Study: Almost two-thirds of Americans believe that memory works like a video camera
Article Source: msnbc.com
from:msnbc.comYour memory is not as powerful as you think
Seeded on Wed Aug 3, 2011 8:45 PM EDT (msnbc.com)
- msnbc.com sites & shows:
- TODAY
- Rock Center
- Nightly News
- Meet the Press
- Dateline
- Morning Joe
- Hardball
- Ed
- Maddow
- Last Word
- msnbc tv
Leave a Comment:
"Your memory sucks!!!"
You're right. My memories suck.
Awww. I am sorry to hear that. Hopefully something good will happen or you can treat yourself and create a good memory.
Somewhere someone (maybe from elementary school) has a good memory where you are involved. Maybe you didn't even realize it but you had a positive impact on their life and they smile everytime they think of you.
I forgot what I was going to say....
I thought I could remember trying to swim out to a boat in the middle of the river and the current was too strong. I couldn't make it and drifted downstream. All these years I remembered it was Scott who jumped out of the boat and brought me a life jacket. A friend had a letter I wrote to him shortly after the rescue and hadn't thrown it away. I read what I wrote and it was actually Sammy who brought me the life jacket. I could have sworn all these years it was Scott. I know I don't remember as well as I thought I did.
There is a problem with this article. It mixes two different mental issues: memory and observation. The invisible gorilla problem is an example of situationla blindness, not a problem with memory. You cannot remember what you do not observe.
You must have hit "Submit" just seconds before I did. . . that's exactly what I thought about this article.
That's not true at all... there have been studies (not mere surveys) demonstrating the same thing. Memory is formed by observation... observation (due to perceptual limitations) does not commit anywhere near everything observed to memory. In fact... down to a very small level (talking cone and etc. type receptors), the amount of visual memory accrued from optical nerve observation is VERY little.
For example of classical studies backing up the article, one study involved interviewing randomly selected individuals about family vacations that were "the best" as children. The individuals family members were confederates (in on the actual study). After a careful interview about the family vacation (for the subjects AND family members), one subject group was provided altered photos of a hot air balloon trip that never happened (photoshopped, courtesy of the family member confederates who provided photos of said subjects at said age). After the interview, then the photo sharing session, (during which one experimental level group was given false photos of the balloon trip), after a bit of time (I want to say months, but I am citing this from memory... heh... and yeah...) the subjects ALL went back through a detailed interview of said favorite family vacation ever. Remember... only one condition group had fake photos... the control group, of course, had only genuine photos. So... what happened?
Well, the group receiving the faux photos of a balloon trip that NEVER actually happened overwhelmingly reported going on the trip that never existed on the followup interview. The control group, despite interview questions asking if they had done the same... didn't report such a memory at all. Hmmm... now, it would be easy to argue at first look that the submission memory and observation are two totally different things is true because the devil's advocate type could simply say that they DID observe the false memories via photograph. That would be missing the point. If the two WERE so utterly different... they should have been completely denying the photographs in the first place... because they never observed it. If "you cannot remember what you do not observe" were at all true... then NONE of the false photo group should have "fallen" for it. Yet... almost all did.
Memory is (best as anyone knows, also simplified) simply a map of the way the brain wired past experiences. Suggestions/new memories/all sorts of things can greatly distort what actually happened. In any case... you can absolutely remember what you did not observe. Not just from the perspective of recalling events incorrectly, but... tell that to a blind man :) . Not a true statement from either angle.
That is, until they forget them.
This story and survey seems to address initial perception at least as much as memory. If you don't notice something to start with, how would you ever remember it?
If something happens in the past and nobody remembers it, did it happen?
I was going to write something really wity, and then I forgot what it was!
So what does this say about the veracity of so-called "historical documents", like, oh, how about the Bible? First written down some 300 years after the events it purports to describe.
"In fact, study researchers said, scientific data suggests that even confident eyewitnesses to an event are wrong about what happened 30 percent of the time."
This alone suggests at least 1/3 of what is writ there is outright wrong.
And the same holds true for the collection of other world religions....