Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | MotherBruce's commentslogin

I'd be wary of putting too much stock in the conclusions of an article which portrays Elizabeth Loftus as an impartial and objective debunker of false memories, as this one does. She was paid large sums of money to defend scores of men accused of child sexual abuse, extrapolating from her experimental demonstration that it is possible to implant false memories to the conclusion that this was common and the true origin of most recovered memories This conflict of interest somehow always goes unmentioned in articles like the one from Wired.

Many CSA survivors today now say that the obsessive focus on "false memories" has been a significant obstacle to healing from their trauma and being able to discuss it openly.

https://twitter.com/mike_salter/status/1211442594821001216

https://www.thecut.com/article/false-memory-syndrome-controv...


I know well how strong feelings run on this.

But there is zero experimental evidence that memories get recovered, and lots of evidence about how easy it is to create false memories. We have lots of cases where recovered memories contradict objective evidence. Memories "recovered" tie to the therapist more than anything else (one will specialize in satanic rituals, the next in a series of terminated pregnancies). And so on.

Therefore I concluded decades ago that we should presume recovered memories to be false unless there is specific evidence otherwise.

Now you say, Many CSA survivors today now say that the obsessive focus on "false memories" has been a significant obstacle to healing from their trauma and being able to discuss it openly. But who are you counting as "CSA survivors"? Those like myself whose memories were never "recovered"? Or people who claim to have suppressed their memories and then later "recovered" them? Because those two groups have very different sets of experiences. And often very different opinions. Particularly about the phenomena of "recovered memories".

Regardless of which definition you use, here is the most important lesson that I learned about recovery. What actually happened is not very important. The dynamics which enabled the abuse, come from it, and with which we harm ourselves ARE important. And these are things that exist and can be dealt with in the present, with no regard to our unreliable memories of the past. Indeed the act of dwelling on those past memories brings grief and unhappiness, and elaborating on them serves no useful purpose.

Related, I learned the hard way that what feels good for me, and what IS good for me, are often very different. As https://www.amazon.com/Subtle-Art-Not-Giving-Counterintuitiv... says in its backward law, "Desiring a positive experience is itself a negative experience; accepting a negative experience is a positive experience." Trying to place the blame for my problems entirely on an external abuser, no matter how real that abuser is, becomes a negative experience. By contrast accepting the ways in which I have perpetuated the experience of being abused becomes a positive experience.

Therefore while publicly rehearsing the details of a person's recovered memories may feel good in the moment, I firmly believe that the act of doing so CAUSES trauma, and works AGAINST healing. And indeed the belief that it is helpful is due to incorrect theories about therapy - the same theories by which false memories can wind up implanted.


I don't think it's outlandish to think that "recovered memories" are most commonly false. Given everything we know about memory that should be the null hypothesis.

Has anyone ever even demonstrated that it is possible to "recover" memories?


I have been slowly remembering forgotten childhood events on my own as I get older. Not all negative or especially strong.


Haven't you had an experience when something triggers long forgotten memories? A physical object, a word?


Yeah but those weren't things I'd forgotten and was trying to remember. I just wouldn't have thought about them without the trigger.


I remember reading that article when it came out. I wasn't sure what to make of it then, still not sure now. They definitely sound like unusual people.


"She was paid large sums of money"

And therapists specializing on 'recovering' memories aren't?


I'm less concerned about the lack of mention of that in articles which are otherwise treating them as complete quacks inventing abuse allegations against innocent people out of whole cloth.


I bet that victims of those therapists, who were falsely accused, put in jail or got they reputation ruined and life destroyed won't share your concerns.


It's definitely not accurate to say Musk has "paid" anything yet. Things don't seem to be going well for him in court though, so he might be forced to pony up the full $54.20 per share, unless he can torpedo the $13B debt portion somehow.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: