled was, because they had the same text.
"You all have the same text", I said. "And here's another truth: that program I told you about doesn't exist." I could feel the relief that spread in the room. "I didn't even write the text. The text is from the wikipedia entry to 'Barnum effect', which is what happened here: if you have a bunch of information, you pick the things you think fit and make them fit to yourself. Barnum was a circus director, who had that motto of: a little bit for everyone." I went a bit on and then told them about, also that fortune tellers and the like use this technique.
I told them that my mom had told me about an aunt, who had went to a fortune-teller. She told that aunt that she was about to die in a car within the next 1 to 3 months. I said, "She lived longer than 3 months. But can you imagine - and we're right into the topic of this seminar here - the mental stress she would be in, every time she had to go into a car? This could be the one, she'd die in." I said, "So maybe you say: well, that's fortune-telling. I don't believe in that anyway. But you did believe me."
I was about to leave it at that, but one girl raised her hand and asked me something I don't remember anymore. It got us into a quite relaxed, but interested and interesting discussion (probably for 10 to 15 minutes, in any case longer than the teacher intended for that break) about fortune tellers, cold reading and the like. I felt good. It's one thing watching videos of Derren Brown or others doing it or reading about it. It's another to be able to feel that they believe you and knowing you cheated on them. I knew they wouldn't like strangle me or something. But I was quite nervous as to how they would react. I was very pleased how they reacted. Even surprised to find that they actually had questions and were really interested in knowing and discussing more!
Until next blog,
sarah
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Showing posts with label knowledge. Show all posts
Sunday, 21 April 2013
Monday, 1 April 2013
Abductive, Deductive and Inductive Reasoning
Dear reader,
I can't help myself but making this blog entry today a scientific one.
Before I start I want you to know three things
1) I wasn't very scientific in my last post. I forgot to mention the names of the series I mentioned. The BBC production is called "Sherlock". The american series goes under the title of "Elementary".
2) It may surprise some of you that although Holmes was so analytical and scientific, his creator was quite unscientific and gullible. Doyle believed very much in the existence of fairies. It's also difficult to believe that Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle have been friends for a while. Because their point of view on spiritism was so contrary however, that friendship didn't last long.
3) The producers of "Sherlock" really took great care in creating that show. Sherlock has his own homepage The Science of Deduction. You can also read Dr. John Watson's Blog, which includes comments by Holmes and others!!! Other characters of the series also have their websites: Molly Hooper's blog and the forum of Connie Prince. The last two however may only be of interest to people, who know the series and the persons.
In a way even Sherlock Holmes' homepage is only for people who know the series or fans. Also the title of the page is sort of wrong. Sherlock Holmes is not using deduction in his investigations. This is a mistake not only from the series, but also wrong in Doyle's books. On imdb.com you can find a note on that mistake.
To be honest, each reasoning: abductive, deductive and inductive - are tricky and separating each of them from the others is not quite easy. The differences are very small.
The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are relatively simple to explain.
In deductive reasoning you set up a general rule. From that rule you set up another rule, of which you can be certain, too. If or rather because both are true, the conclusion will be certain at the end. This kind of reasoning can be found in mathematics, for example in equations with variables:
if x = 2
and if y = 3,
then 2 x + y = 7
Maths is often very much just theory. So let's put it another way:
If chaos is increased in a system, unless you feed it with energy,
and if my flat is a system,
then I should feed my flat with energy and keep it tidy and clean, unless I want to drown in a chaotic mess.
With inductive reasoning you take one single thing and take it to be true. From that you make a general rule that applies to other similar things. A conclusion is likely, but not certain. There is this thought experiment about a white swan. If we see many white swans, we can conclude that there exist white swans. It would be wrong however to conclude that all swans are white, or that there only exist white swans. In science, which is about gathering information, you can find this way of thinking.
Abductive reasoning is about observing something and looking for a possible explanation that would make the observed probable as an outcome. The theorist Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of abductive reasoning, explained it this way:
"The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."
Finding a conclusion is taking your best shot and not very satisfying. The conclusion you come up with may or may not be true. In medicine you find this way of thinking. The patient tells about his symptoms and the doctor has to think of an illness that would lead to those symptoms, to treat the patient accordingly. Also in court you'll find abductive reasoning: does the prosecution or the defense the better arguments that fit and explain the given situation?
