March 15, 2012 at 6:28 am, by Carl

How many times have you been in a discussion, an argument, and either you or your partner definitively claimed that you remembered the details best?  Often, I bet.  I believe that I have a very good memory, especially related to interpersonal situations.  Of course, as a historian and a theologian, I deal with facts and ideas from the past often.  The reality though is not as secure as I like to believe.

 

Wired Magazine presented an amazing article about some new cutting edge research about the brain and memory.  The short version is that we simply do not have good memories.  Worse, as we recount the memory again, either telling others what happened or replaying the story in our own minds, we actually alter the story somewhat.

 

”Once a memory is formed, we assume that it will stay the same. This, in fact, is why we trust our recollections. They feel like indelible portraits of the past.  None of this is true. In the past decade, scientists have come to realize that our memories are not inert packets of data and they don’t remain constant. Even though every memory feels like an honest representation, that sense of authenticity is the biggest lie of all…. as scientists have recently learned, the very act of remembering changes the memory itself.  New research is showing that every time we recall an event, the structure of that memory in the brain is altered in light of the present moment, warped by our current feelings and knowledge.”

“The disappearance of the fear memory suggested that every time we think about the past we are delicately transforming its cellular representation in the brain, changing its underlying neural circuitry. It was a stunning discovery: Memories are not formed and then pristinely maintained, as neuroscientists thought; they are formed and then rebuilt every time they’re accessed. “The brain isn’t interested in having a perfect set of memories about the past,” LeDoux says. “Instead, memory comes with a natural updating mechanism, which is how we make sure that the information taking up valuable space inside our head is still useful. That might make our memories less accurate, but it probably also makes them more relevant to the future.””

The implications are powerful.  We often argue with our friends, our loved ones, about what happened as such and such time.  In the process, we stake out positions, prepare for battle and unleash a torrent of words and supposed facts that proves us out.  What we should be doing instead is working with the other person(s) to attempt to accurately reconstruct what really happened.  If we don’t bring in multiple witnesses, and allow their words and facts to help us, we can actually beging to completely change the story.  Read the research about a study about memories from the 9/11 attacks:

 

“Consider the study of flashbulb memories, extremely vivid, detailed recollections. Shortly after the September 11 attacks, a team of psychologists led by William Hirst and Elizabeth Phelps surveyed several hundred subjects about their memories of that awful day. The scientists then repeated the surveys, tracking how the stories steadily decayed. At one year out, 37 percent of the details had changed. By 2004 that number was approaching 50 percent. Some changes were innocuous—the stories got tighter and the narratives more coherent—but other adjustments involved a wholesale retrofit. Some people even altered where they were when the towers fell. Over and over, the act of repeating the narrative seemed to corrupt its content. The scientists aren’t sure about this mechanism, and they have yet to analyze the data from the entire 10-year survey. But Phelps expects it to reveal that many details will be make-believe. “What’s most troubling, of course, is that these people have no idea their memories have changed this much,” she says. “The strength of the emotion makes them convinced it’s all true, even when it’s clearly not.”” [emphasis added]

History is often described as merely “written by the victors,” which is a backhanded slap implying you can’t really trust what the historians have told you.  That’s neither accurate nor fair on the whole, but there is a nugget of truth in the phrase due to the fact that none of us–no one!!–accurately remembers everything from what has happened.   You can aid your cause at remembering accurately by taking notes as something transpires (say, for instance, if you are called into a meeting with your boss) or by saving all written communication (this is one reason why email trumps other forms of modern communication—the preserved written record).  Even then, though, all you really have, especially in your notes, is your version of what just happened.  Its better than nothing, but in the end, your best bet is to realize that you need the other person’s viewpoint for an accurate picture.

 

And, that is the mark of a critical thinker—one who holds onto their own opinion somewhat loosely and eagerly seeks out ways to understand the other person’s point of view.  Walking to their side of the table doesn’t mean you have to agree with them, but at least it allows you to admit that your own viewpoint, your own memory of the event, isn’t pristine.  Or, as the Prayer of Peace, attributed to St. Francis of Assisi, says:

 

O Divine Master grant that I may not so much seek…To be understood,as to understand….