6 ms·

Sports scores aren't different between papers, and the order, or the specific way it was printed in the paper, doesn't matter. There are many archives where you

Sports scores aren't different between papers, and the order, or the specific way it was printed in the paper, doesn't matter. There are many archives where you can easily look this information up. I was born August 9th, 1988. That's baseball season. On that day, it's a non-controversial fact that there was a double header between the Red Sox and the Brewers. The Sox lost the first game 2-3 and won the second, 5-1. Let's assume you look up the scores on your birthdate and just ask the guy "Okay, on this date, there was a one double header -- which teams, who was home, who was away, and what were the scores?" He should be able to tell you. Doesn't matter what paper he read it in.

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
The point is that not all newspapers are going to be publishing the exact same amount of information on any event, including sports scores. So, for example, if a person is saying they remember that the Red Sox lost 2-3 to the Brewers, and that they read that in The New York Times, you can check the NYT to see if they published that result on that day. I mean, if they say they remember reading that in the NYT, but it turns out that's not where they read it, then that calls the whole "super memory" thing into question, doesn't it?
- tempestn 10y ago
  What difference does it make? If a person can recall from memory the scores for any major sporting event on any arbitrary day, who cares which source they originally memorized them from? Regardless it is easily verifiable, even pre-internet, and regardless it qualifies as super memory.
  - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
    It matters because if the source is not what they say it was, then either they didn't memorise the fact from the source they say they did, in which case maybe they just looked the fact up very recently instead of on the day they say they did, or they don't remember where they read the fact in the first place which means they don't have such a good memory as you think they do. For example - if you tell me you were born on October 24, 1812, and I tell you that on that day the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took plase near Moscow, and that I read it in the papers on that day- how do you know that I really read it in the papers on that day? You don't. You only know that I know the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took place on that day and year. That's my claim: "I read in the papers, on 24 October, 1812, that the Battle of Maloyaroslavets was taking place near Moscow". Here's my evidence "I know that on 24 October, 1812, the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took place near Moscow". One does not follow from the other, so you really have no way to tell whether I really read the papers in 1812, or whether I'm just bamboozling you about my amazing memory powers. You're saying it doesn't matter, and I have amazing memory powers anyway, because I remember the Battle of Maloyaroslavets. Except, how do you know when the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took place? That's the other half of the claim- and it's easy to fake: I can fail to recall a fact a million times and get it right once, and people will still be amazed by my memory powers and tell each other I got great memory because I remembered it the once.
    - tempestn 10y ago
      Except that logically if there is ample evidence of a person meeting people for the first time and telling them verifiably true information about their birthdates, it is very unlikely that he just happened to luckily review that exact info the night before. So either it's a massive conspiracy with multiple independent media entities in on it, or he actually does have an excellent memory. I know which seems more likely to me.
      - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
        ... or, the people that person met were working for him and they asked him about facts they knew the person had memorised. It's not that hard to imagine and it's actually the done thing in mentalist shows, even to the point that, as I say in another comment, there is a name for people planted in audiences to do that sort of thing: "shill". So maybe that "ample evidence" was fabricated. There's all sorts of other possibilities between "it's a conspiracy" and "it's a miracle" (both of which are equally unlikely btw). For instance, my favourite trick requires nothing but a dozen or so pieces of paper. You write the word "boy" on half and the word "girl" on the other half, seal each in an envelope and hand them to a dozen pregnant women, telling them to open it only after they've given birth (it makes no difference that they'll open it before anyway). Once they start giving birth, it's very likely that you'll have hit the right gender a couple of times or so. After that, those couple of "hits" will probably become ardent supporters of yours, and the best advertisement for your medium business. "How did she know?!" Well, you didn't- but it doesn't matter. It only matters that you appear as if you did. And anyone looking on can go around saying things like "either it's a massive conspiracy or that lady really has extraordinary abilities!".

YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago

The point is that not all newspapers are going to be publishing the exact same amount of information on any event, including sports scores. So, for example, if a person is saying they remember that the Red Sox lost 2-3 to the Brewers, and that they read that in The New York Times, you can check the NYT to see if they published that result on that day. I mean, if they say they remember reading that in the NYT, but it turns out that's not where they read it, then that calls the whole "super memory" thing into question, doesn't it?

tempestn 10y ago
What difference does it make? If a person can recall from memory the scores for any major sporting event on any arbitrary day, who cares which source they originally memorized them from? Regardless it is easily verifiable, even pre-internet, and regardless it qualifies as super memory.
- YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
  It matters because if the source is not what they say it was, then either they didn't memorise the fact from the source they say they did, in which case maybe they just looked the fact up very recently instead of on the day they say they did, or they don't remember where they read the fact in the first place which means they don't have such a good memory as you think they do. For example - if you tell me you were born on October 24, 1812, and I tell you that on that day the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took plase near Moscow, and that I read it in the papers on that day- how do you know that I really read it in the papers on that day? You don't. You only know that I know the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took place on that day and year. That's my claim: "I read in the papers, on 24 October, 1812, that the Battle of Maloyaroslavets was taking place near Moscow". Here's my evidence "I know that on 24 October, 1812, the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took place near Moscow". One does not follow from the other, so you really have no way to tell whether I really read the papers in 1812, or whether I'm just bamboozling you about my amazing memory powers. You're saying it doesn't matter, and I have amazing memory powers anyway, because I remember the Battle of Maloyaroslavets. Except, how do you know when the Battle of Maloyaroslavets took place? That's the other half of the claim- and it's easy to fake: I can fail to recall a fact a million times and get it right once, and people will still be amazed by my memory powers and tell each other I got great memory because I remembered it the once.
  - tempestn 10y ago
    Except that logically if there is ample evidence of a person meeting people for the first time and telling them verifiably true information about their birthdates, it is very unlikely that he just happened to luckily review that exact info the night before. So either it's a massive conspiracy with multiple independent media entities in on it, or he actually does have an excellent memory. I know which seems more likely to me.
    - YeGoblynQueenne 10y ago
      ... or, the people that person met were working for him and they asked him about facts they knew the person had memorised. It's not that hard to imagine and it's actually the done thing in mentalist shows, even to the point that, as I say in another comment, there is a name for people planted in audiences to do that sort of thing: "shill". So maybe that "ample evidence" was fabricated. There's all sorts of other possibilities between "it's a conspiracy" and "it's a miracle" (both of which are equally unlikely btw). For instance, my favourite trick requires nothing but a dozen or so pieces of paper. You write the word "boy" on half and the word "girl" on the other half, seal each in an envelope and hand them to a dozen pregnant women, telling them to open it only after they've given birth (it makes no difference that they'll open it before anyway). Once they start giving birth, it's very likely that you'll have hit the right gender a couple of times or so. After that, those couple of "hits" will probably become ardent supporters of yours, and the best advertisement for your medium business. "How did she know?!" Well, you didn't- but it doesn't matter. It only matters that you appear as if you did. And anyone looking on can go around saying things like "either it's a massive conspiracy or that lady really has extraordinary abilities!".