J03bot said:
I have something of a photographic memory, but a full-blown eidetic memory would be very useful, especially when exams roll around.
"Full-blown eidetic memory" is pretty much a myth.
"Photographic memory" is about the quality of recollection, not the efficiency. Nobody can just flip through a text and memorise all of the info it contains in twenty seconds. It just means the images they do remember will be very vivid.
In fact, almost none of the world's greatest memory competition winners state any claim of having 'eidetic' memories. They all use special training and techniques like mneumonics.
There IS a condition called hyperthymesia, which is extremely rare (there's been like four cases worldwide), where people perfectly remember every single second of their own lives (you could name a date and time and they could tell you where they were, and what the weather was like), but this is often accompanied by psychoneurological disorders like OCD or synaesthesia.
Simply speaking, the 'forgetting mechanism' of their brain, which filters out trivial details, is broken.
Also, everyone's memory is "photographic" (i.e. makes pictures out of light patterns). Which just adds to the very ill-defined concept of "photographic memories" (people say it like it's a very specific, well-defined phenomena, when it really isn't). A better way of putting is just saying you have a 'good memory', or an 'accurate memory'.
Edit: And I have never heard of people with better memories forgetting their early memories faster/sooner. There's a lot of variables that affect memory, which we haven't even begun to understand. We barely even understand what memories are, how they're formed or where they're stored. It's WAAAY too early to start generalising. The idea that our brains have a limited, static amount of "storage space" is a bit simplistic when it comes to psychoneurobiological processes.