This is one of a series of posts on memorization of text; in particular in relation to trying out a new technique.
Getting the first part of Ephesians chapter 3
under my belt took longer than I expected. When I came to join it to the rest
of the chapter - which I’d learned some years ago - it was initially a bit messy getting
back into it. However, after a couple of run-throughs, and
checking the original text to see how my memory of it compared, it came back to
mind without much difficulty.
This is pretty normal when I haven’t thought
about a particular text for some time. I’ve now moved on to complete the rest of chapter
4. Again I’d learned the first half some years ago, and never completed the
rest.
I’m using the newish method I’ve described in
previous blogs. First, I do a read-through of the passage several times. Then I
write out the initial letters, and aim to remember what I’ve just read through
using only those letters. This comes reasonably easily, but I have to be aware
that this is just being stored in the short term memory; it’s not yet at the
point where it will stay if I leave it alone for a day.
Next day I’ll reinforce what I’ve learned,
still keeping the initial letters as a check. What I find about using this as part
of the system, is that it ensures that the words I remember are accurate, and that
I don’t forget small words - or substitute other small words for them - or swap
phrases around. That’s always been an issue in the past that’s taken some overcoming.
So the initial letters aspect is an
improvement on what I’ve done previously.
But on its own, it’s not enough. The hard work
of actually learning the material still has to be done, and this will take work
over several days until it’s starting to hold. And then of course, I’ll need to
keep coming back to – while lying in bed for instance, or at another part of
the day.
In other words, there’s no easy method for long-term
memorization.
I mentioned substitution above. What always intrigues me is the way the brain readily
substitutes other words for the original ones. It’s often only when you check
against the written text that you realise this is the case.
The brain has a remarkable capacity for doing
this. I first noticed it, I think, with songs. When a word would go missing at
the vital moment the brain would comfortably substitute a word that fitted neatly
- often with the right number of syllables - and made good sense. The new word would be similar in meaning
to the original.
This is a quite extraordinary feat on the part
of the already extraordinary brain. Knowing that it’s not going to find the
correct word in time, it brings up a synonym. Without missing a beat. How
amazing is that?
