Are you stronger at Sight Reading or Memorisation?

[ajspiano]

Seriously?!

I didnt say it was a good idea to operate that way. Doesnt stop some people from doing it..

Remember the dark ages, well you know, obviously you don't "remember" them. No ones memory is that good....

Townfolk : Your a witch.

Lady : no I'm not

Townfolk : You better prove that you're not or we will burn you. Actually, we'll burn you anyway because we're really freaking scared you're going to cast spells on us.

[j_menz]

Oh so you're a lawyer huh?

That will be $250, please.

Well one could make the argument that everything deteriorates with age and/or lack of use.  Which would make that what you said invalid.  

To the contrary, it rather proves my point.

Don't argue burden of proofs with someone who's half brother twice removed in law cousins friends friends acquaintance half brothers cousin is a lawyer as well!

LOL. Sabres at dawn? 

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I didnt say it was a good idea to operate that way. Doesnt stop some people from doing it..

Remember the dark ages, well you know, obviously you don't "remember" them. No ones memory is that good....

Townfolk : Your a witch.

Lady : no I'm not

Townfolk : You better prove that you're not or we will burn you. Actually, we'll burn you anyway because we're really freaking scared you're going to cast spells on us.

I remember we were reading the Scarlet letter for English class   and we watched a movie called the Crucible; it was based on the Salem witch trials.

So ANYWAYS, for a homework assignment we had to think of stupid logical fallacies.  And this was the best one lol:

Lady:  I'm not a witch!

Judge:  how do we know that it's you saying that you're not a witch and not the witches spirit inside you making you say that you're not a witch!

Lady:  are you freaking kidding me...?  

Judge:  hang her!!!  Let this be an example to those who do witchcraft!


What the freaking heck?!?!?!?!!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?

[j_menz]

Townfolk : You better prove that you're not or we will burn you. Actually, we'll burn you anyway because we're really freaking scared you're going to cast spells on us.

Actually, one of the reputed trials for witches was to tie them up (sometimes with a rock) and throw them in a pond or river. If they drowned, they were innocent. If they survived, they were adjudged a witch and burnt.

They saved a lot of time and money on appeals.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

To the contrary, it rather proves my point.

How would that prove your point?  You said that because memory can get worse due to old age then  it's a skill.

But since everything deteriorates, then according to your logic, wouldn't everything be considered a skill?

And I'm pretty sure that you're pretty sure that not everything is a skill.

[ajspiano]

Actually, one of the reputed trials for witches was to tie them up (sometimes with a rock) and throw them in a pond or river. If they drowned, they were innocent. If they survived, they were adjudged a witch and burnt.

Yes, I was about to mention this..

[j_menz]

I and we watched a movie called the Crucible; it was based on the Salem witch trials.

Actually, it was based on a play by Arthur Miller, who had some experience of such injustices and twisted logic before the House Unamerican Activities Commission (The McCarthy trials).

He spent some time married to Marylin Monroe, so his life wasn't entirely miserable.

[ajspiano]

The claim that - (b) memory does not deteriorate runs counter to the accepted wisdom. Indeed,  the evidence that it deteriorates with age and/or lack of use would appear to be overwhelming.

...

What does it have to do with the "memory is a skill" issue..  j_menz's point serves to debunk the validity of the original comments as a whole.. because the second point is wrong.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Actually, it was based on a play by Arthur Miller, who had some experience of such injustices and twisted logic before the House Unamerican Activities Commission (The McCarthy trials).

He spent some time married to Marylin Monroe, so his life wasn't entirely miserable.

But the play was supposed t be a dramatization of the Salem trials.

[j_menz]

How would that prove your point?  You said that because memory can get worse due to old age then  it's a skill.

Actually, the post I was commenting on made the explicit claim that memory did not deteriorate.  I merely state that conventional understanding is that it does. That says nothing as to whether or not it is a skill. An apple deteriorates with age, but I would not say an apple is a skill.

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Actually, the post I was commenting on made the explicit claim that memory did not deteriorate.  I merely state that conventional understanding is that it does. That says nothing as to whether or not it is a skill. An apple deteriorates with age, but I would not say an apple is a skill.

