« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Misleading Information and the Big Lie
This has been illuminating for this discussion: It shows how (possibly) later-provided information can affect people's memories, and seems similar to Hitler's "big lie"-technique.
This comment helps raise questions about these assertions.
The key will be to notice which new, misleading terms are introduced in a question. Arguably, post-event misinformation is just as important to rewriting history and (attempting to) adjust recollections about an event.
A misleading question might include unrelated information, with the intent to affect someone's memory of the original event/information. But this does not guarantee someone is necessarily affected, or that their memory changes.
Rather, someone who is willing to engage in this attempt to rewrite history, is likely to use abusive methods when others refuse to adjust their recollections to match the deception. Curiously, even when misled, people might be convinced they have an accurate memory. But this does not mean that people -- who claim to have an accurate memory -- have been misled to believe this conclusion.
McCloskey & Zaragoza conclude that original memories are retained, and not necessarily overwritten by new information. They do not directly address situations when the misleading information is before the event. The information does not adequately consider situations where there is no forced choice.
Just because someone is given new information, it does not mean their memory is changed. Time may contribute to changes, but this does not mean that delays in providing information will overwrite information.Those who hope to rewrite history, but are faced with people who have spotted a deception, are likely to use more aggressive methods to impose their world view-ideology on others, in the name of "national security" and "protecting others".
Comments (2)
The central flaw with the Challenger analogy relative to 9-11 is here: Random is (incorrectly) arguing that the Challenger analogy is relevant to the recollection of an original time.
Random is mixing the analogies: The Challenger study took two snapshots, comparing later recollections to earlier observations.
However, Michael is reporting what he observed; and it cannot be argued that he's mis-remembered a detail, when confirmed by others.
Someone might hope to discredit someone's memory --- despite the BBC essentially confirms Michael's version -- to discredit other observations which are consistent with the timeline revealed in the BBC timeline: Someone disclosed and reported information before the events happened, suggesting there was a master timeline, outside what the supposed hijackers were working.
Likely, others observed things which are consistent with the BBC's advance reporting, but have not adequately been supported, or may not appreciate the importance of their observations. It's possible they've cast these aside, believing the manufactured timeline.
The issue turns on its head: Not that original memories were forgotten; but that misinformation about 9-11 hoped to suppress information consistent with early observations related to BBC's error.
October 2, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please summarize the points you intend your links to prove. It is clumsy to chase links when we could read your argument directly.
October 2, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment