SelfDefinition.Org
Practical Memory Training
'Theron Q. Dumont'William Walker Atkinson
(1916)
Lesson 15 The Association of Smilarity
In this second great class of the association of ideas—known as the association of similarity—we enter into a much higher field of association than the first great class and its subdivisions. And yet without the existence of the first class, the second could not have come into being, as we shall see.
In the class of association by contiguity, the association is forced upon us by the laws of time or space, or else arbitrarily selected by us, as stated in the preceding lesson. But in the class of association of similarity, we exercise, at least to a considerable extent, the power of choice in selecting the ideas or objects which we wish to associate one with the other. And according to the judgment we display in making such selection or choice, so will be the character of our knowledge of any subject. Herein may be said to rest one of the chief points of distinction between the trained and untrained mind, respectively. The one carefully selects associated ideas bearing a real and fundamental resemblance to each other, while the other selects them from only a superficial resemblance. In one case we have a bundle of carefully selected ideas, tied by the string of association, and matching each other in character. In the other, our bundle is composed of a variety of styles, shapes, and general character, and cannot be relied upon.
When our ideas upon a subject have been well selected in the associative bundle, they will be found all together when we wish to use our memory upon that subject. But in case the selection has been poor, our memory brings to light merely a sad jumble of odds and ends, bearing little or no real logical relation to each other—there will be too much chad in our wheat. As Locke has well said: "The connection in our minds of ideas, in themselves loose and independent of one another, has such an influence, and is of so great force, to set us awry in our actions, as well moral as natural, passions, reasonings, and notions themselves, that, perhaps, there is not any one thing that deserves more to be looked after." This because of a psychological law which as is said by Stewart, acts so that "when an occasion occurs which calls for the aid of our past experience, the occasion itself recalls to us all the information upon the subject which that experience has accumulated."
But, after all, as I have said, we must have the association of contiguity in consciousness, before we can manifest the association of similarity. For we must bring the two objects into our field of consciousness at the same time, in order to be able to compare them, and by so doing we set up at least a degree of contiguous association. We must bring them together in consciousness before we can detect similarity or points of difference.
I again ask you to listen to a statement from the American psychologist, Halleck, of whom I spoke in a preceding lesson. [#8, 9, 12, 14] His words are always well worth our attention, and he has the faculty of expressing great principles in such a style that they stick like burrs in our memory. He has said in connection with the particular point before us:
"Whenever any thought relation is discovered between some of our ideas, those thus related will be more apt to suggest each other ... If Julius Caesar was the subject of conversation, Napoleon, Marlborough, Cromwell and Wellington would naturally come to mind in preference to many another great man. War and generalship would furnish a logical bond for uniting them, no matter in what different circumstances of time and place these men lived. When a man, with a mind that has been trained to unite things by their relations, sits down to write an article or to prepare a speech, illustrative examples from all sources occur to him. Those who have not linked things together by the laws of correlation, wonder how he can think of so many pertinent associations."
Continuing, this writer says:
"Some have insisted that a law of contrast is necessary, because things seem to be preferred in recall on account of their very difference. Such a law is unnecessary, for such objects will be found to have more or less of the same quality, and this is sufficient to furnish the associating link. A dwarf may suggest a giant by this so-called law of contrast; but the giant and dwarf really differ in respect to the same qualities, height and size. The giant is taller and larger than the dwarf. A bad man may suggest a good man, because they differ in respect to the quality of goodness. One of the great beauties of a trained human mind is that it recalls things preferably by thought relations, and it is not enslaved by the accidents of time and place. ... Whenever we can discover any relation between facts, it is far easier to remember them. The intelligent law of memory may be summed up in these words: Endeavor to link by some thought relation each new mental acquisition to an old one. Bind new facts to other facts by relations of similarity, cause and effect, whole and part, or by any logical relation, and we shall find that when an idea occurs to us, a host of related ideas will immediately flow into the mind."
I am laying great stress upon this phase of memory, the reason of which may not at first be apparent to the student who has not as yet grasped the broad field of memory culture. Memory culture is far more than teaching one how to remember the name of another person, or how to memorize and easily recall a verse—these things are important, but they form only a small part of the entire subject. Thorough memory culture includes the training and strengthening of the entire field of memory, so that one may be able to have at his command the vast store of knowledge which even the average man has recorded in his memory, but which is not available because he has not arranged his records properly Even the average man would startle the world if he could but recall all that his subconscious mentality has stored away, and the well informed man would shine as a genius, could he but do this thing. In fact, that which we call genius is largely a matter of unfolding the subconscious records, easily and freely.
The storing away of memory impressions, and the indexing of them so that they may be brought into the light of consciousness, is entirely a matter of intelligent association, so that it is seen that the better the subject of the association of ideas is understood, the further advanced upon the path of the Mastery of Memory will the student be. Hence my extended treatment of the subject.
