I know that I've read about a number of biases by now, but they don't come to mind very easily. If I wish to become wary enough to spot cognitive biases in my own thought, then I might appreciate being able to quickly summon many examples of cognitive biases to mind.

You probably don't need to be able to make a full list of cognitive biases off the top of your head; rather, you need to have relevant memory about biases triggered whenever you encounter a situation where you are prone to them. As for training this, you can, say, open a list of biases at the end of the day, and figure out which biases you were affected by during the day, and try to remember those.

Of course, if you often want to tell others about cognitive biases, memorize a few of them with some good examples.

Tangential: I like the idea of having mnemonics for biases but that they can't be shared bugs me. I mean they could by publishing 'standard' mnemoncs but then they don't naturally fit in anybodys memory palace - at least not without additional mnemonic work.

So the idea is: Couldn't we have 'standardized memory palaces'? At least a few rooms which everybody shares. Kind of like a standard floorplan where everybody knows that the entrance (zero) with the stone floor (appeal to the stone) leads into the kitchen (1) with the sun-bathed flowers (halo effect) - or whatever. A memory palace everybody learns in kindergarten could be a great aid for communication and learning for everybody.

What do you think?

It might be a more valuable use of cognitive resources to recognize where bias in general comes from.

Rote memory tasks are good for trying to, say, guess the teacher's password. But it's a lot more efficient if you know what cognitive biases feel like and correct for that feeling ahead of time. In general, anytime something just feels right, you should trust but verify. Hindsight bias feels right when we look at things that already happened. Confirmation bias feels right when we see information that confirms what we already believe. Motivated skepticism feels right when we encounter information that challenges our beliefs. It feels wrong to argue against our ingroup.

As an example of what I mean: I knew a mathematics grad student for a while. Once I asked him (because I had forgotten) what the quadratic equation was. Surely, he's in grad school for math and memorized all of that stuff right? Wrong. He didn't know, but he did know how to derive it from (I'm guessing) certain principles in math. He re-figured it out and showed it to me.

Should we? Is it not enough to remember about confirmation bias and so rather make a habit of stopping, evaluating whether your first reaction starts with 'yes, of course' and consciously trying to think 'no, because'? Your system might have the advantage of play, though.

How many european kings can you name, off the top of your head?