So indeed Holmes doesn't use deduction, but abduction. He cannot be certain to see all the facts of a crime scene that lead to the crime. So Holmes' conclusion are likely to be incomplete and with that nothing more than taking your best shot.
Arthur Conan Doyle used Dr. Joseph Bell as a model for Holmes, as I mentioned already in my last post. Another doctor was very good in observing and making conclusions: Dr. Milton Erickson. Sidney Rosen describes a story in his book "My Voice Will Go with You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson", which is a good example to show how good Erickson was in observing and making conclusions. The story is called "The Right Psychiatrist":
A young, beautiful woman came to Erickson. She was very desperate. She wasn't pleased with either of the psychiatrist she had seen so far. So she was uncertain about Erickson and whether he was able to help her. He wrote down some things about the young woman and then said to her that he was the right psychiatrist. He could prove it by asking a question. But the woman won't like that question. The woman wanted to hear the question anyway. So Erickson asked her, "How long have you been wearing women's cloths?" Erickson had seen the woman pick a lint off her sleeve in a straight, direct move, without a "detour" around the breasts, like a woman would.
There's also a video with Tim Minchin, where he talks about the human logic, which addresses another aspect of logic.
Until next blog,
sarah
I can't help myself but making this blog entry today a scientific one.
Before I start I want you to know three things
1) I wasn't very scientific in my last post. I forgot to mention the names of the series I mentioned. The BBC production is called "Sherlock". The american series goes under the title of "Elementary".
2) It may surprise some of you that although Holmes was so analytical and scientific, his creator was quite unscientific and gullible. Doyle believed very much in the existence of fairies. It's also difficult to believe that Harry Houdini and Arthur Conan Doyle have been friends for a while. Because their point of view on spiritism was so contrary however, that friendship didn't last long.
3) The producers of "Sherlock" really took great care in creating that show. Sherlock has his own homepage The Science of Deduction. You can also read Dr. John Watson's Blog, which includes comments by Holmes and others!!! Other characters of the series also have their websites: Molly Hooper's blog and the forum of Connie Prince. The last two however may only be of interest to people, who know the series and the persons.
In a way even Sherlock Holmes' homepage is only for people who know the series or fans. Also the title of the page is sort of wrong. Sherlock Holmes is not using deduction in his investigations. This is a mistake not only from the series, but also wrong in Doyle's books. On imdb.com you can find a note on that mistake.
To be honest, each reasoning: abductive, deductive and inductive - are tricky and separating each of them from the others is not quite easy. The differences are very small.
The differences between inductive and deductive reasoning are relatively simple to explain.
In deductive reasoning you set up a general rule. From that rule you set up another rule, of which you can be certain, too. If or rather because both are true, the conclusion will be certain at the end. This kind of reasoning can be found in mathematics, for example in equations with variables:
if x = 2
and if y = 3,
then 2 x + y = 7
Maths is often very much just theory. So let's put it another way:
If chaos is increased in a system, unless you feed it with energy,
and if my flat is a system,
then I should feed my flat with energy and keep it tidy and clean, unless I want to drown in a chaotic mess.
With inductive reasoning you take one single thing and take it to be true. From that you make a general rule that applies to other similar things. A conclusion is likely, but not certain. There is this thought experiment about a white swan. If we see many white swans, we can conclude that there exist white swans. It would be wrong however to conclude that all swans are white, or that there only exist white swans. In science, which is about gathering information, you can find this way of thinking.
Abductive reasoning is about observing something and looking for a possible explanation that would make the observed probable as an outcome. The theorist Charles Sanders Peirce, the founder of abductive reasoning, explained it this way:
"The surprising fact, C, is observed. But if A were true, C would be a matter of course. Hence, there is reason to suspect that A is true."
Finding a conclusion is taking your best shot and not very satisfying. The conclusion you come up with may or may not be true. In medicine you find this way of thinking. The patient tells about his symptoms and the doctor has to think of an illness that would lead to those symptoms, to treat the patient accordingly. Also in court you'll find abductive reasoning: does the prosecution or the defense the better arguments that fit and explain the given situation?
So indeed Holmes doesn't use deduction, but abduction. He cannot be certain to see all the facts of a crime scene that lead to the crime. So Holmes' conclusion are likely to be incomplete and with that nothing more than taking your best shot.