What?!?!!?!!!  We were on the same side the whole time?!

[j_menz]

But the play was supposed t be a dramatization of the Salem trials.

Indeed, but its purpose was to demonstrate the injustices of the present (the McCarthy thing) by associating them with the clear injustices of the past (the Salem witch trials).

[j_menz]

What?!?!!?!!!  We were on the same side the whole time?!

I don't know. I haven't said that memory is not a skill.

For the record, I believe that memory improves with use, and the brain learns to remember classes of things better the more things of that class it has experience remembering. I think that is true of both short and long term memory, though perhaps for different reasons. If you would call such a thing a skill, then I say it is a skill. If you would prefer to call it something else, then I say it is that something else.

[faulty_damper]

I'm not sure I completely understand what you're saying . . . I think it has a lot to do with semantics (i.e. ability vs. skill).

The "hundred times" thing I don't buy at all, because I've always been a good memorizer and have never had to repeat things a bunch of times to remember it.

Ability is something that you are capable of doing.  Skill is the control of those abilities.
All skills are abilities but not all abilities are skills.


You actually did repeat hundreds of times.  (Tens of thousands, actually.) You've repeated reading notes and executing movements when you first started learning the piano.  All of the pieces and techniques you learned were memorized a long time ago and when you learn/memorize a new piece, you are using most of the memorized skills for the new piece.  As a result, you don't need to repeat hundreds of times to memorize the new piece because you've already memorized most, if not all, of the skills.  The major difference is the order in which you recall them.  Think of it like reading: you already know all of the letters and many of the words in the English language and now you are using your memory to understand this response.  If you didn't practice reading when you were younger, learning individual letters and words and specific combination of words and expressions, you wouldn't be able to read or comprehend what I'm writing.

[faulty_damper]

The claims (a) that memory cannot be improved by practice and (b) that memory does not deteriorate run counter to the accepted wisdom.

I note that the authority provided against me was a self help book.

There is a distinction that you're confusing: that memory and your memory system is the same thing.  It's not.  Your memory of something is one thing.  How you created that memory is entirely different.

Indeed, in the latter case the evidence that it deteriorates with age and/or lack of use would appear to be overwhelming.

If you are referring to the memory system, then this is wrong.  The memory system does not deteriorate with age.  If you are referring to specific memories, memories fade due to lack of use.

It's like a refrigerator.  It can store food and the food can deteriorate but this has nothing to do with your fridge.  The food and the fridge are two different things.

Neurologically, the reason why memories deteriorate is because neurons lose those connections.  They either connect to different neurons or are removed due to lack of use, aka: the use-it-or-lose-it principle.

[fleetfingers]

Ability is something that you are capable of doing.  Skill is the control of those abilities.
All skills are abilities but not all abilities are skills.

OK. So, with that definition, what do you call the skill that controls the ability to memorize? And can that skill be improved upon?

Thanks for clarifying the hundred times idea. The way you describe it, I would agree. In your previous post, you said something about needing to play Brahms Lullaby itself 100 times to memorize, but maybe I misunderstood. Whether we are talking about memorizing piano pieces or reading, once we have certan skills in our memory and can recall those, then we don't need to do so much repeating to memorize every piece.

I was talking to a friend the other day who has her child signed up with a new violin teacher. I guess this teacher believes that if you repeat something 10,000 times you will never forget it. The teacher actually hands out charts to the students for them to keep track of how many times they do a [beginner level] specific skill (ex. play an open A) - literally with 10,000 boxes to check off. The parent telling me about this thought it was fantastic. I thought it was a little silly. Not so much the idea of repeating because - like you said - your memory will store things for years to recall later, but to actually tally and tediously keep track of every skill needed for the violin?? Though I understand that the neurons connect with repetition and that it needs to happen many times, why isolate it like that? Why not play Twinkle, then Lightly Row, then several other pieces that require you to play an open A? Why make a child aware of all the repetition? When I teach, I am always coming up with creative ways to get repetition out of my students without them realizing that that's what I'm doing. Anyway, that's another topic, I guess. I believe that if you have good memorizing techniques, you don't need to repeat so much. For example, I help my son memorize poems that he has to recite at school. When left to himself, he will repeat lines over and over until it sticks. That could take weeks (which is the time they give him to learn it). I teach him how to look at it differently and creatively to make each word, line, and stanza more memorable. That way, he can learn it in 1-2 evenings.

