Talk:Eidetic memory

Extraordinary Claim

I'm calling bullshit on this one: "Andriy Slyusarchuk, 34 years old Ukrainian professor from Lviv, who achieved a new world record (on 28.02.2006) after having memorized five thousand one hundred numbers in a two minutes flat.[15][16]."

If they were single digit numbers, he would have had to read 42.5 characters per second. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 01:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

- That might be possible considering the description - he didn't have to remember the numbers, he remembered what the page looked like. He later recalled and read the page from his memory as if the page were there. 211.166.254.238 (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Mendelssohn

I heard that felix mendelssohn had this too. i have no idea where to look, but i heard an account of him hearing a complete symphony once and writing it down from memory, in the right key. thedrtaylor

Claims

I would like to see sources to back up the claim that Bill Gates has unsually good memory of his code. It just sounds like marketing fluff somehow.

Yes, I'm biased; that Monet or Mozart may have had eidetic memory is not a matter of controversy (though I think those claims should also be documented as well). However for a currently living famous person in politics or business I think the claim should be checked a little more thoroughly. (No: this isn't an "anti-microsoft bias, I'd have said the same thing the author as made the same claim of Linus Torvalds).216.240.40.166 04:59, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Re: Monet: I'll look for a specific website later, but he painted many of the same scenes long after he became blind, remembering exactly how things were previously (the last time he was in the place in question, or the last time he painted it, I don't know.) It's tough to find a relevant entry because apparently there is a Marvel superhero named Monet who has eidetic memory as well. Furthermore, there seem to be plenty of sites mentioning Mozart in connection with eidetic memory. Take care. Rhymeless 08:50, 15 Apr 2004 (UTC)

There is nothing to back up the claim that Gates has usually good memory of his code. I did a Google search, and came up with nothing. I found only copies of this and related Wikipedia articles, and speculations that Bill Gates has autism/Asperger's syndrome/eidetic memory based solely on the fact that many people with Asperger's syndrome tend to be interested in computers. I deleted this claim. Wikiwikifast 05:41, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

A negative Google search is inconclusive. Google does not index all human knowledge, all books, or even all websites for that matter. Many research papers require paid memberships to view. Spazquest 22:31, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

---

I learned that Bill Gates has eidetic memory in 1984; he is the 4th person I know of with eidetic memory, 3 of them programmers, 1 a nurse. The specific statement was "he remembers huge slabs of his code", in comparison with my software manager, who also has eidetic memory. My wife would ask the nurse about health-care related questions, since her knowledge was encyclopedic. The 3rd programmer is a pianist as well, and uses his gift to remember his music for performances; I have observed that his memory is an act of will: when he chooses to remember something, he looks at it more carefully, as if he were photographing it; he can also un-remember something (cast it from his memory). Ancheta Wis 06:40, 8 May 2004 (UTC) I am not interested in defending my claim, it is a simple thing I learned 20 years ago; someone else can simply ask Bill Gates to settle this if they so desire. My specific claim is that in the 1980's, I was told that Bill Gates could remember huge slabs of the code he wrote in the 1970's. One commonality is that they were modest about their gift; it was nothing to brag about. It is possible that Bill Gates no longer remembers the 1970's code he wrote, as of 2004; the company where I learned this was not a Microsoft shop; at the time, the company used VAXes and Sun Microsystems computers running VMS and Unix.

---

I'm not sure I like the direction this is taking.....far more publications seem to support eidetic memory than otherwise. The inclusion of only one source, which opposes eidetic memory, seems really NPOV to me. Rhymeless 08:55, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

---

Removed the following line:

Children often have eidetic memory, but generally lose much of that ability around age 5.

I know of no evidence that supports such a claim. Sir Paul 05:08, Jan 27, 2005 (UTC)

• It's not my info, but I recall reading this somewhere.--Pharos 05:14, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

Perhaps claims for eidetic memory could be considered "urban legends".

In it's current wording it sounds like it is a conclusion drawn by the submitter. If authoritive sources suggest (or better yet, believe) this, perhaps it would be better to quote them. I don't want to delete it, but at the least it should be re-worded (I can't think of a way myself as I know very little on this subject)

Many believe that autists frequently display this ability, as well as those with similar conditions like Asperger's syndrome.

