Your memories are almost certainly false

[Trolldor]

You're telling someone who studies psychology and law under Jelicic and Merckelbach, who has had lectures by leading Dutch and international experts on Memory in relation to court to read up on eyewitness testimony? I doubt you can produce a study that I have not read.

If you had, then you'd know there's a reason why courts are hesitant, at best, to admit it. You'd also know the reasons why, and all the evidence which support those reasons, and how those reasons have been transposed to other various studies not involving traumatic events likely to cause discontinuity between what did and what you think happen.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

You're telling someone who studies psychology and law under Jelicic and Merckelbach, who has had lectures by leading Dutch and international experts on Memory in relation to court to read up on eyewitness testimony? I doubt you can produce a study that I have not read.

If you had,

Nice! This really isn't the time to get offensive, bub. This is the time to slowly extract yourself from the painful situation you have laid out in front of yourself; Perhaps even, considering you've come very close to calling me a liar, to apologise.

then you'd know there's a reason why courts are hesitant, at best, to admit it. You'd also know the reasons why, and all the evidence which support those reasons, and how those reasons have been transposed to other various studies not involving traumatic events likely to cause discontinuity between what did and what you think happen.

More accurately, it means that I know what context - specifically what factors - influence the reliability of memory and that I'm able to assess whether in, normal circumstances, whether memory is reliable. Your claim about 'recency' per example, is absolute nonsense and betrays your ignorance about the subject. Your talking about traumatic events betrays your ignorance about the subject.

My advice? Apologise. Bullshitting on the web is nice and all, but once in a while you encounter someone who actually knows what he is talking about, and prolonging the situation only makes it sting more.

[Chris C]

I come here solely to watch Comte de Saint-Germain humiliate people.

Carry on.

[PsychoSerenity]

From what I remember from a psychology course I've been doing, memory isn't very reliable and is much more distorted than people usually assume. But I could be remembering that wrong...

No, you remember correctly. However, barring a few rare errors, memory is quite reliable. Like I said. Give me a couple of minutes with your college professors, and they'll agree with me. I know the context in which you heard what you heard, and though it isn't 'wrong', it's not completely spot-on either.

Wow. Just, wow. Sorry, that is mean but, you know..

[charlou]

If you had,

I'd call this healthy skepticism.

[Trolldor]

You're telling someone who studies psychology and law under Jelicic and Merckelbach, who has had lectures by leading Dutch and international experts on Memory in relation to court to read up on eyewitness testimony? I doubt you can produce a study that I have not read.

If you had,

Nice! This really isn't the time to get offensive, bub. This is the time to slowly extract yourself from the painful situation you have laid out in front of yourself; Perhaps even, considering you've come very close to calling me a liar, to apologise.

then you'd know there's a reason why courts are hesitant, at best, to admit it. You'd also know the reasons why, and all the evidence which support those reasons, and how those reasons have been transposed to other various studies not involving traumatic events likely to cause discontinuity between what did and what you think happen.

More accurately, it means that I know what context - specifically what factors - influence the reliability of memory and that I'm able to assess whether in, normal circumstances, whether memory is reliable. Your claim about 'recency' per example, is absolute nonsense and betrays your ignorance about the subject. Your talking about traumatic events betrays your ignorance about the subject.

My advice? Apologise. Bullshitting on the web is nice and all, but once in a while you encounter someone who actually knows what he is talking about, and prolonging the situation only makes it sting more.

Apologise for what? Offending your delicate sensibilities? It's nice of you to assume that you're the authoritative source on the matter, but I think I'll take the PhD articles and evidence over yours.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

If you had,

I'd call this healthy skepticism.

Scepticism? What a facetious and abject usage of the term. If you had any degree of scepticism, you would have sent me a message with a request of 'proof', and I would have quite easily supplied you with the proper channels by which to request information that would confirm what I have claimed about myself. There's nothing sceptical about ignorantly - and boastful of the fact - requesting 'O RLY' without any attempt to gather evidence for oneself. To place it in Nietzschean terms, one must first become a camel - gather up the culture and values of society - before one can become a lion to fight off those dragons. Less poetically, to be a sceptical, you first have to get off your ass and do something.

You're telling someone who studies psychology and law under Jelicic and Merckelbach, who has had lectures by leading Dutch and international experts on Memory in relation to court to read up on eyewitness testimony? I doubt you can produce a study that I have not read.

If you had,

Nice! This really isn't the time to get offensive, bub. This is the time to slowly extract yourself from the painful situation you have laid out in front of yourself; Perhaps even, considering you've come very close to calling me a liar, to apologise.

then you'd know there's a reason why courts are hesitant, at best, to admit it. You'd also know the reasons why, and all the evidence which support those reasons, and how those reasons have been transposed to other various studies not involving traumatic events likely to cause discontinuity between what did and what you think happen.

More accurately, it means that I know what context - specifically what factors - influence the reliability of memory and that I'm able to assess whether in, normal circumstances, whether memory is reliable. Your claim about 'recency' per example, is absolute nonsense and betrays your ignorance about the subject. Your talking about traumatic events betrays your ignorance about the subject.

My advice? Apologise. Bullshitting on the web is nice and all, but once in a while you encounter someone who actually knows what he is talking about, and prolonging the situation only makes it sting more.

Apologise for what? Offending your delicate sensibilities? It's nice of you to assume that you're the authoritative source on the matter, but I think I'll take the PhD articles and evidence over yours.

What's a 'PhD' article, exactly? I very much doubt that you have read a single article on law and psychology - indeed, I question whether you are even capable of reading a neuroscientific article in such a way as would be deemed necessary to draw conclusions from it in anything but "Oh, the abstract says this, so..". Reading scientific articles is a constructive process that requires a keen understanding of the research project and the context in which it was developed and executed. Without such, one can not properly place nor understand the limitations, and one ends up with an improper, simplistic understanding of the science.

Yes, I have read many articles on traumatic memories. As of yet, there is no clear indication that traumatic memories are either suppressed or more vulnerable to forgetting. Remembering traumatic memories in the case associated with therapists or suggestive circumstances are usually unreliable, spontaneous recoveries of traumatic memories usually weren't ever forgotten, but one had simply forgotten prior recovering (even talking about them with a spouse).
Recent memories are not more or less reliable than other memories.

There are limitations to memory - sure - but no 'PhD' will make the claim that memory is not reliable, except in the case to be provocative in a lecture about situations where the reliability of memory is in question. These situations, however, are exceptional and do not reflect the majority of human experience. Also, the suggestion that courts are somehow sceptical of memory is so ridiculous one can only laugh about it. If any party is not up to speed on psychology and its legal implications, it is the courts.

[Trolldor]

I'm wondering if you could point out where I wrote anything about supressed memories. It's odd, because I don't recall ever thinking about them. Who knows? Maybe I supressed the memories because they were so traumatic, and in twenty years time I'll experience retrograde amnesia after a schitzophrenic breakdown of multiple personalities realising my latent homosexuality reflected in my collection of phallic objects like coat hangers. Television says that's what happens so I should believe it, right? Cause I don't have the ability to read or deduce information.

[colubridae]

I'm wondering if you could point out where I wrote anything about supressed memories. It's odd, because I don't recall ever thinking about them. Who knows? Maybe I supressed the memories because they were so traumatic, and in twenty years time I'll experience retrograde amnesia after a schitzophrenic breakdown of multiple personalities realising my latent homosexuality reflected in my collection of phallic objects like coat hangers. Television says that's what happens so I should believe it, right? Cause I don't have the ability to read or deduce information.

What was this thread about. I've forgotten



well someone had to do it.