Dennis Prager, moral paragon

[_EAllusion]

We're not talking about recovered memories.

Doc was talking about recovered memories. To quote him, " It's virtually impossible, and like Honor mentioned you basically are trying to reconstruct your memories. I do NOT believe memory recovery is accurate, and people who're vulnerable to suggestion are vulnerable to reconstructing memories of events that either didn't happen or are highly subjective. "

We're talking about how memory works. Accessing a memory also changes it. Doing so repeated changes it more.

I think you've taken pop-science writing on memory a little too far in terms of skepticism you have about memory reliability, but that's neither here nor there. It's quite unlikely she'd misremembered who attacked her given the type of attack she described if it happened, but it's technically possible. That general outlook produces the same stance you take, so it doesn't particularly matter.

There's also the possibility that the people interviewed continue to maintain they were never in a situation where Ford met Kavanaugh let alone where such an event might have occurred.

This isn't accurate. What they maintain is they don't recall, which is a very different thing.

I'm disappointed you are painting this as a claim about recovered memory and arguing her memory of the event is not a meaningful consideration so long as we lack other evidence. That's unjustifiable bias.

I'm responding to a quote that literally described it as "recovered memory."

[_honorentheos]

I'm disappointed you are painting this as a claim about recovered memory and arguing her memory of the event is not a meaningful consideration so long as we lack other evidence. That's unjustifiable bias.

I'm responding to a quote that literally described it as "recovered memory."

Yeah, I just caught Ajax's comment though I didn't see Cam say it.

Why is it so hard to use the quote function?

[_honorentheos]

We're talking about how memory works. Accessing a memory also changes it. Doing so repeated changes it more.

I think you've taken pop-science writing on memory a little too far in terms of skepticism you have about memory reliability, but that's neither here nor there. It's quite unlikely she'd misremembered who attacked her given the type of attack she described if it happened, but it's technically possible. That general outlook produces the same stance you take, so it doesn't particular matter.

My point here is that we are only hearing her today stating with 100% certainty it was Brett Kavanaugh who assaulted her. But we don't have any other reason to know that this certitude comes from knowing who Brett Kavanaugh was before the attack, recognizing him during the attack, and reflecting on that over time. Right now, we don't know that they actually knew one another at the time. We don't know, for a fact, that she didn't learn who Mark Judge's friend was, saw Brett Kavanaugh for the first time, and determined he was the person who assaulted her. We just don't know. We don't have access to any other evidence to make the kind of sweeping judgements required to just accept the claims made in the hearing with "100%" certainty that it was Brett Kavanaugh who assualted her originate out of knowledge of who Brett Kavnaugh was.

I'm asking for responsible use of the evidence. I'd place it far lower on the probability spectrum than any of the possibilities involving Kavanaugh lying right now but appears more probable than her knowingly lying though that's also still on the table.

We don't know much. Things are grinding in the most frustratingly herky-jerky manner but there is a sense justice is attempting to grind slowly forward so perhaps we'll get more. I think at a minimum we'll either have Judge and Ford's friend provide evidence that refute's Kavanaugh's claim to have not been at such an event or met Ford, or have all of the witnesses maintain they have no idea what Ford is talking about. At that point, it seems the line would be dim but sufficiently bright enough to make a decision based on evidence.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

I should add that I should've said 'reconstructed' memories along the lines of what Honor described so that's my error in describing the situation from my anecdotal perspective and this current event. I'm incredibly envious of people who have eidetic memory, but even then you never really know to what degree and what detail each person who has that gift is able to perfectly recall a particular memory. I certainly think that someone like myself, who has a pretty crappy memory, runs the risk of projection which isn't fair to others.

- Doc