Lesson 23 Associative Efficiency

As we have seen in the preceding lesson, Analysis, the first method of efficient association, in memory training, is followed by a second method—that of Comparison.

COMPARISON. Comparison consists in the examination of two or more persons or things for the purpose of discovering resemblances or differences between them. It follows, of course, that before we can compare two things for resemblance or difference, we must first analyze them in order to discover their characteristics—the little things which make the whole thing that which it is. The comparison, then is seen to be a comparison of the discovered characteristics of a thing—a step following close upon the heels of analysis. It has well been said that human thinking consists principally in (a) analyzing things for their characteristics; (b) in comparing these characteristics with those of other things; and (3) in classifying things according to the resemblances and differences in their respective characteristics. And, I ask you to note that these three steps also give us the key to efficient association in memory.

In analyzing a thing, we discover that it has many characteristics—qualities, properties and attributes. We then find, by comparison that other things have characteristics differing in degree, or kind, from those of the first thing. When the characteristics of two or more things are near in kind or degree, we say that the two "resemble" each other. Likewise, when we find that the two or more things are far apart in the degree, or kind, of their characteristics, we say that they "differ" from each other.

There is a vast range of degree in the difference, or resemblance, between things. At the last, resemblance and difference may be said to be wholly a matter of degree—for, strictly speaking, everything has a degree of resemblance to every other thing, and also a degree of difference from it. For instance, while in a flock of a thousand sheep each individual sheep resembles every other individual sheep in a degree—yet it also differs from every other, in a degree. Every blade of grass has points of resemblance to every other blade, and yet each differs from every other blade—all a matter of degree, in either case. Again, there is no such thing as absolute heat, or absolute cold. Things have degrees of heat—each degree a little hotter than the one lower in the scale, and each colder than the one above it The same is true regarding the other qualities of material things, such as hardness, weight, density, brittleness, etc.—all a matter of degree. In the same way, the mental qualities may be treated. It is a far cry from courage to cowardice, and yet the steps between them are but degrees. There is a great difference between love and hate, yet the steps between them are but degrees.

Philosophers have sought to group things in pairs of opposites—in contradictories, as the logicians call them. Things are said to be opposites or contradictories, when their characteristics are so far removed in degree from each other that the thing cannot possess both at the same time. For instance: hard and soft; high and low; wide and narrow; large and small; straight and crooked; up and down; far and near; etc., etc. But these differences are seen to be but degrees in a scale of qualities. Therefore, comparison of things according to degrees of a given quality, consists in giving each its proper place in the scale.

RESEMBLANCE. For the purpose of efficient association in memory, it is found well to link the thing to be remembered to other things already in the memory, by means of points of resemblance. If we see a new animal, for the first time, we naturally associate it in our memory with the known animals which it seems most to resemble. For instance, the guinea-pig is not a "pig" at all, but was so called simply because its shape resembled that of a tiny pig. In the same way, a whale is generally considered as a fish, because it swims in the water, and has something like fins—whereas, in reality, it is not a fish at all, but a warm-blooded mammal, suckling its young—it is nearer to a seal than to a fish, though the first resemblance impresses one more forcibly at first sight. To the child a lion is a big cat, and a bear a big dog.

Children frequently consider cows as "big bow-bows," when they first see them; or perhaps mistake them for horses, because they stand high, and have four legs. Egg-plants are called so, because of their shape-resemblance to the egg. Peanuts have their name, because they are contained in a pod like a pea. Automobiles were first called "horseless carriages," because they were simply carriages lacking the usual horse attachment. The word "lamp" originally meant a torch, then a wick-burning vessel connected with light-giving, and now is often used in connection with the electric light, simply by reason of the perceived resemblance of the latter to the old oil lamp. Slang frequently arises from some odd perception of resemblance, as for instance, the Apache of Paris, calls his cap, a "lid;" and his sweetheart's eyes, her "lamps."

