![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 1 to 25 of 65. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 13:00:23
Research offers new insights:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/10/21/health/webmd/main650656.shtml
Posted by vwoolf on October 24, 2004, at 14:03:10
In reply to Forging false memories, posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 13:00:23
I have trouble with memories. I know that certain core events are true, but wonder about details. These sorts of articles are not helpful, in that they make out that the whole memory could be fabricated. Some things really happened.
Posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 16:56:09
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by vwoolf on October 24, 2004, at 14:03:10
> I have trouble with memories. I know that certain core events are true, but wonder about details. These sorts of articles are not helpful, in that they make out that the whole memory could be fabricated. Some things really happened.
A "whole memory" can be fabricated. Also, which things really happened? How can one be sure? As college profs say: "Half of what you learn this quarter will be found to be incorrect within a few years, unfortunately we don't know which half."
Posted by Speaker on October 24, 2004, at 23:24:44
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » vwoolf, posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 16:56:09
I am always asking my T if he's sure I'm not making up these thoughts. I don't want them to be true so I keep asking him if maybe I'm just making them up. He assure's me my body is reacting to true memories...but I wish they weren't. I'm the same in that these article's make it harder for me to really believe the memories I'm having really happened...I didn't remember them for 40 yrs so maybe I'm just making them up and maybe I've watched to much TV.
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 0:07:54
In reply to Re: Forging or praying for false memories, posted by Speaker on October 24, 2004, at 23:24:44
> I am always asking my T if he's sure I'm not making up these thoughts. I don't want them to be true so I keep asking him if maybe I'm just making them up. He assure's me my body is reacting to true memories...but I wish they weren't. I'm the same in that these article's make it harder for me to really believe the memories I'm having really happened...I didn't remember them for 40 yrs so maybe I'm just making them up and maybe I've watched to much TV.
Here's another good article full of fascinating memory research:
http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/AmerPsychAward+ArticlePDF03%20(2).pdf
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 9:42:19
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » vwoolf, posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 16:56:09
> > I have trouble with memories. I know that certain core events are true, but wonder about details. These sorts of articles are not helpful, in that they make out that the whole memory could be fabricated. Some things really happened.
>
> A "whole memory" can be fabricated. Also, which things really happened? How can one be sure?Why does one need to be sure?
Yes, we know that whole memories can be fabricated. That's what brain-washing is all about. However, generalizing from extreme and exceptional instances to the more typical ones is a logical fallacy.
The links you have provided suggest, rather, that details of memory are rather flexible, but that those details are arranged around a core memory which is rather stable. Whether broken glass was or was not found at an accident scene may be an important detail in a trial, but it does not disprove that there was a collision at all. People were in an MRI machine focussing their cognition on images; whether an image was physical or conjured may be unclear to the participants after the fact, but they were in an MRI "doing" images.
It is also important to consider what one does with memories. Dealing with repressed memories for therapeutic processes is quite a different sequence of events than attempting to use those memories for criminal or civil prosecutions. I'm not clear just what issue it is that you're trying to address, but there are many shades of grey between the limits of what (I believe) you are portraying in terms of black and white.
> As college profs say: "Half of what you learn this quarter will be found to be incorrect within a few years, unfortunately we don't know which half."
That argument has not a whit to do with memory, but is instead in respect of what we call knowledge.
Lar
Posted by antigua on October 25, 2004, at 11:01:31
In reply to Forging false memories, posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 13:00:23
I'm confused. Do you have a purpose for bringing this up?
antigua
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 11:18:16
In reply to Re: Forging false memories, posted by antigua on October 25, 2004, at 11:01:31
> I'm confused. Do you have a purpose for bringing this up?
> antiguaThe info. seems to be least known by those who need to know it the most. You might call me a Good Samaritan. I sense that your question may be a statement in disguise (I heard that on Dr. Phil). ;)
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 11:26:01
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 9:42:19
> Yes, we know that whole memories can be fabricated. That's what brain-washing is all about. However, generalizing from extreme and exceptional instances to the more typical ones is a logical fallacy.Who generalized from extreme and exceptional circumstances?
> The links you have provided suggest, rather, that details of memory are rather flexible, but that those details are arranged around a core memory which is rather stable. Whether broken glass was or was not found at an accident scene may be an important detail in a trial, but it does not disprove that there was a collision at all. People were in an MRI machine focussing their cognition on images; whether an image was physical or conjured may be unclear to the participants after the fact, but they were in an MRI "doing" images.
