Location: A simple man leading a complicated life....
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fuzz
I'm not saying to discount it, I'm saying it is possible and reasonable to be skeptical of it without assuming the person has a mental defect, which is your stance.
I've been doing a lot reading on this memory issue and I agree with you. There is reason to be skeptical, especially when it comes to Alien Abductions.
I'm not saying to discount it, I'm saying it is possible and reasonable to be skeptical of it without assuming the person has a mental defect, which is your stance.
No, I'm saying if the person is proven to have normal cognitive function and free of any possible deficiency, you must accept the person's recall of events. No one saying not be skeptical. If you're testing, you're skeptical. But if the testing concludes the individual is of sound body and mind, then what? You must accept the clinical examination results and acknowledge the individual has this memory and there are no defects to question that memory, other than YOU think it to be fantastic.
No, I'm saying if the person is proven to have normal cognitive function and free of any possible deficiency, you must accept the person's recall of events. No one saying not be skeptical. If you're testing, you're skeptical. But if the testing concludes the individual is of sound body and mind, then what? You must accept the clinical examination results and acknowledge the individual has this memory and there are no defects to question that memory, other than YOU think it to be fantastic.
So if someone of sound mind tells you that God exists and they have communicated with God, you are bound by your position to believe God exists and this communication actually happened?
Misrepresenting? Come on, I just took what you posted and responded directly to it. You tossed out a very rare neurological issue and attempted to use it as the basis for an argument of the normality of memory function, when it's clear you don't understand how memory functions or the cognitive testing in validating the various memory processes. My conclusions don't align with your "logical conclusions" because you don't have a basis to make any conclusions, you don't understand cognitive function, neurology, or memory function. Presenting articles on the rare conditions does nothing to address the normal function of memory.
Their recollection must be assumed correct until it is proven otherwise. There would be no reason to discount the memory if the cognitive function and testing proves no defect. As a clinician, your job is to review the cognitive function of the individual and look for possible deficiencies. If everything is normal, including the testing of other memories, why would the examiner discount a memory? Just because YOU do not like the memory, or think it is outlandish, does NOT mean the events did not take place or the memory is faulty. Unless YOU were there to prove otherwise, how exactly can you say a person's recollection is faulty, especially if all cognitive testing is passed? And if you're going to play that game, who is to say your memory is not faulty? Unless you can show that the memory is faulty through some other empirical means, you have to assume the memory is accurate.
I'll go back to the attending physician point. You go through a series of tests that provide normal results, what is the attending physician going to do? Go against those results and tell you you're sick? Unless you're pooping rainbow skittles, the tests show nothing negative for bodily function and the physician needs abide by those results, no?
If someone is a normal human being with normal cognitive functions and behaviors, but has a memory of something horrific that does not appear to be a false or constructed memory, why would you discount it without absolute proof to prove otherwise? Because that is exactly what you're asking for. Disbelieve a person's memory because YOU don't believe it rather than following where the results of the examination lead you. That is not what clinicians do.
I understand just fine, and you telling me I don't is not an argument. HSAM was not the basis of my argument, it was a study showing that even people with certain forms of exceptional memory are prone to false memories.
Your analogy of the attending physician is an extremely poor one, because you have it entirely backwards. If someone says "I think I have this disease" you run a series of tests that indicate if the disease is present or not, and you can then either confirm or deny the presence of that disease. You don't run a series of tests to evaluate their cognitive function and upon concluding no issues say, "well, you think you have it, so you must have it." So, when it comes to memory, you can test cognitive function all you want, but all you're doing at that point is testing whether they believe they have this memory. You're not testing the accuracy of it, and we know, for a fact, that memory is not perfect and false memories or highly inaccurate memories are not uncommon. Your position is that if someone says "I remember having cancer" we must believe they have had cancer. You're not running any tests or doing any research to confirm or deny the validity of that memory, so you're being unscientific. You're saying "well, despite there being no evidence they had cancer beyond their memory, there's no evidence they didn't, so they must have had cancer." It's complete nonsense.
