Talk:The Magical Number Seven, Plus or Minus Two

message: !!Why should it be merged with chunking?
This should be a historical article, explaining that the paper was the original presentation of a theory
The chunking article explains the modern day useage and interpretation of a theory that has some derivation from Miller's one. I think they should be kept seperate Christianpunk 10:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Miller's paper is notable itself and warrants an article, and chunking continues to be developed and needs its own article.  I'm going to remove the merge tags. -R. S. Shaw 04:33, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible merge with [[Chunking (psychology)]]

message: I have a theory that this has much to do with the way information is stored in our brains.
We don't store information in terms of bits and bytes. We store information in terms of items or atomic elements. An item may be a number, a word, a picture, a sound, a feeling, or any single object.
For example, the set A can be treated as a simple item. A description of the set A (such as "A is the set of all prime digits") is another item. An enumeration of the set A: {2, 3, 5, 7} are four items linked together in a group or set.
Take a look at the following diagrams:
  
In all of them, there's a central item, which is the main focus of our attention, and there are 6±2 other items, that are related to the central item.
The diagram in the middle has 7 elements. They're neatly ordered in a 3D cross-like figure, just as we would expect a set of 7 neurons to be arranged. The other two diagrams are just diagrams where there are less or more related items.
Of course, when you add too much links, things start to become unmanageable. The diagram with nine items already looks overcrowded. Try adding just one more item: you won't be able to do so without forgetting another item.
That's my theory about the whole Hrair limit. LGMᚂ 16:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This (this little article here, including both the theory and the graphics) is a good illustration of one of the things Miller does say, that adding additional information (such as spatial organization and color) increases the channel capacity.  The basic point here ("we store information in terms of items or atomic elements") is probably related to what Miller calls "chunking," although he doesn't present that as a theory of how memory works, but only of how to apply and measure stimuli. Jackrepenning (talk) 00:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would like to propose this bit to be deleted. Could the user first read a bit more about cognitive science and psychology before trying to dazzle others with the profound knowledge? Articles saying more or less the same are plentiful, but tend to be backed up by evidence. I suggest citing these, writing a paper about it, get it published in peer-reviewed journals, and THEN hope OTHERS consider it in an encyclopedia.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.3.104.202 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not so magical... 

message: Does the term 'hrair' appear in Ed Yourdon's book?  If somebody has access to a copy can they check.  Is a term that appears in Watershipdown really of sufficient import to be mentioned in this kind of article?   Derek farn 12:25, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hrair from Watership Down 

message: I've read Miller's paper multiple times, but I cannot find where he actually obtains a result of 7+-2.  Some of the data he refers to falls far outside this range.  I've even recall reading a slightly sarcastic analysis of Miller's paper saying 7+-2 should actually be 9+-4 from the data Miller presents. --Ronz 21:03, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: How did Miller obtain 7+-2?

message: I'm just reading Tufte's book Beautiful Evidence now, and he sums up Miller's paper by saying "people had a hard time remembering more than about 7 unrelated pieces of really dull data all at once." Tufte emphasises that the experiment was about remembering nonsense data, and goes on to say that you can only reach the conclusion of "only 7 items belong on a list" if you don't read Miller's paper. This suggests that the current wiki-article's statement of "remarkable coincidences between the channel capacity of a number of human cognitive and perceptual tasks" -- to say that Miller is talking about cognitive capacity in general, and not just cognitive capacity when it comes to meaningless data -- is adding too many interpretations to this subject. Thanks. Chira 20:46, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand how Tufte can make such conclusion.  The experiments measured "absolute judgments."  It's not nonsense, it's not meaningless data.  Miller also discusses research into immediate memory. --Ronz 21:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you misunderstand Tufte's point: it's not that Miller's data is nonsense or meaningless, it's that the "seven pieces of information" are nonsense data (random numbers, random sounds, random tastes, etc.). Tufte's point is that you can remember a lot more than 7 things if you contextualize the information; if it's just random chirps. If I quickly read off to you twenty interesting and previously unknown facts about people you knew in your life, obviously your brain wouldn't turn off after the eighth one. That's Tufte's point. Miller's paper tells us about the ability to remember a few, uncontextualized things at once; it isn't a general dictum on how much information the human brain can hold at any given time. --24.147.69.31 (talk) 04:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

text: Miller's paper tells us more than that.  Miller tells us (and Tufte tells us that Miller tells us;-) that, by adding additional, supporting dimensions of relationship (pitch, color, loudness, position in several axes, etc.) you can greatly multiply  the "channel capacity" (immediate recall and identification).  Whether the base article here handles Miller's thoughts well or not gets lost in a forest of technical terms, and questions about their general understanding.  But it's certainly the case, as Tufte points out (and Miller has himself, widely) that Miller's work is not merely misapplied when used simplistically, its bulk and point is actually being ignored. Jackrepenning (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Difficulty remembering more than 7 unrelated nonsense data pieces 

message: Is this the study that is frequently cited for why US phone numbers were seven characters (and later, digits) long? --Mdwyer (talk) 21:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: There doesn't seem to be any documentation that AT&T ever did or used such a study.  208.185.179.196 (talk) 23:40, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Phone number length

message: This article says (tail of the initial summary paragraph):
Miller hypothesized that these may all be due to some common but unknown underlying mechanism.
But Miller's article concludes:
What about the seven-point rating scale, the seven categories for absolute judgment, the seven objects in the span of attention, and the seven digits in the span of immediate memory?  For the present I propose to withhold judgment. Perhaps there is something deep and profound behind all these sevens, something just calling out for us to discover it. But I suspect that it is only a pernicious, Pythagorean coincidence.
This entire article covers only the "urban mythos" arising from the first quarter of Miller's paper (and widely hung on the famous line which is its title).  Should we write a real article on Miller's paper, or merely recategorize this one as covering the myth?
Jackrepenning (talk) 00:16, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: No, he didn't!

message: Is it just me, or is this utterly irrelevant to this article? Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It is utterly irrelevant.  But I have never been sufficiently motivated to delete it.  Don't let me get in your way. Derek farn (talk) 19:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure it's so irrelevant. It's just another name for the same concept. I actually knew the term 'hrair limit' (which is more concise anyway) than 'magical number seven plus or minus two.' joe conflo (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  It isn't the same concept. 7+/-2 is an observed limitation strictly applicable to human short-term memory. The second appears to be a wider psychological observation. Maybe it needs its own article, but the hrair limit as described is not the same phenomenon. Anyway, this article technically concentrates on the paper, not on the phenomena itself. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hrair limit 

message: I agree that this citation is not the most relevant on the topic. For the misinterpretation issue, I would suggest to cite Miller himself: Miller, G.A. (1989). George A. Miller. In G. Lindzey (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. VIII, pp. 391-418). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press
As to the question of current estimates of working memory capacity limits around 4, I consider Cowan (2001) the most relevant paper. (This is already in the reference list.) Also Luck & Vogel (1997) is often cited (for example by Cowan, 2001). I think using the term „demonstrated“ for this point is fine, as a bunch of recent studies have shown working memory capacity limits around 4.
By the way, I do not think that the author really wants to say that „recent research has demonstrated that . . . the "law" [is] based on a misinterpretation of Miller's paper.“ How could research (other than historical) demonstrate that? Furthermore, there is not much left to demonstrate as Miller himself has already noted that he was misinterpreted (Miller, 1989).
--HRLfeld (talk) 12:33, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove Farrington link? 

message: Substituted at 08:15, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment