Here is a video of things we remember incorrectly. I watched the section on Looney Tunes at least 10 times. Is it me or does he say "remember that show we watched ........ called Looney Tunes", "and the show we watched was called Looney Tunes".

Even the comments say they remebered it as Looney Tunes".

If you look it up on the internet the cartoons were called Looney Tunes"!

Maybe it is my dyslexia or something I just don't get how this is a false memory.

And oh I never watched Looney Tunes while eating Chik-Fil-A. While it was founded in 1946 it is only recent it has gone national and even more recent international.

 

An how can anyone think Flintstones would only have one T?

 

Here is a video of things we remember incorrectly. I watched the section on Looney Tunes at least 10 times. Is it me or does he say "remember that show we watched ........ called Looney Tunes", "and the show we watched was called Looney Tunes".

Even the comments say they remebered it as Looney Tunes".

If you look it up on the internet the cartoons were called Looney Tunes"!

Maybe it is my dyslexia or something I just don't get how this is a false memory.

And oh I never watched Looney Tunes while eating Chik-Fil-A. While it was founded in 1946 it is only recent it has gone national and even more recent international.

Finally saw it who that is weird. Even though I was looking right at it I couldn't see the difference. The only way I can see it was the side by side comparison in the thumbnail.

 

I took me several viewings to catch the distinction between "Toons" and "Tunes." I don't remember which was right; the last time I watched was a half-century ago...

 

An how can anyone think Flintstones would only have one T?

I can see how someone would quickly say that since we generally pronounce it with the first 't' silent. So if you rely on how it sounds instead of visualizing the word in your mind, it would probably be pretty easy to think there's just one 't'.

 

I can see how someone would quickly say that since we generally pronounce it with the first 't' silent. So if you rely on how it sounds instead of visualizing the word in your mind, it would probably be pretty easy to think there's just one 't'.

Humm I have always pronounced it with a T as in Flint-Stones. Maybe because I had an exposure to flint in the Boy Scouts for starting fires and searching for arrowheads at summer camp.

In all those summer camps, I found only one broken arrowhead. Not sure what ever happened to that thing.

 

How could anyone think it is Macdonald's

 

In all those summer camps, I found only one broken arrowhead. Not sure what ever happened to that thing.

The place where I grew up was a native American (Delaware tribe) encampment in pre-Colonial times, and the site of many skirmishes between Washington's troops and the Redcoats during the Revolutionary War. In the 12-acre field behind our house, my brothers and I must have collected over 50 lbs. of arrowheads and almost that much in musket balls during the time we lived there. All thrown out, since living where we did we just assumed that stuff was a common as cat scat.

 

Humm I have always pronounced it with a T as in Flint-Stones. Maybe because I had an exposure to flint in the Boy Scouts for starting fires and searching for arrowheads at summer camp.

In all those summer camps, I found only one broken arrowhead. Not sure what ever happened to that thing.

Most people lose the 't' not because they think it's not there or because they have never heard of flint, but simply because it is an awkward transition to make with the tongue that results in the 'ts' being combined into a single sound. Because the 's' dominates it, the 't' gets overlooked when someone thinks about what they've heard.

 

How could anyone think it is Macdonald's

Simple. Because their signature food item is not called the Big Mc.

 

Most people lose the 't' not because they think it's not there or because they have never heard of flint, but simply because it is an awkward transition to make with the tongue that results in the 'ts' being combined into a single sound. Because the 's' dominates it, the 't' gets overlooked when someone thinks about what they've heard.

Tell me about it... some english words are tongue-twisters for the likes of me ... I'm far better at expressing myself in writing than verbally. And btw, I've always remembered the show as being "Looney Tunes" ... and wondered why the word "Toons" was not being used instead

 

A quick check online shows that Warner brothers used both toons and tunes thru the years. Other co. have used both also. You can download the originals showing both uses.

 

I think they believe that using the term "False Memories" is somehow more intriguing than just saying "Common errors".

 

I think they believe that using the term "False Memories" is somehow more intriguing than just saying "Common errors".

Possibly, but part of what they are talking about goes way beyond common errors. In some of those instances they are talking about people who adamantly recall seeing things that simply did not happen.

I think we've all seen the infamous Gorilla at the basketball game video. That was actually just one of a whole series of experiments showing how easily people can be led to believe they saw something that didn't happen.

One of the most telling that I've seen -- and I've been unable to track it down on the internet (I saw it as part of a lecture at a conference I attended a couple decades ago) shows how it is possible to set out to implant a specific false memory. I'm probably messing up some details after this much time has passed, but the basic study had the test subject in a room talking to a researcher. They are told that the purpose of the research is to examine how well people remember things, and so there will be a second interview a few hours after the first to see how well they did. The research then gives them a bunch of information and asks them a bunch of questions. The information and questions are essentially random and meaningless. The table was pretty cluttered and sitting on the table, in plain sight, was an orange. At some point during the interview someone comes in to remind the researcher about some inconsequential event, such as a staff meeting, or to ask something like if they know where the paper for the copier is kept. Or to see if they have some report that is needed by someone else. The person has both hands in plain sight when they walk in and makes very few movements with them. At at some point the researcher reaches to the far edge of the table (away from the person that walked in) to get something and causes a bit of a mess -- usually knocking over a jar of pencils, that draws the subject's attention away. During this time the new person picks up the orange. After the mess is cleaned up, the conversation continues on for a little bit but now the person is doing something with the orange such as holding it in their hand while they gesture with it or pass it back and forth between hands. They then set the orange down on the table in order to use their hands for something, such as to write a note or take a file from the researcher. The conversation wraps up and the person walks out, leaving the orange on the desk.

