Video of the Blindfolded WR

[pjk]

Same as suggesting someone had a lucky solve when it wasn't.

I don't see any relation between a lucky solve and the photographic memory deal. You stated: "Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it." If they got it for free, that is great. But I don't see anything insulting.

Explain why they never participate in memory competitions.

For all the reasons you and I go to competitions, and more. To meet and talk with similar people. To learn from others and share your knowledge. To get a measure for how good you are. To enjoy competition. To win prizes.

Yes, I do agree that going to competitions is a good way to learn, get exposure, and have fun. But what if you have absolutely no interest in learning more, or spending money to travel to a competition, yet you are very good as memorizing things? Just one example that popped into my head now was that Marcus Stuhr issue. He was/is very good at blindfold solving, but he never really had any interest in going to a competition. From his view, why go to a competition? People on the forum were bashing him saying he was fake. Why would he care to prove them wrong... as it doesn't even matter what anyone else thinks about it. Yes, going to a competition would prove them wrong (if he was really legit), but maybe he has no interest in competing.

You said you believe in it. My question: Why? Surely there's some reason why you believe in it. What is that reason?

Well, for one, I know that everyone has a unique mind. Some people can think and deal with things much easier than others naturally (for example, understanding calculus. Some people can't understand it very easily. Others can read a chapter and pick up on it right away). Genius' obviously can think differently than others as well. I have a friend who is double majoring at a pretty tough school, doing training for his future major, sits back and parties every other night, yet can pull off a 3.5-4.0 GPA every semester. Most people at that school single major, don't party, don't train, and study hours a night to barely get a 3.0 GPA. Obviously his mind is working different. All of this related back to a memory. Some people (I believe) have a stronger memory just naturally. They can walk into a room, and subconsciously remember nearly the entire room in great detail. It is hard to say whether someone has a "photographic memory" without defining a fine line between what is a "photographic memory" and what is not a "photographic memory". The fact of the matter is that some people can naturally do things better than others. Hence the reason why I believe a "photographic memory" exists, in the sense that some people can memorize images much much better than others with little or no practice.

 

[tim]

It becomes a bit off-topic, but i also want to say a few words:
I doubt, that genies exist. Everyone can become a genius, if he/she really wants to become one. We are all born with a completely formatted brain. So everyone has the chance to become a so called genius. If your parents let you watch TV 6 hours a day, your chances to become one, will defintely decrease. People are good in maths / languages, because they are interested in maths / languages and want to learn new things. But why are they interested? Because they have something like an "interested in"-gene? I don't think so. I don't know the exact reasons, but the parents and your friends play a big role in developing such interests.
Why am i sure that no "genius" exists? A friend of mine was very bad at school, wasn't very interested in learning or using his mind at all. But suddenly he threw all his "bad" habbits away and started to juggle, program and to read many books. He became much better at school (with less learning effort), switched to higher schools twice and made a perfect graduation. And he overtooked me in programming skills within a year, damn .

P.S.: I don't like the word "normal", but i only spoke for "normal" (i mean non-disabled) people. And sorry for my bad english, please don't hesitate to say, if something is completely wrong .

 

[hait2]

It becomes a bit off-topic, but i also want to say a few words:
I doubt, that genies exist. Everyone can become a genius, if he/she really wants to become one. We are all born with a completely formatted brain. So everyone has the chance to become a so called genius. If your parents let you watch TV 6 hours a day, your chances to become one, will defintely decrease. People are good in maths / languages, because they are interested in maths / languages and want to learn new things. But why are they interested? Because they have something like an "interested in"-gene? I don't think so. I don't know the exact reasons, but the parents and your friends play a big role in developing such interests.
Why am i sure that no "genius" exists? A friend of mine was very bad at school, wasn't very interested in learning or using his mind at all. But suddenly he threw all his "bad" habbits away and started to juggle, program and to read many books. He became much better at school (with less learning effort), switched to higher schools twice and made a perfect graduation. And he overtooked me in programming skills within a year, damn .