>
> It is also important to consider what one does with memories. Dealing with repressed memories for therapeutic processes is quite a different sequence of events than attempting to use those memories for criminal or civil prosecutions. I'm not clear just what issue it is that you're trying to address, but there are many shades of grey between the limits of what (I believe) you are portraying in terms of black and white.You may be too young to recall when entire groups of people were sentenced (falsely) to prison due to someones recalled "repressed" memories.
> > As college profs say: "Half of what you learn this quarter will be found to be incorrect within a few years, unfortunately we don't know which half."
>
> That argument has not a whit to do with memory, but is instead in respect of what we call knowledge.I made the point to illustrate that just because you know that some of your memories are true, doesn't help you determine WHICH ones are true and which are false.
> Lar
>
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 12:00:15
In reply to Re: Forging false memories, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 11:26:01
>
> > Yes, we know that whole memories can be fabricated. That's what brain-washing is all about. However, generalizing from extreme and exceptional instances to the more typical ones is a logical fallacy.
>
> Who generalized from extreme and exceptional circumstances?Whole memory fabrication is an extreme and exceptional circumstance. If A then B, not B is not proof of not A. That's called denying the antecedent.
>
> > The links you have provided suggest, rather, that details of memory are rather flexible, but that those details are arranged around a core memory which is rather stable. Whether broken glass was or was not found at an accident scene may be an important detail in a trial, but it does not disprove that there was a collision at all. People were in an MRI machine focussing their cognition on images; whether an image was physical or conjured may be unclear to the participants after the fact, but they were in an MRI "doing" images.
> >
> > It is also important to consider what one does with memories. Dealing with repressed memories for therapeutic processes is quite a different sequence of events than attempting to use those memories for criminal or civil prosecutions. I'm not clear just what issue it is that you're trying to address, but there are many shades of grey between the limits of what (I believe) you are portraying in terms of black and white.
>
> You may be too young to recall when entire groups of people were sentenced (falsely) to prison due to someones recalled "repressed" memories.Careful. I am neither young, nor naive. I have followed the debate closely over the years, after studying it in some detail at university.
Again, that sort of outcome was an extreme, the endpoint on a continuum. Those instances do not preclude veracity in other cases. And as I pointed out, the use to which memories are put is not the same issue as their mere existence.
> > > As college profs say: "Half of what you learn this quarter will be found to be incorrect within a few years, unfortunately we don't know which half."
> >
> > That argument has not a whit to do with memory, but is instead in respect of what we call knowledge.
>
> I made the point to illustrate that just because you know that some of your memories are true, doesn't help you determine WHICH ones are true and which are false.Your predicate assumption, that some memories are false, is not demonstrated. That is called petitio principii, begging the question. In essence, the conclusion is used as verification of the premise. Also, your remark reiterates my earlier contention, that you are presenting black and white arguments about issues that rightly lie on a continuum. It is a false dilemma to only consider true and false as the entirety of possible outcomes for the question.
As I said, minor detail is quite flexible, but the core memory is remarkably robust. Witnesses to an armed robbery might describe the guns or the perps in very different ways, but they would all agree that they witnessed an armed robbery, with an accuracy of 100%.
Lar
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 12:16:57
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 12:00:15
> Whole memory fabrication is an extreme and exceptional circumstance. If A then B, not B is not proof of not A. That's called denying the antecedent.
Wrong fallacy...rushed answer. More, later.
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 13:07:36
In reply to Forging false memories, posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 13:00:23
Bottom line from article posted:
"Our memories are imperfect to begin with, and forgetfulness isn't the only glitch. The brain can also be convinced that events that never took place actually did occur. That's what happened in Northwestern's recent experiment with 11 adults."
Posted by antigua on October 25, 2004, at 13:20:13
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » antigua, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 11:18:16
"I sense that your question may be a statement in disguise (I heard that on Dr. Phil)."
No, it wasn't a statment; I really am confused. It just seemed to come from out of nowhere. I thought I might have missed its relevance, but I guess I didn't.
thanks,
antigua
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 14:47:02
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 13:07:36
> Bottom line from article posted:
>
> "Our memories are imperfect to begin with, and forgetfulness isn't the only glitch. The brain can also be convinced that events that never took place actually did occur. That's what happened in Northwestern's recent experiment with 11 adults."That is the media author's statement, not a scientific one. I do not believe this statement accurately describes the outcome of the study.
What might be a more important issue is why you are so intent on making this point?
Lar
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 15:07:05
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by antigua on October 25, 2004, at 13:20:13
> "I sense that your question may be a statement in disguise (I heard that on Dr. Phil)."
