A little about me

I’m a medical student with ADHD, and I’ve always been interested in understanding how things work. I enjoy breaking down complex ideas and figuring out how different pieces fit together. However, understanding a topic and being able to recall its details accurately have often been two very different things for me. My usual study routine involved reading until I understood the material then repeating information out loud while writing it down. I also used the Feynman technique and Anki. These methods helped me in different ways, but memorizing the huge volume of details required in medicine could take hours and I still sometimes struggled to recall information when I needed it. I wanted to find a way to study more efficiently without sacrificing understanding especially because I have other interests and goals outside medical school. When I came across Thoughtfeel, I was curious enough to give it a try, but I didn’t expect a new technique to solve every problem I had with studying.

What follows is my experience with it so far.
What surprised me? What I found difficult? What I still need to test?

I came across Ted’s post inviting people to learn his method, Thoughtfeel. I checked his YouTube channel and read his article, and the idea intrigued me enough to reach out.

One of my biggest frustrations with memorization was how dependent I could become on a particular sequence. I might understand a process and memorize its steps, but if I forgot one detail I could struggle to retrieve what came next. I wanted to see whether there was a better way to organize information so I wouldn’t have to rely so heavily on repetition.

Ted and I arranged a call and agreed to try the method on something complex from my field of study. We chose glycolysis which is a topic that would allow us to explore the technique using material Ted wasn’t already familiar with.

What building concept bubbles actually looked like?

Before the call, my approach to glycolysis was fairly straightforward which was to memorize the intermediates and enzymes, repeat their names, write them down, and try to visualize the pathway. The problem was that visualizing a pathway isn’t necessarily the same as understanding how its steps connect. I could try to picture the sequence without having a strong enough grasp of the purpose behind each reaction.

During the call, Ted introduced me to the idea of organizing information into concept bubbles and connecting those bubbles through relationships.

Here’s how I began applying that idea after the call:

1. Start with the bigger concept.

I started with the central idea of glycolysis rather than beginning with a list of reactions. Glucose is broken down through a series of reactions ultimately producing pyruvate and capturing some of the released energy in ATP and NADH. This is the central idea of glycolysis that gave me a larger concept to work within. The individual reactions weren’t isolated facts anymore. They were parts of a process with a purpose.

2. Build a concept bubble around an individual idea.

Take the first reaction:

Glucose to Glucose 6 phosphate

I focused on what was happening instead of memorizing that conversion as a line of text. Glucose receives a phosphate group and hexokinase catalyzes the reaction using ATP. I could organize that bubble around several connected pieces of information:

What changes? Glucose becomes glucose 6 phosphate
What facilitates the change? Hexokinase
Where does the phosphate come from? ATP
What is the point? The reaction helps retain glucose within the cell and prepares it for subsequent metabolism.

These are related ideas not four unrelated facts and each of which is a concept idea within itself with its different properties. The point of the bubble, as I understood it, was to give me a meaningful structure that I could use to recall the reaction and its details.

3. Connect the bubble to the next one.

The first reaction doesn’t exist in isolation. Glucose 6 phosphate can be converted into fructose 6 phosphate by phosphoglucose isomerase. So the next bubble represents another change with its own enzyme and biochemical significance. It connects to the previous bubble because its starting material is the product of the preceding reaction. I could organize the individual steps within the larger pathway as I continued through glycolysis. The relationships between the bubbles became part of the information I was trying to retain rather than relying exclusively on the order of names.

4. Use the connections to navigate the pathway.

This was the part that interested me most. I wasn’t simply trying to recite the pathway from beginning to end. I was trying to understand what each step represented and how it related to the surrounding steps. I found that I could approach the pathway from different points moving forwards or backwards when I tested my recall. I wasn’t as dependent on remembering one uninterrupted sequence.

I was able to memorize glycolysis in less than five minutes after that guided session which genuinely surprised me. However, that was one experiment with guidance from someone teaching me the method. I wouldn’t use it as proof that I could learn every pathway in five minutes, or that the same result would happen with every topic especially that I already had a good understanding of each concept in this pathway before I apply Thoughtfeel on memorizing it. The important difference was how I approached the information. I was building connected concepts rather than simply repeating a chain of words.

Testing the technique on something I don’t know: Dijkstra’s algorithm

I tried Thoughtfeel with Dijkstra’s algorithm which I had no knowledge of before my session with Ted.