Arthur Conan Doyle used Dr. Joseph Bell as a model for Holmes, as I mentioned already in my last post. Another doctor was very good in observing and making conclusions: Dr. Milton Erickson. Sidney Rosen describes a story in his book "My Voice Will Go with You: The Teaching Tales of Milton H. Erickson", which is a good example to show how good Erickson was in observing and making conclusions. The story is called "The Right Psychiatrist":
A young, beautiful woman came to Erickson. She was very desperate. She wasn't pleased with either of the psychiatrist she had seen so far. So she was uncertain about Erickson and whether he was able to help her. He wrote down some things about the young woman and then said to her that he was the right psychiatrist. He could prove it by asking a question. But the woman won't like that question. The woman wanted to hear the question anyway. So Erickson asked her, "How long have you been wearing women's cloths?" Erickson had seen the woman pick a lint off her sleeve in a straight, direct move, without a "detour" around the breasts, like a woman would.
There's also a video with Tim Minchin, where he talks about the human logic, which addresses another aspect of logic.
Until next blog,
sarah
Sunday, 10 March 2013
Pain control
Dear reader,
it seems fitting to write a blog entry on the topic of pain control when I'm sitting here with a sore throat.
I was born handicapped. I don't like that word much, because I'm independent and "handicapped" for me means a limitation. In the end all people are in one way or another helpless or limited or at least a bit inapt.
Anyway, I was born with my right foot missing. I have a prothesis and with it I can walk and ride a normal bike on a regular basis. Many people don't know I have a prothesis and are surprised when they find out about it. They don't see it. It had happened a couple of times in the past that the bone in the leg has grown faster than the rest of the leg. The bone had to be cut off. I know I have taken pain killers they have given me the first time. The next two times I didn't take them. I don't like being numbed and didn't want to sleep with meds. I didn't want to sleep. I wanted to be pain free! I know that the third and (to date) last time I had deliberately slept through the following one or two days after the operation.
I don't quite remember if it was the first or second time. But I remember that my grandmother had been visiting me in the hospital with my dad and my sister. My mom had been there in the hospital with me anyway. I don't remember what my grandma hat told me. The others had gone out of the room and she told me something. Something that made me forget my pain. As soon as the others came back, the spell was broken. I have no idea what she did exactly or how. I'm also not sure she was conscious of what she did. The important thing was, that it helped.
Pain is a messenger. Normally it wants to tell us, "Take better care of yourself!" or "Change something! The way it is now is not good for you." These are important signals, which shouldn't be ignored like that under any circumstances. This is why I suggest to everybody not to shut down all the pain. That's often not necessary anyway. We all can go on pretty good with a certain amount of pain and ignore that. But please not for long! That would be unhealthy and unreasonable. A messenger wants to be heard and requires that something has to be done, changed. This should be respected under all circumstances!
Hypnosis Salad is an organisation, which gives hypnosis seminars. On youtube there's a video with Michael Watson, where he talks with lots of humor about an effective method of pain control a friend of his used. Here are two of the main points of the video about pain:
The method Michael Watson describes is so simple and clever. You take the pain and turn it into a symbol (maybe also a colour) and hold this symbol in your hand. Then you throw it into a bin or flush it down the toilet or whatever. Why is it a clever method? Well, by turning the pain into a symbol, you change the sensory perception. It's a feeling changed into something visual. By placing the symbol in your hand it's away from the original place. (Except it's pain in the hand of course. Although even if that's the case it would be a change from a feeling actually in a part of the body to a symbol you can see and hold in the hand.) What did you do there? Taking control through giving a shape and change of location and change of sensory perception! The endlessness stops when we throw away the symbol.
I personally placed a symbol in my hand only one or two times. What I do is my own variation. Let's assume it's a headache. I imagine a geometrical shape with edges or spikes, which could give me the kind of pain in my head that I have at that moment. Often it's something like a polygon or something thorny. A colour may or may not come with the symbol for everyone. For me the shape often comes with a sort of yellow or green. The colour is there without me thinking about one. I keep the shape in my head and imagine it go change into a ball. A ball has no edges, so they can't cause pain. Because of Erickson the colour purple is special for me and has a calming effect. So the ball turns purple. Often what I do is imagine my whole head in a light purple, transparent ball. Like my head is in a gold fish bowl.