But I also believe that people remember in different ways. For example, the son I mentioned thinks visually, like me. So my ideas help him. His younger brother remembers audially. So, for him, repeating lines over and over does not take very long at all before he remembers it. Another example is how my husband will say a phone number over and over until he starts dialling. I do much better by looking at it for a few seconds and then I can imagine it written on the paper to recall the numbers.

[faulty_damper]

OK. So, with that definition, what do you call the skill that controls the ability to memorize? And can that skill be improved upon?

The ability to create a memory functions on a physiological level which include hormones, neurotransmitters, and proteins, as well as nutrients for the support and growth of the cells in the brain.  Because it functions at this level there is very little that can be done to improve upon the brain's physiology.  Stress (sleep deprivation, environmental, and illness) reduces the normal functioning of the brain thereby limiting the ability to form new memories.  As a result, the best way to improve upon your memory is simply to limit stress.  You're not really improving it, you're simply reducing the factors that limit the ability to create memories.  Also, a healthy diet does wonders for both the body and brain.

The teacher actually hands out charts to the students for them to keep track of how many times they do a [beginner level] specific skill (ex. play an open A) - literally with 10,000 boxes to check off... I thought it was a little silly. Not so much the idea of repeating because - like you said - your memory will store things for years to recall later, but to actually tally and tediously keep track of every skill needed for the violin?? Though I understand that the neurons connect with repetition and that it needs to happen many times, why isolate it like that? Why not play Twinkle, then Lightly Row, then several other pieces that require you to play an open A? Why make a child aware of all the repetition? When I teach, I am always coming up with creative ways to get repetition out of my students without them realizing that that's what I'm doing.

There are psychological experiments that have tested exactly what you've described, isolated practice and liberal practice, to figure out which works best. The results:
Isolated practice improves individual skills quickly but combining skills takes much longer.
Liberal practice takes less time to combine skills, but individual skills do not improve as much.
In the long term, even though isolated practice takes much longer, the effects of learning last significantly longer while skills developed through liberal practice tend to fade quicker.

If you are limited in time, say a student who has only some interest but not a lot, then a liberal approach would work best because the student will learn a lot in a short amount of time, perhaps enough to increase his interest.  However, for a student who is already interested, then isolated practice is the more effective approach.

To answer your question about keeping track of each skill: it's actually quite important at the cognitive level to be aware of all the minute details.  Imagine asking a young child to draw a picture of a woman.  It will most likely be quite bad.  Now if you compare this drawing to the Mona Lisa, da Vinci's painting is quite beautiful.  It is full of details even down to the individual hairs of the brows.  (The painting appears to have no eyebrows because the paint has faded over the centuries.)  If you were a museum curator, which picture would you hang on the wall?  For this reason, the details matter incredibly.  It allows the student to focus on individual aspects which can latter be recalled for use with ease.

But I also believe that people remember in different ways. For example, the son I mentioned thinks visually, like me.  His younger brother remembers audially. So, for him, repeating lines over and over does not take very long at all before he remembers it. Another example is how my husband will say a phone number over and over until he starts dialling. I do much better by looking at it for a few seconds and then I can imagine it written on the paper to recall the numbers.

Unfortunately, the idea that we are visual, auditory, or kinesthetic learners (memorizers) is a myth.  This myth pervades current education practices and is very difficult to put out because it appears to make sense.  If the neurological physiology were understood, it becomes very obvious why this is the case.  Even in the psychological literature, there is very little evidence that supports multi-modality learning (memorizing.)  The majority of experiments indicate that it doesn't matter how information is presented, just as long as it is remembered.

This is absolutely critical in understanding anything about learning and memory: LEARNING IS MEMORIZATION.  Specifically, learning is the process in which you memorize.  So if you've learned something, you've simply memorized it.