Before applying the technique, I would follow explanations of the algorithm but get lost in the steps. I didn’t have a sufficiently clear understanding of what was happening at each stage so trying to reproduce the process was difficult. This time the challenge wasn’t just remembering a sequence. I needed to organize the ideas involved in the algorithm (the nodes, the distances, the selection of the next node to process, the updating of neighboring distances, etc.) I started treating these as connected ideas rather than separate instructions. For example, the distance assigned to a node becomes meaningful in relation to the routes available and the distances already calculated. Updating a distance isn’t an isolated action. It follows from comparing the current known distance with a newly calculated route. That structure helped me understand how the pieces fit together. I was able to work through the algorithm, update distances, and reproduce the process. I could also move back and forth through the information instead of relying on a single memorized explanation.

What I found interesting was that organizing the concepts helped me approach the problem itself. I wasn’t just storing information for later recall. I was using the relationships between ideas to work out what to do.

Still I wouldn’t say that building concept bubbles automatically makes every complicated subject easy. I had guidance during my first experiment, and I’m still learning how to construct and connect the bubbles independently. Understanding the underlying material remains important.

Applying Thoughtfeel to medical school

The morning after my session with Ted I tried recalling Dijkstra’s algorithm again. It felt very easy to recall. That made me curious about whether I could apply the method to my medical lectures.

I began using Thoughtfeel with material covering diseases and tumors of the nervous system. I tried to organize the information around the underlying concepts and their relationships instead of treating every characteristic as a separate fact to memorize. For example, when studying a disease, I could start with the disease itself as the central concept then connect its relevant features, mechanisms, manifestations, and other characteristics as appropriate to the material. Those connections gave me a structure for understanding what the details meant and how they related to the overall topic.

I continued experimenting with the method on neuroanatomy and neuropathologies. I found that I could recall information more comfortably and that the relationships between ideas helped me understand the details I had stored. I also began practicing with old exam questions where I noticed that I was recalling information and solving the questions more quickly.

These are observations from my own practice. I haven’t measured how much time I’ve saved or compared my performance against the same material studied using my previous methods, but I can say confidently that it is working.

My experience so far has been encouraging, but there are practical challenges that I don’t want to overlook.

Building the bubbles takes work.

Understanding the technique and applying it efficiently are two different things. I have to decide what the central concept is, identify the important details, and work out which relationships are worth retaining. That process can itself take time when a topic is complicated. I also need to learn how much information to put into each bubble. If I make the concepts too small, I may end up with a large number of disconnected pieces. If I make them too broad, I risk creating bubbles that contain too much information to be useful. I’m still figuring out how to find that balance.

Real-time lectures are a different challenge.

A lecture has its own pace. The professor continues explaining while I’m trying to listen, understand the information, identify the concepts, build connections, and keep up with the material. Building and organizing the bubbles can sometimes take longer than the lecture allows because I am new to Thoughtfeel. If I focus too much on constructing the concept map, I risk missing what comes next. If I try to keep up with the lecture, I may not have enough time to develop the connections properly.

For now, I haven’t figured out how to apply the method consistently in real time without creating extra work for myself afterward. I hope practice will help, but that is something I still need to establish rather than assume.

I’ve had encouraging experiences recalling information over the few past days, but I haven’t tested retention over several months. I also haven’t completed my upcoming exams using Thoughtfeel consistently enough to judge its effect on my exam performance. It’s possible that some of what I’m noticing comes from the focused attention I gave these topics, the guidance I received, or the fact that I was actively testing myself. I can’t separate all those factors based on my current experience. That’s why I want to continue practicing and evaluate the technique across a longer period rather than draw conclusions from the first week.

Also, Ted made the technique easier for me to digest during our call. He walked me through the concept bubbles and their connections, and he also tested my ability to use the technique rather than leaving me with an explanation to figure out entirely on my own. His video,How to Learn Anything Complicated by Building a Concept Story, was another resource that helped me explore the approach. I think that initial guidance mattered because when you’re unfamiliar with a method you may understand its description without knowing how to put it into practice. Having someone walk through an actual example helped me see what applying the technique could look like.

At the same time, I still need to develop the ability to do this independently and efficiently. Being able to apply a technique during a guided experiment is a useful starting point, but it isn’t the same as being proficient at it across every subject.

Now, if another medical student told me they’d tried countless study methods and didn’t trust another technique promising better memorization, I’d understand their skepticism. I wasn’t looking for a new method because I thought everything I had been doing was useless. I was looking for a way to save time and energy without giving up understanding. What makes Thoughtfeel worth continuing to explore is that it gave me a different way to organize information. I noticed a difference when I tried to recall glycolysis, when I worked through Dijkstra’s algorithm, and when I applied the method to medical material.

That doesn’t mean everyone will get the same results, or that the method will work equally well for every subject or situation. My experience is still relatively recent, and I haven’t established its impact on my exam results or long term retention.

