Assimilative Memory Part 21

4. How?

5. Make an original correlation of your own between these extremes.

6. To what may all possible cases to be remembered be reduced?

7. What are Isolated facts?

8. What two distinct purposes does my system serve?

a.n.a.lYSIS AND SYNTHESIS COMPARED.

It is sometimes asked, cannot "a.n.a.lysis" cement together unconnected "Extremes"? This question implies a contradiction of terms. I reply, "Yes, by _accident_, and by accident only."

a.n.a.lysis is _declaratory_--Synthesis is _constructive_. a.n.a.lysis _discovers_ and _describes_ the relations actually existing--Synthesis applies connecting intermediates where no relations previously existed, and then a.n.a.lysis characterizes the relations introduced by the cementing intermediates.

Even in the First Exercises the Series are Synthetic. Every pair of words of which such Series consists exemplifies the relations either of Inclusion, Exclusion, or Concurrence. I used to call that Lesson Recollective a.n.a.lysis, because in it the pupil is engaged in familiarising himself with those Laws of a.s.similation, and in _discovering_ and _declaring_ the character of the relations between the words of such Synthetic Series. He commits to memory such a series by _thinking_ of the relations between the words. A minor object is to memorise the Series--but a greater and higher object never lost sight of in these Lessons is to train the Memory and Attention. And let the pupil clearly notice _how_ this training comes about. Merely running over a Series--two words at a time--without discriminating the _kind_ and _quality_ of the relations between the words--hoping that the mind unpractised in the Laws of a.s.similation will intuitively feel those relations, const.i.tutes no training of the Memory. Such reading neither strengthens the old power nor develops any new power. It is a blind act of unconscious absorption, however little be absorbed. But if the mind _acts_ in such cases and _tries to find_ and _characterise_ the relations, then the appreciation of the relations of In., Ex., and Con., is quickened and invigorated and becomes in time so intensified that those relations are thereafter almost automatically felt, and the impression they make on the Memory, henceforth, is the most vivid possible.

1. To whom only does this result come?

2. What question is frequently asked?

3. What is the reply?

4. Is a.n.a.lysis declaratory?

5. If so, why?

6. Is Synthesis constructive?

7. If so, explain why?

8. Why is the first lesson called Rec. a.n.a.lysis?

Every Correlation is a Synthetic Series. It can be and should _always_ be a.n.a.lyzed, but a.n.a.lysis never makes a Correlation. That is the function of Synthesis. Since "extremes" are words with no relation between them, a.n.a.lysis cannot find what does not exist. But _accident_ sometimes makes a _spelling_ or _letter_ relation between the "Extremes," and then a.n.a.lysis can memorise these "extremes" by means of such accidental relations. To ill.u.s.trate:--

A physician was troubled to remember on which side of the heart are the "mitral valves." As they are on the left side of the heart, he might have noticed that "mitral" ends with the letter "l," and that the word "left" begins with the letter "l"--as "l" belongs to both of these words, here would be a case of a.n.a.lysis. Such a device, however, could never be erected into a rule, for it is founded on accident only, and cannot be used in all cases. How much more vivid to many persons in this example is a Correlation, thus: "_Mitral valves_ ... mitred Abbots ...

none left ... _left_."

To remember which of the University crews wears _dark_ blue and which _light_, we can note that the vowel "I" belongs alike to Cambridge and "Light" and is absent from Oxford and "Dark."

Take a case in Trigonometry--a _Complement_ is what remains after subtracting an angle from _one_ right-angle. Take 60 degrees from 90 degrees, and we have the complement 30 degrees--a _Supplement_ is what remains after subtracting an angle from two right-angles. Take 120 degrees from 180 degrees and we have the supplement 60 degrees. How to remember that "Complement" relates to one right-angle, and "Supplement" relates to two right-angles, is a difficulty for a poor memory. Looking at the accidents of the subject, we see that Supplement and two right-angles have a relation in this, that Supplement begins with S and two begins with _T_. S ... T. Hence we must remember that Supplement relates to _T_wo right-angles, and, of course, the word Complement to one right-angle.

Or to use the Synthetic Method: "_Complement_ (compliment) ... praise bestowed ... prize-winner ... won ... _one right-angle_" (_Complement_ completes right-angle ... _one_ ... _right-angle_) or "_Supplement_ ...

supple ... bend double ... 'two double' ... _two right-angles_"

(_Supplement_ ... added to ... more than one right-angle ... _two right-angles_).

I could give many other ill.u.s.trations of the narrow scope of this Method of Accidents, though _genuine within that scope_, and how, in _all_ cases, by the Synthetic Method we can find in the facts _to be remembered_ the means of their recollection. One case more: In regard to memorising the statement that "the Posterior Nerve of the Spinal Column is Sensory, and the Anterior Nerve is Motor," using this Method of Accidents, "You observe that Posterior and Sensory go together, and that Anterior and Motor go together. The initial letters of Posterior and Sensory are P and S, and the initial letters of Anterior and Motor are A and M. By considering that A and M are in the upper part of the Alphabet and P and S are in the lower part of it, you will be sure to remember that Anterior is a.s.sociated with Motor and Posterior with Sensory." I admit that the _first time_ one hears this elaborate method applied the novelty of the principle of it might make an impression; but, after that, the method would probably fail from its lengthy exposition; because it is difficult to retain the _steps of an argument_ in a weak Memory and therefore such a method cannot certainly act as a _Means for Aiding_ the Memory. How do I manage this case? By correlating Posterior to Sensory, thus: _Posterior_ ... Post-Mortem ... Insensible ...

