A short time ago I read that almost 48 million people had visited the New York World's Fair in 1939 and 1940. As I was reading, someone telephoned and asked me to send him some literature about my memory classes. He gave his address as 365 West 52nd Street.

Let us consider these two items from the viewpoint of memory. How can I remember them? I am quite sure that I shall not remember them without some form of association. The number of World's Fair visitors, an astronomical number, seems difficult to keep in mind. But if I ponder the number for a little while, I realize that we have 48 states in the Union; and then it is easy for me to remember that each state, on the average, sent one million visitors to the Fair. The fact that there were probably many persons from other countries among the visitors and that some states were represented by millions and others by none is unimportant, since memorizing only the total number is the important matter.

When I think about my phone caller's address, I notice that the house number corresponds to the days and the street number to the weeks in a year. Having noticed this coincidence, I am very sure I shall never forget the address, even though the person's name is not Dayton or Weeks or Yearlie.

Of course, associations are not always so easy or so obvious as in these two selected cases. Let us examine our facts:

In the case of the visitors, the number 48 million was new and had to be remembered. The number 48 was well known as the number of states in the Union and therefore convenient to serve as a hook for the number which was to be kept in mind.

In the case of the phone caller, the numbers 365 and 52 were new and had to be remembered. However, both figures were familiar in another connection and therefore suitable for serving as a hook for the address which I intended to keep in mind. So we may draw this conclusion: Whether a connection is obvious or not, the fact remains that the new always imposes itself on our minds through association with something already known.

This statement applies to the entire work of memory. For example, consider just how you learn a foreign language. If you wish to learn that horse is equus in Latin, you have no recourse but to associate this hitherto unfamiliar word equus with the familiar concept horse. And it makes no difference whether you learn the word from a book or hear it spoken in conversation (in the latter case, with a Latin word, this is not apt to happen). The necessity for associating the word with the familiar concept horse remains the same.

You can observe this principle at work in every child who is learning to talk. The child is acquainted with the idea of doll long before he knows the name of it. Then when he hears the name doll he associates it with the familiar concept of his toy. It is for this reason that one must be so careful before children in the use of words.

Suppose you have a fox terrier. If you refer, before the child, to this pet as "fox terrier" instead of "dog" the child will form the wrong concept. That is, he will apply the words fox terrier to all dogs that he sees, no matter what breed they are. Lack of attention to this matter will account for the fact that children so often have to unlearn what they have learned. That is, the child must form a generic notion of dog and then learn that fox terriers are only a certain breed of dog.

The work of memory in the child is in this respect similar to the work of memory in the adult, and we always find this rule holding true: When a man learns anything new, no matter what the subject matter, it is always learned and remembered through association with familiar knowledge.

But this confirmation of fact does not help us much. We must look further and try to classify our thoughts about the ways in which this association and relationship function. We cannot avoid this difficult task if we are to learn not merely how the memory works but how we can improve the functioning of our memories.

Returning to the items given above, I can obviously proceed in two different ways: I can visualize the map of the United States, picturing each state filled with one million persons; and I can visualize Mr. Dayton with a calendar under his arm, reminding me of the connection with his person and the division of the year.

On the other hand, I can reason, without forming a mental picture, that the United States consists of forty-eight states and I must multiply this number by one million. I can also reason, without the mental image of a calendar, that the year is divided into fifty-two weeks, or 365 days, and I can form a logical connection between this fact and Mr. Dayton.
From these associational possibilities we establish this statement: Whenever we undertake to learn something new, we can either associate it visually with familiar facts or relate it logically through pure reason.

Of these two possibilities in association of ideas, the visual is by far the stronger, for most human beings remember events and other matters better when they have seen them happen before their very eyes than when they merely hear or read about them. That is why, in the study of physics, the pupils are called upon to make experiments themselves, because the teacher knows that experiments seen make a deeper impression than experiments read.

If you have taken pictures while making a trip, the entire excursion comes to life again through a perusal of your pictures. It makes no difference whether you have taken snapshots of the countryside or of persons. In either case the pictures themselves quickly and clearly call to mind the impressions of your journey. Every advertiser knows that a good ad calls for a picture. The psychological reason is always the same:

The pictorial always makes the best impression and a deep impression is always the aim and purpose of the advertiser.

If you want to bring home to your mind the boundary line between the United States and Mexico, a mental picture of the map is of far greater aid to the memory than an oral description which says that the boundary begins a little south of San Diego on the Pacific Ocean, runs eastward to the Rio Grande, and follows the course of this river to the Gulf of Mexico.

And finally, the simplest of examples: If you have ever seen the Empire State Building or the George Washington Bridge, your memory will retain a clearer and surer picture of it than if you had read a whole array of descriptions of these two monumental structures.

Because pictorial impressions are the strongest, it is apparent that in memorizing and in remembering, in all that the memory retains, it is essential to make visual associations.

I should like to give you some examples of what I call visual associations:

Suppose we take the words "cat" and "fence." Since we are accustomed to seeing cats on a back fence, it is easy to imagine a cat running along a fence. If you take the words "flowers" and "lamp," there is no natural connection between the two, but it is not too difficult to imagine a lamp decorated with a flower design or that flowers are standing on a table lighted by a lamp. But if we take the words "checkerboard" and "thrush," we must have a lively imagination to form a suitable mental image of them. Perhaps the checkerboard is laid out in a garden over which a thrush is flying. Such mental images may often seem far-fetched. But a few such exercises convince one that it is precisely such unreal images that make deep impressions and are easily remembered because of their absurdity or oddity.