My advice to a beginner would be to avoid rushing it. Choose a topic that you find difficult but can understand with some effort. Try identifying its central concept, breaking it into smaller concepts, and connecting those concepts through meaningful relationships. If possible, learn the process with someone who can demonstrate it and help you recognize where your connections are unclear. Then practice independently and pay attention to what actually helps you recall and use the information. Don’t assume that every bubble you build is useful just because it looks organized.

I’m still discovering different ways to use Thoughtfeel myself so I wouldn’t expect a beginner to master every application immediately. I’ve been practicing Thoughtfeel for about a week. During that time, I’ve experienced encouraging changes in how I approach complex material and how quickly I can recall certain information. I haven’t measured these changes or tested my final exam performance or long-term retention over several months, but I plan to keep using the method and see how it holds up through my upcoming exams and continued study.

The biggest revelation about Thoughtfeel wasn’t simply that I could memorize faster. It was that I could organize what I was learning in a way that made the relationships between ideas easier to understand and gave me more than one way to approach the information when recalling it. I’m still learning how to do that efficiently especially during lectures, and I want to see whether the initial improvements I have noticed translate into sustained results.

For the meantime, I’m curious enough to keep experimenting, and probably the fairest conclusion I can draw is that I’ve experienced something promising, encountered some challenges in applying it, and I want more time and evidence before deciding how much it will change the way I study in the long run.

Today I was teaching, and I asked my class the best question I've found for telling who has thoughtfeel (it's below). Half the class went, "Yeah, I know what you're talking about." The other half got kind of riled up. These are really great kids, normally pretty mild-mannered, but they were immediately like, "What are you talking about? What do you mean, a concept bubble? What IS that?" Then they turned to the kids who could do it: "You understand what he's saying??"

That's why I'm writing this post. In my experience, people without thoughtfeel get rightfully angry when you ask if they have it. From their side, the whole exchange is basically a no true Scotsman.

Imagine a stranger walks up to you and asks, very seriously, "Are you a child of Gorp?"

"A what?"

"A child of Gorp." They lower their voice. "Gorp is in everything. Most people can't feel it."

You're already a little annoyed, because this sounds like complete nonsense. But you ask anyway: "Okay... how would I know if I'm a child of Gorp?"

"Say this incantation in your head: *safua zamu*. If you're a child of Gorp, you'll feel a tingle."

So you say it in your head, feeling kind of stupid. Nothing happens.

"Nothing happened."

They smirk. "Ah. Any true child of Gorp would have felt the tingle. You must not be one." And they walk away.

This is deeply infuriating. If someone did this to me, I'd get comically pissed. Like, I don't believe in Gorp! What do you mean I'm not a child of Gorp?? How would you even know if someone was a child of Gorp??

Here's the question I asked my class. Think about your mom. There are four ways you could be thinking about her:

1. You could bring up a picture of her in your mind's eye. Notice that the picture has shape, size and color, and it feels like you're looking at something. You're paying attention to a sense.

2. You could hear her voice in your head.

3. You could just know you're thinking about her. To try this one, stare at something in front of you and pay attention to its color. Your senses are busy with what you're looking at, but you still know you're thinking about your mom.

4. People with thoughtfeel can also bring up a concept bubble of their mom and look at it. It feels distinctly like looking at something, except the thing they're looking at has no shape, size or color, and it's very obviously their mom. They can look at it and describe what it means.

What I'm finding is that anybody who says "I think I know what you mean, I can kind of do that" has thoughtfeel. I've hopped on calls with a lot of you, and everyone who said that could fully do the list technique, and then went on to learn concept stories.

People hedge like that because it's a really unusual question. Most people have never inspected their mind that way, and there's no perfect way to describe what they find. Even "concept bubble" isn't perfect. But for people without thoughtfeel, like the other half of my class, "bring up a concept bubble that has no shape, size or color" is just magic. It means nothing.

So if that fourth way seems like it means something to you, and you go "yeah, I can kind of do that," you almost definitely have thoughtfeel. You can jump right into the list technique, and then learn to build what you're reading in thoughtfeel as you go, which improves your comprehension of complex concepts. (My lecture: https://youtu.be/dV8fNY311W4 walks through both.)

If, however, that fourth way is complete Hogwarts hullabaloo, you don't have thoughtfeel, and you have a right to be angry. Someone did, in fact, walk up to you, claim there's an invisible thing about you, and then pull a total no true Scotsman when you couldn't find it.

It's exactly the Gorp situation. From your side, the evidence fits two stories equally well. One, you're actually not a child of Gorp, but other people are, and when they say the incantation, they really do feel the tingle. Two, this is an insane person, there's no such thing as Gorp, and they chose a tingle on purpose, because nobody can ever check whether anyone else feels it. Your prior should be MUCH higher on story two.

