31 ms·

I don't see any connection between the Guardian and the recovered memory movement. Throughout this thread you have a bit of an insistence on narrowly defining

I don't see any connection between the Guardian and the recovered memory movement. Throughout this thread you have a bit of an insistence on narrowly defining memory in terms of the brain, i.e. memories that people have. In the field of epigenetics, and in computer science, and other areas, "memory" more broadly means a system of encoding information. Which is what happens here, when methyl groups physically bind to an adenine or cytosine molecule, like flipping a bit. It's incorrect to call information stored in epigenetics "memories", but it's fine to call it "memory". I forgive the article for doing this as it's written for consumption by the broad public, and it's illustrative of the overall point if not literally correct. FYI, the author is a respected neuroscientist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Critchlow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hannah_Critchlow

ch4s3 2y ago
> I don't see any connection between the Guardian and the recovered memory movement. It’s a comparison. Respected or not she’s making the argument the “the body keeps the score,” which is redolent of the discredited book of the same name.
- mrcartmeneses 2y ago
  > Respected or not she’s making the argument the “the body keeps the score,” which is redolent of the discredited book of the same name. The body keeps the score is discredited?
  - ch4s3 2y ago
    Yes, the book is by one of the original nut bags behind the recovered memory craze. Here[1] is an academic publication talking about the problems with it. [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16483114/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16483114/
- stubish 2y ago
  As best we can tell through experimentation, trauma at least is passed on to subsequent generations. Comparing the science to discredited books that were based on the science and extrapolated without evidence is not a valid comparison. Like conflating UFOs with extraterrestrials, it takes a leap of faith to go from one to the other.

ch4s3 2y ago

> I don't see any connection between the Guardian and the recovered memory movement. It’s a comparison. Respected or not she’s making the argument the “the body keeps the score,” which is redolent of the discredited book of the same name.

mrcartmeneses 2y ago
> Respected or not she’s making the argument the “the body keeps the score,” which is redolent of the discredited book of the same name. The body keeps the score is discredited?
- ch4s3 2y ago
  Yes, the book is by one of the original nut bags behind the recovered memory craze. Here[1] is an academic publication talking about the problems with it. [1]https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16483114/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16483114/
stubish 2y ago
As best we can tell through experimentation, trauma at least is passed on to subsequent generations. Comparing the science to discredited books that were based on the science and extrapolated without evidence is not a valid comparison. Like conflating UFOs with extraterrestrials, it takes a leap of faith to go from one to the other.