Introduction
The Link Method can exist without the memory palace, but the memory palace cannot exist without the link method, it is the heart of mnemonics. If you master the link method, you have mastered the art of memory. It is a fundamental skill. So, why do I say this? This seems like a bold claim to make, doesn’t it?
Lance Tschirhart, the world record holder for Spoken Numbers, once said in an interview that he could have achieved this record without the use of the memory palace. But, let me paint you a picture of just how difficult the Spoken Numbers discipline is in memory competition. Hundreds of random digits are spoken aloud at one second intervals: 5, 6, 9, 5, 7, 1, 3, 2 and so on for 7 minutes. You have to memorize each digit only through listening, no paper, no pauses, and no reviewing allowed. If you are distracted for just one second, it’s over. He was able to memorize 456 digits. In a recent interview, he mentioned to me that he was doing 700 + digits in his personal memory training.
For him to say that he could have done this without a memory palace shocks even memory athletes. So, how was he able to do this? Tschirhart had a profound insight into the art. If you read his memory training journals which may be found in the archives of the art of memory forum, or if you listen to any of his interviews, you will notice an emphasis upon the importance of linking. But, before I explain Tschirhart’s approach, let us consider: what exactly is link method?
The Link Method
You can think of the link method as a chain that connects one piece of information to another. As the name itself suggests, it is concerned with linking two or more items together. For example, if I want to memorize a grocery list of five items:
Apples
Bananas
Milk
Bread
Popcorn
I could link these words together through a story: Apples —> Bananas —> Milk —> Bread —> Popcorn. A man eats a magical apple that causes him to grow a long banana nose. Milk shoots out of his nose like a water gun and hits a dartboard made of bread. The bread becomes soggy and starts falling apart. The bread pieces turn into popcorn that pops incessantly from the ground. He is now covered in a mountain of popcorn. So, in order to recall the grocery list, I would simply recall the narrative. Notice how I have linked one word to the next: If I think of apple, I think of bananas, when I think of bananas, I think of milk, and so on.
Limitations of the Link Method
But, what are some potential problems with this method? What if I wanted to memorize a list of 100 items? Or what about 1,000, 10,000 or even 100,000 items? Or what if I wanted to recall the 156th item out of 1,000? Would I be able to do so quickly or I would I have to start recalling the story from the beginning? Or what if I wanted to recite it backwards, or by odd or even numbers? Would there be any difficulty?
This is where the memory palace technique comes into play. The Link Method is great for small lists like grocery items. But if you want to memorize longer lists such as all the Oscar winners and U.S Presidents, or to be able to recite information in various modes, then the memory palace can be more fitting. Can you imagine using the Link Method and trying to tell a 100 line story backwards or starting from random points? If you have long lists, it is much easier to store items in distributed locations and to retrieve them from a series of memory palaces.
The Heart of Mnemonics
But, if we have all these problems, why do I say that the Link Method is the heart of mnemonics and why does Tschirhart place a strong emphasis upon it? If you think about the memory palace — it is just a series of links within locations. You are linking a piece of information to a locus through encoding. Even if you choose to not use imagery, you are still linking, namely, new information with existing knowledge in order to form associations and logical relationships.
Imagine that you memorized the top 10 largest countries by surface area with the memory palace. When you try to recall them, you can remember items 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, and 10; but when you get to the 8th locus, you draw a blank. There is a gap in your recall. You think and think, but you just can’t remember. You say to yourself, “What was there! What was in the 8th location? All I see is a couch, but what is the country?”
But why did we forget the 8th item? Tschirhart and other memory experts would argue that one of the major contributing factors is poor linking. Whenever I go to schools to teach the art of memory I often give this example. I stand before the class, and hold up a brand new marker. I take it out of an unopened package and I write on the whiteboard. I ask the students, “Can you see what I wrote?” I hear a resounding, “No!” Then I ask, “Why?” One raises their hand, “Because it’s too light, you need to press it harder on the board!” Another shouts out, “It’s too small, Mr. Johnson!”
Then I hold up the marker one more time, and I look the students in their eyes and ask, “Is there anything wrong with the marker?” They start to laugh and shout, “No!” Then I ask, “Well, then what’s wrong?!” One responds, “It’s the way you wrote it!” Then with all enthusiasm my voice can muster I say, “Ah yes, that’s right, Marcus!” You see, there is nothing wrong with the marker, only in the manner in which I wrote.
In same manner, there is nothing wrong with our memory. If we consider the beauty of human memory, it is utterly breathtaking, and should cause us to marvel in silence. You see, the problem lies not in our memory but often in the manner in which we write or rather encode on memoryspace.