Memorization requires the act of attention.  When teachers tell students to pay attention, they are speaking a truth far beyond anything they themselves understand.  Without paying attention, it won't become a memory.  The examples you've described about being auditory or visual memorizers are different ways to remember but this does not validate multi-modal learning.  A persons visual cortex is far larger than the auditory cortex.  (Look at the brain's anatomy and this will be clear just how much larger it is.)  If so much of the brain is devoted to processing sight and so little to sound, wouldn't everyone be a visual learner?  The answer is: yes.  Mnemonic techniques uses almost exclusively visual cues to make information more memorable.

I'm tired.  I'll have to finish this later.

[j_menz]

It's like a refrigerator.  It can store food and the food can deteriorate but this has nothing to do with your fridge.  The food and the fridge are two different things.

No its not. As you yourself acknowledge, a memory is represented by (an is) a physical structure in the brain (the neural connection). The "fridge" and the "food" are in fact the same thing.

[outin]

Faulty_damper:
Your long and technical explanations about memory are no doubt very interesting, but for me to actually bother reading/investigating them on detail would require some credentials/scientific references. It is far too easy to write stuff that sounds very convincing without having any actual research to back it up. I do not have the time to explore all the new research on neurology and brain function, although I like to keep myself somewhat informed on new learning theories and research. Would it be possible for you to give references or briefly explain your qualifications, are you a research scientist or student on this area? If you are not willing to do that, it's fine, I was just wondering.

I need to add that personally I do not believe that one always has to be a scientist of a certain field to be able to understand and critizice some of the reseach, there's a lot of reseach around that would fail even a simple general methodological evaluation.

[faulty_damper]

The following are only a few of the sources that I have used for my understanding of learning, memory, and intelligence.  I read over 5,000 science and science-related articles and books per year.  The list is no way comprehensive and reading these will probably not yield much beyond a surface understanding but it’s a start.  The article on the first image of a memory being formed (link under the physiology of memory section) got me really excited because for the first time, we can see just what was theorized.  There is also a video of a neuron in action (in a rat’s brain) but I cannot find it.  It shows how the axon terminals of a neuron sway to and fro like seaweed sometimes making contact with other neurons.  Once contact is make, the electrochemical signals can pass between the two.  This is what we call memory at the cellular level.  Again, the following is in no way complete.  There are many topics that have been omitted such as the effects of sleep and numerous psychologically studies that indirectly relate to the learning triangle.


BOOKS

Books on intelligence.  The history of intelligence, clues to causes of increasing IQ scores (schooling in abstract information), increasing intelligence.

Cianciolo, Anna T., Robert J. Sternberg. Intelligence: A Brief History.
https://www.amazon.com/Intelligence-History-Blackwell-Histories-Psychology/dp/140510824X/ref=pd_sim_b_9

Flynn, James R. What is Intelligence.
https://www.amazon.com/What-Is-Intelligence-Beyond-Effect/dp/0521741475/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342541550&sr=8-1&keywords=what+is+intelligence

On memory.
Foer, Joshua. Moonwalking with Einstein: The Art and Science of Remembering Everything.
https://www.amazon.com/Moonwalking-Einstein-Science-Remembering-Everything/dp/0143120530/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1342543198&sr=1-1&keywords=moonwalking

Higbee, Kenneth L. Your Memory: How it Works and How to Improve It.
https://www.amazon.com/Your-Memory-How-Works-Improve/dp/1569246297/ref=pd_sim_b_5



ARTICLES

Memory in older adults; stereotype threat; belief that poor memory in older age actually results in poor memorization.

Association for Psychological Science (2011, November 4). How we create false memories: Assessing memory performance in older adults.
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/11/111104102129.htm

North Carolina State University (2009, April 21). Think Memory Worsens With Age? Then Yours Probably Will.
ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/04/090421154335.htm


Why distractions result in poor memory.

Elsevier (2010, March 25). Memory decline linked to an inability to ignore distractions. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/03/100325102403.htm

Concordia University (2011, April 19). Spring-cleaning the mind? Study shows a cluttered brain doesn't remember. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2011/04/110419151445.htm


Stress results in reduced memory capacity.

Cell Press (2012, March 7). How repeated stress impairs memory. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2012/03/120307132202.htm

University of Edinburgh (2011, April 6). Older age memory loss tied to stress hormone receptor in brain. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2011/04/110406102137.htm


Learning: use of short-term and long-term memory.  Isolated practice compared to liberal practice strategies.