This sounds like a weasel-term to me. If anyone knows of authoritive sources who believe this it would be better to quote them. --John Lynch 20:42, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

---

I met someone twice in my life that proved to me edict memory exists but on the second occasion I did not remember the first. I know first hand how edict memory may effect people positively and negatively. After the age of five and before the age of twenty I know of a person with this gift. To that end I would say edict memory definitely exists and not always to a bad effect.

Find me by the first letter of my first name added to the last with the month followed by the day and adding yahoo.

---

Are there any arguments to compare this article and Visual thinking? Maybe one day they could be merged into one, any opinions?Mexaguil 07:44, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

What about that Carmen Camera girl?

Hi, for the examples of eidetic memory in literature and movies, what about that girl who used to use her photographic memory in a kids series to solve mysteries? Anybody remember her? She used to say "click" when she was storing a picture into her memory. I can't seem to remember her exact name or the name of the series, I think it was Carmen, but I'm not sure.

199.111.88.216 12:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be the Cam Jansen Mysteries, which is listed in the article. Now say "click" so you remember her name :P GhostGirl 03:26, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

New Article

I think the confusion from this article springs from using the terms photographic memory and eidetic memory interchangeably. They are slightly different things. Check here. http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro00/web2/Arnaudo.html Also here http://library.thinkquest.org/C0110291/science/research/science/good.php hdstubbs

I had the same problem with it. I noticed that the German version of this entry makes the distinction, as does the recent article http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/

--Our Bold Hero 06:13, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

hmm

Not sure what gives with this article - this is kind of a bad description/definition of eidetic memory. "Photographic memory" is more than a bit of a misnomer, as is the mention of remembering sounds. Watching this page, kind of a huge job at this point but might fix later. Also, whoever asked above - I don't think it's reasonable to say "most children have eidetic memories", but rather, a whole lot more children than adults demonstrate it, and it usually goes away after age 5-8. Straker 08:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• Photographic memory should probably have its own page. This article currently interwikis to the German "Fotografisches Gedächtnis" (Photographic Memory) even though there is a seperate German article "Eidetik" (which appears to be about what this article is trying to be about). I don't know enough about the subject, so I'm leaving this note. --Grocer 08:58, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The following edit occurred 3 July 2006. Moved edit from the top of the talk page.

---

There is nothing like an eidetic memory. There are memory championships with prize money, but all the winners claim to use techniques. There are computer programms to test yourself, if you have got an eidetic memory. Noone ever passed. THERE IS NOTHING LIKE THAT! I can memorize a number of 200 digits in five minutes. But I do not have an eidetic memory. Someone who has got one should be able to do that much faster? But why is there noone, who can? Expecially people like Haraguchi just use mnemonic systems! As I do! And everyone else does, who can memorize somemany digits or whatever!

Do you know Ramon Campayo? He memorizes 30 digits or so in three seconds! Yes! Just three seconds! Does he say, he has got an eidetic memory? No! He also uses technqiues!

A small counterexample: Google hyperthymestic syndrome.--Ancheta Wis 10:56, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

---

Here is a WikiWorld comic on hyperthymesia: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2007-01-29/WikiWorld --Ancheta Wis (talk) 21:37, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

World Memory Champions

People like Dominic O'Brien, Ramón Campayo, even Harry Lorayne should be included in the list due to their skills, isn't it? Maybe not because they have explained "how they do it" ? Maybe not because they are not famous enough? Definitely O'Brien is more famous than Akira Haraguchi. I particularly like the inclusion of "Rajan Srinavasen Mahadevan - could recall lists of numbers but had normal memory in other areas". It seems quite obvious (Ockham's Razor) that this person just mastered the mnemonic Major and Link System and less more. --GTubio 10:34, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

note to self, the reference to the anime doesn't follow the parenthetical format for the character

Because I am one of this guys, I promise you that NO ONE who has ever taken part at a memory competition has a eidetic memory.--195.93.60.72 20:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

other redirects

what about "photomemory" and also "photo memory" redirecting here?

controversy as first section?

this could look the article is biased. there are many claims and theories around photographic memory, I suggest another section as first, other than the controversy.

besides, how illogical is it to go to "controversies" when we have no idea what the whole point of the article is!

