What a total load of waffle.Wakannai wrote:No it's a fact. Like 2+2=4. Closed minded is making ad-hominem and other examples of logical fallacies instead of arguing your point.But I certainly don't think you can say something like "inefficient by nature". That's such a close minded POV.
For example. This does not count as a counter argument.First, you would need to show Mnemonics increase the efficiency of memorizing certian things. While you can show tha Mnenonics increase the ease of memorizing certain things, you will find it extremely difficult to show how it increases the efficiency.Huh? I think you've got this backwards. Mnemonics can increase the efficiency of memorising certian things... its the whole reason for their existence.
Now, because mnemonics are by nature "illogical, arbitrary, and artistically flawed". I really shouldn't have to make this argument. But let me make it simple. 1 for 1 = 100% efficiency Thus if I use one unit of my brain to memorize one thing that is 100% efficient. If however I also have to memorize additional information, it is automatically less efficient. It's basic math. If I memorize that word + mnemonics = less efficient. The larger the mnemonic the less efficient it is. password = wdStcl2wbfctr. Mnemonic = Why did Sam the chicken look two ways before crossing the road. Pasword = 13 characters. Mnenonic = 62 efficiency 20%
cracking my passwords is an exercise in frustration. That of course isn't one of my passwords, but it is an example of how I come up with them.
Your choice to argue memorizing efficiency just in *brain units*, and ignore areas like study time is highly dubious.
You can argue that it may take more *brain units* (I'll come back to this later) but I don't really give a peep about how many *brain units* are working for me and how many are on sabbatical. My most precious commodity is time, therefore I am most interested in time efficiency (which you ignored). That can certainly be measured as amount of memorization versus time expended. Time can be timed, and memory can be tested.
Unless you can argue against time efficiency then I guess you don't have a complete argument.
Now back to this *brain unit* nonsense.
"It's basic math. If I memorize that word + mnemonics = less efficient. The larger the mnemonic the less efficient it is. password = wdStcl2wbfctr. Mnemonic = Why did Sam the chicken look two ways before crossing the road. Pasword = 13 characters. Mnenonic = 62 efficiency 20%"
You're assigning brain-cost to the two facts in a way that ignores how memory works, which I think is by building and strengthening connections.
Memorising "wdStcl2wbfctr" means memorising 13 random facts with no real connections between them, something our brain sucks at. Our brain has to work overtime to make connections out of a jumble with little correlation to anything that's in our prior knowledge, and its also very unreceptive at commiting seemingly useless random information to long term memory without extra repeated effort.
Memorising "Why did Sam the chicken look two ways before crossing the road." does not mean memorising 62 letters at all, not unless you don't speak a word of English. Since you do, then it is just 12 facts to memorize. But they aren't 12 random facts; they also relate to a lot of prior knowledge that you have, for example you know that "Sam" is a proper name so that word should be capitalized. You know the semantics of "Why did the chicken cross the road" jokes. You already have lots of connections between these 12 facts. Most of the connections are already in place, and you just have to memorize a small variation on patterns you already know.
Now, my interpretation of brain-cost is not comprehensive, but I think it should at least help to highlight that the cost of memory is not as simple as you used.