P.S.: I don't like the word "normal", but i only spoke for "normal" (i mean non-disabled) people. And sorry for my bad english, please don't hesitate to say, if something is completely wrong .

i think you're confusing lazyness with stupidity your friend was smart all along, he was just too lazy to care
im no genius, i might be a little smart because i learn things faster than most people i know, and never have to study or anything to ace my courses (i'm @ a fairly well-known university for those that care), but this doesn't compare at all to a friend of mine.

he is, i believe, the only genius i know. he dropped out of highschool because it was too boring for him. he used to do the tests halfway, never giving what you or i would consider as answers, because to him, what he left on paper *was* an answer. Think if the answer was 4, and you left it as 2+2. technically you didn't write the answer but come on, nobody's gonna say you didn't know it. same thing for him except on a more complicated scale.
he plays chess blindfolded, kicks my ass at it (i'm not too good but hell, that's impressive. i wasn't wearing a blindfold obviously), among other amazing things, and he indeed does have an amazing memory. i won't say photographical because it's hard to define it, i'll just leave it at 'really really damn good'. and no, he's not currently a bum/blue collar etc. or anything close to it in case you were wondering of the consequences of him dropping out

and, because of this cin, i am pretty sure that geniuses do, in fact, exist, and not everyone is born equal, and there's nothing you can do. there's a genetic lottery going on and most of us are losers (don't despair though, we're only losers relative to the winners, and there aren't too many of those )

 

[Stefan]

You stated: "Suggesting that someone has photographic memory is an insult. Because it suggests that the person got his/her skill for free instead of having earned it by working for it." If they got it for free, that is great. But I don't see anything insulting.

If they indeed got it, yes. But I claim in at least almost all cases where someone suggests someone else has photographic memory, it is not true, and the person has instead worked hard to earn his/her skills. Thus in at least almost all cases it is an insult.

Just one example that popped into my head now was that Marcus Stuhr issue. He was/is very good at blindfold solving, but he never really had any interest in going to a competition.

You give me a single person as example to explain why *none* of the people with claimed photographic memory *ever* go to competitions? That doesn't work. Plus Marcus doesn't work as example anyway. He doesn't claim to have superpowers. He says he's using regular memorization and solving methods like the rest of us.

An example from wikipedia for photographic memory: "could take a glance at a page of a book and recite it later, without errors, from the beginning to the end."

Compare that to reality, the record for memorizing digits:
http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/quick-memory/quick-memory.html

As you can see, the record for four seconds (which I'd already call a "long" glance) is 26 digits. Impressive, yes. But nothing compared to a full book page.

So we're not talking about people with "natural photographic memory" being as good or slightly better than the world records (as far as I know all achieved by people who use memory techniques and a lot of practice). We're talking about absolutely *shattering* the records *by far* and *with ease*.

I do agree people are different, like in your example story. But the tales about photographic memory are much more extreme. It's like claiming there are people who can run 100 meters in let's say 3 seconds. And why do *those* never go to competitions? I can use the exact same defense for that story as you used for photographic memory.

Also, nothing of this explains why people who make money from this kind stuff are not interested in the extra advertising. Instead of writing "He's really good" they could write "He's so good that he demolished the world's elite competitors at the latest world championship". The people who make money from this, who *want* to get attention, who *want* to be believed, why do they not simply prove it?

 

[AvGalen]

Stefan: Very well explained. Hopefully nobody will ever think someone has a photographic memory after reading this. Apparantly conversations like this trigger your interest!

We are all born with a completely formatted brain

Hopefully not. Although a lot of primary functions of your body (breathing, circulation) are autonomous, they do require brain activity.

But I do understand your point and one of the best "scientific" proves for this is a Eastern-European piano-teacher that taught his children to play chess from a very early age. All three children grew up to be world-class chess-players although he himself wasn't a chess player!

When I met the Dzoan's I saw a lot of resemblences to that story. Their parents surely weren't born with a "cube-gen" and the likelyhood of them being so good at one-handed just because of a talent is really low. It is so much more likely that they are so good at one-handed because they trained AND motivated each other that I would consider that prove.

Another prove of training versus talent is Michaëlla Krajicek. When she was about 4 years old I saw her started training with her father and it didn't seem that there was anything special about her. But every day they were "hitting some balls over the net" and after a couple of years you could see that she was definately better than other girls of her age, but she couldn't beat many girls that were older than her and had also been playing for a couple of years. She and her father kept on training daily and intensified the training and now she is on her way to becoming a top 10 player. I don't think that has much to do with talent, but everything with training and motivation.

 

[pjk]

If they indeed got it, yes. But I claim in at least almost all cases where someone suggests someone else has photographic memory, it is not true, and the person has instead worked hard to earn his/her skills. Thus in at least almost all cases it is an insult.

I see what you're saying. The general public is incorrect with their observations, and I can now see why you take that as an insult.

You give me a single person as example to explain why *none* of the people with claimed photographic memory *ever* go to competitions? That doesn't work. Plus Marcus doesn't work as example anyway. He doesn't claim to have superpowers. He says he's using regular memorization and solving methods like the rest of us.