I suggest you read "The fallibility of memory in judicial processes" by Howe and Knott. It obviously is focused on how memory plays into the judicial side of things, but covers many instances of false or inaccurate memories in children and adults, and covers a lot of the current scientific understanding of memory which you either seem to lack or for some reason are purposely obscuring to validate your position.
I would suggest you pause and listen, because some of your interpretations around the science of memory have been contradictory to your others and in some cases demostratably false.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
It is one thing to say that, without evidence to the contrary, we can take a memory to be accurate, with respect to normal events and building a framework of discussion around them.
It is another thing entirely to suggest that those memories constitute actual evidence of something real, like a crime or an event of consequence.
And it is another thing entirely again(as in another galaxy) to suggest that those memories constitute some sort of proof of something as incredible as alien life.
"if the person is proven to have normal cognitive function and free of any possible deficiency, you must accept the person's recall of events"
As PepsiFree says that doesn't seem to jive with anything I've ever read or experienced about memory.
Yeah, but you have no idea what you are talking about. Only Lanny does, and you are a moron for even trying to suggest that his claims aren't pure, unchallengeable fact.
The Following User Says Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Well to be fair I don't really know what I'm talking about (at the level of scientific confidence), I only know what I've read and heard about memories, I could be wrong and am willing to be convinced.
A lot of what I read about memory is based more on when I used to try and engage with Christian apologetics when an appeal to the amount of memories was used to try and substantiate claims about angels or miracles, and I'm sure understanding has advanced since then.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
"if the person is proven to have normal cognitive function and free of any possible deficiency, you must accept the person's recall of events"
As PepsiFree says that doesn't seem to jive with anything I've ever read or experienced about memory.
Meaning that it doesn't matter what anyone says they remember, or if a clinician cannot find anything that would challenge the memory to be faulty, YOU and your ilk are the ones who get to decide if that person is remembering things correctly - even when you have no evidence to the contrary. A person's memory is always faulty... unless it agrees with what YOU have to say on a topic. That's how memory works. Got it. I learned something new that I did not in the five years of grad school studying the subject matter nor the peer reviewers of my dissertation research in memory and repetition picked up on. All that research and fMRI time was a waste of money. I withdraw and give way to superior intellect and google.
Meaning that it doesn't matter what anyone says they remember, or if a clinician cannot find anything that would challenge the memory to be faulty, YOU and your ilk are the ones who get to decide if that person is remembering things correctly - even when you have no evidence to the contrary. A person's memory is always faulty... unless it agrees with what YOU have to say on a topic. That's how memory works. Got it. I learned something new that I did not in the five years of grad school studying the subject matter nor the peer reviewers of my dissertation research in memory and repetition picked up on. All that research and fMRI time was a waste of money. I withdraw and give way to superior intellect and google.
No one said anything like this. You are embarrassing yourself.
The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to Enoch Root For This Useful Post:
Location: In a land without pants, or war, or want. But mostly we care about the pants.
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Touche.
I wasn't as clear as I usually am, and then in an attempt to not make it appear anything was being cherrypicked, created further confusion..
I was pleasantly surprised that you acknowledged some of your errors, and felt that perhaps you would become more self-aware and reasonable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lanny_McDonald
Pepsi, you're completely out of your element here and don't know what you're talking about.
Annnnndddd then you ruined it by going back to being perplexingly condescending with nothing to justify your lofty self-regard. It's quite simple - it is an extraordinary claim so it requires extraordinary evidence. If we believe that UFO memories are accurate recollections of an observed reality, why not ghosts or yeti or wee tricksy faeries? There are likely MORE people who remember an experience with a ghost than remember one with a UFO or aliens.
__________________
Better educated sadness than oblivious joy.
