Some people learn best by listening, others by reading, etc. The same variation is true for memory techniques. Some memory techniques work better for some people than others.

However, strictly speaking, the technique should work well for everyone but especially well for some people.

The human brain can store and recall some types of information more readily than other types. Humans have an uncanny ability to recognize voices, recognize whether we have seen a face before, and we automatically absorb all sorts of information about places we travel to.

We struggle to deal with other types of information, like random series of digits, dates, etc.

All memory techniques work under the same principle: take something that you want to remember, and convert it into a different format which you can remember more easily.

Memory palace technique converts input into a spatial representation. That doesn't mean you have to have a good spatial memory! Unless you have a specific kind of brain damage or cognitive impairment then you have an excellent spatial memory just for being human.

If this technique doesn't work well for you, then the point of failure is your association between the hard to rememeber input and the easy to rememeber format. That's great news because it means there is a memory technique that will work great for you if you give it another try until you can figure out how to make effective associations.

It's interesting in that I have a pretty amazing spatial memory. I can find my way around the wilderness (off trail) by identifying specific trees etc. I just find it exhausting to do the linking part of memory palace. It's literally easier for me just to remember outright, which I have little difficulty doing.

It actually takes work to become good at linking pictures (which I rarely find highlighted in courses that cover mnemotechnic, probably because the author has forgotten he went through this step).

It took me around a year of regular practice to get to the point where it does not take me time and effort for each picture. The key for me was to want to memorise something that was so large that, even if using mnemotechnic was hard it was still way easier than to try and root learn it.

FWIW, I consider myself to be a visual thinker, and feel the same as you. It's far more work to make the link that it is to just remember the dang thing in the first place, which (as long as the thing to be remembered slots in to some spot in an overall system) is close to effortless.

> All memory techniques work under the same principle: take something that you want to remember, and convert it into a different format which you can remember more easily.

Here I thought memory techniques were essentially data structures for the mind. Memory palace always felt to me a bit like a hash table; some of the techniques I read about for remembering sequences of items or numbers were quite literally building linked lists in the head.

Visual thinkers? Is there some kind of categorization in how people think? Are there auditory thinkers, too?

I think in images, spacial relationships, shapes. Some people, when I mention this to them, shrug as if I'd said something as obvious as 'the sky is blue'. Others look at me like I'm speaking gibberish, because what I'm saying makes no sense at all. What I find most interesting about all of this is how such little effect this seems to have on how we as a group see the world overall.

I am one such "auditory thinker". Despite learning to read music from a young age and a lot of practice, I have never been able to sight-read music. I do however have a good auditory memory and I have always been good at playing music from memory, even compared to other musicians.

Perhaps counter-intuitively most classical musicians are "visual thinkers" and are very good at sight-reading and less good at playing by ear.

Yes, internal experiences and cognition vary a surprising amount! It's fascinating to read about!

Some people have difficulty or are unable to visualize in their mind's eye (aphantasia).