University of Southern California (2011, September 13). Motor memory: The long and short of it. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2011/09/110913152939.htm


Physiological mechanisms for memory formation.

McGill University (2009, June 18). First Image Of Memories Being Made. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2009/06/090618151331.htm

Scripps Research Institute (2010, August 25). New mechanism of memory formation discovered. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2010/08/100825131556.htm

University of Haifa (2008, September 9). Protein Essential In Long Term Memory Consolidation Identified. ScienceDaily. Retrieved July 17, 2012, from https://www.sciencedaily.com­ /releases/2008/09/080909102146.htm

[faulty_damper]

No its not. As you yourself acknowledge, a memory is represented by (an is) a physical structure in the brain (the neural connection). The "fridge" and the "food" are in fact the same thing.

A memory is simply the connection between neurons.   How that connection forms is something entirely different.  These are different things.

Like a painting, the image is one thing.  How that image was created is another.  But the what and the how are two separate things.

[asuhayda]

When I was young I was definitely a memorizer... seems that lately (after playing for 25 years) I am beginning to swing the other way.  I'm playing a lot more Baroque music now than I did when I was younger though.  So, that might have something to do with it.. I have difficulty remembering how to play Baroque pieces without the music.  However, I'm still dreadful at sight reading.. I keep getting better every year though!

[williampiano]

Sight reading is definitely easier for me than memorizing. I can sight read most challenging music relatively well my first time looking at it, but when it comes to memorizing one of the pieces I'm working on, then I really have to practice it A LOT to get it.

[outin]

The following are only a few of the sources that I have used for my understanding of learning, memory, and intelligence.  I read over 5,000 science and science-related articles and books per year.

Wow, that would be over 13 per day. And you still have time to play the piano? Impressive!

Thanks for the list of literature, some of them familiar. I still think  that some things you wrote are oversimplified conclusions of fragmented research . A lot more needs to be done before we really begin to understand how the brain/memory works. But of course science is about theories and proving them wrong or at least inadequate by new research and your theories may be just as good as any other's. I'm going to get back to piano related issues now, no matter how bad MY memory is

[davidjosepha]

Memorization is NOT a skill.  It's a technique.  As such, there is no such thing as a good memorizer; only good memorization technique.

I would dispute that. Up until recently, I never even tried to memorize a piece. It just happened. I'd play it a bunch, and one day, I'd take the music away and play it and it'd be just the same. I started consciously trying to memorize pieces once I got to the level where I was playing music with such large and fast jumps that I couldn't reasonably play it without looking at my hands.

At that point, I started what I do now. I just stare at the music and see what it says. Then I'll look down at the keys, and visualize where my hands have to go. Then I'll play it. And then it's in my memory. When I'm falling asleep at night, I actually often visualize a keyboard from above. Like, not an actual keyboard -- no details or anything, no reflection on the keys. It'd be just like if you opened up MS Paint and drew a keyboard from above using only white and black. Anyway, I'm looking at this keyboard in my head, with my eyes closed, and I visualize every key I'm supposed to play in the entire piece. I "play" through the entire piece in my head, but the whole time, I'm just staring at a blank keyboard inside my mind. I don't see my fingers pressing the keys or anything, I just see a blank keyboard. It's strange, but if you know every single note in an entire piece and could write it out without the assistance of muscle memory, you probably know the piece quite well. By the way, I'm not even consciously trying to visualize the piece when I'm falling asleep. It's just, after hours of playing piano, when I finally go to sleep, the only thing I can think about is what I've been playing, and whenever I hear myself going through the piece in my head, I see it on a keyboard.

But basically what I'm trying to say is, just about everyone has to use something to memorize a piece after a certain level, but I think some people memorize things much easier than others, regardless of method. My dad, for instance...he can never remember a person's name. It'll take him 6 or 7 times meeting a guy before he'll remember his name. I'll remember a person's name after meeting them once. Neither of us are trying to memorize the guy's name, so you can't really argue that my method is better than his, because I don't have a method. I'm not trying to memorize his name. It's just something that happens. In general though, I'm a better visual learner/memorizer. Someone could try to teach me a Spanish word or phrase 400 times, and until I've seen it in writing, I can't learn it. Unless I can visualize a name or word or phrase, I can't keep it in my head.