In memory association, you should consider the thing to he remembered clearly, in the light of comparison, with as many other known tilings as possible. Link it with things resembling it in appearance, in size, in color, in use, in general history, in time, in place, in the relation of cause and effect, in degrees of hardness, toughness, brittleness, etc. In short, associate it with as many things as possible that it "is like" in any way. The better and longer you have known the thing "like" it, the better for your purpose—for the unknown thing must always be linked to the known, and the better known the better it is for the purpose. If the thing is one principally concerned with the sense of touch or feeling, let it be associated with the things it is most "like" in the way of touch or feeling. If it is a thing best perceived by sight, then link it to the things nearest "like" it in appearance. If it is perceived by the hearing—the sound of a name, for instance—connect it with the things that sound nearest "like" it—something that rhymes with it may help in the matter.

DIFFERENCE. In a way, the perception of resemblance is, to an extent, a perception of difference. This, because, as we have seen the matter of resemblance and difference is largely a matter of degrees on a scale of quality. But, ignoring this fact for the moment, things may be said to class themselves into "pairs of opposites" or groups of contradictories. So true is this that the trained mind almost instinctively sets up the idea of an "opposite" at the same time it is considering a particular thing, quality, or idea. It thinks of this opposite, or contradictory thing, not because it is "like" the thing under consideration, but simply, and solely, because it "is so different," This is illustrated in the slang phrase, common both to French and English "men on the street," which relates that "he reminds me of Napoleon (or Washington)—because he is so 'different'!" The fact that this expression is usually used in derision, or ridicule, does not alter its truth or value—for it is based on a well-established psychological principle. The fact that this principle is so well-grounded in psychological fact, should be sufficient reason for us to employ it in forming efficient associations in the memory. It is equally as valuable as its opposite, the association of resemblance.

In this form of association, you fix the idea or fact in the memory by comparison with another idea or fact as far different from it as possible—its "opposite" or contradictory. The greater the degree of opposition, or difference, the greater the value of the association of this kind—just as in the previously mentioned form of association, the greater the degree of resemblance, the greater the value of the association. The philosophy of this apparent paradox is very simple. It is based on the idea that the most valuable of associated ideas is that which lies at one extreme or the other of the scale of resemblance—the middle-ground idea has the least associative value.

A very warm place is remembered easily in connection with another very warm place; or, equally well, in connection with a very cold place—the first by its close resemblance, and the second by its extreme difference. Mention a celebrated giant, and the mind first recalls the ideas of other giants, and then flies to the other extreme and thinks of celebrated dwarfs. A very fat man suggests (a) other fat men, and (b) very thin men. In neither of the above instances is the memory likely to recall men of average stature, or average weight. This is a peculiar law of memory, but is valid and well-grounded and should be taken advantage of in memory training, by combining the two forms of comparative association—likes and unlikes.

CAUSALITY. There is a form of comparison, and comparative association, moreover, that may be said to combine in itself the phases of difference and similarity in another form of arrangement than that of degree in the scale. I allude to the relation of cause and effect, using these terms in their broadest and least technical sense. In this sense, the egg is the cause of the chicken, just as a chicken is the cause of the egg—"cause" being regarded as "the thing that led up to it." Lightning, in this sense is the cause of thunder. This form of association by comparison is very efficient. It is very easy to remember chicken or bird when you think of an egg, or vice versa. Parent suggests child, and vice versa. Lightning and thunder travel in mental pairs.

But one should be careful not to make false associative relations of this kind. For instance, high-hats are not the cause of civilization; nor is the cock-crow the cause of the dawn, though our friend Chanticleer [rooster in Canterbury Tales] so associated them. But even these false relations serve to associate things in memory, as in the case of the cockcrow, which is always associated in our mind with early morning. The relation of Causality may be compared either as Resemblance, or as Difference—either as a thing "very like," or as an "opposite," or, better still, as both.

GENERAL COMPARISON. The most common points of comparison for resemblance and difference, may be stated as follows:

Name. Place. Time. Shape. Cause. Effect. Use. Actions. General Idea. History. Origin. Destination.

Apply the test of comparison for Resemblance and Difference—Like and Unlike—to each of these points regarding a thing, and you will have built up a strong web of associations in which to entangle your thing or idea, besides having at the same time, built up quite a valuable store of information and knowledge around it. Any one of a hundred lines of thought will then serve to bring it into your recollection, and thus add constantly to the depth and strength of its impression on your memory, in accordance with the principle of repetition.

 

top of page

‍