• The truth about Photographic Memory

promotion

Somebody should probably get rid of that Truth about Photographic Memory link at the bottom of the article. It goes to some cheesy (and not relevant) home-improvement course, which I imagine goes against Wikipedia policy.

RE promotion

What makes it cheese and not relevant? The link is about article explaining why Photographic Memory is impossible and notice that you are talking about Photographic Memory assuming that it’s possible without knowing a thing about it.

because...

It's not an article. It's promotional text masquerading as an article. If some of the same information was present in a more authoritative source, it might be a helpful link. As it is, it looks like it was added in hopes of generating traffic for a commercial venture. Is that the case?

Strike a balance?

I don't see why it must be removed. It is not promotional, at least not entirely. It's got some interesting points, whether or not you agree with it. There are a lot of people who believe there is no such thing as eidetic memory, remember. The description is quite POV, though. I think we can strike middle ground with an edit I did earlier, which kept the link but changed the description to say: An article arguing that photographic memory is physiologically impossible. My edit was originally deleted by someone (195.93.60.69) who deleted a whole lot of other stuff. I've put my edit back in for now.

By the way, please remember to sign. If nothing else, I would know what to call you.

Athanatis 10:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

The content at said link provides no sources for its arguments, so there's no evidence the entire thing is more than the opinions of the author. Please review its final paragraph; the whole thing leads up to a sales pitch. Not the kind of content we want here at Wikipedia. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

P.S. it appears that links to pmemory.com are being spammed across several WP articles (at least). --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:03, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

> The content at said link provides no sources for its arguments, so there's no evidence the entire > thing is more than the opinions of the author.

Have you read the article? I mean the entire article explains why photographic memory is impossible and it is pretty easy to test it. Just follow the instructions from it. What kind of evidence you want, some pictures from the bathroom? Anyone can try it out.

> Please review its final paragraph; the whole thing leads up to a sales pitch.

I agree that article is located on the business website but there are tons of free and very useful information, like how memory works and why photographic memory is impossible. You cannot find anything like it on other websites and I think it is a legitime source of information, because everything is explained throughly with the great details (see GMS Manual http://www.pmemory.com/memory_book.html) And let’s be realistic here. Check the rest of the external links – all information in there is pretty much useless and all of the websites are designed to make money, using ADS or Google AdWords…. www.Pmemory.com provides tons of interesting and new information about memory and mnemonics. Alex dubasAlex_dubas

All following those instructions might prove is that the particular person performing the experiment might not have photographic memory. It doesn't disprove the possibility of someone else having photographic memory. Even if a second person thought he had p.m., and fails the test, he might simply have been mistaken about having p.m. I see no citations of any true scientific studies (or any citations for that matter), so again I see nothing of value in this link.

Also, what other links? There is no longer an External links section, as yours was the last link in it and I thus removed the section header. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 04:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

---

You missed the point of the test. The test is not about possibility that you have or have not a Photographic memory. The test proofs that it is impossible physically! It proofs that the consecutive image is seen for some seconds and then gradually fades away and the consecutive image is not kept in the brain and cannot be reproduced again after it has disappeared. It is very sad that people without understanding how memory works trying to moderate this article. If you want scientific studies read the GMS Manual, everything is explained on the cells level. And again, please note that the book and tons of articles are free. All of this material is very useful for wikipedia users.

Internet is full of tales and wrong information about memory and it’s great that you are trying to keep eye on this issue but the information we are talking about here is a legitimate addition to this article.

And how about "notes"? You can easily rename them to external links, because they all linked to other websites.

Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

Again, one experiment initiated by one person in their own home does not constitute a scientific study.

I started perusing the GSM manual but stopped when it was clear the entire document, though perhaps containing some information, was primarily designed to sell a product.