A writer on the subject of psychology aptly says: "Multiply associations; entangle the fact you wish to remember in a net of as many associations as possible, especially those that are logical." The concluding words of this quotation are especially significant—"logical associations." Logical associations are those which arise from real relations of likeness or difference between things thought of. This is a higher form of relation than that of contiguity in time or space, for the relation is discovered only by examination, comparison, and judgment. This form of relation may be said to be an inner relation, rather than an outer one—one must look beneath the surface of things in order to discover it.
The discovery of these inner relations between things arises from the application of the scientific mind. The scientific mind is trained to arrange things in classes, groups, divisions—to place similar things in the same mental pigeon-hole, or drawer of the mind, so that when the contents thereof are brought into consciousness, they will be found altogether and in proper order, instead of being scattered all over the mind like papers in a huge waste-paper basket. A writer [1] on the subject has well said: "Nothing helps the mind so much as order and classification. Classes are always few, individuals many. To know the class well, is to know what is most essential in the character of the individual. This burdens the memory least to retain."
[1. John Stuart Blackie, identified by Atkinson in Your Mind and How to Use It.]
In order to correctly classify things—to logically associate them together in memory—the following steps are followed: (1) We first bring the ideas of the things together in conscious attention; then (2) we discover certain qualities possessed by each of the things—their particular qualities, properties, and attributes, their characteristics which make them what they are; then (3) we compare these respective characteristics of the several things, and seek to discover points of likeness or difference between them, and the degrees of the same; then (4) we classify the several things according to their observed points, or degrees, of likeness or difference—and thus associate them in our memory, and place them in their proper mental compartments, so that when we want them we will find them all together and in proper order.
The task of making the proper associations between things in the memory, is practically the same process employed by us in our processes of actual thinking. Therefore, it follows that the more closely we think about a thing, the more association will we attach to that thing, and the better able will we be to remember it. Again, the more associations in memory we discover for a thing, the greater will be our knowledge of that thing. So that by understanding a thing, we increase our memory power regarding that thing; and the more we increase our memory power about a thing, in this way, the greater is our general understanding of it. It is an excellent example of the well known mental law of action and reaction.
I have pointed out to you the four steps in the process of mental classification and association. The third step—that of correct comparison of the characteristics of things—is very important. A correct analysis of a thing, for the purpose of this comparison, will give you as near a perfect knowledge of the things as it will be possible for you to possess, and, likewise, the perfect comparison of these discovered qualities with those of a second thing will give you a perfect idea of both as a class. In fact, it is an axiom of logic that: "Thought consists principally of perceiving relations between things, and in the comparison resulting therefrom."
The discovery of the relations between things is not so simple as it seems. The science of logic furnishes us with a little key, however, which may aid us in the search. I shall now present you with this logical key with which you may open the door of the discovery of relations and logical associations between things.
FORM. Every concrete object has its own particular form, shape, figure, configuration, or arrangement of its parts, which distinguishes it from every other object. In nature there is said to be no two forms precisely alike. No two blades of grass are exactly alike, and yet there is a general resemblance between all blades of grass. Comparing grass in the phase of form, we discover many groups and classes of variety, but, again, we find a general resemblance in form between all blades of grass, which may be called its, "class form." Likewise, we find that the general shape of the blade of grass resembles the general shape of another class of things. And, so on. In the same way, we may compare all things according to their respective shapes and forms, and thus discover the relation of form, like and unlike, between them.
SIZE. Likewise there is found to be a great variety of degrees of size between things. All things vary in bulk. There is no absolute largeness, nor absolute smallness—all size is comparative and relative. It is possible to classify things according to their degree of size and bulk.
WEIGHT. There is the greatest range of degree in the respective weight of objects. Objects may be compared and classified according to their actual weight, or their specific gravity. We have our memory-lists of heavy objects, and of light ones.
QUANTITY. We also may compare and classify objects by their relations of quantity, either (a) in the sense of "muchness" as in the case of a pint or quart; bushel or peck; etc., or (b) in the sense of the number of its parts, as for instance the number of legs on an insect; or windows in a house, etc.
WHOLE AND PARTS. We also recognize the relation of a cog to a machine; the door to a house; etc. This is the relation between the whole and its parts. We may also compare, and classify objects not only as wholes, but also as to their composing parts.
CAUSE AND EFFECT. We may also recognize the relation of cause and effect, as in the case of the propeller of a vessel, and the motion of the ship; or between lightning and thunder; of the firing of the gun and the fall of the game.
LIKENESS AND DIFFERENCE. The aim, and invariable result, of all comparison of things, is the discovery of degrees of (a) likeness, and (b) difference. In the discovery of these degrees of likeness and difference; the classification of things in accordance therewith; the association of these classified things in the memory; and the process of deducing conclusions therefrom—in these things are found the process of rational thought.
It must not be imagined that the above list includes all the classes of relations between things. There are many others, such as origin, use, mode of action, age, color, etc., etc. I have mentioned only a few of the leading classes, in order to illustrate the principle. But, they all result in the discovery of Likeness and Difference of qualities properties, and attributes—in short, characteristics.