Simply by having to concentrate on something, which you have to see in your head, is distraction by itself and changes the intensity. One advice if you're working with colours, too: pick a colour that's far enough away from the pain colour. For example if your pain colour is blue, purple will be rather close to that colour. One time I told my dad about this method and he suggested to take the complementary colour. I never did that. I keep forgetting about it, because purple is my colour of choice automatically or sometimes blue. Also one needs to know which colour the complementary colour is. (Interestingly enough it fits for me with yellow-green and purple already.)
Like I said, you should keep a little bit of pain. It happens for me that at one point I don't have to concentrate on the purple ball anymore and I just keep doing what I do at that moment. The headache is gone by itself then. So it often is enough to make the pain less, but not delete it all together.
Richard Bandler, one of the founders of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) knows a lot about hypnosis. When asked what he does against a toothache, he said he goes to the dentist. And with a headache? He takes aspirin then. The people are surprised about his reply then. With an expert in hypnosis they seem to expect some sort of hypnosis. The method Michael Watson describes or my variation are possible methods. Richard Bandler's way of dealing with a toothache or headache is important anyway: if there are ways and methods to get rid of the pain in an easy way, we should use them, too.
I mentioned Charlie Chaplin in my blog entry about my room of motivation. But the quote fits here once again, too: "Nothing is permanent in this wicked world - not even our troubles."
Until next blog,
sarah
it seems fitting to write a blog entry on the topic of pain control when I'm sitting here with a sore throat.
I was born handicapped. I don't like that word much, because I'm independent and "handicapped" for me means a limitation. In the end all people are in one way or another helpless or limited or at least a bit inapt.
Anyway, I was born with my right foot missing. I have a prothesis and with it I can walk and ride a normal bike on a regular basis. Many people don't know I have a prothesis and are surprised when they find out about it. They don't see it. It had happened a couple of times in the past that the bone in the leg has grown faster than the rest of the leg. The bone had to be cut off. I know I have taken pain killers they have given me the first time. The next two times I didn't take them. I don't like being numbed and didn't want to sleep with meds. I didn't want to sleep. I wanted to be pain free! I know that the third and (to date) last time I had deliberately slept through the following one or two days after the operation.
I don't quite remember if it was the first or second time. But I remember that my grandmother had been visiting me in the hospital with my dad and my sister. My mom had been there in the hospital with me anyway. I don't remember what my grandma hat told me. The others had gone out of the room and she told me something. Something that made me forget my pain. As soon as the others came back, the spell was broken. I have no idea what she did exactly or how. I'm also not sure she was conscious of what she did. The important thing was, that it helped.
Pain is a messenger. Normally it wants to tell us, "Take better care of yourself!" or "Change something! The way it is now is not good for you." These are important signals, which shouldn't be ignored like that under any circumstances. This is why I suggest to everybody not to shut down all the pain. That's often not necessary anyway. We all can go on pretty good with a certain amount of pain and ignore that. But please not for long! That would be unhealthy and unreasonable. A messenger wants to be heard and requires that something has to be done, changed. This should be respected under all circumstances!
Hypnosis Salad is an organisation, which gives hypnosis seminars. On youtube there's a video with Michael Watson, where he talks with lots of humor about an effective method of pain control a friend of his used. Here are two of the main points of the video about pain:
- Pain is so uncomfortable, because we think of it as uncontrolable.
- At the given moment pain seems endless.
The method Michael Watson describes is so simple and clever. You take the pain and turn it into a symbol (maybe also a colour) and hold this symbol in your hand. Then you throw it into a bin or flush it down the toilet or whatever. Why is it a clever method? Well, by turning the pain into a symbol, you change the sensory perception. It's a feeling changed into something visual. By placing the symbol in your hand it's away from the original place. (Except it's pain in the hand of course. Although even if that's the case it would be a change from a feeling actually in a part of the body to a symbol you can see and hold in the hand.) What did you do there? Taking control through giving a shape and change of location and change of sensory perception! The endlessness stops when we throw away the symbol.