The contents of the notes section are cited references for the article, and are quite different than simple external links. If you have issue with any of them please list them individually. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 05:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

So if the same experiment will take place in the laboratory then it would be different? Now you are saying that the result of the experiment depends on the place? The home made experiment proofs everything I said if you think it is no a legitimate proof, - THEN PROOF IT. I mean, you act like a person who understands this but it is clear to me that you have no idea what you are talking about. I would like to see some legitimate arguments from your side not some nonsence crap. Are you aware what is scientific study is? You are not eligible to have this conversation. This site is for intellectual people and it seems to me that you are far from understanding even simple things.

Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

Again, all the home-made experiment proves is that the individual taking the test may not have photographic memory. It does not prove that no one at all has photographic memory, as it so claims. I may not be a scientist, this is true, but one single home made test does not prove such a controversial conclusion. And please, let's keep it civil here ok? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 23:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Dan, you don’t understand simple stuff. Here is my question again: If this experiment took place in the laboratory would the result be different?

I will repeat for you something here and I hope you pay more attention this time: The experiment proofs that Photographic Memory is impossible. It has nothing to do with the person who holds the experiment. The test proofs that it is impossible physically! It proofs that the consecutive image is seen for some seconds and then gradually fades away and the consecutive image is not kept in the brain and cannot be reproduced again after it has disappeared. I will try to translate for you - it means that as long as you have human brain and eyes – IT IS IMPOSSIBLE! it has nothing to do with the person who took the test it is all about physical abilities of the eyes and brain. Now tell me something, why you stuck with the location? I mean it has nothing to do with the location what so ever! And it also has nothing to do with the person who took the test; anyone can take it and will get the same result. So what exactly you are talking about here? Please note, that this link was here for many months and you are the only one person who is trying to play smartass. You cannot legitimately answer my questions. You cannot legitimately proof that test is wrong. You cannot even say anything but simple things like – “it’s home-made”. So what exactly is your deal? The information provided by www.Pmemory.com has enormous value to this article and to this website. You have a concern that there is information for sale, so what? The information I am trying to link to - is free. All material about memory is FREE. The eBook is free! Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

Sure, you can prove that someone who does not have photographic memory does not have it with this test. I can acknowledge that. But what if there's a person not taking the test who does have photographic memory? Where's the evidence? How many people have taken this particular test, and what were the results? Without some kind of evidence that says something to the effect that "x number of people took this test - y number passed and z failed", nothing is proven. We call this original research. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 02:45, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

IF? IF? What is that? Legitimate conversation? I will use a simpler example. Can book fly? I can make a test and prove that book cannot fly. What you are saying is that I haven’t tested all books. All I hear is just a philosophical arguing. I don’t see anything else. Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

Yes, "if" in this case refers to the possibility of something - something none of the information we're discussing here has proven one way or another. Books being able to fly is not in question here, no one is seriously saying that they can. However, many claim that photographic memory does exist, but that not everyone has it. Thus, you can't prove that no one has photographic memory by running an experiment in which the person taking the test could be one of those who does not have it. In such a case you need scientific experimentation, testing of large numbers of people, to make a case one way or the other. That is fact, that's how science works. Perhaps such experiments have been done - but I see no evidence anywhere on the website in question of this. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[back to left] pmemory.com has no place as an external link in Wikipedia. It is not sufficiently scholarly to be cited or referred to and reeks of linkspam. -- Moondyne 01:38, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, read my previos post. My example with the book is a perfect example to illustrate the intellectual level of your replies. I want to remind you that this is an encyclopedia. So all point of view should be collected here. What you are claiming is ridicules from this point of view. It is the same thing like allowing posting only good information about Hitler and not to post that because of him died millions of people. This discussion is ridicules and all your points as well. I don’t have time to speak with retards. So long! Alex dubasAlex_Dubas

any connection with..

.. PhotoReading? i think there is.

Tesla had an eidetic memory especially suited for inventors

Tesla related in his autobiography that he experienced detailed moments of inspiration. He could even operate an invention in his brain. From an early age Tesla would visualise an invention in his brain in precise form before moving to the construction stage; a technique which is sometimes known as (eidetic) picture thinking.

