Part 26

1. To whom only does this result come? 2. What question is frequently asked? 3. What is the reply? 4. Is analysis declaratory? 5. If so, why? 6. Is Synthesis constructive? 7. If so, explain why? 8. Why is the first lesson called Rec. Analysis?

Every Correlation is a Synthetic Series. It can be and should always be analyzed, but Analysis never makes a Correlation. That is the function of Synthesis. Since "extremes" are words with no relation between them, Analysis cannot find what does not exist. But accident sometimes makes a spelling or letter relation between the "Extremes," and then Analysis can memorise these "extremes" by means of such accidental relations. To illustrate:--

A physician was troubled to remember on which side of the heart are the "mitral valves." As they are on the left side of the heart, he might have noticed that "mitral" ends with the letter "l," and that the word "left" begins with the letter "l"--as "l" belongs to both of these words, here would be a case of analysis. Such a device, however, could never be erected into a rule, for it is founded on accident only, and cannot be used in all cases. How much more vivid to many persons in this example is a Correlation, thus: "Mitral valves ... mitred Abbots ... none left ... left."

To remember which of the University crews wears dark blue and which light, we can note that the vowel "I" belongs alike to Cambridge and "Light" and is absent from Oxford and "Dark."

Take a case in Trigonometry--a Complement is what remains after subtracting an angle from one right-angle. Take 60 degrees from 90 degrees, and we have the complement 30 degrees--a Supplement is what remains after subtracting an angle from two right-angles. Take 120 degrees from 180 degrees and we have the supplement 60 degrees. How to remember that "Complement" relates to one right-angle, and "Supplement" relates to two right-angles, is a difficulty for a poor memory. Looking at the accidents of the subject, we see that Supplement and two right-angles have a relation in this, that Supplement begins with S and two begins with T. S ... T. Hence we must remember that Supplement relates to Two right-angles, and, of course, the word Complement to one right-angle.

Or to use the Synthetic Method: "Complement (compliment) ... praise bestowed ... prize-winner ... won ... one right-angle" (Complement completes right-angle ... one ... right-angle) or "Supplement ... supple ... bend double ... 'two double' ... two right-angles" (Supplement ... added to ... more than one right-angle ... two right-angles).

I could give many other illustrations of the narrow scope of this Method of Accidents, though genuine within that scope, and how, in all cases, by the Synthetic Method we can find in the facts to be remembered the means of their recollection. One case more: In regard to memorising the statement that "the Posterior Nerve of the Spinal Column is Sensory, and the Anterior Nerve is Motor," using this Method of Accidents, "You observe that Posterior and Sensory go together, and that Anterior and Motor go together. The initial letters of Posterior and Sensory are P and S, and the initial letters of Anterior and Motor are A and M. By considering that A and M are in the upper part of the Alphabet and P and S are in the lower part of it, you will be sure to remember that Anterior is associated with Motor and Posterior with Sensory." I admit that the first time one hears this elaborate method applied the novelty of the principle of it might make an impression; but, after that, the method would probably fail from its lengthy exposition; because it is difficult to retain the steps of an argument in a weak Memory and therefore such a method cannot certainly act as a Means for Aiding the Memory. How do I manage this case? By correlating Posterior to Sensory, thus: Posterior ... Post-Mortem ... Insensible ... Sensory; or Anterior to Motor, thus: Anterior ... Ant ... disturbed anthill ... commotion ... Motor; or Anterior ... antediluvian ... rush of water ... water-power ... Motor. In uniting the two unconnected "Extremes" together by means of a developed Analysis memorised, the Natural Memory is aided in a very high degree.

1. What is every correlation? 2. Does Analysis ever make a correlation? 3. Why would not "A" make a good In. by sound with "Anchor" on preceding page? 4. Is the method of remembering by accidental coincidences always reliable? 5. If not, why? 6. Are there cases where it cannot be used? 7. Make an original correlation between "Mitral valves" and "left." 8. How does the accidental coincidence in connection with the University crews compare with Synthesis? 9. Does this method make an impression on the novice at first? 10. Does the novice adhere to it? 11. Why?

BY MEMORISING a Correlation, you so unite the two EXTREMES in memory, that you need not afterwards recall the intermediates. The intermediates drop out of the memory by what Prof. E. W. Scripture, Psychologist, of Yale University, calls the Law of Obliteration.

1. Why does the method fail? 2. Is it difficult to retain the steps of an argument in the natural memory? 3. Can you give any instances in your own experience where Analysis has helped you to cement Extremes together? 4. Can such a method act as a means for aiding the memory? 5. How would I manage the case spoken of?