In the follow-up interview, as part of a bunch of other things, the person is asked if anything unexpected happened during the session. Many people commented on the person walking in and the mess being made, but a surprisingly large fraction (I don't recall the percentage) stated that the person that walked in left their orange on the table when they left. Those were then asked follow-up questions and a very high fraction of those people insisted that they saw the orange in the person's hand when they walked in. Many of those still believed that to be the case even after being shown the video of the orange being on the table the entire time and showing the person walking in clearly empty handed. They tended to insist that the video was doctored in order to trick them, because they knew what they saw.

Studies like this (and there have been quite few) really make you wonder about the value of eye-witness testimony in court proceedings. Which says nothing about trials involving "repressed" and "recovered" memories.

 

Which says nothing about trials involving "repressed" and "recovered" memories.

I've read quite a bit about that sort of thing admitted as evidence in trials and lawsuits... with disastrous results for the accused... it also brings to mind a story about a couple that was abducted by aliens back in the 60's whose therapist "helped" them remember the event that they had either been "repressing", or "forcibly made to forget" by the aliens.... it was in later years that this therapist's methods were exposed, and now the entire episode is regarded as a hoax.

 

Possibly, but part of what they are talking about goes way beyond common errors. In some of those instances they are talking about people who adamantly recall seeing things that simply did not happen.

I think we've all seen the infamous Gorilla at the basketball game video. That was actually just one of a whole series of experiments showing how easily people can be led to believe they saw something that didn't happen.

One of the most telling that I've seen -- and I've been unable to track it down on the internet (I saw it as part of a lecture at a conference I attended a couple decades ago) shows how it is possible to set out to implant a specific false memory. I'm probably messing up some details after this much time has passed, but the basic study had the test subject in a room talking to a researcher. They are told that the purpose of the research is to examine how well people remember things, and so there will be a second interview a few hours after the first to see how well they did. The research then gives them a bunch of information and asks them a bunch of questions. The information and questions are essentially random and meaningless. The table was pretty cluttered and sitting on the table, in plain sight, was an orange. At some point during the interview someone comes in to remind the researcher about some inconsequential event, such as a staff meeting, or to ask something like if they know where the paper for the copier is kept. Or to see if they have some report that is needed by someone else. The person has both hands in plain sight when they walk in and makes very few movements with them. At at some point the researcher reaches to the far edge of the table (away from the person that walked in) to get something and causes a bit of a mess -- usually knocking over a jar of pencils, that draws the subject's attention away. During this time the new person picks up the orange. After the mess is cleaned up, the conversation continues on for a little bit but now the person is doing something with the orange such as holding it in their hand while they gesture with it or pass it back and forth between hands. They then set the orange down on the table in order to use their hands for something, such as to write a note or take a file from the researcher. The conversation wraps up and the person walks out, leaving the orange on the desk.

In the follow-up interview, as part of a bunch of other things, the person is asked if anything unexpected happened during the session. Many people commented on the person walking in and the mess being made, but a surprisingly large fraction (I don't recall the percentage) stated that the person that walked in left their orange on the table when they left. Those were then asked follow-up questions and a very high fraction of those people insisted that they saw the orange in the person's hand when they walked in. Many of those still believed that to be the case even after being shown the video of the orange being on the table the entire time and showing the person walking in clearly empty handed. They tended to insist that the video was doctored in order to trick them, because they knew what they saw.

Studies like this (and there have been quite few) really make you wonder about the value of eye-witness testimony in court proceedings. Which says nothing about trials involving "repressed" and "recovered" memories.

These kinds of studies have been conducted for many years. Generally, they involve study confederates that perform an act (which is filmed) in front of a number of people, e.g., during a science demonstration, the confederate runs on stage and smashes the equipment. Then they interview all the eye witnesses and the accounts vary to an extraordinary degree. A classic that was required reading was this one back in 1981 (edited to correct date).

Under some conditions, "eye witness" accounts can be very accurate. In other situations, they can be incredibly inaccurate and, what's more, they can be be highly "influenced".

Certainly, Information processing, including those related to reporting, can and is, frequently inaccurate.

A "modern" interpretation of memory, revolves around certain physiological processes (e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9398590) and I think, can, theoretically, be distinguished from information processing errors.

The problem I have with the idea of "false memories", is that it has become a buzzword and those instances do not claim that the physiological process of memory formation has been falsely established - at least not in any studies that I have read.

The biological process of memory is integral to functioning, and by and large, it works pretty darn well in the absence of specific dysfunction that can be seen to be an interruption of the process at a physiological level, e.g., amyloid plaque formation that accompanies some dementia.

I guess what I am saying is that, information processing and reporting errors are know to occur and some of the factors leading to there occurrence are beginning to be understood. Self-reporting at all levels is necessarily anecdotal and that "people adamantly recall seeing things that simply did not happen" unquestionably happens.

That's not to say that what gets "recorded" as a memory is infallible, it is not. Rather, it is to say that terms like "false memories" are used in the absence of such evidence that the normal process has failed, rather than consideration for other factors and processes.