The austistic writer and scientist Temple Grandin refers to Tesla and describes having the same ability. Spazquest 21:57, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Mozart had eidetic memory especially suited for composers

At the age of 14 Mozart demonstrated his eidetic memory. At the Sistine Chapel during Holy Week in Rome, Gregorio Allegri's Miserere would be performed. The notes to the Miserere were kept secret under pain of excommunication. On Holy Tuesday, Mozart and his father attended the Papal Mass at the Sistine Chapel. Upon returning to their room, Mozart transcribed the music which had been kept secret for a century . Other musicians and composers with perfect pitch can be found in Category:People with absolute pitch.

Come on, man, that is just so plaint silly. Can´t you use scientic sources?--195.93.60.72 20:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for replying on the talk page. Musicians have known cases like this for centuries. Composers, especially, have a command of mental faculties which are far beyond most people, although computers are making this skill more accessible. But before computers, there was Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Bach. ... And the professionalization of science occurred after the 3 B's. Yet we still have evidence that only a few people have eidetic memory. The count must number in the hundreds or thousands. If I know of 4 out of 300 million Americans, then there must be only a small number who keep this gift into adulthood. --Ancheta Wis 22:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Most sicientists believe eidetic memory is myth and till now nobody could proof that he has a eidetic memory. And this stuff about composers has nothing to do with eidetic memory. They learned to remember so good. Some are also synastethics, but NO ONE has a photographic memory. That´s a fact.--195.93.60.72 10:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, think about it. Eidetic memory bestows a competitive advantage. If you had an ability that practically no one else seems to have, would you allow an invasive search and investigation of your private life? By the Golden Rule, Do not do unto others what what you would not have done to you. One way for you to perform the investigation would be to gain the trust of people with such gifts, and to make their goals your goals. Then you would have a chance of learning more. Otherwise, not; that seems to be one reason that people with such gifts do not step forward to be investigated.

Here is an analogy. In a neighborhood of expensive homes, an investigative reporter knocks on the doors to learn how much money the homeowners make. As you can imagine, the reporter would not get very much information, because someone with the resources to buy an expensive home would not be naive enough to answer such an invasive question. --Ancheta Wis 10:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• Mozart did not have eidetic memory. There is no disputing his talents as a composer, but there have been countless examples of composers (and classical musicians) being able to remember a score with minimal exposure (e.g., Glazunov's reproduction of Borodin's oveture to Prince Igor [if that story is true], and several of the past century's top pianists come to mind). This ability can in part be explained by "chunking," by which incidentally, grandmasters are able to remember scenarios in chess with apparent ease. Basically, music (or chess) have common, and somewhat predictable patterns that are easily recognizable to individuals well-versed in the field. In fact, composers often exploit these patterns but playing against the grain so to speak (e.g., false cadences or deviations from sonata form). Mozart's memory of music may still be counted as remarkable but unless he exhibited similar abilities to remember things outside of music, of which there is no documentation that I know of, he cannot be considered to possess eidetic memory.

Notes

--Ancheta Wis 08:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Please engage on the talk page if you wish to dispute points in the article. I know of 4 people with eidetic memory. They can remember at will. The one I observed stated he can un-remember at will as well. He gazes intently at what he wishes to remember. I have taken care only to cite cases backed up by literature. --Ancheta Wis 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of us can remember "at will." Unfortunately the problem is we also tend to forget against our will.Pithequip (talk) 05:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The man I am talking about is a pianist and conductor. He can remember a music score at will. Can you remember the 7th measure of the first bar on the 10th page of a musical piece? No. I dare say you cannot; most of us who can read music can only read the music on the page as we perform it and do not remember the look of the notes on the page. Speaking for myself, I read and feel the notes. But the man I refer to has read the notes and then remembers the notes visually, not in the tactile way that I play music. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

A measure IS a bar. Are you sure you read music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 02:24, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Spencer

The character of Shawn Spencer on the TV show "Psych" has not been officially characterised has having an eidetic memory. The bio of the character simply states that he has "extraordinary powers of observation" (http://www.usanetwork.com/series/psych/theshow/characterprofiles/shawn/index.html), and many of his "flashes" are based on observations (and the progressive and logical piecing together of clues overlooked by other people) rather than memory. As an example against the eidetic memory claim, at the end of the pilot episode, Shawn tells Gus that he's already been given another case (one which we don't actually get to see), and he has difficulty remembring the exact name of the drug that was used in committing the crime.