The Tschirhartian Approach to Linking
Understanding how to properly link is like understanding how to properly press a marker against a whiteboard. Tschirhart argues that when we link one item to another, we should be able to infer the previous item based solely on the last image and/or locus. Let me make this more clear by giving an example. Imagine that I want to memorize the following words:
Fork —> Tire —> Trash Can
One way of linking is by having a fork pierce into a tire and the tire to be thrown into a trash can. There is nothing inherently wrong with this type of linking, it can be memorable and useful in certain cases. However, potential problems may occur in recall if this pattern were to be followed for much longer lists. Sometimes we can forget a part of a story or an item from the link if contextual clues are not provided.
The Tschirhartian approach to linking would be to attribute a unique characteristic to each image or a reasoning by which one may infer the previous image. So, in addition to the fork piercing into the tire which is then thrown into a trash can, you can include a unique impression. The fork can leave four holes in the tire, and the tire can leave black skid marks on the trash can. These small details can make a significant difference in recall by allowing you to more easily recollect images through context clues.
Four holes —> Fork
Black skid marks —> Tire
When recalling imagery sometimes it may occur that you only recall a blurry metal object moving and piercing through a tire, but you are not exactly sure of its type. You may ask yourself, “Was it a sword that pierced the tire?” or “No, maybe it was a nail or a pocket knife that pierced the tire?” But, let’s imagine you forgot the exact type of metal object, but you saw four holes in a tire; you can immediately infer the previous image, a fork. A sword, nail, and pocket knife do not create four holes, only a fork can leave this particular impression upon the image.
It may also occur that you only recall something heavy hitting a trash can. Perhaps you are unable to identify a specific color or type of material, you just sense that there was something heavy. Was it an ironing board that hit a trash can? Was it a small couch or a suitcase that hit a trash can? But, if you saw black skid marks on the side of the trash can, you can immediately infer the previous image. An ironing board, couch, and a suitcase do not produce such an impression, only a tire could do so.
Why Master the Link Method?
You may be asking, “What does this have to do with memorizing poetry, texts verbatim, and speeches?” I’d respond, “Everything.” Or perhaps you’re thinking, “Why are we going into the details of imagery, linking, and lists?” All I can say is that if you master the Link Method, you can memorize anything. As a writer, I am committed to teaching what I believe to be the most helpful for those interested in mastering the art of memory, even if it means publishing posts on niche subject matters that may not receive many views. We have only scratched the surface on linking. In this series on the memory palace technique, I plan to expound further on the link method and how it relates to the method of loci.
Conclusion
In conclusion, linking is a fundamental skill in the art of memory, and if you master the Link Method, you will be more prepared to use more advanced mnemonic techniques such as the memory palace. Strong linking consists in encoding information in such a way that you are able to infer the previous image based solely on the last image and/or locus. Leaving a unique impression upon an image is not the only way to accomplish this, but one may use sound, emotions, logical relationships, and more. We will explore these alternative approaches more deeply in the future.
Homework:
Write a unique characteristic that an image can leave upon another image for each of the following words: keyboard, apple, chewing gum, baseball bat, Spiderman, coffee cup, milk, shopping cart, and zebra. For example,
Keyboard —> small square outlines
Apple —> red mark
Memorize the following list of words using the Link Method. Remember to link one image to the next image through a story and try to leave a unique impression upon each image so you are able to infer the previous image through contextual clues.
chair —> Batman —> basketball —> smoke —> cactus —> envelope —> bookshelf —> laundry baskets —> pickle —> water fountain.
In a previous homework assignment you were to memorize the top 10 largest countries by surface area with a memory palace. I want you now practice reciting the countries backwards, forwards, and at random. One important skill to develop in mnemonics is mentally navigating memory palaces in multiple directions.
Note: if you need any help with homework or have any questions, please let me know in the comments or you can send me an email at RonaldMJohnsonJr@gmail.com, and I will be more than willing to help. I read all comments.
Celebrating a Milestone: 500 Subscribers!
I just wanted to let everyone know that I recently reached a milestone: 500 subscribers! Thanks everyone for the support and for reading the Craft of Memory. I hope you all have been enjoying it so far.
Book Giveaway
As a way to celebrate this milestone, I would like to have a book giveaway. I will place the names of those who have liked this post in a random online generator on Saturday, September 2nd. A winner will be selected to receive a copy of “Remember It” by Nelson Dellis and a handwritten note of appreciation. In my opinion, this is one of the best practical books on the art of memory.
Support the Craft of Memory
Like and/or comment
Restack this post with or without a note
Share this post with someone you think may be interested in mnemonics
Recommend the Craft of Memory
Personal Updates
I am in the process of writing a book on the art of memory, and in particular how to memorize texts verbatim. It may take many years to complete, but I feel the need to do so because I haven’t found many contemporary books on mnemonics with detailed explanations. This newsletter has been a way for me to organize my thoughts and to think out loud.
After reading about the memory palace technique on your substack, I used it to memorize one of the Psalms that I recite daily. I had been trying to memorize it for months! With the memory palace I was able to do it at about 20 minutes.
This just opened an entirely new world for me! I recall a passing interest in memory palaces spurred by a Sherlock Holmes story, but it never went further. Thanks for this! ❤️