3 ms·

>Morgan found that the use of these mnemonic props – open-ended questions about various sensations and sequences of events – dramatically increased memory recal

by jasode 11y ago

>Morgan found that the use of these mnemonic props – open-ended questions about various sensations and sequences of events – dramatically increased memory recall about what had happened. The subject’s stories consequently became more and more complex, and richer in detail. Or at least, they did when people were telling the truth. When it came to the lies, even well-rehearsed ones, the subjects tended to falter and were unable to complete the interview. According to Morgan, this was because when they were prompted to dredge up deeper memories, the liars had nothing to draw on. Is this technique robust enough to detect implanted false memories (psychologist implants memories of child molestation) or are such recalled "memories" indistinguishable from real ones?

saint_fiasco 11y ago
When you are lying on purpose, you have to make sure whatever you say is accomplishes whatever made you lie in the first place. It has to make you look good, make it seem like something is not your fault and so on. Therefore, you need to consciously validate whatever your brain outputs when you ask for some bullshit to "remember". Maybe this creates a delay or makes people be conservative in what they tell you for fear of accidentally saying something inconsistent. If you had a false memory, however, your brain could make up details as it goes along and you would just say them aloud, without feeling nervous or consciously thinking about consistency and validity at all.
yasth 11y ago
In an expansion[1](pdf) the classical Bugs Bunny at Disney study[2](pdf), over several leading interviews participants added more and more detail. So while it would probably work with an accidentally and freshly implanted memory; it could probably be defeated by either purposely pushing for sense recall, or perhaps accidentally over the course of many attempts to fix the "memory". Knowing the technique is probably half way to defeating it in all honesty, as long as a person has time to prepare (or be prepared). [1]http://eprints.port.ac.uk/11286/1/filetodownload,62616,en.pdf http://eprints.port.ac.uk/11286/1/filetodownload,62616,en.pd... [2] https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/BraunPsychMarket02.pdfhttps://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/LoftusLearning%26MemoryMisinfo05.pdf https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/BraunPsychMarket02.pdfhttps...
Lawtonfogle 11y ago
I'm guessing it wouldn't. A memory doesn't exist as a single entity, and a false memory is often corrupting a couple real parts of memories, either overwriting (or outright adding) a small detail or mixing together real parts into something that didn't happen. If someone was given a false memory of a traumatic experience, they likely have still experienced something similar to the faked traumatic experience (maybe saw it in a movie) and will have an actual part of a memory to feed greater details as someone dug into the memory. A false memory of seeing a litter of puppies will still have plenty of real occurrences of seeing puppies to subconsciously draw upon.

by jasode 11y ago

saint_fiasco 11y ago

When you are lying on purpose, you have to make sure whatever you say is accomplishes whatever made you lie in the first place. It has to make you look good, make it seem like something is not your fault and so on. Therefore, you need to consciously validate whatever your brain outputs when you ask for some bullshit to "remember". Maybe this creates a delay or makes people be conservative in what they tell you for fear of accidentally saying something inconsistent. If you had a false memory, however, your brain could make up details as it goes along and you would just say them aloud, without feeling nervous or consciously thinking about consistency and validity at all.

yasth 11y ago

In an expansion[1](pdf) the classical Bugs Bunny at Disney study[2](pdf), over several leading interviews participants added more and more detail. So while it would probably work with an accidentally and freshly implanted memory; it could probably be defeated by either purposely pushing for sense recall, or perhaps accidentally over the course of many attempts to fix the "memory". Knowing the technique is probably half way to defeating it in all honesty, as long as a person has time to prepare (or be prepared). [1]http://eprints.port.ac.uk/11286/1/filetodownload,62616,en.pdf http://eprints.port.ac.uk/11286/1/filetodownload,62616,en.pd... [2] https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/BraunPsychMarket02.pdfhttps://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/LoftusLearning%26MemoryMisinfo05.pdf https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/BraunPsychMarket02.pdfhttps...

Lawtonfogle 11y ago

I'm guessing it wouldn't. A memory doesn't exist as a single entity, and a false memory is often corrupting a couple real parts of memories, either overwriting (or outright adding) a small detail or mixing together real parts into something that didn't happen. If someone was given a false memory of a traumatic experience, they likely have still experienced something similar to the faked traumatic experience (maybe saw it in a movie) and will have an actual part of a memory to feed greater details as someone dug into the memory. A false memory of seeing a litter of puppies will still have plenty of real occurrences of seeing puppies to subconsciously draw upon.