BTW, whether or not eidetic memory actually exists in the real world is immaterial to the fictional world of "Psych" (just as transporters and warp engines can exist in the fictional Star Trek world).

Impossible

I am sorry to say that the provided link explaining how Eidetic memory is supposedly impossible is not true. As someone who has Asperger's Syndrome and Eidetic Memory, I can safely say that it is very possible.Thomasiscool 21:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Answer to 'Thomasiscool': That means you, too, can memorize Allegri's Miserere by hearing/viewing it once? I don't think so. You can't. You don't 'memorize' easily things correctly you don't know about. Otherwise you would be a Nobel Prize Winner. You are not. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 61.45.48.223 (talk • contribs) 14:16, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's also true that high school boys don't masturbate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 02:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

How about, instead of making claims one way or another, you 2 add some proper sources to the article for research that backs your claims? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 22:44, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See my reference about Temple Grandin above. She describes being able to visualize objects and spatial relationships clearly enough to manipulate them in real time, so to speak. It's quite possible that there are different experiences lumped together as "photographic memory" and perhaps someone could elaborate on this in the article.

Skeptics please keep in mind that humans have a wide range of abilities; I myself have very poor visual recall and can't see a friend's face clearly in my mind. Spazquest

I also have Asperger's and eidetic memory. I am a strong visual-spatial thinker. Thus, for me memories are images that I see in my mind's-eye. If I meet a person I will never forget their face; but I often have a hard time with names. Additionally after I have visited a place one time I will never forget it. I also tend to remember the exact locations of objects and the exact state of things. Since my mind works through visualization, I can visually 'walk through' in my mind any place that I have been to before. I bet if I sat down and made an effort, I could, for example, count the exact number and location of traffic signals on a 600-mile journey that I have driven many times.

Anyway, probably alot more people have an eidetic or semi-eidetic memory than is popularly belived. Whether a person has 'won a Nobel prize' bears no causal relationship to this issue, and is irrelevant: I would think that many people with eidetic memory have other pervasisve developmental disorders that make 'success' as defined by the societal norm difficult to achieve. Anyway, eidetic memory is not impossible. I could see how an individual with a 'constricted' mind could fail to understand the possibility.Milo rules 04:08, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Strange, why must memory be measured by being able to single pass read and remember something. I believe I have eidetic memory, I can remember in video form my entire day, the more interesting parts crystal clear, along with scent. Sounds I never thought about, but I can't remember sound well now that I try. Right now I can smell, well, remember the smell and video of fairfield texas, specific bits at a time though.

I don't know how to measure it, but I always wondered if people had the same memory as me, when I was 8-10 I was the inter-relative show of memory, I could recite most of any book I read, mainly The Core, which was a good book by the way hehe. Now, I've got piss poor memory compared to page by page ability, age I guess. I know my mother I asked a long time ago if she saw images for memory, after some discussion she was shocked and thought I was joking about mental video memory of events. I found out three or four months ago that my father has memory equal to where mine is now, he's forty-nine. 98.201.24.174 (talk) 09:43, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect Pitch

