Does anyone else think Heisig's assertion to quiz only from keyword -> kanji was a bit over the top?

I think keyword -> kanji should be the final judge of your memory, but I'm finding it also useful to quiz yourself from kanji -> keyword at times. I also find that, contrary to what Heisig said, just because I can go from keyword -> kanji, doesn't mean I can go to kanji -> keyword.

I think this is because we have different ways of remembering it. We have our story, which is our base goal of remembering it. The keyword is supposed to bring up the story, and then the story is supposed to give you the kanji (of course once you know a kanji really well or if it's very easy the keyword alone might give you the kanji).

But I think these are two different associations. We have a word to story association, and then inside the story we have an image association. I'm finding that if I practice some kanji going from kanji to keyword, when I quiz keyword to kanji and think of the story my mental/image association with the kanji is MUCH stronger than if I just had been quizzing keyword to kanji.

So I think the way our memory works is something more like, KEYWORD<---->STORY<----->IMAGE
If there is a weak hole in any of them, going in one direction may be harder than the other. However, if you try to make both associations, completing one will also strengthen the other.

I've only done just over half of Heisig so take with a pinch of salt, but I found that most of the time the keyword -> kanji reviewing was taking care of the kanji -> keyword recognition like Heisig says.

However I do think that once I've learned it via keyword -> kanji, practice reading the kanji will make me faster at recognising it. So in other words Heisig's method takes you most of the way there so you can recognise the kanji, but then reading practice is what will make you a fast reader.

I think reading sentences is more effective than reviewing kanji -> keyword flashcards. Remembering the exact keyword's not so important.

I think that Heisig has it the right way. Reviewing from keyword -> kanji is long enough that if you were to do both, then you would never finish the book. Almost all the time, it will also allow you to remember it the other way around. As vosmiura said, reading practice will take care of the kanji->keyword review well enough.

I don't know where you are at in your study of RTK, but perhaps that things will improve as you progress into the book.

I think going from kanji -> keyword also allows your visual memory to take over, which short-circuits the Heisig process. Going in this direction works more like just seeing something and recalling with it looks like.

I find myself doing this when I review the kanji I missed yesterday and don't bother to work back through the story, but just have the image (for kanji I do not know well) pop back into my mind. I know I won't remember those in a couple of days unless I work back through the story.

It's not about just getting the kanji right, but building a robust set of connections in your memory so you don't forget them down the road.

Magnadoodle Wrote:I think that Heisig has it the right way. Reviewing from keyword -> kanji is long enough that if you were to do both, then you would never finish the book. Almost all the time, it will also allow you to remember it the other way around. As vosmiura said, reading practice will take care of the kanji->keyword review well enough.

I don't mean to suggest that a person should have an entire different set of cards to review kanji->keyword....but writing down the kanji 5 or so times when you first see it, and then the next day (after 24 hours), and trying to go kanji -> keyword seems to really reinforce my ability to also do keyword -> kanji later.

And maybe it's just me, but I don't find myself always able to go from kanji -> keyword for kanji that I've only been going keyword -> kanji. More often than not, yes I can, but there are still some where I look at the kanji, see the elements, but then I can't recall the keyword. But if I had seen the keyword, I can think of the story and get the kanji.

billclyde Wrote:I think going from kanji -> keyword also allows your visual memory to take over, which short-circuits the Heisig process. Going in this direction works more like just seeing something and recalling with it looks like.

I think it's not just letting your visual memory take over. Even starting with the kanji, you can still try to create the story, and this is essentially what I am suggesting. You look at the kanji, identify its elements, identify the story, and get the keyword. I haven't found this to short-circuit Heisig's process at all, but rather reinforce my memory and make it easier to recall the kanji image when I see the keyword, think of the story, and then try to think of the kanji.


You do have to be careful though. Let me stress, I am not suggesting mindlessly looking at your kanji and copying it, but rather, look at it, write down the elements and think through the story while writing down the elements (or identify the elements first, think through the story, and then write it down).

sutebun Wrote:but writing down the kanji 5 or so times when you first see it, and then the next day (after 24 hours), and trying to go kanji -> keyword seems to really reinforce my ability to also do keyword -> kanji later.

The way you are describing it, you are using kanji -> keyword as part of your method for learning the story. That's great if it works for you. I don't think there's any problem with that.

I also think it's a good idea to write the kanji a couple of times. I write it for the first few times when doing my reviews. It forces you to recall exactly how the elements are drawn. Plus, even with the Heisig method, there's still a bit of rote memorization. Even if you have a story for primitives, you still have to remember how to draw them. And that comes with practising them a few times.

Even Heisig recognizes that repetition has a place when he says stuff like: "You may play with the primitives of this kanji is you wish, but you will probably find that its simplicity, and frequency, make it easy to remember just as it is". (1217, Negative) That's basically saying: I didn't create a story for this kanji and you'll be easier off just learning it by repetition.

So, I think writing kanjis is important even if Heisig tells you that you don't need to write every kanji more than once. And feel free to use whatever method you need to learn those stories, as long as you don't end up using your visual memory.