Re: THEORY: Magical Number Seven Plus Or Minus Two

On Tue, 15 Jun 1999, Ed Heil wrote:
> The paper being talked about here is:
>
> The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two: Some Limits on Our
> Capacity for Processing Information
> by George A. Miller
>
> http://www.well.com/user/smalin/miller.html
Thanks for the reference.
>
>
> Ed Heil ------ edheil@postmark.net
> --- http://purl.org/net/edheil ---
>
> dunn patrick w wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 14 Jun 1999, David T Shoda wrote:
> >
> > > ***People are only able to handle 7 (+2 or -2) bits of information at a
> > > time.  Is anyone here more familiar with this 'bit' of information, or
> > > information theory in general?
> > >
> >
> > I'm a bit familiar with the theory, having participated in an experiment
> > based on it.  Apparently, this:
> >
> > xkfp
Four symbols without a recognizable commonly meaningful order (or
abbreviation).

> >
> > Is four "bits" of information.  However, this:
> >
> > dogs
Single commonly understood reference with specific symbolic order.

> >
> > Is only one.  Hence, we remember the order of planets not by remembering
> > nine units in a row (incidently, this applies particularly to short term
> > memory rather than long term memory), but as a single unit, a sentence:
> > "My very educated mother just baked us nine pies."
Context of a single whole.  Possibly, the image ensued.

Thus, 'nine units in a row' is considered one unit of information, as is
"My very educated mother just baked us nine pies."

Hmmm.  Information moreoften not bound by the symbol?  An image in action
or a concept such as a number . . .

> >
> > That's why I tend to suspect that we remember words as words, not as
> > collections of phonemes.  Of course, this would be very easy to discover
> > through experimentation.  Having a gap of thirty seconds between phonemes,
> > for instance.
> >
>