I personally placed a symbol in my hand only one or two times. What I do is my own variation. Let's assume it's a headache. I imagine a geometrical shape with edges or spikes, which could give me the kind of pain in my head that I have at that moment. Often it's something like a polygon or something thorny. A colour may or may not come with the symbol for everyone. For me the shape often comes with a sort of yellow or green. The colour is there without me thinking about one. I keep the shape in my head and imagine it go change into a ball. A ball has no edges, so they can't cause pain. Because of Erickson the colour purple is special for me and has a calming effect. So the ball turns purple. Often what I do is imagine my whole head in a light purple, transparent ball. Like my head is in a gold fish bowl.
Simply by having to concentrate on something, which you have to see in your head, is distraction by itself and changes the intensity. One advice if you're working with colours, too: pick a colour that's far enough away from the pain colour. For example if your pain colour is blue, purple will be rather close to that colour. One time I told my dad about this method and he suggested to take the complementary colour. I never did that. I keep forgetting about it, because purple is my colour of choice automatically or sometimes blue. Also one needs to know which colour the complementary colour is. (Interestingly enough it fits for me with yellow-green and purple already.)
Like I said, you should keep a little bit of pain. It happens for me that at one point I don't have to concentrate on the purple ball anymore and I just keep doing what I do at that moment. The headache is gone by itself then. So it often is enough to make the pain less, but not delete it all together.
Richard Bandler, one of the founders of Neuro-Linguistic Programming (NLP) knows a lot about hypnosis. When asked what he does against a toothache, he said he goes to the dentist. And with a headache? He takes aspirin then. The people are surprised about his reply then. With an expert in hypnosis they seem to expect some sort of hypnosis. The method Michael Watson describes or my variation are possible methods. Richard Bandler's way of dealing with a toothache or headache is important anyway: if there are ways and methods to get rid of the pain in an easy way, we should use them, too.
I mentioned Charlie Chaplin in my blog entry about my room of motivation. But the quote fits here once again, too: "Nothing is permanent in this wicked world - not even our troubles."
Until next blog,
sarah
Tuesday, 19 February 2013
The Memory Palace
Dear reader,
I'm don't remember exactly in which book I read about this first, the thought of a memory palace. Either it was Stephen King's "Duddits" (probably better nown as the movie "Dreamcatcher") or Thomas Harris' "Hannibal". The memory palace is a way to remember and recollect things that are connected at any time.
Some of you may know this idea of connecting a list of words to a story and by retelling that story also remembering the individual words in their set order. The memory palace works similar. Only that the memory palace, as the name suggests, is a set of rooms, which play a role in this. You start with one room and then expand with other rooms and at the end you have many rooms: a palace.
You start it like this: You take one room you know well. It makes little sense to go to this room now and look for certain aspects in it. If you can't recall them and have them in your head already now, it will probably be difficult to remember the aspects later when you have to and when they're linked to information you want to remember. You use this room to place things in it. Things you want to remember later. It could be a picture of a friend on the door of the fridge, to remind you that you wanted to call him. Cupboards, shelves, tables, chairs can be used to put objects on them to remind you of something.
To create a palace like that is very much connected with the so called loci method. Loci deriving from latin locus a "place" or "location". In a sense the memory palace is the loci method in its most beautiful way.
To see what wikipedia had on the topic of the mind palace, I looked it up there. Thinking back I'd have to rewise my first paragraph here. Many years back I read the Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle. In the book "A Study In Scarlet" Doyle mentions that Holmes uses his memory palace, to remember certain things.
Three moies are also mentioned on the german wikipedia page (I didn't bother to check the english one, too, but suspect there are listed there as well). In an episode of "Mind Control" Derren Brown shows, how he created a room that helps him count cards and remember in a Black Jack game which card were dealt. In a new, modern BBC version of Sherlock Holmes, the series "Sherlock", in the episode "The Hound of Baskerville", Holmes uses the method to recall associations. Here's the scene for you to watch. In the second episode of the american, modern Holmes version, the series "Elementary" (episode "While You Were Sleeping"), Holmes describes to Watson why he hypnotises himself in support group meetings to take a break. He has what he calls "attic theory": in an attic there is only a finite amount of space. The brain is the same. This space should be consciously used to fill with things and only useful ones. Unuseful things will be thrown out again.
Which may be an explaination why Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes as well as the BBC-Sherlock-Holmes both don't know how the sun, the moon and the earth relate to each other and which revolves around which planet. There's no space for something like that in Holmes' head.
Also Jonsey in "Dreamcatcher"/"Duddits" explains to his friends that for new information, like for example how to use a computer, he had to throw out other old information. Here is Jonsey's explaination for what he calls his memory warehouse.
