6 ms·

How Can You Tell a False Memory From a True One?

44 points by tokenadult 13y ago

ben0x539 13y ago
tl;dr: AG: Is there any way to distinguish a false memory from a real one? EL: Without independent corroboration, little can be done to tell a false memory from a true one. AG: Could brain imaging one day be used to do this? EL: I collaborated on a brain imaging study in 2010, and the overwhelming conclusion we reached is that the neural patterns were very similar for true and false memories. We are a long way away from being able to look at somebody's brain activity and reliably classify an authentic memory versus one that arose through some other process.
- M4v3R 13y ago
  I think the biggest giveaway from this article isn't how do you tell a false memory from the real one (because you can't), but the fact that you can have false memories at all. You can be 100% sure that something happened and at the same time be 100% wrong. This happened to me at least once and raises your humility - you never can be 100% right about something. Memory is malleable and it can play tricks on you.
  - pessimizer 13y ago
    One of my favorite facts is that you can be completely wrong about your current conscious experience, nevermind your memories. A few neat papers on this have been written by Eric Shwitzgebel ( http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ ) such as Why Did We Think That We Dreamed in Black and White? and How Well Do We Know Our Own Conscious Experience? The Case of Human Echolocation, or even scarier: Knowing Your Own Beliefs.
- dchichkov 13y ago
  Funny, this brain imaging study from 2010 that she mentions, states in the abstract: ... Overall, true and false memories showed similar brain activation, but could be distinguished by this reactivation. This was true only in the early regions of the sensory cortex. ... ref: https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/StarkOkadoLoftus_FalseMemoryFMRI_LM10.pdf?uniq=6xmjf5 https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/StarkOkadoLoftus_FalseMemor...
dchichkov 13y ago
Hmm... At least for normal people memories of events that haven't happened in real life [but happened in sleep, video games, films, books; or just been imagined] are certainly distinguishable from memories of events that did happen in the real world. Even without external references. There's some metadata present that marks these memories as 'not recorded in the real world'. And even aside from that metadata, continuity and memory quality normally gives pretty damn good clues. No need to ask for 'independent corroboration'. <striked>And, if the opposite was true, you wouldn't be able to distinguish a memory from your last night dreams from a memory of a previous day. As simple as that.</striked> Edit: rm anecdotal evidence.
- recursive 13y ago
  I used to share that view until it was proven to me that certain "real" memories that I had never happened.
- tokenadult 13y ago
  You have already forgotten what the article says. "AG: How does this happen? What exactly is going on when we retrieve a memory? "EL: When we remember something, we're taking bits and pieces of experience—sometimes from different times and places—and bringing it all together to construct what might feel like a recollection but is actually a construction. The process of calling it into conscious awareness can change it, and now you're storing something that's different. We all do this . . . " The way I have expressed the matter before in discussions on Hacker News is that the problem with human memory is that read operations and simultaneously write operations. We think we are just recalling, but we are actively reshaping our understanding of previous events, true or false.
  - dchichkov 13y ago
    Forgotten what the article says? Not really. I've got an impression of it, and I didn't quite liked it. The whole concept of 'false memory' is very murky. There are no 'false memories' as such. There are just memories formed under different circumstances. That includes sleep and reflection. And we just have to agree to disagree about last few statements in that article, on the page two. Edit: I completely agree with you and with the statement that recounting something may change or reorganize the memory. It is just the concept of 'false' memories that I dislike. It is very poorly defined.
coldcode 13y ago
I can't tell if I read the article or not.
andrewtbham 13y ago
"Then finally you go into therapy and crack through the repression barrier and out comes this pristine memory. But there really is no credible scientific support for that notion." I personally had a repressed memory and it was uncovered in therapy. I am lucky that my mom is still alive and was able to verify the memories. It's obvious to me from the snark in her tone like the word "pristine" and the rest of the article that she is a shill for defense attorneys.
- Ellipsis753 13y ago
  Could you expand on this story a little? It would be interesting to hear what happened in your experience if you're willing to talk about it.
- brazzy 13y ago
  Obviously a shill, huh? Sorry, but I find her a lot more believable than you.
- Daniel_Newby 13y ago
  False memory experts also work closely with interrogators and prosecutors to avoid contaminating testimony. Most district attorneys do not want to be involved in a fiasco like the Satanic ritual abuse cases.
- err_badprocrast 13y ago
  Marijuana can also cause vivid recollection of forgotten memories. In my experience it's closer to reliving a moment than remembering; overall a very interesting experience.
- ScottBurson 13y ago
  I do believe that memories can be repressed and later recovered, but I also think that using recovered memories as evidence in a court of law is highly problematic. If a memory provides information that leads to actual forensic evidence -- the locations of buried bodies being a particularly dramatic example -- that can certainly be the basis for a conviction. But if it can't be corroborated at all, I would encourage a court to tread very lightly.
tokipin 13y ago
This should be pretty obvious. In basic terms, it would be extremely inefficient for the brain to store everything "directly." Meaning all memories are "reconstructions" to some extent and therefore inherently flighty given the dynamism of the brain. Said differently, it would be weird if the brain didn't take advantage of the very high-level abstractions we use in our day-to-day for the purpose of efficient memory storage. Anecdotally, one time I re-played in my head an entire movie after I watched it (Astro Boy!) as an experimental exercise, and it was clear that as I was 'recalling' it, the line between "reconstruction" and "direct memory" was extremely blurry, and I could feel my own eagerness to fill in details that may or may not have occurred.
losethos 13y ago
A nigger is a person who doesn't know the world is perfectly just. ROFLMAO ya fucken niggers.