HOW TO MEMORISE A CORRELATION.

To memorise a Correlation you must at first, if your Natural Memory be weak, repeat from memory the intermediates forwards and backwards, as:--ANCHOR ... sheet-anchor ... sheet ... bed ... BOLSTER--BOLSTER ... bed ... sheet ... sheet-anchor ... ANCHOR, at least three times each way. These six repetitions from memory, three forward and three back, are only required at first. In a short time you will infallibly remember every Correlation you make; at last, the memory will become so strong, that you will no longer have to make Correlations at all. After you have repeated the Correlation, then repeat the two extremes, thus--"Anchor" ... "Bolster." "Bolster" ... "Anchor." "Bolster" ... "Anchor." "Anchor" ... "Bolster."

Nothing else is so easy to memorise as a Correlation, for a Correlation is not a "mental picture" or "story"--it is neither a proposition, sentence or phrase. It has no rhetorical, grammatical, argumentative or imaginative character. It is simply an elemental primordial Psychological Sequence of Ideas in which one includes another, excludes another, or in which one idea has been so often or so vividly united with another in past experience that the two are inseparably connected in memory--and a little practice in making and memorising these Correlations soon makes it impossible to forget them.

1. What is the result of uniting two unconnected "Extremes" by means of a developed Analysis? 2. What are the first steps in memorising a correlation? 3. How long are these repetitions required? 4. What will be the result in a short time? 5. What will be the final result? 6. Are correlations easy to remember? 7. What is the result of making and memorising them? 8. When does the most vivid concurrence take place?

ASSIMILATIVE ASSOCIATION AND MEMORY.

Probably no psychological mistake was ever fraught with greater injury to the cause of public or self-education than the too prevalent opinion amongst teachers generally that "physiological retentiveness" is the memory's sole reliance in all stages of life. It is nearly the sole reliance in infancy, and a partial reliance in youth. But when an accumulation of experiences and a fair command of language have been gained, new acquisitions are henceforward principally made by the affiliation of one idea upon or with another or the making of associations between ideas already established.

And, if this be so, then memory must be very greatly improvable, since no mental power is susceptible of so much improvement as assimilative association.

A good memory, whether natural or acquired, belongs to quick and vivid associability and revivability rather than to mere inherent and perpetual physiological record making.

After a certain number of experiences the child learns the appearance of a square. All his future experiences, however varied, of squares become affiliated upon, or connected with the record of this original square. If each new square had to be separately impressed on the brain as a distinct and independent physiological record, it would take as much time and trouble to learn every new square as it did to learn the first square. But the instant recognition of every square after learning the first one shows that the old brain record is used in the case of each new experience of squares or that the new square is interpreted by the old or original record through the Laws of Association. Again: Taking the prefixes com., de., im., op., re., sup., &c., which are used in thousands of cases, and the suffixes ment, sion, ible, ibility, &c., also used in thousands of words, and using these in connexion with the root word "Press" we have compress, depress, impress, oppress, repress, suppress, and also compressible, depression, re-impress, suppression, impressment, &c.

Must a new physiological record be made for each form of the sixty or more words of which Press constitutes the base, and must a new record be also made for each of the prefixes and suffixes in the thousands of combinations in which they occur? No one believes any such absurdity.

If space permitted it would be easy to offer additional considerations tending to show that after infancy and early youth new acquisitions are mainly made by combinations and recombinations of ideas already possessed, and not by new and independent records physiologically reimpressed on each occasion.

RULES FOR MAKING CORRELATIONS.

1. Never make a correlation except in conformity to In., Ex., and Con. Carelessness here is fatal to success.

2. When the pupil reads a correlation of mine, he should indicate the relations between the words by writing in the figures 1, 2, or 3, and he should pursue the same course with his own correlations.

3. Ofttimes "extremes" are in different planes of thought, so occasionally three intermediates are necessary to cement them; two are often required; but after considerable practice in making correlations one usually suffices.

1. What is fatal to success in making correlations? 2. What do the figures 1, 2, and 3 indicate in Rule 2? 3. How many intermediates should there be?

4. A correlation is a successive advance, and an intermediate must not refer back to any except its immediate antecedent, never to its second or third antecedent. A pupil wrote:--Short steps ... stepson ... real son ... more a son ... Morrison. Here, "more a son" refers to the comparison between "real son" and "stepson," but the latter is the second antecedent so the correlation is a defective one. He might have said: Short steps ... stepson ... Morrison.

5. A word may be used twice but never three times. Pen ... pensive ... gay ... nosegay ... Nose. Here "gay" is properly used twice, and after that, it is dropped and you can go on with the rest of the word, to wit, nose.