September 26th Blog

I apologize if my thoughts skip around too much, or if this is too scattered!

While reading Bourtchouladze's descriptions of primary memory and secondary memory, a few questions came to mind: which do we use the most, and is there a difference in interest that determines which we use the most? So of course I'm thinking in terms of what I know, trying to relate all of this to my own life. So I'm thinking in terms of dance. Do dancers rely on secondary memory more then non-dancers? Some say that dancing is like riding a bike, once you retain the knowledge of say, what a plie is, you always have it. Others say that you must continue to practice or you lose it. What, then is "muscle memory"? A form of secondary memory? It makes sense then, that those dancers who pick up on movement, rhythm, etc, faster, are more reliant on their short term memories, and could not show you what they learned the next day. But those who take longer to possess the movement, who need to do it many times, are those who will remember the next day, next week. "He who learns quickly also forgets quickly" then makes sense. Short-term memory does not last as long, even though it is valued so much more.

When I think of which of these types of memory are valued more, it also includes declarative and non-declarative, episodic and semantic. Do we value memories of times, places and contexts, or are we more prone to those of skills, habits, and more importantly, emotions? Sometimes it may be the case of which do we pay more attention to. Since semantic memories are habits and general skills, we pay little attention to them. So it seems that episodic memories are the ones given the most attention. All those questions like "your first childhood memory" or "what you did Friday night," are episodic. I think we pay more attention to the fact that we are remembering when we are remembering an episodic memory.

I was drawn to the Charles Dickens quote, "In this life, we want nothing but Facts, nothing but Facts!" I’m wondering if this is true all the time. It seems to me that we want a mixture of both. I also think it is subjective and circumstantial. When I’m listening to someone tell a story, I’m drawn to the emotional aspect, what they were feeling, reactions, etc. However when I’m in a classroom, I like facts. But I am also always thinking of how I relate to these facts and how they connect with my life. I think trying to separate the two is what is driving me crazy. I want to think in terms of either one or the other, and what I need to focus more on is the fusion of the two. Bourtchouladze says that memory is a system, therefore things work together. In categorizing memory, I tend to separate.

Ebbinghaus speaks of whether or not we use our long term or short term depends on how mush we do it, how interested we are when we do it and whether or not we keep doing it. And so, those who spend the majority of their lives dancing will never forget, whereas those who do it for a short period of time are more likely to forget? Are we able to say that this trace decay happens all the time and to everyone? And what if we involved cueing? With the right cues, can we recall something and have it be as fresh in our minds as the day we learned it? If I were able to see an old dance combination once, one that was practiced and rehearsed numerous times, I could probably remember most of it, if not all of it.

This brings to mind the question about consolidation, the "transformation of memory from short-term to long-term". I’m wondering when this happens. How many times do we hear a song before we know the words by heart? How many times do I have to do a combination before I can do it on my own without any guidance from a teacher? And it’s not the same for everything. I can retain a dance combination much faster then I can memorize a math problem. Does this depend on what type of learner you are (auditory, visual, kinesthetic), or is it really dependent on what interests you?