>
> No, it wasn't a statment; I really am confused. It just seemed to come from out of nowhere. I thought I might have missed its relevance, but I guess I didn't.
>
> thanks,
> antiguaI don't understand your comment about relevance? Does anything here have to be relevant to all? or most? or maybe just one person? Please explain.
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 15:09:36
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 14:47:02
> > Bottom line from article posted:
> >
> > "Our memories are imperfect to begin with, and forgetfulness isn't the only glitch. The brain can also be convinced that events that never took place actually did occur. That's what happened in Northwestern's recent experiment with 11 adults."
>
> That is the media author's statement, not a scientific one. I do not believe this statement accurately describes the outcome of the study.
>
> What might be a more important issue is why you are so intent on making this point?
>
> LarThe more important question seems to be : Why are some so intent about trying to refute the validity of the point? Cognitive dissonance?
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 15:17:16
In reply to Re: Forging false memories, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 12:16:57
> > Whole memory fabrication is an extreme and exceptional circumstance. If A then B, not B is not proof of not A. That's called denying the antecedent.
>
> Wrong fallacy...rushed answer. More, later.Actually, it's a hasty generalization, of the form of the fallacy of converse accident, also know as secundum quid, also know as dictum simpliciter.
It's a fallacy of induction...."An inductive generalization is defined as 'an argument that draws a conclusion about all members of a group from evidence that pertains to a selected sample.' The fallacy is said to occur when the sample is not 'representative' of the group."
See: http://io.uwinnipeg.ca/~walton/Walton12.PDFIt is incumbent on the presenter of the inductive argument to show that the sample is, in fact, representative, for the generalization to hold. Just because some memories *can* be falsified, that is not evidence that memories themselves are completely unreliable.
Lar
Posted by gardenergirl on October 25, 2004, at 15:18:25
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 15:09:36
the mulberry bush, the mulberry bush.
Here we go 'round the mulberry bush so early in the morning.
Okay, well it's really late afternoon, but still. Here we go again!
gg
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 15:32:29
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 15:09:36
> The more important question seems to be : Why are some so intent about trying to refute the validity of the point? Cognitive dissonance?
Hardly. I do not doubt that false memories exist, and I gave an example thereof (brain-washing).
Validity is rather an interesting choice of words. Fallacious arguments such as hasty generalizations are de facto proof of the lack of validity. You do not even have representative reliability of assessment, itself a necessary but not sufficient condition for validity.
That we cannot make reliable and valid assessments of the veracity of memories does not preclude us from having to make those decisions, in any case. Are you trying to argue that we should never make such decisions, no matter what?
No, it comes down to this statement, to antigua, wherein you said:
"The info. seems to be least known by those who need to know it the most."Quite apart from issues of validity (which you have not addressed satisfactorily), just who are "those who need to know it the most", and why do "they" need to know?
Lar
Posted by antigua on October 25, 2004, at 15:54:41
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » antigua, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 15:07:05
I agree with Larry:
just who are "those who need to know it the most", and why do "they" need to know?
The Good Samaritan stopped to help an injured man along the side of the road. He didn't just pop out of nowhere--someone was crying for help.
I didn't hear anyone cry for help on this subject.
antigua
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 17:32:24
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by antigua on October 25, 2004, at 15:54:41
> I agree with Larry:
>
> just who are "those who need to know it the most", and why do "they" need to know?
>
> The Good Samaritan stopped to help an injured man along the side of the road. He didn't just pop out of nowhere--someone was crying for help.
>
> I didn't hear anyone cry for help on this subject.
>
> antiguaAnd I don't hear abused women crying at this moment, but I'm sure if I saw an article about them that could help, I would alert them to the article. Remember, most people "don't know what they don't know."
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 17:36:36
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » antigua, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 17:32:24
> And I don't hear abused women crying at this moment, but I'm sure if I saw an article about them that could help, I would alert them to the article. Remember, most people "don't know what they don't know."
Would you please be clear? Are you posting these references in aid of abused women?
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2004, at 18:33:16
In reply to Re: Forging false memories » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 17:36:36
> Would you please be clear? Are you posting these references in aid of abused women?
This discussion might be more productive if it stuck to the issue of false memories rather than getting into the intentions of posters, how about that?
Bob
Posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 20:11:45
In reply to Re: let's keep this civil, thanks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2004, at 18:33:16
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 22:31:30
In reply to I agree (nm) » Dr. Bob, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 20:11:45
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.