Given a choice between short term contingencies and long term memory, I'll go with the contingencies every time.
On Nov 2, 2011, at 12:32 PM, Mike Palij wrote: > On Wed, 02 Nov 2011 08:35:01 -0700, Manza, Louis wrote: >> Or he's just covering his a** and lying about his lack of memory; >> but it IS a good topic for a discussion on memory . . . > > In response to Michael Sylvester who wrote: >> I believe that Hermain Cain's fading and emerging memories >> are good examples of the reconstructive aspects of long term memory. >> Where is Elizabeth Loftus? This could be a topic for class discussion. > > Okay, a couple of points: > > (1) It is always a treacherous exercise to explain the memory and > cognition of a person (a) one has never met, (b) where one has little > objective evidence about the facts of the situation that one is trying > to remember (i.e., how does one know what is an accurate memory > from a distorted or made-up memory), (c) the overall cognitive/intellectual > and memory functioning of the person doing the remembering (i.e., > is the inability to recall this situation consistent with the person's > cognitive and memory abilities), and (d) a measure of the extent to > which the person is engaging in mendacity, that is, crafting a > self-serving response that changes as needed to take into account > new evidence/facts (especially if it contradicts earlier statements about > memory). If one is just BS'ing about the nature of memory, then, sure, > one can meaninglessly speculate about what is happening with > Herman Cain but remember that as the facts come out, the degrees of > freedoms will be reduced and the number of possible explanations will > reduce in number. > > (2) The situation that is most relevant to the Herman Cain's is the > plea that Lewis "Scooter" Libby made about the Valerie Plame case, > in which he was found guilty of obstruction and justice and perjury. > "Scooter" also had "memory problems" and even used this point to > raise funds; see: > http://www.scooterlibby.org/news/Read.aspx?ID=136 > > I have to admit that when I followed this case back in the day, I was > personally disappointed that memory researchers participated in > "Scooter's" defense. To get a sense of the role memory researchers > played in this, consider this page from www.historycommons.org : > http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=robert_bjork_1 > > Briefly, Dan Schacter was first used as a memory consultant who > would have had to testify, next Robert Bjork was brought in but > the prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald opposed it, which led to having > Elizabeth Loftus being called in to testify in support of having > Bjork testify. Near the bottom of the above mentioned webpage, > the entry for October 26, 2006, Fitzgerald has Beth Loftus on > the stand where she is supposed to bolster the argument that > Bjork should be allowed to testify on Libby's behalf. Fitzgerald > takes her apart on the stand. I'll leave it to the reader as to whether > Loftus embarrassed herself on the stand. > > In the end, Bjork was not allowed to testify. In the final entry at > the above webpage, we have the following comment by the judge: > > |Walton finds that Bjork’s testimony would be a “waste of time,” > |and could mislead and confuse a jury. Libby’s attorneys had argued > |that many jurors have a false impression of how memory works, and > |a “memory expert” could clarify the matter for them. But Walton > |writes, “[T]he average juror may not understand the scientific basis > |and labels attached to causes for memory error.” However, jurors > |encounter the “frailties of memory” as a “commonplace matter of > |course” and do not need the guidance of a memory expert to use > |their “common sense” in the understanding of how memory works. > |“[T]he jury, for themselves, can assess whether a witness’s recollection > |of an earlier conversation is accurate.” > > So, we learned something today. And that is, no matter how much > of an expert one is, don't argue with someone who is much better > than you is an argument/debate, especially in open court. > > (3) To repeat a point: learn what the facts are first before one should > talk about the accuracy of memory and the processes associated with > it. > > -Mike Palij > New York University > [email protected] --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [email protected]. To unsubscribe click here: http://fsulist.frostburg.edu/u?id=13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df5d5&n=T&l=tips&o=13845 or send a blank email to leave-13845-13090.68da6e6e5325aa33287ff385b70df...@fsulist.frostburg.edu