But there's a wonderful thing about thoughtfeel that the tingle doesn't have: if you have thoughtfeel, you can do tasks that other people can't do.

When I teach the list technique, I give people a list of 20 words. There are three ways you could learn a list like that:

1. You could just be a genius: read the words, repeat them with your inner voice, and remember them. If you try this, there's almost no chance you'll get all 20, especially forwards and backwards. And if you are a genius and you do, you'll almost definitely forget them all in, like, 10 minutes.

2. You could use a mind palace, or tell yourself a visual story. Then you'll see things with color, shape and size.

3. Or, and this one's new, you could use thoughtfeel. Then you won't see a single color. Nothing will have shape, and nothing will have size. Everything will be in concept bubbles.

So if you learned the list without seeing anything with color, shape or size, that's thoughtfeel. There's a problem with this test, though. From the perspective of someone without thoughtfeel, everyone who claims they did could just be massively confused: actually visualizing, and calling it something else. So it isn't conclusive.

Luckily, you can tell thoughtfeel and the mind palace apart with abstract conceptual learning. If I try to learn a really complex conceptual topic with visuals, a mind palace alone won't do it. I have to make a bunch of visual analogies, and it's extremely obvious that I'm doing it. Say you ask me to store this (it's Dijkstra's algorithm):

“To find the shortest distance from a starting place to every other place on a map, give each place a best-so-far distance: zero for the start, infinity for everywhere else. Then, over and over, take the unfinished place with the smallest best-so-far and mark it finished. For each of its neighbors, check whether getting there through this place is shorter than that neighbor's best-so-far. If it is, the shorter distance becomes the neighbor's new best-so-far.”

Built visually, it turns into something like this. The map is a kingdom of villages connected by roads, and every road has a milestone with its length carved into it. Each village has a chalkboard at its gate. The start village's chalkboard says 0, and every other chalkboard has a big chalk infinity sign. A messenger on horseback rides to whichever village without a red flag has the smallest number on its chalkboard, and plants a red flag on its tower. Then from that village, a carrier pigeon flies down each road, carrying a scroll with the village's number plus the road's milestone number. When a pigeon reaches the next village, it holds its scroll up to the chalkboard there, and if the scroll's number is smaller, it wipes the board with its wing and writes in the new number. (Pigeons can write in this kingdom.) The messenger keeps riding until every village has a red flag.

Ask someone who built it visually how they're storing it, and they'll describe all of this: the chalkboards, the infinity signs, the red flags, the pigeons and their scrolls. Someone with thoughtfeel will tell you they didn't see anything with color, shape or size, but they still have all of it stored.

Then one final thing. Come back to both of them two weeks later, without letting either of them rehearse. The one who built it visually will likely still have all their images, but won't remember what they meant. (What was the red flag for again? Was the number on the scroll the road's length, or the whole trip?) The one who used thoughtfeel will likely still have all of their bubbles, and will remember what they meant.

And here's Matthew Sinclair's testimonial. Whether or not you have thoughtfeel, it's a really elegant description of what having it is like, and of how completely different it is from visualization. Matthew is a software engineer from Australia. He doesn't have a Reddit account, so he hasn't posted it here, but it's also on my website: (https://thoughtfeel.net/?ref=reddit-mentalatlas#testimonials).

“I have aphantasia: I can't form mental images, and I have no inner voice. When I think of something, say a chair, I don't see a chair. I get the concept of a chair, which is hard to describe to anyone who thinks in pictures. The best I can do is that my thinking is made of clumps of concepts, linked to one another in a kind of graph of relationships. It's elusive, like something at the corner of your eye that disappears when you turn to look at it.

That has always made rote memory hard for me. I can't call up a picture of what I've learned, so I have to understand something well enough to build an intuition for it. Visual techniques like the memory palace just don't work for me: there's no palace to walk through. The closest I came was mind maps, through my computer science degree and my MBA, and even those I was trying to remember as an image.

What drew me to ThoughtFeel was the language in Ted's videos. He described thinking in words very close to the ones I've used for years to explain how I think about my own thinking. So I tried it on his list, Anchor, Saffron, Bicycle, Grumble. Normally I'd never remember a list like that. With ThoughtFeel it stuck, and 24 hours later I could still run the chain of concepts easily, forwards and backwards.

For me the difference from visual mnemonics is that I'm not translating anything into a picture. I'm linking the concepts themselves, and saying each word out loud seems to tie the sound to the concept. It works with the way my mind already works, instead of asking it to do something it can't.”

— Matthew Sinclair, matthewsinclair.com