I teach at a Japanese college for music. All students I know have perfect pitch. My wife has it.I don't.(I am not Japanese.) Are all those people mysteriously blessed with that 'gift' because they are Japanese? No. They undergo a special training called 'solfege', which is a Japanese variation of the French solfege education. That enables them (among other things) after some time to memorize the pitches with a certain degree of precision. There is absolutely nothing miraculous about this ability -otherwise it would not be available to so many people. It certainly has nothing to do with other musical skills - both good and bad instrumentalists/singers can aquire it. Like many other so-called 'talents' it is the result of practicing. Some famous musicians are said to have 'received' perfect pitch as a 'gift'. That is very difficult to prove. It would be a safer guess that they, too, were exposed to some kind of training, either unconsciously or on purpose. Mozart most certainly got very early a thorough education from his father, who wrote a violin school that is one of the most important educational works in the history of music. Concerning the 'Allegri Miracle': Mozart was at that age already familiar with quite difficult composing techniques. It wouldn't have taken him long to recognize that the 'Miserere' is based on very simple harmonic and formal patterns that are repeated over and over. It is not too surprising that a musician of his rank should be able to memorize that particular patterns after the third or forth time they return. Anyway, a more realistic version (see for example Allegri) of this story sends him to the Vatican twice, not just once. That would have given him the time to memorize the basic patterns and write them down afterwards. The second time he would have used to memorize the missing details. Final version. Still the stroke of a master; but not a 'miracle'. To explain the incident with the presence of 'eidetic memory' mocks his real skills. Personally I never met any musician who could prove being able to memorize music by just looking at the sheet or listening to it for some moments. And even if he could, he probably still couldn't play it. (Mozart could do that - but only in the movie 'Amadeus'. Which is a - movie) Life is not that easy, especially for people in difficult professions. --Thefritz5 12:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with being japanese, although it may be more common among asians. i have perfect pitch, and i'm completely caucasian. thedrtaylor 01:00, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't exactly on topic, but I've heard on NPR's radiolab that people who learn tone-based languages are more likely to have perfect pitch. English is not a tone-based language (it doesn't matter what pitch you say a word in, it will mean the same thing, not true for, say, Cambodian). In the radiolab episode, they referenced a study where a team looked at a music school and found that close to 70% of the students who learned tone-based languages had perfect pitch, whereas only 30% of people who had been raised speaking non tone-based languages had perfect pitch. (you can download that episode of radiolab here: http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2006/04/21 )

Impossible?

Whoa. Okay, let's not blow this out of proportion. There's a big difference between memorizing something you don't know about and recalling events or memorizing things you do know about. I never said I could memorize the Miserere. I also never said anything about memorizing things I don't know about.Read the article before you make accusations on the discussion pageThomasiscool 01:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Haraguchi

I'm not sure that Haraguchi's recitation of pi is truly an indicator of eidetic memory, he could have been calculating it instead.24.165.210.213 07:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Haraguchi isn't eidetic, he simply has an extraordinary ability to remember significant amounts of pi. He has his tricks, everyone knows that, but he certainly isn't calculating it on the spot. If he was, why would he stop? 61.25.248.86 01:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Bathroom time, dummy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 02:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Eidetic memory in fiction

I seem to recall a short SF story about a man with eidetic memory, and the immense social difficulty it caused him. For example, when he stood next to a random person at a ball game, he could remember exactly when and where he'd happened to have crossed paths with them years before, their name, what they had been wearing, etc. No matter how hard he tried to avoid it, at some point in the general small talk that occurs with others at such shared events, some detail from his memory would leak out and the other person would freak out at this supposed stranger knowing this detail.

Anyone else read this story? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.233.251.2 (talk) 10:12, 15 December 2006 (UTC).

i think i've heard of a story close to that one, but it was a woman with the eidetic memory. --Kzrulzuall 08:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It was in a book of collected short stories called "Mutants". The protagonist was endowed with total recall, able to remember every detail with perfect clarity from any point in time of his past, but felt more cursed than blessed by his extraordinary memory. -structureman@gmail.com

Comment

Wow, this article is devoid of content. It has no useful explanation or exploration of what "eidetic memory" actually is, yet it has a controversy section, and it is dominated by vast lists of people and fictional people who allegedly have it. Its rather impossible to constructively debate a topic until you've established what it is you're arguing about... 66.216.234.26 19:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

• You may be right. But you are a potential editor. Please contribute to it. I for one would be glad to read your input. Bus stop 20:07, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

important note

Eidetic memory and photographic memory are different according to this source http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/

It depends what one is referring to with these words. Eidetic memory as a type of memory doesn't exist IMO. For the phenomenon of seeing images very vividly, the term eidetic memory is a misnomer. The more correct term would be eidetic imagery. As explained in the article cited above as well as in other sources I have been reading:

Thanks for chiming in. After all, that's what I come to Wikipedia for: your opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.65.143 (talk) 02:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Photographic memory is often confused with another bizarre—but real—perceptual phenomenon called eidetic memory, which occurs in between 2 and 15 percent of children and very rarely in adults. An eidetic image is essentially a vivid afterimage that lingers in the mind's eye for up to a few minutes before fading away. Children with eidetic memory never have anything close to perfect recall, and they typically aren't able to visualize anything as detailed as a body of text.

