Wouldn't it be safer just to call them all "Darling"?

 

Wouldn't it be safer just to call them all "Darling"?

Perhaps not as safe as you might think if the doctor is within earshot -- especially if he's also within buckshot!

 

The, "Don't touch the fire story" is a well worn example. The way I heard it was: A thousand generations of mothers have told a thousand generations of children not to touch the fire. Then they touch the fire.

Thou shalt not toucheth the fire.

What do kids do, touch the fire as soon as you look away.

 

I stumbled upon this today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epN2yEFUmEI

 

I stumbled upon this today:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epN2yEFUmEI

Ok, I'll bite. So, the Rat see's a box corners and such. It's all good and happy. Suddenly their moved?

The Rat see's a new Square Box? Red ok What ever.

Now it's Shocked!!!! It remembers the box and the Red.

Now their move again.

The new Box is Blue and no Red it must mean "What hell is going to happen to me next

If it was in a ball it might still think, this is a new environment. Now I'm ok or I'm going to get shocked again, the fear response is the last strong memory that it will remember.

 

I don't know that the MIT experiment means that they implanted false memories as much as it might mean that they tricked the mice into seeing blue instead of red.

But, be that as it may, I saw a video a long time ago ('80s?) in which researchers had people come into a room and answer a bunch of questions. During this, another person walked in and gave the researcher something, such as a package or a clipboard. In doing so, they also picked up an object, such as an orange, that had been sitting on the table the entire time while blocking the view of doing so from the subject. The second person then engaged the researcher in a short conversation while conspicously manipulating the object, such as tossing it idly from hand to hand, and then set it down on the table, finished the conversation, takes what they originally gave the research back and left.

When asked questions about anything unexpected that happened during the interview many people, without specific prompting, talked about someone coming into the room carrying a clipboard and an orange but forgetting to take their orange with them when they left. When asked if the were sure the person had brought the orange in with them, most were very adamant that they saw the orange in the person's hand as they entered the room. A few, even when showed the videotape of the event, were still adamant and claimed that the tape had been doctored because they knew what they saw.

The human brain fills in gaps with explanations that tie our memories together in a coherent way and those explanations are indistinguishable from actual memories.

Yet, despite knowing this, we still put so much weight on "eye witness" testimony.

 

Yet, despite knowing this, we still put so much weight on "eye witness" testimony.

This is true in some cases, but if it is reinforce by positive or negative emotions, then the result is not either conclusive or reliable. But, must be disputed on credibility.

Some may or may not agree, while others will band together to cover up the obvious.

People can become a crap shoot. It all depends on their emotions. If you knew someone would come the next day and end you or your families life. You might just say? well I'm just not sure what I saw?

(I think I saw a blue van and someone shooting, I'm just not sure)

 

Y'all have had some interesting experiences. It's rather reassuring actually, as I've had my share as well. I really love the disturbing memories that jump out of nowhere. NOT!