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to jammies For This Useful Post:
Meaning that it doesn't matter what anyone says they remember, or if a clinician cannot find anything that would challenge the memory to be faulty, YOU and your ilk are the ones who get to decide if that person is remembering things correctly - even when you have no evidence to the contrary. A person's memory is always faulty... unless it agrees with what YOU have to say on a topic. That's how memory works. Got it. I learned something new that I did not in the five years of grad school studying the subject matter nor the peer reviewers of my dissertation research in memory and repetition picked up on. All that research and fMRI time was a waste of money. I withdraw and give way to superior intellect and google.
No, it means recognizing what Howe explains in the article I linked:
Quote:
Because the contents of our memories for experiences involve the active manipulation (during encoding), integration with pre-existing information (during consolidation), and reconstruction (during retrieval) of that information, memory is, by definition, fallible at best and unreliable at worst.
This fallibility of memory includes not only the omission of details from the original experience, but extends to errors of commission including the creation of memory illusions. Memory illusions can be as simple as misremembering whether one saw a Stop sign or a Yield sign at an intersection to misremembering entire experiences such as being lost in a shopping mall as a child or even being abducted by a UFO. Such illusions can emerge spontaneously in an individual, being created endogenously, or can arise due to the suggestion of another person, being created exogenously. Although the source or origin of these memory illusions might differ, because their memorial consequences are essentially the same, we will use the term false memory to refer to both types of memory illusion.
...
For example, there is the belief that the more specific details a complainant can remember (e.g., verbatim conversations, the clothing people were wearing, the day of the week the event happened, what they ate for breakfast that day) the more accurate the memory. Of course, what the scientific study of memory shows is that quite often rather than being seen as a sign of the veracity of that memory such details are a harbinger for scepticism.
I know this is contradictory to what you've been saying, and while I'm sure your dissertation was very good whenever you wrote it all those years ago and your five years spent in grad school very valuable, perhaps he is someone you would be open to learning something new from? Since you do seem concerned about qualifications, I can list his qualifications if you would like:
Spoiler!
- Professor of Psychology, City University London, 2013-Present
- University Chair in Developmental Psychology and Co-director of the Centre for Research in Human Development at Lancaster University, 2005-2012
- Professor of Psychology, Dean of Research, Dean of Graduate Studies, and National Director of the Centre of Excellence for Children and Adolescents with Special Needs, Lakehead University, 1999-200
- Professor of Psychology, Memorial University, 1985-1999
- Professor of Psychology, University of Victoria, 1982-1985
- 30 years of research on memory and cognitive development
- 20 years of consultancy on memory in the courtroom in Canada, USA, and the UK
- Editor of Memory and the Associate Editor of Developmental Review
- Fellow of the British Psychological Society, American Psychological Association and Association for Psychological Science.
- Author of 12 books, 34 chapters, and 196 journal articles
At very least, I'm sure you'd agree that he's not out of his depth on the subject, unlike us simpletons.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to PepsiFree For This Useful Post:
Do other people have memories that they know are false?
I have memories of events that we also had video or pictures of that we hadn’t looked at for years. The memories I have of those events are wrong and instead are combinations of multiple events.
I find this idea that we should trust peoples memory in the absense of evidence to the contrary a quite dangerous approach. Innocent people have been killed by the state using this kind of logic.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
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.
Last edited by Lanny_McDonald; 03-03-2022 at 10:31 AM.
Canadian MP Larry Maguire asking about safety from drones and UAP over nuclear facilities. Note that he says Canada has had reports of things flying over Canadian nuclear facilities too. Brings up to the US legislation to look into UAP as well.
Just posting because of its recency and relevance to this thread.
What Howe presents is accurate and valuable. (1)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.
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. 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. (2)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.
Chopped this up to remove the whining and assumptions about what I understand (as well as the weird shot about me being a virgin? grow up).
I've also bolded and numbered the stuff I'm responding to directly.
