Quote:
Originally Posted by PepsiFree
No, it means recognizing what Howe explains in the article I linked:
|
I’m going to try this one last time.
I have no problem with what Howe is saying in this publication, in fact I support what he is saying. Where I have problems is your understanding and interpretation of what is being said. You think that what Howe is saying is relevant to all memory and that all memory is created equal - they are not. That is the problem. I also have a problem with you failing to understand that there are methods and tools that can be used to identify false memories - it's how many of these false memories are discovered - and properly identify these concerns. I also get frustrated when people don't understand the very narrow focus of the literature and how much relevant information for explaining the larger context of something as complex as memory is not discussed. The focus is to outline a very narrow slice of the subject matter, or a specific malady/defect rather than discuss the larger body of the concern.
What Howe presents is accurate and valuable. But what he presents is speaking to a specific type of declarative memory – semantic/autobiographical – that is stored very differently and is subject to alteration or decay than episodic memory (also a form of declarative memory) which has more context and tendrils which make it more consistent, easier to recall, and more difficult to impacted by transcription errors. Semantic memory is language and description driven. These are more subject to decay and alteration because our language and descriptors change. Conversely, episodic memory is as it sounds, snap shots of events, which are constructed through different stimuli and essentially chunked out in a neural network. These networks are more scattered but stronger, less subject to the decay or encoding issues of the descriptor driven memories. Most importantly, these types of memories are formed with connections through to very strong environmental components like smell, taste, feeling (both emotional and tactility), sounds, and so on. These create stronger and more complex memories which are more easily recalled, especially when similar conditions are present when the memory was created and the memory was retrieved. It’s why when you hear a certain song it can transport you back to that very moment, and you have total recall of the events.
Something else that Howe is not explaining is brain function and its impact on memory formation and recall. There have been some comments here about emotions and their impact on memory formation and storage. This is an interesting and accurate concept to expand upon. Emotions do play a huge role in our brain function, information processing, and memory capacity. Depending on our emotional state different brain functions can assume control and limit our ability to properly process information and in turn store accurate memories. Instances of higher brain function allow for greater information processing, data collection, and memory retention. Instances of lower brain function do the opposite. Positive emotions activate the higher brain functions while negative emotions active the lower, more primordial, brain functions. The resulting memories are either richer and more filled with specifics, or very stark with basic descriptors.
Howe and I are in agreement in his commentary about methods. It's also accurate that clinicians must be wary of the methods and application of tools so there is no undue influence in memory recall or formation. It is not contradictory to what I've been saying because you do not understand the various forms of memory, how the neural pathways are formed and maintained, and how you can identify the false memories by using stimuli which should activate adjacent memories and pathways. This is the frustration comes in because much of what Howe speaks to is exactly the conditions we were certain to control while interviewing abused women and children at the police department. You must be careful to tap into the right memories (episodic) and avoid the ones more subject to construction of false memories (semantic and autobiographical) where suggestion can alter the descriptors used to maintain the memory. The means to do this can be to rely on recreating similar conditions to when the memory was formed, relying on the same environmental stimuli which is so important to activation of the neural pathways where the memories are stored. As Howe explains, you must be very careful in the methods (improper investigative procedures) used to draw out these memories as you can force the construction and recall of a false memory. At that point the investigator/clinician must rely on trying to draw out other memories or details that betray the memory of being inconsistent/false. That is the point of Howe's paper.
Fuzz brought up a really good example of this when he talked about people misremembering the weather. This is great because it is nothing more than a declarative memory, but a semantic one where there is nothing but simple descriptors involved. Unless the date in question has greater meaning for you and relies on episodic memory, you’re likely to allow the information used to describe the day blur together into others. Contextual information is crucial as are those environmental stimuli that create stronger and more stable memories. I can’t remember the specific weather from much of the year I was married, but I can remember everything about it on that day. I can make educated guesses for the days on either side, but specifics are lost because there is no extra environmental or contextual data to differentiate those days events.
A really good example of episodic memories is the recollection of the first time you got laid (don’t worry Pep, you’ll remember it forever after it happens). Unless you were really drunk – alcohol is an inhibitor to memory formation and recall, unless you are also drunk at time of trying to recall the memory – you are going to have extremely rich memories of that moment. Usually there are all sorts of environmental data that greatly impact your ability to recall that moment years and decades later. Your emotional state heightens your senses and makes you drink in the sounds, the tastes, the smells, the feelings from your body parts, and the exhilaration you feel at the time. It’s why hearing the song that was playing, or smelling the perfume your partner wore, or the taste of their lip gloss/kiss, or the feel of certain materials, can make you relive those moments. All of this rich contextual data are stored in separate memory spaces in your brains, but act together to form one rich memory. When activating just one component of that memory you can activate the entire neural network and recall those memories with incredible detail and accuracy. Forensic psychologists rely on these contextual fragments to rebuild memories, even lost ones. It is also why certain types of therapy (music, art, and animal) are effective in helping those who have suffered traumatic brain injury or are suffering from dementia or Alzheimer’s.
There are a lot of good but incomplete comments in regards to our memories and false memories. Without having the complete understanding of how our brains store and recall information, many of these articles present half the information required to understand the broader issue. Also, lost in these articles is that brain function I mentioned early and the play of impairment in both concerns. It is why I keep going back to understanding the cognitive function and health of the individuals and understanding the types of events and memories being recalled. Our brains are very complex and how memories are stored and retrieved equally complex. We still don’t have a complete understanding of how many things within our brains work – like rerouting after a catastrophic brain injury – but we do have some solid understanding of certain functions like storage, recall, and identification of memory types, and how to identify false memories. It’s why there is so much literature on the subject.
That’s my last thoughts on this subject and an attempt to clarify a complex problem that is not widely understood. Journal articles are great and all, but you need to have a good deal of knowledge on the subject to really understand what is being said. Academics can be really bad at trying to explain large topics, which is why they attack them in small pieces. But then we suck at trying to provide context toward the larger body and just make the content that much more confusing and difficult to understand.