Why doesn't 1 example work? And I wasn't using him as an example to say he had superpowers of any sort. I was using him as an example to show that people with very good skills of a certain subject may not be interested in competing, even if they are the best in the world. I am not saying that was the case, but it is true.

An example from wikipedia for photographic memory: "could take a glance at a page of a book and recite it later, without errors, from the beginning to the end."

Well, everything on Wikipedia isn't correct, so we can't necessarily go by that. However, if we did go by that definition, you would have to define "glance" and the font size of the book and/or # of words/length of words, etc. Obviously looking at a page in 10 seconds with 50 lines and memorizing is most likely not reality. But memorizing say 5 words a second for 10 seconds is possible. For some people, that may take years of practice. From my view and thoughts, I do believe there are people out there that can do that with no practice, and can do that as a natural skill. As I explained in the previous post, people have unique minds, which leads me to believe that this is possible.

Compare that to reality, the record for memorizing digits:
http://www.recordholders.org/en/records/quick-memory/quick-memory.html

As you can see, the record for four seconds (which I'd already call a "long" glance) is 26 digits. Impressive, yes. But nothing compared to a full book page.

Well, this is tough to compare to the book deal without defining what I said above. Remember, we can't really go directly by the info on Wiki, because some of it is bogus.

So we're not talking about people with "natural photographic memory" being as good or slightly better than the world records (as far as I know all achieved by people who use memory techniques and a lot of practice). We're talking about absolutely *shattering* the records *by far* and *with ease*.

What if someone with no practice at all could match or come very close to the World Records? Would that be considered a "photographic memory"? I would make a bet that there are over 250 people in the world today that could do that. Also, what if the WR holder could memo 10 digits in 1 second with no practice, and then it took him years of practice to get to 13 digits.... would he be considered to have a photographic memory?

I do agree people are different, like in your example story. But the tales about photographic memory are much more extreme. It's like claiming there are people who can run 100 meters in let's say 3 seconds. And why do *those* never go to competitions? I can use the exact same defense for that story as you used for photographic memory.

Comparing memory to a 100 meter dash is not good. To me, those are 2 totally different things. I often see people comparing those, when in my opinion, that shouldn't be done. The mind is so much more mysterious than the phyical outside of the human body. Yes, there are people born natually athletic. But a muscle is proven to need work before it strengths. That is not the case with the mind.

Also, nothing of this explains why people who make money from this kind stuff are not interested in the extra advertising. Instead of writing "He's really good" they could write "He's so good that he demolished the world's elite competitors at the latest world championship". The people who make money from this, who *want* to get attention, who *want* to be believed, why do they not simply prove it?

Well, this all leads back to "if you're so good, why don't you compete?". Well, that is easy, you don't want to. It is simple.

 

[Karthik]

I think this discussion of ours about whether "Photographic Memory" exits or not will not lead to a conclusion.This is like the case of UFOs and extra-terrestrial life.People claim to have seen them.But I wont believe it until I see it myself.But I am compelled to think that extra-terrestrial life may exist by the fact that there are 10^21 stars and at least one of these will have an earth-like planet where life exists.
It is the same with "Photographic Memory".I haven't actually seen anyone have real photographic memory(as defined by Arnaud),but I have heard and read so much about the existence of it that I am forced to give it's existence a second thought.
As for Matyas,I never meant to insult him(If that is what anyone thinks).I really respect him for what he has achieved.But the video is so ridiculously fast that I thought that it was way beyond regular memory techniques(Now I know it is not).In fact when I showed the video to some of my friends they tried all possible "tricks" to prove that it was a fake!Though the WCA stats convinced them finally.

 

[Mátyás Kuti(shaipo)]

Oh my god! You REALLY can talk about that? pfff... :S

 

[AvGalen]

Hopefully most of you will know this program: http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/mythbusters/mythbusters.html

Just because almost everyone says something it is not necessarily true. Just remember this:
500 years ago, everyone thought the earth was flat (like a pancake)
Currently, everyone thinks the earth is round (like a pancake )

 

[Stefan]

Why doesn't 1 example work?

Because there are many great cubers who *do* compete. So one example only shows that not 100% of all serious cubers want to compete. But I think most want to, at least 90%. Claimed photographic memorizers however have a 0% appearance rate. You can't explain 0% with 90%.

Btw, did Marcus really say he doesn't want to go to competitions? As far as I know, he wasn't desperate to, but expressed some interest and wanted to try to go to one.

Well, everything on Wikipedia isn't correct

It's not just Wikipedia. You can find these tales in so many places.