44 points by tokenadult 13y ago

tl;dr: AG: Is there any way to distinguish a false memory from a real one? EL: Without independent corroboration, little can be done to tell a false memory from a true one. AG: Could brain imaging one day be used to do this? EL: I collaborated on a brain imaging study in 2010, and the overwhelming conclusion we reached is that the neural patterns were very similar for true and false memories. We are a long way away from being able to look at somebody's brain activity and reliably classify an authentic memory versus one that arose through some other process.

M4v3R 13y ago
I think the biggest giveaway from this article isn't how do you tell a false memory from the real one (because you can't), but the fact that you can have false memories at all. You can be 100% sure that something happened and at the same time be 100% wrong. This happened to me at least once and raises your humility - you never can be 100% right about something. Memory is malleable and it can play tricks on you.
- pessimizer 13y ago
  One of my favorite facts is that you can be completely wrong about your current conscious experience, nevermind your memories. A few neat papers on this have been written by Eric Shwitzgebel ( http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ http://www.faculty.ucr.edu/~eschwitz/ ) such as Why Did We Think That We Dreamed in Black and White? and How Well Do We Know Our Own Conscious Experience? The Case of Human Echolocation, or even scarier: Knowing Your Own Beliefs.
dchichkov 13y ago
Funny, this brain imaging study from 2010 that she mentions, states in the abstract: ... Overall, true and false memories showed similar brain activation, but could be distinguished by this reactivation. This was true only in the early regions of the sensory cortex. ... ref: https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/StarkOkadoLoftus_FalseMemoryFMRI_LM10.pdf?uniq=6xmjf5 https://webfiles.uci.edu/eloftus/StarkOkadoLoftus_FalseMemor...

dchichkov 13y ago

Hmm... At least for normal people memories of events that haven't happened in real life [but happened in sleep, video games, films, books; or just been imagined] are certainly distinguishable from memories of events that did happen in the real world. Even without external references. There's some metadata present that marks these memories as 'not recorded in the real world'. And even aside from that metadata, continuity and memory quality normally gives pretty damn good clues. No need to ask for 'independent corroboration'. <striked>And, if the opposite was true, you wouldn't be able to distinguish a memory from your last night dreams from a memory of a previous day. As simple as that.</striked> Edit: rm anecdotal evidence.

recursive 13y ago
I used to share that view until it was proven to me that certain "real" memories that I had never happened.
tokenadult 13y ago
You have already forgotten what the article says. "AG: How does this happen? What exactly is going on when we retrieve a memory? "EL: When we remember something, we're taking bits and pieces of experience—sometimes from different times and places—and bringing it all together to construct what might feel like a recollection but is actually a construction. The process of calling it into conscious awareness can change it, and now you're storing something that's different. We all do this . . . " The way I have expressed the matter before in discussions on Hacker News is that the problem with human memory is that read operations and simultaneously write operations. We think we are just recalling, but we are actively reshaping our understanding of previous events, true or false.
- dchichkov 13y ago
  Forgotten what the article says? Not really. I've got an impression of it, and I didn't quite liked it. The whole concept of 'false memory' is very murky. There are no 'false memories' as such. There are just memories formed under different circumstances. That includes sleep and reflection. And we just have to agree to disagree about last few statements in that article, on the page two. Edit: I completely agree with you and with the statement that recounting something may change or reorganize the memory. It is just the concept of 'false' memories that I dislike. It is very poorly defined.

coldcode 13y ago

I can't tell if I read the article or not.

andrewtbham 13y ago

"Then finally you go into therapy and crack through the repression barrier and out comes this pristine memory. But there really is no credible scientific support for that notion." I personally had a repressed memory and it was uncovered in therapy. I am lucky that my mom is still alive and was able to verify the memories. It's obvious to me from the snark in her tone like the word "pristine" and the rest of the article that she is a shill for defense attorneys.

Ellipsis753 13y ago
Could you expand on this story a little? It would be interesting to hear what happened in your experience if you're willing to talk about it.
brazzy 13y ago
Obviously a shill, huh? Sorry, but I find her a lot more believable than you.
Daniel_Newby 13y ago
False memory experts also work closely with interrogators and prosecutors to avoid contaminating testimony. Most district attorneys do not want to be involved in a fiasco like the Satanic ritual abuse cases.
err_badprocrast 13y ago
Marijuana can also cause vivid recollection of forgotten memories. In my experience it's closer to reliving a moment than remembering; overall a very interesting experience.
ScottBurson 13y ago
I do believe that memories can be repressed and later recovered, but I also think that using recovered memories as evidence in a court of law is highly problematic. If a memory provides information that leads to actual forensic evidence -- the locations of buried bodies being a particularly dramatic example -- that can certainly be the basis for a conviction. But if it can't be corroborated at all, I would encourage a court to tread very lightly.

tokipin 13y ago

This should be pretty obvious. In basic terms, it would be extremely inefficient for the brain to store everything "directly." Meaning all memories are "reconstructions" to some extent and therefore inherently flighty given the dynamism of the brain. Said differently, it would be weird if the brain didn't take advantage of the very high-level abstractions we use in our day-to-day for the purpose of efficient memory storage. Anecdotally, one time I re-played in my head an entire movie after I watched it (Astro Boy!) as an experimental exercise, and it was clear that as I was 'recalling' it, the line between "reconstruction" and "direct memory" was extremely blurry, and I could feel my own eagerness to fill in details that may or may not have occurred.

losethos 13y ago

A nigger is a person who doesn't know the world is perfectly just. ROFLMAO ya fucken niggers.