See also [1], [2]. I suggest we create one article discussing the photographic memory and another one discussing eidetic imagery. These topics should be treated separately. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 15:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

memory

does music affect things memorized?????? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.3.141 (talk) 02:03, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

"Photographic memory" redirects here

I assume we don't need a disambiguating hatnote to the effect "For memory used in digital photography, see Memory card." --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 02:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Swami Vivekananda

Swami Vivekananda had photographic memory.- Refer Complete works —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.54.135.195 (talk) 08:26, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

yes, i have added him to the list along with the reference. --Kkjkkj (talk) 18:44, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

A possible copy + paste?

At the start of the section "Controversy", there is a note which refers the reader to look at sections 15.3 and 15.6, in fact no such sections exist in Wikipedia. This could be either just misunderstood, or then it is really copied and pasted from a certain website/book.

I've removed the note, as I don't see possible uses for it in this article. Still, any possible copyright violations should be removed, as I can barely think a reason why would sections of such big numbers exist in this article. ~Iceshark7 (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I read it as "see sections 15.3 and 15.6 of Dr. Minsky's The Society of Mind". Perhaps it's just an unfamiliar citation style. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 19:16, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Reagan

I'm removing the link to Ronald Reagan, unless someone has a cite. I can't find anyone who even claims he was an eidetiker, and he's much better known for memory loss. Ethan Mitchell (talk) 16:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Jill Price

Jill price and the other two unreferenced people, have (probably) no eidtic memory, they have the hyperthymestic syndrome. I can't be sure if Jill Price is also eidetic, but this aseveration leads to the impression that this condition is very unusual, which is not true, so I'm removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.38.207 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Eidetic vs. photographic

Here http://www.slate.com/id/2140685/ is stated that there are differences between both types of memory. I've suggested to split this article in two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.42.38.207 (talk) 09:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

The link has a POV. Not a suitable reason, unless you can make a stronger case; first, you have to show there are qualitative or quantitative reasons. We need more knowledge to characterize this topic first. --Ancheta Wis (talk) 10:37, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I'm not an expert in this matter, so I'm afraid I can't make a case strong enough. After some Google "research" I've found that: 1. Several pages have the same description as Wikipedia's article (I don't know who copied whom), in these sources photographic memory=eidetic memory=total recall. 2. Some people calls "eidetic memory" to a special ability (learned or inherited), but not necessarily "photographic", so the latter term will be inappropriate. (see for example http://amos.indiana.edu/library/scripts/photomemory.html). Probably there is no need for two different articles, but I think it will be a good idea to point out the differences between both terms. 62.42.38.207 (talk) 16:12, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with merger. Photographic memory seems to be either a synonym or subset of eidetic memory, depending on whose definition you use. -Lamarcus (talk) 04:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Disagree with merger. Eidetic memory tends to include photographic memory, as Lamarcus has noted. P.F. Bruns (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Eidetic IMAGERY is the appropriate term and it is NOT photographic memory. According to most psychologists, photographic memory doesn't exist. http://psycnet.apa.org/books/10518/055.pdf 216.165.24.190 (talk) 05:40, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Long-Term Memory?

I remember reading an article in some semi-popular journal a few years back that claimed that people with eidetic memory often have poor long-term memory. Can anyone find that article or something disproving it? I've tried to, but failed. 129.138.32.219 (talk) 06:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Photographic Memory

I am a bit confused after reading this article. Basically it says that this kind of memory is thought to be non existant. But then again... I can remember large pieces of text almost word by word reading them once or twice. The way it works is that I read the text and after that I can "see" the pages in my mind as pictures. Whenever I take exams or tests I simply "see" the text as it appears in reality in my mind and write down all I need. I can easily tell on which page the passage in question is and so on. Not always can I remember the text EXACTLY as it is after reading it for the first time, reading it twice is the best. Why? I would compare it to seeing a picture - you look at it at first and you see - oh there is John, James and Jill. You look at it again and you notice other details. So far I have tested myself with up to 60 pages and have been very close to the original text. And yes - I have made some of my teachers cry tears of joy, because they think that I have studied very hard :D :D :D So my question is - is my memory PHOTOGRAPHIC?