“The End of Remembering” by Joshua Foer and “Evidence” by Kathryn Schulz are two essays that have more in common than you might think. Although on two totally different topics, they revolve around the central point of the complexities of the human mind. However, there are some key elements that both writers contemplated in different ways. A key difference between Foer's essay and Schulz's is the overall thesis. Foer uses a comedic tone throughout his essay to get readers to realize how dependent society has become on external means rather than on ourselves. We have taken memory, a private aspect, and made it completely external and superficial. Writing is an excellent example of “help” for memory. Foer uses the anecdote of the Egyptian god Theuth.In previous eras, philosophers struggled to think of efficient and quick ways to deal with everyday issues. Schulz's essay makes the point that our mind “despite its propensity for error, works better than anything else” (365). Our brain has evolved over time towards a simple and correct mode even if it still runs the risk of being predisposed to error. He talked about the philosopher Descartes and how he wanted to be an “ideal thinker.” This involves approaching each approach with a neutral mind and being active in finding evidence that supports and counters a claim. It also means accepting and even modifying a previously made conclusion. Foer, on the other hand, argues that our society's ability to remember has slowly diminished due to the externalization of ourselves. “Today, when we live in a deluge of printed words,” we don't need to remember everything when we have tools that do it for us (164). We have phones that remember people's names, addresses and phone numbers. We have GPS systems that make remembering routes a thing of the Foer talked about how “training the memory did not have to become a living book but rather a living concordance” (165). He goes on to list various beings throughout history who have attempted to achieve this. Pietro da Ravenna wrote a book, Phoenix, which dealt with memory training. Now, in the fifteenth century, the book of Peter was a success as Peter himself “boasted that he had memorized twenty thousand points of law, a thousand texts of Ovid, seven thousand texts of the Scriptures, along with myriad other classical works” (166). Peter posed the reading in a different way than today. He reread and dwelt on every work he read, this underlines that the work remains and is fixed in his mind. Reading, however, is superficial with a “prize on doing it quickly” (166). Or Camillo who was paid by King Francis I to build a palace of memory for him and him alone. Camillus promised that “one can keep in mind and master all human concepts and all the things that are in the whole world” (168). He believed that there was a magical system by which, by memorizing images, one could understand the connections of everything. Now, in the case of Schulz, we are talking about the famous philosopher Descartes. He raises the argument that “error comes not from believing something that is not true, but from believing on insufficient evidence” (362). Descartes wanted to be an ideal thinker and gather every bit of evidence he could