[scherzo123]

I actually don't know...good question!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

At that point, I started what I do now. I just stare at the music and see what it says. Then I'll look down at the keys, and visualize where my hands have to go. Then I'll play it. And then it's in my memory. When I'm falling asleep at night, I actually often visualize a keyboard from above. Like, not an actual keyboard -- no details or anything, no reflection on the keys. It'd be just like if you opened up MS Paint and drew a keyboard from above using only white and black. Anyway, I'm looking at this keyboard in my head, with my eyes closed, and I visualize every key I'm supposed to play in the entire piece. I "play" through the entire piece in my head, but the whole time, I'm just staring at a blank keyboard inside my mind. I don't see my fingers pressing the keys or anything, I just see a blank keyboard. It's strange, but if you know every single note in an entire piece and could write it out without the assistance of muscle memory, you probably know the piece quite well. By the way, I'm not even consciously trying to visualize the piece when I'm falling asleep. It's just, after hours of playing piano, when I finally go to sleep, the only thing I can think about is what I've been playing, and whenever I hear myself going through the piece in my head, I see it on a keyboard.

That's a memorization technique.  No skill involved with that.

[chopin2015]

I memorize pretty ok, except etudes. It helps to have a good audio file to refer to, and also to practice the rhythms of the pieces you work on to memorize faster.
Sometimes when I get used to sight reading a piece, I find the memorization process takes additional time, but it is still very necessary if you want to play with nothing between you and keyboard except your hands! hah

[davidjosepha]

That's a memorization technique.  No skill involved with that.

Did you read the rest of it where I said that after a certain level, pretty much everyone has to use a technique, but that some people still memorize easier while using the same technique? Did you read the part where I mentioned my dad's memory vs mine? I'm not denying that there's often a method to memorization, but I'm not so silly as to imply that everyone's memory is the same.

[fleetfingers]

That's a memorization technique.  No skill involved with that.

Wouldn't it be considered a skill to know how to harness your abilities and use the right techniques to get the desired results?

How about playing the piano? If you learn a technique that makes it possible/easier to execute a series of sounds, is there no skill being developed? What about a pianist who has learned many techniques and can use them at will to play entire works? Oh, no, he would not be considered a great pianist; just someone who uses techniques to play the piano. In fact, he's not actually playing the piano. His brain is sending all the information to the muscles and flexors in the arms, resulting in his fingers moving.

Seriously, though, this discussion led me to look up the meanings of ability, technique, and skill....so closely related that they are used in each other's definitions. Also, I googled "skill versus technique" and found multiple websites that attempt to define the difference between them. From science to sports, each website had its own distinctions and relationships between these words. Which is fine - terms need to be defined so people can understand each other. I just found it interesting that the definitions are not always interpreted the same way in real life situations.

Either way, I read some of the Qs and As on the Amazon page for Moonwalking with Einstein, the book recommended by faulty_damper. The author describes being able to improve his memory, using techniques. I thought that you claimed this wasn't possible? I still fail to see how learning techniques to reach the potential of our abilities does not consitute learning a skill. Again, I think we are just having semantics issues. Sorry that I can't get past them, but I cannot accept that memorizing is not a skill; nor can I accept that there is no such thing as a good memorizer. Indeed, the author of the book, who ended up winning the U.S. Memory Championship, is a good memorizer . . . after learning to develop the ability.

[faulty_damper]

I'm not denying that there's often a method to memorization, but I'm not so silly as to imply that everyone's memory is the same.

People's ability to form memories are more or less the same but they are not equal.  Some people do form memories easier than others.  However, that difference is generally small.  With current neurological understanding, this is due to the differences in genes that affect the physiology.

However, do not confuse what appears to be "good memory" with genetic differences.  No one knows what a person's genome is just by looking.  It is still much more likely that a person with "good memory" is simply paying attention to the details that make it much easier to recall at a later time.