_Sensory_; or Anterior to Motor, thus: _Anterior_ ... Ant ... disturbed anthill ... commotion ... _Motor_; or _Anterior_ ... antediluvian ...

rush of water ... water-power ... _Motor_. In uniting the two unconnected "Extremes" together by means of a _developed a.n.a.lysis memorised_, the Natural Memory is aided in a very high degree.

1. What is every correlation?

2. Does a.n.a.lysis ever make a correlation?

3. Why would not "A" make a good In. by sound with "Anchor" on preceding page?

4. Is the method of remembering by accidental coincidences always reliable?

5. If not, why?

6. Are there cases where it cannot be used?

7. Make an original correlation between "Mitral valves" and "left."

8. How does the accidental coincidence in connection with the University crews compare with Synthesis?

9. Does this method make an impression on the novice at first?

10. Does the novice adhere to it?

11. Why?

BY MEMORISING a Correlation, you so unite the two EXTREMES in memory, that you need not afterwards _recall the intermediates_. The intermediates drop out of the memory by what Prof. E. W. Scripture, Psychologist, of Yale University, calls the Law of Obliteration.

1. Why does the method fail?

2. Is it difficult to retain the steps of an argument in the natural memory?

3. Can you give any instances in your own experience where a.n.a.lysis has helped you to cement Extremes together?

4. Can such a method act as a means for aiding the memory?

5. How would I manage the case spoken of?

HOW TO MEMORISE A CORRELATION.

To memorise a Correlation you must _at first_, if your _Natural Memory be weak_, repeat from _memory_ the intermediates forwards and backwards, as:--ANCHOR ... _sheet-anchor_ ... _sheet_ ... _bed_ ...

BOLSTER--BOLSTER ... _bed_ ... _sheet_ ... _sheet-anchor_ ... ANCHOR, at least three times each way. These six repet.i.tions from memory, three forward and three back, are only required _at first_. In a short time you will infallibly remember every Correlation _you make_; at last, the memory will become so strong, that you will no longer have to make Correlations at all. After you have repeated the Correlation, then repeat the two extremes, thus--"Anchor" ... "Bolster." "Bolster" ...

"Anchor." "Bolster" ... "Anchor." "Anchor" ... "Bolster."

Nothing else is so easy to memorise as a Correlation, for a Correlation is not a "mental picture" or "story"--it is neither a proposition, sentence or phrase. It has no rhetorical, grammatical, argumentative or _imaginative_ character. It is simply an elemental primordial Psychological Sequence of Ideas in which one includes another, excludes another, or in which one idea has been so often or so vividly united with another in past experience that the two are inseparably connected in memory--and a little practice in making and _memorising_ these Correlations soon makes it _impossible_ to forget them.

1. What is the result of uniting two unconnected "Extremes" by means of a developed a.n.a.lysis?

2. What are the first steps in memorising a correlation?

3. How long are these repet.i.tions required?

4. What will be the result in a short time?

5. What will be the final result?

6. Are correlations easy to remember?

7. What is the result of making and memorising them?

8. When does the most vivid concurrence take place?

a.s.sIMILATIVE a.s.sOCIATION AND MEMORY.

Probably no psychological mistake was ever fraught with greater injury to the cause of public or self-education than the too prevalent opinion amongst teachers generally that "physiological retentiveness" is the memory's sole reliance _in all stages of life_. It is nearly the sole reliance in infancy, and a partial reliance in youth. But when an acc.u.mulation of experiences and a fair command of language have been gained, new acquisitions are henceforward princ.i.p.ally made by _the affiliation_ of one idea upon or with another or _the making of a.s.sociations between ideas already established_.

And, if this be so, then memory must be very greatly improvable, since no mental power is susceptible of so much improvement as a.s.similative a.s.sociation.

A good memory, whether natural or acquired, belongs to quick and vivid _a.s.sociability_ and _revivability_ rather than to mere inherent and perpetual physiological _record making_.

After a certain number of experiences the child learns the appearance of a square. All his future experiences, however varied, of squares become affiliated upon, or connected with the record of this original square.

If each new square had to be separately impressed on the brain as a distinct and independent physiological record, it would take as much time and trouble to learn every new square as it did to learn the first square. But the _instant_ recognition of every square after learning the first one shows that the old brain record is used in the case of each new experience of squares or that the new square is interpreted by the old or original record through the Laws of a.s.sociation. Again: Taking the prefixes _com._, _de._, _im._, _op._, _re._, _sup._, &c., which are used in thousands of cases, and the suffixes _ment_, _sion_, _ible_, _ibility_, &c., also used in thousands of words, and using these in connexion with the root word "Press" we have compress, depress, impress, oppress, repress, suppress, and also compressible, depression, re-impress, suppression, impressment, &c.

Must a new physiological record be made for each form of the sixty or more words of which Press const.i.tutes the base, and must a new record be also made for each of the prefixes and suffixes in the thousands of combinations in which they occur? No one believes any such absurdity.

If s.p.a.ce permitted it would be easy to offer additional considerations tending to show that after infancy and early youth new acquisitions are mainly made by combinations and recombinations of ideas already possessed, and not by new and independent records physiologically reimpressed on each occasion.

RULES FOR MAKING CORRELATIONS.

1. Never make a correlation except in conformity to In., Ex., and Con.

Carelessness here is fatal to success.