Debunking Myths About Trauma and Memory

[HuckleB]

http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2005/november/mcnally-IR-nov.asp

Traumatic Memories Are Not Necessarily Accurate Memories:
http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2005/november/loftus-IR-nov.asp

Troubles in Traumatology:
http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2005/november/GuestEditorial.asp

Very worthwhile reading on this subject.

[Warpy]

1. Dunno, I worked with a lot of trauma patients

when they were waking up and the first things they wanted to know was where they were and how they got there. They'd remember everything up to a day, an hour, or even a few minutes before their accident and that would be it.

Maybe the memories came back later during rehab, dunno about that. I do know that while I worked to get them stable enough to go to rehab, they were upset that they had no memory of what had happened to them.

Recovered memories of childhood emotional trauma, however, have been pretty thoroughly debunked.

[varkam]

2. Very interesting stuff.

A lot of research in cognitive psychology has shown that people can be mistaken in their recollections about traumatic events - even when they are 100% confident they remember accurately. And, interestingly enough, the ease at which false memories can be implanted.

Good stuff.

[salvorhardin]

3. The second researcher listed on "Traumatic Memories Are Not..."

Is Elizabeth Loftus who is probably the person to have done the most work with false memories than anyone else. Here is one of her popular books on the subject: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0312084552

[varkam]

4. I've read several of her articles

done on how semantic cues alter memory (such as using words like hit or smashed in a question posed to elicit speed judgment in a car crash) and on her (in)famous study on being lost in a shopping mall. She does a lot of fantastically interesting work, but draws the ire of many victims rights groups.

[beam me up scottie]

5. YES!

I've read some of her studies about the false memory cult during the 80's.

She has been viciously attacked by frauds who make their living implanting the alleged "memories".

With all of the frauds, liars, cheats and nutbags trying to bilk people out of their money, why do so many people defend them and instead attack only science based medicine and medical professionals?

[salvorhardin]

6. Her work is very controversial

Because it challenges long held beliefs about how memory operates which can seem very counterintuitive to people. Most people think their memory works like a camera, fileofax or computer but what's stored are only the most skeletal of details from which your memory of an event is literally recreated by your brain every time you remember it.

Some of her research methods are debatable too. For instance, using deliberately implanted memories as a way of manipulating people to alter their eating patterns: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/being-human/mg18725114.700. There is a discussion of this as it relates to fat acceptance at Big Fat Blog: http://www.bigfatblog.com/archives/001675.php (a rather emotional discussion). The problem with this was the assumption behind the research which amounted to "people are fat because they eat too much". It presumes a moral judgement and is not proven in research.

But for any (legitimate) criticism levied at her I think it has to be acknowledged that Loftus has contribtued enormously to the field.

[beam me up scottie]

7. I didn't know that.

I remember briefly reading about the eating research.

I guess the research is only as good as its starting point.
Anything begun from an inaccurate presumption is suspect.




edited to remove rogue apostrophe

[salvorhardin]

8. I think the research is solid

Personally I think Loftus was showing a little of her own bias in how she thinks about fat people there. Also, I haven't read her study so I don't know how badly the popular science press mangled the intent and focus of her research. It's a process though and scientists as humans with all their biases are part of that process. I wouldn't think badly of her work myself just because she happened to stick a needle in the eye of one of my sacred cows. :-)

[varkam]

9. I'm not familiar with that line of her research

But as far as her false memory work is concerned, I agree with you that it's controversial - but it's only controversial in the sense that teaching evolution alone in science class is "controversial". People think memory, like you said, is like a tape recorder. It's just not the case - memory is largely a reconstructive process. It fades over time and we tend to "fill in the gaps" so to speak.

If you agree that it's frightening how easy it is to implant a false memory in someone, then you will probably find it equally frightening that a sizable number of clinicians in the mental health field believe in the validity of the notion of repressed memory - even though there is virtually no empirical research to support such a notion.

[salvorhardin]

10. I absolutely do agree about clinicians and false memory

And like I said I absolutely think Loftus' work has been groundbreaking.

And I thought I made the point that her work is controversial for the very same reason you stated.

[varkam]

11. Yes you did.

Sorry, it's late and I'm tired. I guess I was just phrasing it a different way

[salvorhardin]

12. Eh, I was tired too.

I wasn't crabby when I wrote that. Sorry if it sounded like that (it does to me rereading now :-)).

[bemildred]

13. Yes. Well said.

Mountains of conjecture and projection rooted in molehills of fact. The great insight that Freud had, that vast areas of our being are not in the scope of our normal awareness or well under our control, has led to a great industry dedicated to papering that ignorance and impotence over and restoring the comfort of certainty and an illusion of self-control.