Dec 09 2013

False Memory Fundamental

You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “False Memory Fundamental”.

Share

11 responses so far

11 Responses to “False Memory Fundamental”

  1. tmac57on 09 Dec 2013 at 12:01 pm

    In casual everyday interaction, most people I meet have a dramatic overconfidence in their own memories.

    At least that’s the way you remember it ;)

    On a serious note,would you consider doing a series of short blog posts discussing the different parts
    ( thematic memory, detail memory, event memory, autobiographical, source memory, and truth status)
    of memory,maybe taking each one in greater depth ? I think that would be interesting.
    Also what does this mean for those who have to memorize detailed facts (such as doctors technicians,teachers) ? Do those types of memories suffer from the same type of malleability?

  2. Steven Novellaon 09 Dec 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Yes they do. However, you can solidify memories with repetition (studying) and then constant reinforcement (use). So I can remember lots of detailed facts when I use them on a regular basis (drug doses, etc.) but for stuff that I have not had to think about in years, I would not trust my memory.

    Essentially, brute force mental work is used to memorize lots of technical details. There is also now an emphasis on using checklists and other external reminders for critical information, and not rely on the brute force method.

  3. Didgyaon 09 Dec 2013 at 1:57 pm

    False memories are facinatiing. My wife is studing law and it is abhorrent the lack of understanding there is in the court system. After the debacle of ‘repressed memories’, one would think that this would be a common part of the court process involving wintness memory but according to my wife it is not. Just google it and see the gross amount of cases involved.

  4. Technogeekon 09 Dec 2013 at 3:05 pm

    It’s funny you should mention that, Didgya. I was at a talk given by Neil deGrasse Tyson last month, and he went into a brief digression about the times he got called up for jury duty. Once he got kicked off the jury for questioning the choice of units (specifically, referring to “7000 milligrams” in a drug trial), and once for pointing out that he wasn’t comfortable convicting someone solely on eyewitness testimony due to its unreliability. And once for saying that he was teaching a course that involved exploring said unreliability.

    (On an unrelated note, the same talk also touched on the infamous Face on Mars and how the higher-quality photo made it obvious that it was just simple pareidolia. I was seated a ways on the left side, and there were two screens set up to show photos: one to Tyson’s left, and one to his right. I found that when I looked at the screen all the way on the right, it made even the fully-lit photo look very much like a face. This really did a lot to emphasize how such an illusion could be created in the first place.)

  5. Fair Persuasionon 09 Dec 2013 at 8:12 pm

    How can regrounding your memories in external unchanging sources work? What are they? And how are they objective?

  6. MikeBon 10 Dec 2013 at 5:40 am

    This is exactly why I’ve come to distrust what is routinely called “psychotherapy,” the idea that one can talk one’s way toward “healing,” whatever that is, for it seems to me to be just emotionally-satisfying story-telling based on unreliable memories. Too bad there’s not more skeptical articles about that.

  7. BillyJoe7on 10 Dec 2013 at 7:24 am

    “How can regrounding your memories in external unchanging sources work?”

    Keep a diary.
    The diary is the external unchanging source.
    Periodically compare your memories with this unchanging source.
    Thereby you are grounding your memories in an external unchanging source.

  8. Sherringtonon 10 Dec 2013 at 10:48 am

    This is interesting work, and the results actually are in sync with another finding in false memory research: If people with “normal” memories use “deeper” processing to remember a list of words, they 1) remember more words than do people who use “shallow” processing and 2) remember more of the “lures” (words related to the words on the list). In other words, improving memory also makes the person more susceptible to false memories. An example of deep processing is evaluating whether the word is concrete (something you can physically touch) or abstract. An example of shallow processing is counting the number of vowels in the word. Of course, this is just one of the false memory paradigms; I do not know if this effect extends to others (such as the example with the photographs).

  9. KeithJMon 10 Dec 2013 at 11:45 am

    Fair Persuasion — imagine you were involved in the studies Steve mentioned. In a meeting with researchers you were shown a list of words with a general theme of “sweet,” and a researcher showed you some videos and also described video of a plane crash in very great detail (but didn’t show you the video). After leaving the office you take careful notes in a diary noting as many of the words as you could remember from the list, as well as your thoughts about the general theme. You also write down that the researcher vividly described a plane crash video, but only showed you videos of car crashes and puppies (or whatever).

    Before your next appointment with these researchers, you re-read your diary. You would probably have much more accurate recollection of your previous visit. That’s re-grounding your memories in an unchanged external source.

  10. Xplodyncowon 10 Dec 2013 at 9:24 pm

    Your brain tries to construct a consistent, plausible, and emotionally gratifying narrative. The details support the overall narrative, but they also can be created or morphed to comply with the larger themes of the narrative.

    Is this fact? Fascinating. What are some good sources to learn more about this?

  11. BEVERLYon 16 Dec 2013 at 12:56 am

    It’s true that we cannot rely on our memories because in reality memory is very prone to falsity. We can feel completely confident that our memory is accurate, but that confidence is not guarantee that a memory is correct.

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.