Depending on how well you can search those memories, internet access might make them obsolete. The extreme case here would be something like literally eternal eidetic memory - to get what you read in that one book years ago, youd have to "find a timestamp" close by, and then advance/rewind to the right page. And first, youd have to remember that you did read a book it was in. If the memory isnt integrated into your entire knowledge, and just sitting somewhere as a heap of data, its not *that* useful. And there are limits to this integration; there can only be so many things-to-be-intuitively-searched upon hearing a particular question, and your gauge of relevance is only so good.
Yeah I suppose the impression I had of how photographic memory worked was that your recall was so strong that if somebody said something related to topic X that you read about in a book 16 years ago, the relevant part of the book would sprint to mind the same way it would if you'd read it 5 minutes ago. But alas it doesn't seem to exist. The internet, as you say, is not like the photographic memory I had imagined as you don't have a built in hint of 'what to look for' by virtue of your brain's natural ability to connect past memories with the present moment
I agree with your main takeaways as I understand it -- truly photographic memory doesn't exist; eidetic memory is far less impressive; world-class memory competitors are more athletes than savants; overly detailed recall of nearly everything could sometimes be debilitating as in Shereshevsky's case.
That said, there's also John von Neumann. The scope and diversity of his foundational achievements in science and math seems ludicrous to me, and his role and influence in US DoD affairs was very wide-ranging as well. Part of this was his seemingly superhuman problem-solving ability and capacity for & love of work, but I think his eidetic memory had to have given him a great advantage as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Eidetic_memory Quote:
"Von Neumann was also noted for his eidetic memory, particularly of the symbolic kind. Herman Goldstine writes:
> One of his remarkable abilities was his power of absolute recall. As far as I could tell, von Neumann was able on once reading a book or article to quote it back verbatim; moreover, he could do it years later without hesitation. He could also translate it at no diminution in speed from its original language into English. On one occasion I tested his ability by asking him to tell me how A Tale of Two Cities started. Whereupon, without any pause, he immediately began to recite the first chapter and continued until asked to stop after about ten or fifteen minutes.
Von Neumann was reportedly able to memorize the pages of telephone directories. He entertained friends by asking them to randomly call out page numbers; he then recited the names, addresses and numbers therein. Stanisław Ulam believed that von Neumann's memory was auditory rather than visual."
I'm sure anecdotes such as these get embellished in the retelling though, halo effect and all...
Thanks for sharing! These kinds of stories are super compelling, in part i think because we really want to believe they’re true (I’m not quite sure why though.. it’s not like it makes it any more possible for us to have these abilities ourselves)
This Von Neumann example is somewhat satisfying because the person with the photographic memory IS able to be super successful and influential.
If cases like this exist, I wonder why they haven’t been tested scientifically before. I’m super curious as to what the prevalence is, and whether these are just outliers in the normal distinction of natural memory of if they’re different in kind somehow
John Von Neumann had an eidetic memory and he did okay for himself.
Depending on how well you can search those memories, internet access might make them obsolete. The extreme case here would be something like literally eternal eidetic memory - to get what you read in that one book years ago, youd have to "find a timestamp" close by, and then advance/rewind to the right page. And first, youd have to remember that you did read a book it was in. If the memory isnt integrated into your entire knowledge, and just sitting somewhere as a heap of data, its not *that* useful. And there are limits to this integration; there can only be so many things-to-be-intuitively-searched upon hearing a particular question, and your gauge of relevance is only so good.
Yeah I suppose the impression I had of how photographic memory worked was that your recall was so strong that if somebody said something related to topic X that you read about in a book 16 years ago, the relevant part of the book would sprint to mind the same way it would if you'd read it 5 minutes ago. But alas it doesn't seem to exist. The internet, as you say, is not like the photographic memory I had imagined as you don't have a built in hint of 'what to look for' by virtue of your brain's natural ability to connect past memories with the present moment
I'd bet there's a higher prevalence of powerful people with a very good memory for names. It can be a bit of a superpower for politicians
This piece reminded me of this John Mulaney bit about Bill Clinton: https://youtu.be/7b-ETFLgkUc?si=rh2r5-yHl56mn54E
Yeah this makes sense! Romy has that superpower
You had me until the lint thing..
For anyone looking for a fun and surprisingly effective way to try out memory training, I reccomend https://memoryos.com/ (see my own post on this topic here: https://joeybream.substack.com/p/memorisation-is-a-hidden-art)
(Love the childhood anecdote with Dr. Karl)
I agree with your main takeaways as I understand it -- truly photographic memory doesn't exist; eidetic memory is far less impressive; world-class memory competitors are more athletes than savants; overly detailed recall of nearly everything could sometimes be debilitating as in Shereshevsky's case.
That said, there's also John von Neumann. The scope and diversity of his foundational achievements in science and math seems ludicrous to me, and his role and influence in US DoD affairs was very wide-ranging as well. Part of this was his seemingly superhuman problem-solving ability and capacity for & love of work, but I think his eidetic memory had to have given him a great advantage as well https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_von_Neumann#Eidetic_memory Quote:
"Von Neumann was also noted for his eidetic memory, particularly of the symbolic kind. Herman Goldstine writes:
> One of his remarkable abilities was his power of absolute recall. As far as I could tell, von Neumann was able on once reading a book or article to quote it back verbatim; moreover, he could do it years later without hesitation. He could also translate it at no diminution in speed from its original language into English. On one occasion I tested his ability by asking him to tell me how A Tale of Two Cities started. Whereupon, without any pause, he immediately began to recite the first chapter and continued until asked to stop after about ten or fifteen minutes.
Von Neumann was reportedly able to memorize the pages of telephone directories. He entertained friends by asking them to randomly call out page numbers; he then recited the names, addresses and numbers therein. Stanisław Ulam believed that von Neumann's memory was auditory rather than visual."
I'm sure anecdotes such as these get embellished in the retelling though, halo effect and all...
Thanks for sharing! These kinds of stories are super compelling, in part i think because we really want to believe they’re true (I’m not quite sure why though.. it’s not like it makes it any more possible for us to have these abilities ourselves)
This Von Neumann example is somewhat satisfying because the person with the photographic memory IS able to be super successful and influential.
If cases like this exist, I wonder why they haven’t been tested scientifically before. I’m super curious as to what the prevalence is, and whether these are just outliers in the normal distinction of natural memory of if they’re different in kind somehow