Notice that all these illustrations deal with the association of concrete objects. In other words, we have heretofore restricted ourselves to things we can see with our own eyes. This task becomes considerably more difficult when we undertake abstract ideas, that is, those that cannot be apprehended visually. No matter how good your imagination, you cannot form a mental picture of the words "virtue" and "pride." If you attempt a mental picture of the two, you are restricted to substituting concrete images for the abstract. For instance, you may think of an angel instead of virtue, and teacher's pet instead of pride. But for your peace of mind, let me assure you that the necessity for forming abstract concepts rarely occurs in everyday life, except in listening to lectures or speeches. So we need not pay much attention or give much time to these exceptions.

Let us rather return to our investigation of concrete visual ideas. From the examples just quoted you can easily see that visual association implies imagination.

And here is something to think about.

As much as I have lectured on this subject and as many classes as I have taught in it, I have seldom met anyone who does not insist that he has an excellent imagination. In answer to the question: "Do you have a good imagination? Can you visualize things that really do not exist?" almost everyone says "Yes." As the imaginative powers of individuals vary greatly, such unanimity of opinion is rather startling. I think the reason for it is that there is scarcely a human characteristic so difficult of comparison as imagination.

Whether you are quicker at figures than your friend X is easy to determine, if you both add identical columns of figures. Whether you or your friend Y can speak French better is readily determined by a joint reading of a French newspaper or a conversation with a Frenchman.

In short, almost all of a man's characteristics and abilities can be compared with those of another man. One could always run a contest in them to determine them, as has been done in the case of stenography and typewriting.

But just try the same thing with the imagination! You will soon see that comparisons cannot be made, for no one can determine whether his own imagery is better, more artistic, and above all more plastic than that of another.

Of course, there are exceptions. No one will deny that Jules Verne was one of the most imaginatively gifted men who ever lived. He described not only airplanes but even submarines in definite terms at a time when the human mind was far from making any of the "dreams of the future" workable.

There is no doubt that authors who write utopian romances have rich imaginations. On the other hand, it does not follow that people who do not or cannot write such romances have poor imaginations. We can only estimate the quality of a person's imagination, however, if he has given us concrete evidence of it. And as this is not often possible, it is safe to say that: It is impossible to make comparisons in the faculty of imagination—barring a very few exceptions—and it is not a simple matter to determine whether a person has a good imagination or not. Mnemonics alone can decide it, and we will take up that subject later.

In developing the memory, a "vivid imagination" is a very desirable acquisition. I consider it necessary to state this axiom emphatically because we generally ascribe an "imaginative nature" to the person who is completely wrapped up in day dreams and accomplishes nothing in life. Now, while a man who lives only in his dream world cannot measure up to the realities and exigencies of life. on the other hand it is good for a person occasionally, but not for too long a time, to surrender himself to day dreams. It is a psychological truism, generally acknowledged since the days of Coué and Baudouin, that every concept in the human brain works toward its own fruition.

For instance, an employee in a company imagines that the business belongs to him and that he is the head of the firm. This goal seems worth working for, else it would not figure in his imagination. But when he comes to think of minor details connected with this "castle in the air," he begins to consider how he would run the business, what changes he would make, what he would expect of his employees and the like. This last thought strikes rather close to home. Is he, as an employee, fulfilling the duties he would as head of the house demand of his employees? Meditation of this sort can yield very practical results, for he may make important changes in his routine.

Thinking about how he would conduct the business may lead him to discover improvements which need not remain imaginary but may be put into practice and made to pay. He can pass along these discoveries, which are largely the product of his imagination, to his superior, and there is always the possibility that he will be promoted more rapidly.

We can assert quite generally that people lacking in imagination fail to get ahead in the world because they do not have the ability to picture themselves climbing the ladder of success. But imagination is equally necessary for the proper functioning of our memories. And this is the reason why I have been so explicit in discussing it.

To the question I am frequently called on to answer— whether it is possible to improve and cultivate the imagination—I should answer Yes. The exercises which I suggested for sharpening the powers of observation are suitable for stimulating the imagination when the matter under consideration is one of recalling observed happenings. The reproduction of pictures seen, architectural details, etc., also sharpens the imagination since it is always necessary to visualize what one has seen before one can reproduce it.

Here is an even better exercise: Imagine that certain historical events or personal experiences for some important reason or other had been altered in their course.

That sounds rather theoretical, but in reality it is quite simple. For instance, think of the assassination of President Lincoln and ask yourself what would have happened if John Wilkes Booth's bullet had missed its target. You call to mind the personality of Lincoln and of his successor, Andrew Johnson. You think of the distinctive characteristics of the two men, of the difficulties which Johnson encountered and how Lincoln would have met them. You remember that Johnson was not very successful in performing his Presidential duties and that impeachment proceedings were even brought against him. What would Lincoln have done in his place? Of course, an experiment of this kind calls for a rather wide knowledge of history and personalities. Naturally it is always simpler to choose your own personal experiences and make yourself the center of your conjectures.

Say you recently had a business conference which did not turn out to your liking. Now imagine that the result was as you wished it and picture to yourself, as graphically as you can, what you would have gained personally or professionally. Such an exercise will not only develop your imagination but also help you to think of arguments that you can put up successfully at a similar conference in the future.

In the final analysis, however, the cultivation of the imagination should serve to make visual association of ideas easier. We know, naturally, that our memory, even without special aid, retains visual associations best and longest. Later we shall see what valuable services mnemotechny renders to such associations of ideas.

Are You Ready To Move Onto The Next Lesson? Click Here...