Mikwut these studies on memory are particular and only say something about memory when one evaluates memory of individuals in situations or experiences where there is a high correlation. Mentioning studies as you have done without getting into the particulars as to how the study was conducted proves nothing about memory generally. "Dr. Ramachandran makes this point in response to a talk of E. Loftus which is on youtube here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSKVyQDl ... re=relatedI’ll quote him making a comment to Loftus after her talk. " Like you study memory, I study perception and vision. What strikes me about human memory in addition to what you said about the fallibility is how extraordinarily reliable it is. It’s astonishing how good our memory is. I can say the same thing about perception. I can produce illusions which violate common sense. And then you find out what causes the illusion.
But this doesn’t prove that vision is highly fallible. It proves under ordinary circumstances it’s extremely good. But using contrived stimulus I can produce an illusion which illuminates the mechanisms of perception. " So likewise particular memory studies don’t prove that memory is fallible. Let me repeat that because it is a crucial point,
particular memory studies don’t prove that memory is fallible. What they prove is that under those particular circumstances employed in that study and only under those particular circumstances whatever those studies show about memory. So for example when Loftus does her study..showing subjects some scenes briefly and later questions them on details and introduces some false details through the questions…she shows via those studies that people exposed briefly to data (via a scene) when questioned on items which tend to be easily confusable ..subjects are susceptible to false memories of those details and may incorporate into what they recall the false data introduced through questioning. It might be facial memory (easily confusable) stop sign or yield sign (easily confusable) especially when only exposed briefly, exposed perhaps under stress, or with lots of other detail present.
That particular Loftus study of subjects being shown a scene and memory tested afterwards does not prove that memory is fallible generally it only proves under those circumstance of that test that memory on details are easily confusable through leading questions witnesses may incorporate recall of false information introduced by questioners. Had the subjects had lots of exposure to the scene, that would be a different particular than what that test employed. Or had subjects been questioned about details which were memorable, not easily confusible again..that would be a different particular than employed in that study. Or had the subjects been told to recall only that which they are positive about..again a different particular. That study closely aligns with the experience by a witness of a crime scene, exposed briefly to a scene who are later questioned by law authorities, there often is pressure to provide any detail even if not absolutely certain. What that study proved was that witnesses of crime scenes exposed briefly in recall of easily confusable items are susceptible to memory fallibility and incorporating false details introduced to them via questions. This sort of study is extremely important to prevent wrongful convictions. It is not a study meant to prove memory is fallible generally. The studies provide objective evidence that witness statements in which their experience correlates highly to the study…are unreliable on confusable details. But it’s very important to keep in mind there must be a high correlation with that study before witness testimonies can be dismissed on the basis of the study.
Now I said to you I’d be willing to look at each study you brought up..and address them in separate posts individuals. If we are going to be intellectually honest then that’s what is necessary in order to understand when and if memory is likely fallible.
In my previous post I said I’d start with the you tube you gave which you used to illustrate what you termed “semantic intrusion”.
There are many false memory paradigms in effect in regard to the conn. witnesses. The first is semantic intrusions. This is how the distortions of the lost tribes, jews, american indians etc.. can all get confused, confabulated and distorted. This is a well known and well documented false memory that Chris provided a youtube example of long ago:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfhIuaD183I The vase amount of time passing, the available and present historical cues, the mundane and non-intentional manipulations from confusing presentation all increase the probability and rate of semantic intrusion. Also, the proactive interference effect would be in play with the conn. witnesses. This is the effect that after they heard or read Spalding, they later heard or read or were presented with other related cues - Israelites, mounds, Book of Mormon ideas etc.. which would intrude on their memory's further.
So that youtube test of memory didn’t correlate at all with the situation with the Conneaut witnesses.
First of all it was done by a magician, it wasn’t a scientific study. And he used a few tricks one being he talked excessively fast and created an overall sense of urgency. He gave on a screen a list of 15 words..read them ..such that the audience had 20 second exposure. The words were easily confusable ..they were .. good, nice sugar, honey, candy, chocolate, cake, pie, soda, sour, bitter, tart , tooth heart, taste..(he had them mixed in a different order)
He said: " You are going to write down as many words. I’m going to show them and read them to you..ok? And as soon as we’re done , as soon as we’re done (he clicks his fingers) you’re going to have 1 minute to write down as many of those words as you can possibly remember. Don’t cheat, keep an eye on your neighbour make sure they are not cheating but we’re going to write down as many of these as we can remember
All right here we go.."
After 20 seconds he tell them “you have 1 minute to write down as many of them as as you possibly can”
While they are writing he says: many of you will find that the 1st words will come easily and then you will hit a wall – don’t give up, close your eyes and try to remember and you’ll be able to remember 3 or 4 more words. It’s important that you get as many as you possibly can."
So let’s look at some of the particular’s in this situation.
The test is presented like a game..this is not a serious witness situation
- A sense of urgency is created for people to be quick in what they write down
- Only 20 seconds of exposure to the data..only 1 minute to write down their recall of words
- They are encouraged to not stop after they’ve written down what they can remember, encouraged to keep going..and use their IMAGINATION to get 3 or 4 more words (in other words just guess)
- Told it is IMPORTANT to get as many words as possible.
So after the test..he asked the audience how many recalled the word "sweet" and many put up their hands.
Well of course, if they are playing a game, to write down as many words as possible, to use their imagination and write down more even when they stop and given confusable words briefly for 20 seconds..is it any wonder or surprise some people wrote down the word "sweet"
So Mikwut under the circumstances above in which there is virtually no correlation between that memory test and the Conneaut witness situation..one can not draw a conclusion from it about memory and apply it to the conneaut witnesses. That is science being used incorrectly and misapplied.
So this is why I said Id go through each study individually. We need to understand well how the tests were done..in order to determine if there is a high correlation between the particulars employed in n any particular study with the particulars of the Conneaut witnesses situation to be able to draw any probably conclusion.
Only when there is a high correlation can you or anyone…conclude something with regards to the Conneaut witnesses memory. And the burden is up to you, to show the high correlation.