The german wikipedia page also mentions the series "The Mentalist" in which Patrick Jane also uses the method to help witnesses to recall things. But right now I can't remember a certain episode or scene that would show this. Sherlock Holmes is more familiar for me these days, because I'm currently watching the two series I mentioned.
More on Sherlock Holmes some time later... I'm not sure, if I described the memory palace well enough so that others know what to do and how to use it. For me this is something like describing only with words to someone how to tie a shoe lace. Like you may find, it's way more difficult and takes endlessly longer than showing it and actually doing.
Doing! I don't really use the rooms I created to explicitly remember a list of tasks or a string of numbers or something like that. Strictly speaking I don't use them to remember anything as such. They're places to relax or to be in good company. Sometimes they're rooms and scenes of movies with the persons of that scene in it or I take the position of one of the persons involved. I won't tell you the movies. I think those of you, who are interested in movies will find and have your own movies and scenes.
One room is dark and only a small, square table with a drawer is visible. In the drawer there's a note with 20 words on it, the words Derren Brown listed in his book "Tricks Of The Mind" to explain how one can remember this (one) list of words in a set order forwards and backwards. I have to admit, I only take out a sheet of paper. I don't actually see the 20 words then. I think in those moments to take a break and just focus on this string of words is creating a distance for a while. At least as long as it takes me to recite a list of 20 words forwards and then backwards. I read that book in 2008. I still remember the list forwards and backwards. The only thing I didn't do yet, is remembering the position of the words. Like when someone called out a number, I'd know which word was on that position. It would make for a neat, little magic trick.
In recent time I realised I half consciously, half unconsciously go to a supermarket around the corner from where I live. It's a big shop. Take a walk there to check if I know where to find which things. But it's more for fun and pleasure than to actually checking facts.
Until next blog,
sarah
I'm don't remember exactly in which book I read about this first, the thought of a memory palace. Either it was Stephen King's "Duddits" (probably better nown as the movie "Dreamcatcher") or Thomas Harris' "Hannibal". The memory palace is a way to remember and recollect things that are connected at any time.
Some of you may know this idea of connecting a list of words to a story and by retelling that story also remembering the individual words in their set order. The memory palace works similar. Only that the memory palace, as the name suggests, is a set of rooms, which play a role in this. You start with one room and then expand with other rooms and at the end you have many rooms: a palace.
You start it like this: You take one room you know well. It makes little sense to go to this room now and look for certain aspects in it. If you can't recall them and have them in your head already now, it will probably be difficult to remember the aspects later when you have to and when they're linked to information you want to remember. You use this room to place things in it. Things you want to remember later. It could be a picture of a friend on the door of the fridge, to remind you that you wanted to call him. Cupboards, shelves, tables, chairs can be used to put objects on them to remind you of something.
To create a palace like that is very much connected with the so called loci method. Loci deriving from latin locus a "place" or "location". In a sense the memory palace is the loci method in its most beautiful way.
To see what wikipedia had on the topic of the mind palace, I looked it up there. Thinking back I'd have to rewise my first paragraph here. Many years back I read the Sherlock Holmes books by Arthur Conan Doyle. In the book "A Study In Scarlet" Doyle mentions that Holmes uses his memory palace, to remember certain things.
Three moies are also mentioned on the german wikipedia page (I didn't bother to check the english one, too, but suspect there are listed there as well). In an episode of "Mind Control" Derren Brown shows, how he created a room that helps him count cards and remember in a Black Jack game which card were dealt. In a new, modern BBC version of Sherlock Holmes, the series "Sherlock", in the episode "The Hound of Baskerville", Holmes uses the method to recall associations. Here's the scene for you to watch. In the second episode of the american, modern Holmes version, the series "Elementary" (episode "While You Were Sleeping"), Holmes describes to Watson why he hypnotises himself in support group meetings to take a break. He has what he calls "attic theory": in an attic there is only a finite amount of space. The brain is the same. This space should be consciously used to fill with things and only useful ones. Unuseful things will be thrown out again.
Which may be an explaination why Arthur Conan Doyle's Sherlock Holmes as well as the BBC-Sherlock-Holmes both don't know how the sun, the moon and the earth relate to each other and which revolves around which planet. There's no space for something like that in Holmes' head.
