Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The growing science of memory manipulation

scientificamerican.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 156 posts

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#121

Post by jblwps »

ergothus wrote: post #115
altcognito wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what rationalization looks like. "Oh, well, memories are kinda inaccurate, so, it really doesn't matter if we modify them wholesale." Fairly dangerous rationalization.

I agree that it is bad to embrace/shrug off memory manipulation with the rationalization that memory has always been reliable. [Edit: Unreliable] It is also bad to ignore the evidence that memories are unreliable with or without memory manipulation. We can acknowledge the weakness without using it as justification.

That sounds pretty level-headed to me. Acknowledging one's own fallibility/being humble in the face of one's own ignorance is broadly helpful. It seems it only becomes a problem when you start deeply distrusting yourself; you can never get away with wholly doubting yourself.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#122

Post by corey_moncure »

flanbiscuit wrote: post #117
maitredusoi wrote: post #111

Sorry guys this is absolutly not new!!!! More than 30+ years of psychology research proved that the brain reconstruct any memories as it needed to. One sample amongs thhousands : https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/acp.1390 There are 83,000 more researches on the subject https://scholar.google.fr/scholar?q=memories+creation+photos... So prepare to be scare if you think you need it, as there is nothing mor…

I have been aware of how easily my own memory can be manipulated, even by my own self. I've taken stories told to me years ago and have retold them as I had lived them. Then there was the whole Shaq Kazam movie that people swore existed but never did.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kazaam

You mean this movie?

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#123

Post by hyperpallium »

js2 wrote: post #113
slim wrote: post #9

The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…

We’ve got these small pottery bowls I really like. One day, I noticed there only seemed to be two of them. I asked my spouse what happened to the other two. She replied that we only ever owned two. I said, no that can’t be right, I’m certain we had four. She insisted only two. A while later I found a third. I went to her and said, ah ha, see, three bowls! Where did the fourth go? And do you know what she says? “We’ve…

She always said there were three.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#124

Post by hyperpallium »

slim wrote: post #9

The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…

Seeing a webpage/story/comment be changed used to unsettle me - I couldn't understand what had happened, since books don't change. Especially subtle wording changes. Why did I remember it differently than it was...? But I don't seem to notice it any more.

There once was kind of nasty piece on Laurene Jobs, with lots of authentic-seeming detail. It's been completely gone for years now. Maybe this comment too will discover where it went.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#125

Post by sjg007 »

altcognito wrote: post #106
roenxi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. I'm not aware of any evidence that we can believe our own memories. Memory is much like eyesight. There is a very complex process going on to give you the illusion of a clear and consistent picture that is at odds with what the messy and biological process we rely on can actually achieve. The basic problem is that people don't by and large scientifically assess the…

This is what rationalization looks like. "Oh, well, memories are kinda inaccurate, so, it really doesn't matter if we modify them wholesale." Fairly dangerous rationalization.

We know memory is fallible. This hasn't stopped prosecutors from manipulating eye witness testimony in the pursuit of convictions over the truth.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#127

Post by roenxi »

jblwps wrote: post #120
roenxi wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. I'm not aware of any evidence that we can believe our own memories. Memory is much like eyesight. There is a very complex process going on to give you the illusion of a clear and consistent picture that is at odds with what the messy and biological process we rely on can actually achieve. The basic problem is that people don't by and large scientifically assess the…

> The basic problem is that people don't by and large scientifically assess their memories for accuracy But wouldn't any practice of assessing one's own memories intermediately depend on memory faculties? I can quickly think of two dependencies: 1. Working memory (maybe this is tangential and not really on topic for long-term memory) 2. Semantic memories required to assess the legitimacy of a memory. E.g. if we were…

Yeah, to really get in among the weeds and measure the inaccuracies is hopefully impossible. But it wouldn't be too hard to build up a high-level feel for how much big picture stuff you forget from keeping a journal & photographs, then blindly writing how you remember things playing out and comparing the two. More scientific than what most would bother with.

I came across some ancient IRC logs just yesterday that let me look back at a situation I thought I remembered. Turns out I did not remember it.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#128

Post by SkyBelow »

slim wrote: post #9

The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…

The honest truth is that you shouldn't. People treat memory like a video recording. It is more like a play that is reenacted every time you remember it, where props are pulled out of storage but sometimes the wrong prop is pulled out and yet nothing feels wrong. For example, maybe you remember the day you lost your keys and found them between the pottery. What exactly did that pottery look like? Pull the pottery prop out of storage, which is based off of the most recent memory of there being only two pots. You now have a memory of finding the keys between your two pots.

Happen to find a third pot that went missing and place it back on the stand? Next time you remember the incident with the keys, the pottery prop pulled out is the one involving 3 pots. So you clearly remember finding your keys between three plots.

Well what about the old memory? You pull up the memory of a memory, but each memory is generated with props and there is a chance you end up remembering your original memory had 3 pots as well.

The more trivial the detail, the more likely you'll only keep around the most recent prop only and thus have a false memory. There is a lot of psychological research into people watching cars driving where the psychologist then falsify memories of the vehicles (something that is never called out as being worth remembering at the start of the experiment). It works decently well in adults. It works horrifyingly well in kids.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#129

Post by tduberne »

Sniffnoy wrote: post #5

This seems less like an artificial memory and more like a real memory of an artificial experience.

I would not even qualify this as an "artificial" experience. In both cases, the mice are subjected to very similar stimuli. The technology used to create those stimuli seems completely irrelevant to the resulting conditioning. I would have been surprised by any other outcome, to be honest.

This seems quite different from the type of memory that is described afterwards.

Re: The growing science of memory manipulation

#130

Post by everdrive »

js2 wrote: post #113
slim wrote: post #9

The mere possibility of tampering with memory is indeed the most dangerous thing that could happen to humanity. Imagine not being able to believe your own memory. In fact we don't have to imagine, I believe I've been subjected to "mass gaslighting" on multiple occasions recently on the internet : some piece of information I'm sure I saw on the internet suddenly completely disappears. Google + Facebook + "right to be…

We’ve got these small pottery bowls I really like. One day, I noticed there only seemed to be two of them. I asked my spouse what happened to the other two. She replied that we only ever owned two. I said, no that can’t be right, I’m certain we had four. She insisted only two. A while later I found a third. I went to her and said, ah ha, see, three bowls! Where did the fourth go? And do you know what she says? “We’ve…

Tell your wife that her gaslighting isn't nearly interesting enough.
Post reply on HN