4 ms·

>I think that's just laziness. If you need to memorize a number it just takes a few minutes of work, and then some reinforcement later. Actually it's been well

by clubm8 8y ago

>I think that's just laziness. If you need to memorize a number it just takes a few minutes of work, and then some reinforcement later. Actually it's been well documented that human capacity in working memory is 7±2[1]. This is why phone numbers were initially 7 digits. It certainly is possible to memorize long strings with sustained repitition, but this is usually meaured in weeks or months even if practiced every day. It's not "lazy" to be unable to perform at the far right of the bell curve in terms of recall. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus_or_Minus_Two https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magical_Number_Seven,_Plus...

msbarnett 8y ago
You're confusing working memory with memorization capacity in general. Memorizing a ten digit number is not significantly challenging and certainly doesn't take "weeks or months even if practiced every day".
- clubm8 8y ago
  >You're confusing working memory with memorization capacity in general. Memorizing a ten digit number is not significantly challenging and certainly doesn't take "weeks or months even if practiced every day". It's certainly to memorize something short term (eg repeat your QQ number over and over for a period of time) but there needs to be spaced repetition over longer periods to make that memorization permanent. Feel free to provide specific citations, as I did in my parent comment, if you would like to disagree further.
  - BookmarkSaver 8y ago
    He doesn't need citations. Your citation is completely irrelevant, it has nothing to do with memorization at all. Memorizing 10 digits is extremely easy barring individual memory issues, there's no argument to be had.
    - clubm8 8y ago
      >He doesn't need citations. Your citation is completely irrelevant Interesting tactic, feel free to provide something other than your own opinion that it is "irrelevant"
  - msbarnett 8y ago
    >Feel free to provide specific citations, as I did in my parent comment, if you would like to disagree further. I'd encourage you to actually read the study you're attempting to "cite" by linking to a poorly written Wikipedia summary. Here's the actual link: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/ http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/ If you read it, you'll find that it makes absolutely no claim about the long-term memorization of numbers outside of the range "7 plus or minus 2" -- instead, it's discussing what it terms "immediate memory", your ability to perform tasks such as mapping specific tones to numbers on the fly, or repeat a series of number you've just been told for the first time, and how your conscious working "scratchpad memory" quickly becomes overwhelmed. Indeed, the very paper you're "citing" disagrees with you entirely. He notes that subjects can very quickly memorize much larger numbers, but that this does not invalidate his claim re: working memory because this is simply accomplished by chunking the number to be memorized into segments compatible with the conscious mind's small working set. Again: you have completely misunderstood the paper in question, and are incorrectly conflating "working memory" and "memorization capacity", which are very very different things.
    - tsumnia 8y ago
      While you more than enough defend working memory and memorization capacity, I figured I'd chime in with additional supporting documentation. Cognitive load theory models short time memory as scarce and finite in nature. With each "number", you have less freely available working memory to use AND maintaining those values places their own stress. Current theories about long term memory (or "memorization capacity") consider it infinite in capacity.
GuiA 8y ago
> This is why phone numbers were initially 7 digits. I cannot find anything to substantiate this claim. Is your statement applicable only to a single country? In the US, it seems like phone numbers started with a few digits only and progressively got longer over time; I can’t find any reference to starting purposefully with 7 digits for memorizability reasons.
- clubm8 8y ago
  >I cannot find anything to substantiate this claim. Is your statement applicable only to a single country? This quora post summarizes nicely - Bell standardized on 7 for local (10 counting area code) based on the research I cited earlier: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Bell-Labs-create-phone-numbers-of-7-digits-10-digits-Is-there-a-reason-that-dashes-and-brackets-are-used https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Bell-Labs-create-phone-numbers... By "initially" I meant "when telephones began to become mainstream and part of everyday life" - sorry for the confusion.
nabla9 8y ago
I think the modern understanding is that the number is actually 4 for the working memory. The 7±2 already includes recoding of stimulus items into larger chunks. When you look at number 6745123 you group it into 2 to 4 parts and then remember them.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
itissid 8y ago
Can't you memorize any amount of numbers with mnemonics? I remember multiple 16 digit CC numbers using it.
- clubm8 8y ago
  > Can't you memorize any amount of numbers with mnemonics? I remember multiple 16 digit CC numbers using it. It gets progressively harder with length, and takes time. (As I mentioned, spaced over days and weeks). If you want to memorize something in the short term, 7±2 chunks is often the limit. This is why passphrases are pushed - you can easily recall 7 easily memorable "chunks" that when translated into bits contain much more than seven bits of information.
syrrim 8y ago
Although this may be a myth, I've heard tell of someone who once managed to memorize... two phone numbers. e: no seriously though. With area code, phone numbers already are 10 digits. Are you baiting?
__s 8y ago
My great grandfather's phone number was only 3 digits, "123", guess they had less working memory back then
mc32 8y ago
I’m sure you mean modern ANC phone numbers in the US. Initially numbers were shorter, as short as three numbers, then four or five, six and after that seven as the service expanded. By the late 1950s you had the first ANC with 10 digits. Though I think your implication is right that bell studies showed the average limit was 7 numbers for many people.
lostlogin 8y ago
> It certainly is possible to memorize long strings with sustained repitition, but this is usually meaured in weeks or months even if practiced every day. Credit card numbers are a good example of this.

