5 ms·
Elizabeth Loftus Changed the Meaning of Memory
- valaryu 6y agoWhy can't 2 things be true? That Weinstein is a horrible person and that memories of something 20 years ago can be flimsy and vague. The same thing happened in that Ivan The Terrible trial. Horrible as it is, people in their 80s recollecting what happened in their 20s is hardly reliable.
- Veen 6y agoThey are both true, but that's the problem. It's not enough to know Weinstein is a terrible person; we want to punish him for specific acts of wrongdoing. However, our evidence for those acts is inherently unreliable. Our desire to punish wrongdoers must be tempered by the fact that memories are not reliable evidence.
- junippor 6y agoHow thoughtful of you! It's funny though that people like you never show up when the accused doesn't have an army of lawyers. In those instances, no one ever goes "guys, our desire to punish the accused must be tempered by the fact htat memories are not reliable evidence! Maybe she kinda wanted to be raped and can't remember it"
- Veen 6y agoEither memories are reliable or they are not. It seems they are not. You're free to deny that fact or to refute it with counter-arguments, but claiming "people like me" are discussing it because we fear "an army of lawyers" puts you a step away from tin foil hat territory.
- junippor 6y agoExactly, anyone can dispute the facts, that's why being able to hire better lawyers totally doesn't affect the outcome of the case, right? /s
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tomcam 6y agoThe article discusses the oddly selective memory of this legendary memory researcher, and omits the fact that she taught for years at California State University Fullerton, where I encountered her many times.
- ggm 6y agoAre you attacking her, or the article, or both? Whats the issue about her time at Fullerton? What's her oddly selective memory. Her research speciality is memory, what are you trying to say about her?
- aaron695 6y agoBecause I read this comment before I read the article it also didn't make sense to me. Then I read the article and it did. I feel like there should be a tick box, 1. "Have read the article", 2. "Have flicked over it" and 3. "Have not read the article" [2]
- ggm 6y agoI read the article. I don't get it. I read the article before I posted here. I read the wiki page about her as well, and went looking for her citation index.
- tomcam 6y agoNot an attack. Point of interest. About oddly selective... did you read TFA?
- BBC-vs-neolibs 6y agoThey forgot.
- tomcam 6y agoSweet!
- davetannenbaum 6y ago
- cycomanic 6y agoThat was a fascinating read. It took me a while to adjust to the writing style, but in the end it suited the story well.
- junippor 6y agoReally good read. And what a dodgy character, in my opinion. > The only time she has ever turned down a case for reasons of repugnance was when she refused to testify for a man accused of operating the gas chambers at Treblinka. ( ... ) > Loftus said, “I was reeling. How about the presumption of innocence? How about ‘the unpopular deserve to have a defense’?” Maybe in the latter case, the fact that she was promised $14k made the difference? Or maybe rape isn't bad enough that you lose the presumption of innocence, and genocide is? Or maybe she just wanted to participate in something so high profile. > “I have to admit,” she told me later, “that it is fascinating to be, you know, in the trenches with the trial of the century.”