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

Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

sciencedirect.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 32 posts

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#11

Post by notacoward »

This might be similar to the "write it down so you can stop thinking about it" effect. I often have an idea, e.g. for a blog post, that I just can't seem to get rid of. My mind just keeps turning it over and over. Then I write a draft, and poof I stop thinking about it. The fact that I usually don't finish turning the draft into a real post is a separate problem. ;)

There really is something about "offloading" those thoughts into some external place, and I really don't see why the authors even think it's relevant if it's subsequently deleted. The damage has already been done, the thing already partly forgotten, the instant the picture is taken. Did it ever seem likely that we'd have to check back multiple times to see whether a memory was stored elsewhere before forgetting it? Certainly when I've forgotten stuff that's never how it has been. Once is enough.

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#12

Post by saudioger »

ginko wrote: post #3

I wonder if you'd get different results with analog photography. I'm really into film photography and I find I remember the motives I'm shooting quite well. Maybe that's because with film you're more deliberate in what you shoot and due to the sense of anticipation to seeing the final result.

The study tested people who would lose access to the photos immediately or delete them intentionally, and they still succumbed to the effect... so I'd expect it would be similar for analog.

I think the the more important distinction you mentioned is that photographers who are a bit beyond amateur are more likely to analyze what they're shooting, and therefore remember it.

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#13

Post by visarga »

On the other hand, photos reviewed 2-3 times (especially after few months/years) become much more durable memories than those simply observed directly. I tend to only remember things I have photographed in the last 20 years, that is why I take photos of things I want to make sure I will remember. A photo can revive a whole lot of extra memories associated to the moment.

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#14

Post by djrogers »

I think there’s a lot of information we take in about our surroundings (sounds, smell, peripheral vision, motion, etc) that all gets shoved in to a ‘memory’. When we are focused on taking pictures, we block that stuff out - either physically (peripheral vision) or mentally (sound, smells).

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#15

Post by epicide »

visarga wrote: post #13

On the other hand, photos reviewed 2-3 times (especially after few months/years) become much more durable memories than those simply observed directly. I tend to only remember things I have photographed in the last 20 years, that is why I take photos of things I want to make sure I will remember. A photo can revive a whole lot of extra memories associated to the moment.

I think the best approach is to only take a few photos of an event. Just enough to be memory triggers.

Increasingly, we see people spending more time worried about photos than just enjoying the thing they are photographing.

For events that do need more "documenting", then you should have a designated photographer (professional or not) that way the rest of the attendees can just enjoy it.

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#16

Post by AYBABTME »

What's most interesting to me is that the conclusion seems to be that their hypothesis wasn't quite right, and that offloading isn't quite what's happening here:

    These results suggest that offloading may not be 
    the sole, or even primary, mechanism for the photo-
    taking-impairment effect.
I'm taking the time to comment on this because other comments seem to ignore this interesting turn of event.

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#17

Post by 21 »

AYBABTME wrote: post #16

What's most interesting to me is that the conclusion seems to be that their hypothesis wasn't quite right, and that offloading isn't quite what's happening here: These results suggest that offloading may not be the sole, or even primary, mechanism for the photo- taking-impairment effect. I'm taking the time to comment on this because other comments seem to ignore this interesting turn of event.

At a more meta-level, they basically failed to replicate their own paper (they disproved the main hypothesis).

Which shows exactly what the big problem is: you just throw some ideas out, do some statistical analysis, and presto, you are "a scientist discovered a new thing"

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#18

Post by hellllllllooo »

epicide wrote: post #15
visarga wrote: post #13

On the other hand, photos reviewed 2-3 times (especially after few months/years) become much more durable memories than those simply observed directly. I tend to only remember things I have photographed in the last 20 years, that is why I take photos of things I want to make sure I will remember. A photo can revive a whole lot of extra memories associated to the moment.

I think the best approach is to only take a few photos of an event. Just enough to be memory triggers. Increasingly, we see people spending more time worried about photos than just enjoying the thing they are photographing. For events that do need more "documenting", then you should have a designated photographer (professional or not) that way the rest of the attendees can just enjoy it.

Do whatever you enjoy. If you like taking photos and want to spend your time doing it good for you.

https://xkcd.com/1314/

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#19

Post by nxc18 »

21 wrote: post #17
AYBABTME wrote: post #16

What's most interesting to me is that the conclusion seems to be that their hypothesis wasn't quite right, and that offloading isn't quite what's happening here: These results suggest that offloading may not be the sole, or even primary, mechanism for the photo- taking-impairment effect. I'm taking the time to comment on this because other comments seem to ignore this interesting turn of event.

At a more meta-level, they basically failed to replicate their own paper (they disproved the main hypothesis). Which shows exactly what the big problem is: you just throw some ideas out, do some statistical analysis, and presto, you are "a scientist discovered a new thing"

This is a big success. We need more scientists willing to publish dead ends and ideas that turn out to be wrong. At the very least it hints at future areas of research. A lot of great science involves testing common sense and finding it's wrong.

They could have hacked their way to a positive result, good on them for not.

Re: Forget in a Flash: A Further Investigation of the Photo-Taking-Impairment Effect

#20

Post by noja »

visarga wrote: post #13

On the other hand, photos reviewed 2-3 times (especially after few months/years) become much more durable memories than those simply observed directly. I tend to only remember things I have photographed in the last 20 years, that is why I take photos of things I want to make sure I will remember. A photo can revive a whole lot of extra memories associated to the moment.

> On the other hand, photos reviewed 2-3 times (.. become much more durable memories.

Alright, but your sentence is written as a fact, but the rest of what you wrote makes it sound like personal experience.

Post reply on HN