[faulty_damper]

Wouldn't it be considered a skill to know how to harness your abilities and use the right techniques to get the desired results?

You are correct.  In one of my previous responses I mentioned that techniques can used with skill.  Any technique can be used and developed to a high degree of skill - knowing which technique to use, when to use it, how to use it, and the expected outcomes of using it.  Failing any of the previous would probably indicate a lack of skill, knowledge, and understanding of the technique.

Either way, I read some of the Qs and As on the Amazon page for Moonwalking with Einstein, the book recommended by faulty_damper. The author describes being able to improve his memory, using techniques. I thought that you claimed this wasn't possible? I still fail to see how learning techniques to reach the potential of our abilities does not consitute learning a skill. Again, I think we are just having semantics issues.

I claim that memory cannot be improved.  So does Foer in his book though he is a bit loose in his terminology.  However, the use of techniques (mnemonics) do not directly improve the actual memory of an event.  It actually creates a surrogate memory that is closely related to the actual memory.  The surrogate memory is much more memorable than the actual memory and because it's closely related, the actual memory can be reconstructed simply by recalling the surrogate memory.  If you read the book, he describes how one of his mentors, a memory champion, says that he was memorizing a method to make his previous mnemonic techniques more memorable.  

Again, I think we are just having semantics issues. Sorry that I can't get past them, but I cannot accept that memorizing is not a skill; nor can I accept that there is no such thing as a good memorizer. Indeed, the author of the book, who ended up winning the U.S. Memory Championship, is a good memorizer . . . after learning to develop the ability.

To quote from his book:
"So had I improved my memory? By every objective measure, I had improved something. My digit span... has doubled from nine to eighteen.  Compared with my tests almost a year earlier, I could recall more lines of poetry, more people's names, more pieces of random information thrown my way.  And yet a few nights after the world championship, I went out to dinner with a couple of friends, took the subway home, and only remembered as I was walking in the door to my parents' house that I'd driven a car to dinner.  I hadn't just forgotten where I parked it.  I'd forgotten I had it.

That was a paradox: For all of the memory stunts I could now perform, I was still stuck with the same old shoddy memory that misplaced car keys and cars.  Even while I had greatly expanded my powers of recall for the kinds of structured information that could be crammed into a memory palace [a mnemonic technique] most of the things I wanted to remember in my everyday life were not facts or figures or poems or playing cards or binary digits...

While my digit span may have doubled, could it really be said that my working memory was twice as good as it had been when I started my training?  I wish I could say it was.  But the truth is, it wasn't...  I'd upgraded my memory software, but my hardware seemed to have remained fundamentally unchanged." (215-216)


Here's an article (in PDF) by a K. Anders Ericsson, a researcher at Florida State University (whom Foer interviewed in his book) who studies memory.  He concludes that memory cannot be improved without the aide of mnemonics.

Exceptional memorizers: made, not born.
https://163.238.8.180/~sekerina/MEM2004/Ericsson_Exceptional_Memories_2003.pdf

[faa2010]

I am not sure, this is what happens normally:

When I want to get a piece, I normally pay attention to the notes (if it is G# or Ab of E, etc), as well as the compass, the key signature, if it is C Major, Eb minor, etc.  This is basically my sightreading. After that, I pay attention to the time to play the notes: quarter, octave, white,black note, etc.  The part of speed, legato, diminuendo, forte, pianissimo, is more difficult to me. What is difficult is the tempo and the flow. Those issues I get them moreless by listening the piece.

After playing the notes for a while, I memorize them.  My brain is somehow strange because there is no specific time to really memorize the piece.  It can take a week or 3 months, I don't know why.

I don't know which one is stronger, but I can tell that in the end, I prefer memorization so I can see the keys of the piano.

[faulty_damper]

Here's a Radiolab podcast about memory and forgetting.  It's five years old but still relevant.

https://www.radiolab.org/2007/jun/07/

[wilsonl]

Yeah, I'm very good at memorizing, but very BAD at sight reading.
For ex, until now I still can remember all of my scores that I took for 7th exam grade, but I need maybe 3x times to read it rather than memorizing it. haha...
It's why I also have lowest scores on sight reading test at ABRSM exam.