Also Jonsey in "Dreamcatcher"/"Duddits" explains to his friends that for new information, like for example how to use a computer, he had to throw out other old information. Here is Jonsey's explaination for what he calls his memory warehouse.
The german wikipedia page also mentions the series "The Mentalist" in which Patrick Jane also uses the method to help witnesses to recall things. But right now I can't remember a certain episode or scene that would show this. Sherlock Holmes is more familiar for me these days, because I'm currently watching the two series I mentioned.
More on Sherlock Holmes some time later... I'm not sure, if I described the memory palace well enough so that others know what to do and how to use it. For me this is something like describing only with words to someone how to tie a shoe lace. Like you may find, it's way more difficult and takes endlessly longer than showing it and actually doing.
Doing! I don't really use the rooms I created to explicitly remember a list of tasks or a string of numbers or something like that. Strictly speaking I don't use them to remember anything as such. They're places to relax or to be in good company. Sometimes they're rooms and scenes of movies with the persons of that scene in it or I take the position of one of the persons involved. I won't tell you the movies. I think those of you, who are interested in movies will find and have your own movies and scenes.
One room is dark and only a small, square table with a drawer is visible. In the drawer there's a note with 20 words on it, the words Derren Brown listed in his book "Tricks Of The Mind" to explain how one can remember this (one) list of words in a set order forwards and backwards. I have to admit, I only take out a sheet of paper. I don't actually see the 20 words then. I think in those moments to take a break and just focus on this string of words is creating a distance for a while. At least as long as it takes me to recite a list of 20 words forwards and then backwards. I read that book in 2008. I still remember the list forwards and backwards. The only thing I didn't do yet, is remembering the position of the words. Like when someone called out a number, I'd know which word was on that position. It would make for a neat, little magic trick.
In recent time I realised I half consciously, half unconsciously go to a supermarket around the corner from where I live. It's a big shop. Take a walk there to check if I know where to find which things. But it's more for fun and pleasure than to actually checking facts.
Until next blog,
sarah
Monday, 31 December 2012
What do cooking recipes, troy and the bible have in common?
Dear reader,
today after dinner we sat together for a bit longer and the talk came to cooking and recipes. My dad mentioned that we still have an old recipe book of recipes his mom collected and wrote down over 60 years ago.
My sister said that she had seen recipes, where certain kinds of dough as part of the recipe was mentioned, but without an instruction as how to make the dough. The knowledge of how to make the dough was taken for granted.
My dad then said that he heard once that for a long time, people didn't know where troy was located. There hadn't been old cards or descriptions of that. When troy existed, everybody knew it anyway. My sister first couldn't quite believe, that people of younger times first didn't know, where troy was.
As I heard them talk, I remembered the book on the gospels, which I had given my dad a couple of days ago. One problem, which we face today, when it comes to interpreting the bible texts is, that some of that knowledge was simply known and taken for granted back then. That's why the preachers and prophets didn't have to explain themselves and were able to simply use certain words and everybody understood and knew. I explained that to the others and we agreed that in all three cases, there was knowledge taken for granted and (maybe) in these days, had to be discovered again first. (My sister took care of that by writing down some basic recipes in one of her books.)
Until next blog,
sarah
today after dinner we sat together for a bit longer and the talk came to cooking and recipes. My dad mentioned that we still have an old recipe book of recipes his mom collected and wrote down over 60 years ago.
My sister said that she had seen recipes, where certain kinds of dough as part of the recipe was mentioned, but without an instruction as how to make the dough. The knowledge of how to make the dough was taken for granted.
My dad then said that he heard once that for a long time, people didn't know where troy was located. There hadn't been old cards or descriptions of that. When troy existed, everybody knew it anyway. My sister first couldn't quite believe, that people of younger times first didn't know, where troy was.
As I heard them talk, I remembered the book on the gospels, which I had given my dad a couple of days ago. One problem, which we face today, when it comes to interpreting the bible texts is, that some of that knowledge was simply known and taken for granted back then. That's why the preachers and prophets didn't have to explain themselves and were able to simply use certain words and everybody understood and knew. I explained that to the others and we agreed that in all three cases, there was knowledge taken for granted and (maybe) in these days, had to be discovered again first. (My sister took care of that by writing down some basic recipes in one of her books.)
Until next blog,
sarah
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)