![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 11 to 35 of 65. Go back in thread:
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
Posted by TofuEmmy on October 25, 2004, at 22:55:27
In reply to Re: let's keep this civil, thanks, posted by Dr. Bob on October 25, 2004, at 18:33:16
Could you please clarify your request for civility in this discussion? Was that a PBC to Larry? And just as a side note, the topic of "intent" was NOT brought up by Larry. There were at least two posts *prior* to his which separately discuss intent:
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041016/msgs/407014.html
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041016/msgs/407142.htmlJust want to make it clear since if Lar is PBC'd, his next block is way long.
Emmy
P.S. Personally, I think the intent of a post DOES matter, however difficult that may be to judge.
Posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 0:11:57
In reply to [Spock eyebrow] (nm) » fires, posted by Larry Hoover on October 25, 2004, at 22:31:30
Posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 26, 2004, at 0:42:28
In reply to Forging false memories, posted by fires on October 24, 2004, at 13:00:23
What is your **intent** by continually bringing up this false memory topic on the psych board?
Posted by Larry Hoover on October 26, 2004, at 6:58:54
In reply to Re: [Spock eyebrow??? No comprende] (nm) » Larry Hoover, posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 0:11:57
Vulcan expression of puzzlement. You agree? You brought it up.
Posted by antigua on October 26, 2004, at 9:46:45
In reply to Re: let's keep this civil, thanks, posted by TofuEmmy on October 25, 2004, at 22:55:27
I assumed the "please be civil" was aimed toward me and not Larry.
antigua
Posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 14:39:31
In reply to Forging false memories in regard to what?, posted by Shadowplayers721 on October 26, 2004, at 0:42:28
> What is your **intent** by continually bringing up this false memory topic on the psych board?
See: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20041016/msgs/407164.html
Posted by tryingtobewise on October 26, 2004, at 15:23:34
In reply to Re: Forging or praying for false memories » Speaker, posted by fires on October 25, 2004, at 0:07:54
Honestly, I can see why this would be a relevant topic for this board. While I do not believe I have ever been compelled (either willingly or unknowlingly) to disclose what was in fact a false memory, I have been guilty of becoming "overly invested" in the exagerrated impact a real memory (or memories) has had in my life & development. Doing this has served a couple of purposes:
1. It has validated for me my continued *need* to be in therapy when instinct told me I could probably wrap things up.
2. It has made my therapist feel sucessful in getting to the "roots" of my problems and has given us stuff to work with when in reality there probably wasn't much need to.Kim
Posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 15:56:25
In reply to Re: Forging or praying for false memories, posted by tryingtobewise on October 26, 2004, at 15:23:34
Perhaps the following demonstration test for false memories may indicate a susceptibility toward developing them? Found it at Nat. Public Radio site by False Memory article/info.. Anyway it's interesting:
http://www.mmlc.northwestern.edu/external/paller/memory-demo_content.html
Posted by lifeworthliving on October 26, 2004, at 16:27:51
In reply to Take a test, posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 15:56:25
i took the test and thought it interesting. my numbers were 93% (for accuracy) and the others 0% (can remember what this was for?), and 67% (for false memory). i wasn't really able to find a way to tie the significance of this memeory test to the memories of childhood experiences. of course i don't remember if it was a red or green apple, or was that a grape and not an apple? and like a poster mentioned previously about the bank robbery, all might not recall the more "minor" details, or describe them the same way, but all would agree that they had witnessed a robbery. i'm confident that what i remember is true... even when i doubt.
life
Posted by fires on October 26, 2004, at 16:47:34
In reply to Re: Take a test, posted by lifeworthliving on October 26, 2004, at 16:27:51
... and like a poster mentioned previously about the bank robbery, all might not recall the more "minor" details, or describe them the same way, but all would agree that they had witnessed a robbery. i'm confident that what i remember is true... even when i doubt.
> lifeYeah, but it's so easy to be fooled by one's "memories":
Great article:
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/39/features-abramsky.php
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
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.