by clubm8 8y ago

msbarnett 8y ago

You're confusing working memory with memorization capacity in general. Memorizing a ten digit number is not significantly challenging and certainly doesn't take "weeks or months even if practiced every day".

clubm8 8y ago
>You're confusing working memory with memorization capacity in general. Memorizing a ten digit number is not significantly challenging and certainly doesn't take "weeks or months even if practiced every day". It's certainly to memorize something short term (eg repeat your QQ number over and over for a period of time) but there needs to be spaced repetition over longer periods to make that memorization permanent. Feel free to provide specific citations, as I did in my parent comment, if you would like to disagree further.
- BookmarkSaver 8y ago
  He doesn't need citations. Your citation is completely irrelevant, it has nothing to do with memorization at all. Memorizing 10 digits is extremely easy barring individual memory issues, there's no argument to be had.
  - clubm8 8y ago
    >He doesn't need citations. Your citation is completely irrelevant Interesting tactic, feel free to provide something other than your own opinion that it is "irrelevant"
- msbarnett 8y ago
  >Feel free to provide specific citations, as I did in my parent comment, if you would like to disagree further. I'd encourage you to actually read the study you're attempting to "cite" by linking to a poorly written Wikipedia summary. Here's the actual link: http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/ http://psychclassics.yorku.ca/Miller/ If you read it, you'll find that it makes absolutely no claim about the long-term memorization of numbers outside of the range "7 plus or minus 2" -- instead, it's discussing what it terms "immediate memory", your ability to perform tasks such as mapping specific tones to numbers on the fly, or repeat a series of number you've just been told for the first time, and how your conscious working "scratchpad memory" quickly becomes overwhelmed. Indeed, the very paper you're "citing" disagrees with you entirely. He notes that subjects can very quickly memorize much larger numbers, but that this does not invalidate his claim re: working memory because this is simply accomplished by chunking the number to be memorized into segments compatible with the conscious mind's small working set. Again: you have completely misunderstood the paper in question, and are incorrectly conflating "working memory" and "memorization capacity", which are very very different things.
  - tsumnia 8y ago
    While you more than enough defend working memory and memorization capacity, I figured I'd chime in with additional supporting documentation. Cognitive load theory models short time memory as scarce and finite in nature. With each "number", you have less freely available working memory to use AND maintaining those values places their own stress. Current theories about long term memory (or "memorization capacity") consider it infinite in capacity.

GuiA 8y ago

> This is why phone numbers were initially 7 digits. I cannot find anything to substantiate this claim. Is your statement applicable only to a single country? In the US, it seems like phone numbers started with a few digits only and progressively got longer over time; I can’t find any reference to starting purposefully with 7 digits for memorizability reasons.

clubm8 8y ago
>I cannot find anything to substantiate this claim. Is your statement applicable only to a single country? This quora post summarizes nicely - Bell standardized on 7 for local (10 counting area code) based on the research I cited earlier: https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Bell-Labs-create-phone-numbers-of-7-digits-10-digits-Is-there-a-reason-that-dashes-and-brackets-are-used https://www.quora.com/Why-did-Bell-Labs-create-phone-numbers... By "initially" I meant "when telephones began to become mainstream and part of everyday life" - sorry for the confusion.

nabla9 8y ago

I think the modern understanding is that the number is actually 4 for the working memory. The 7±2 already includes recoding of stimulus items into larger chunks. When you look at number 6745123 you group it into 2 to 4 parts and then remember them.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

itissid 8y ago

Can't you memorize any amount of numbers with mnemonics? I remember multiple 16 digit CC numbers using it.

clubm8 8y ago
> Can't you memorize any amount of numbers with mnemonics? I remember multiple 16 digit CC numbers using it. It gets progressively harder with length, and takes time. (As I mentioned, spaced over days and weeks). If you want to memorize something in the short term, 7±2 chunks is often the limit. This is why passphrases are pushed - you can easily recall 7 easily memorable "chunks" that when translated into bits contain much more than seven bits of information.

syrrim 8y ago

Although this may be a myth, I've heard tell of someone who once managed to memorize... two phone numbers. e: no seriously though. With area code, phone numbers already are 10 digits. Are you baiting?

__s 8y ago

My great grandfather's phone number was only 3 digits, "123", guess they had less working memory back then

mc32 8y ago

I’m sure you mean modern ANC phone numbers in the US. Initially numbers were shorter, as short as three numbers, then four or five, six and after that seven as the service expanded. By the late 1950s you had the first ANC with 10 digits. Though I think your implication is right that bell studies showed the average limit was 7 numbers for many people.

lostlogin 8y ago

> It certainly is possible to memorize long strings with sustained repitition, but this is usually meaured in weeks or months even if practiced every day. Credit card numbers are a good example of this.