1a. Episodic memory and semantic memory are different, yes, I understand this. I also understand what they are, and that unlike your description, semantic memory is not synonymous with autobiographical memory, but combines with episodic memory to form autobiographical memory. Put simply, episodic memory is the memory of specific events and experiences, while semantic memory is the memory of general knowledge about the world. So to describe Howe's research as focused on semantic memory, when it is very clearly focused on episodic memory, is false. I think you know this, because while you suggest his paper focused on things like false memories of sexual abuse is about "semantic memory" you then give an example of having sex for the first time as "episodic memory." When I mentioned you contradicting yourself, this was an example.
1b. Suggesting episodic memory is less prone to error than semantic memory is not a view commonly held or supported, and is in contradiction with much of what we classify as false memories:
Quote:
With regard to false memories, it has been assumed that the semantic memory system is less vulnerable to involuntary transformations and distortions than the episodic memory system. In line with this assumption the evidence about false memories particularly refers to episodic or “episodic like” aspects of memories, which often requires that at least two aspects of the original encoding situation be remembered (e.g., sentence content and body orientation).
Since episodic memory is flexible, representational and often contains multiple pieces of information from the encoding situation, it comprises an especially constructive process that is prone to error and distortion.
2. The actual truth is, it's difficult to test for how emotion impacts the production of false memories, as indicated here. And false memories are not solely the work of some cognitive malfunction, that's a specific type of false memory (this article, for the record, goes into significantly greater detail about brain function and the areas involved in memory formation and recall, and I understand it just fine):
Quote:
True memory is the real retrieval of an event of any nature, be it visual, verbal, or otherwise. True memories are constantly being rewritten (re-encoding). On the other hand, false memory is defined as the recollection of an event that did not happen or a distortion of an event that indeed occurred. Otherwise, confabulation is the formation of false memories, perceptions, or beliefs about yourself or the environment because of neurological or psychological dysfunction. During this process, confusion between imagination and memory or even confusion between true memories may occur.
Since the past decade, the phenomenon of false memories is drawing attention in the mental health area. Research in the field of mental health and legal area has suggested that emotion can influence the production of false memories. Some studies have indicated that certain psychotherapeutic techniques which are based on the retrieval of emotional memories in children can produce vivid memories of events that have not really occurred, for example, alleged cases of sexual violence suffered during childhood. The memory of these children can be reconfigured in the wrong way. In the legal area, the impact of emotion on the functioning of memory may compromise the exercise of justice, since the person who has witnessed some crime, violation, and/or suffer if any kind of violence may be subject to distortion of their memories. The relationship between the emotion and the production of false memories, however, is difficult to test with autobiographical memories since a detailed comparison between the information retrieved and details of the original event is practically unfeasible.
So, it's great you researched this once upon a time in grad school, but how old are you now? The science has evolved and we've discovered more about memory since that time. I do question your current understanding based on your inaccurate description of autobiographical memory, but I'm fine with assuming that's just a mistake.
My only advice would be to be more open to knowledge that may be different from your own and more prepared to admit you don't know what you don't know. You're the expert after all, but lecturing people about what they don't understand means you better have a pretty spot-on understanding of where the science of memory sits today, and you clearly don't. You shouldn't be making simple mistakes and certainly not fundamental ones. I'm just a simpleton. My understanding of these concepts and where things are today should not exceed yours, or else what good is your appeal to authority on the matter?
Chopped this up to remove the whining and assumptions about what I understand (as well as the weird shot about me being a virgin? grow up).
Relax Francis, it was an attempt to poke some fun at you. Didn't realize this was pain point for you. Apologies to you and your condition. Can't wait for you to have that false memory for you to reminisce over.
Relax Francis, it was an attempt to poke some fun at you. Didn't realize this was pain point for you. Apologies to you and your condition. Can't wait for you to have that false memory for you to reminisce over.
Since admittedly I was offended to my core and this clever jab definitely unearthed a deeply set sensitivity, yeah, I should probably see a psychologist about my hangups around this.
Would like one with some respect in the field, you know? Ideally not one who has been reduced to thumping his chest on the internet about his grad school dissertation 30 years later.