Obviously looking at a page in 10 seconds with 50 lines and memorizing is most likely not reality.

But that's what people claim over and over again. Some claim even much more, for example:
http://www.execuread.com/press_media.htm

"Louise Howell, 42, a mother of twins and member of IT giant CS Holdings marketing team, earlier read a 30 000 word book about Albert Einstein in 12s. Following that, she wrote a comprehension test and scored 95%."

These people offer courses to teach people to read superduperfast. They make money with it. Why don't they want the great advertisement that shattering world records would provide? (note I'm slightly digressing towards "speedreading" or "photoreading" here, but it's a closely related topic).

But memorizing say 5 words a second for 10 seconds is possible.

Even if that were true, what does that have to do with the fantastic tales we hear about photographic memory and the vast amounts of memorized data? Nothing.

But a muscle is proven to need work before it strengths.

Yeah, the people I know who run the 100 meters in 3 seconds did work for it. So what?

Well, this all leads back to "if you're so good, why don't you compete?". Well, that is easy, you don't want to. It is simple.

No, my question is "if you're so good, and you make money with it, why don't you compete and get the great advertisement?" (besides all the other good reasons). And don't forget the people who offer to teach you this stuff in courses or books, or the media covering that subject. You tell me these guys just don't want the attention?

Oh my god! You REALLY can talk about that? pfff... :S

Yeah I know... I should better use the time to improve my cubing. Will stop now.

 

[pjk]

Claimed photographic memorizers however have a 0% appearance rate.

Can you prove that ?

Btw, did Marcus really say he doesn't want to go to competitions? As far as I know, he wasn't desperate to, but expressed some interest and wanted to try to go to one.

Not sure, just from my understanding I used him as an example.

It's not just Wikipedia. You can find these tales in so many places.

Yes, the internet is full of junk. I am not saying it isn't 100% real, but I don't believe that, so why should I argue for it?

ut that's what people claim over and over again. Some claim even much more, for example:
http://www.execuread.com/press_media.htm

"Louise Howell, 42, a mother of twins and member of IT giant CS Holdings marketing team, earlier read a 30 000 word book about Albert Einstein in 12s. Following that, she wrote a comprehension test and scored 95%."

These people offer courses to teach people to read superduperfast. They make money with it. Why don't they want the great advertisement that shattering world records would provide? (note I'm slightly digressing towards "speedreading" or "photoreading" here, but it's a closely related topic).

That is called "bait" in my mind. You make up a false story that will get attention, and then make money from it. I don't believe in this, so why should I argue it?

I guess that's true, but what does that have to do with the fantastic tales we hear about photographic memory and the vast amounts of memorized data? Nothing.

That is a vast amount of data in a short amount of time. People can do that without any practice (PM), in my mind.

Yeah, the people I know who run the 100 meters in 3 seconds did work for it. So what?

You replied to only half of my statement, I said: " But a muscle is proven to need work before it strengths. That is not the case with the mind." The reason I said that was that you are comparing two unlike things of this matter, you can't do that.

No, my question is "if you're so good, and you make money with it, why don't you compete and get the great advertisement?" (besides all the other good reasons). And don't forget the people who offer to teach you this stuff in courses or books, or the media covering that subject. You tell me these guys just don't want the attention?

Simple, no interest. Yes, people would rather not put up with the hassle and time, and couldn't care less about the media. Yes, the majority of the popular would care, but some people couldn't care less.

Yeah I know... I should better use the time to improve my cubing. Will stop now.

These replies take like 3 minutes . And yeah, I should probably be practicing too.

 

[Johannes91]

These replies take like 3 minutes

Ah, that explains why your posts aren't really making sense to me.

 

[pjk]

Post a couple things that you need help understanding.

 

[Stefan]

people would rather not put up with the hassle and time, and couldn't care less about the media.

I think you misunderstood. I didn't mean PMers seeking attention (of the media), but *the media* seeking attention (of the public). You say the media doesn't want attention? Have you watched any of the documentaries about the subject?

 

[pjk]

Of couse the media wants attention, that is what the media is. I don't see how that is related to this at all. My point is, someone with a PM may not want to compete, for whatever reasons.

 

[Stefan]

Have you watched any of the documentaries about the subject?

 

[pjk]

About PM? No.

 

[Stefan]

And that explains why you don't see the point about the media.

 

[pjk]

Okay. I am guessing you have seen a PM documentary then, if you can speak for it. If you are talking about the media in general w/ documentaries, then I think I know what you are talking about.

 

[Mátyás Kuti(shaipo)]

I'm bursting into tears...