Welcome to the
Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum

This is a community where people come in search of marriage related support, answers, or encouragement. Also, information about the Marriage Builders principles can be found in the books available for sale in the Marriage Builders® Bookstore.
If you would like to join our discussion forum, please read the Announcement Forum for instructions, rules, & guidelines.
The members of this community are peers and not professionals. Professional coaching is available by clicking on the link titled Coaching Center at the top of this page.
We trust that you will find the Marriage Builders® Discussion Forum to be a helpful resource for you. We look forward to your participation.
Once you have reviewed all the FAQ, tech support and announcement information, if you still have problems that are not addressed, please e-mail the administrators at mbrestored@gmail.com
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3
#2442027 11/10/10 12:51 PM
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
Ok, been slapping a particular blog all over the place. I am not associated with it, I just have a particular love for it since it deals with psychology, psychological processes, and psychological bias.

The tagline says it all: A Celebration of Self Delusion.

We are all, unfortunately, self delusional... with varying extents. For instance, I am extremely deluded! O_o

I tend to like the writing here, because it is presented in what I feel is an easy-to-read format. Often, the studies involved in each article are linked at the end. Verifiability.

So, as my overactive mind is clicking through the recovery process, a lot of these things have again come to the forefront of my thinking, and I just feel it proper to share and discuss it with people here.



Misinformation Effect:

The Misconception: Memories are played back like recordings.

The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.

In terms of issues presented on these boards, the misinformation effect directly addresses the rewriting of marital history, and the ever changing view of mistakes made.

Thoughts?


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
P
Member
Offline
Member
P
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 35,996
Are you getting enough sleep?

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
Lol. Yes.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,704
K
Member
Offline
Member
K
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 1,704
I really thought you were calling out another forum member and we were about to have an internet throwdown. I guess I'll put the popcorn away.


Husband (me) 39
Wife 36
Daughter 21
Daughter 19
Son 14
Daughter 10
Son 8 (autistic)

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: kilted_thrower
I really thought you were calling out another forum member and we were about to have an internet throwdown. I guess I'll put the popcorn away.


Lol. That's another thread!

However, even doing that, I think I met my own intention. I don't want to be right, correct, or... I don't know, can't think of a third.

I am an arguer. I argue to understand, and to be understood.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,888
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 2,888
Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
I am an arguer. I argue to understand, and to be understood.

My mother always called this type of person a Philadelphia Lawyer.

She leveled it against me more than once...


Preach the Gospel every day. When necessary, use words.
St. Francis of Assissi
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
Ok, been slapping a particular blog all over the place. I am not associated with it, I just have a particular love for it since it deals with psychology, psychological processes, and psychological bias.

The tagline says it all: A Celebration of Self Delusion.

We are all, unfortunately, self delusional... with varying extents. For instance, I am extremely deluded! O_o

I tend to like the writing here, because it is presented in what I feel is an easy-to-read format. Often, the studies involved in each article are linked at the end. Verifiability.

So, as my overactive mind is clicking through the recovery process, a lot of these things have again come to the forefront of my thinking, and I just feel it proper to share and discuss it with people here.



Misinformation Effect:

The Misconception: Memories are played back like recordings.

The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.

In terms of issues presented on these boards, the misinformation effect directly addresses the rewriting of marital history, and the ever changing view of mistakes made.

Thoughts?


Okay, I'll play along for a little bit.

The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.

I, and many courts, would disagree with your conclusion concerning eyewitness testimony.

For example: If you caught your wife in bed with another man, you would be an eyewitness to the truth. I sincerely doubt that your "memories" of that event would be "constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available."

Truth doesn't change. And eyewitnesses to "life changing events" will not have current circumstances or "information" (whatever you meant that word to mean) make them construct something new, especially not something that denies the truth, unless they are in some way mentally incompetent or mentally ill.

Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108
Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
For instance, I am extremely deluded! O_o


Agreed! laugh

What was the question?


BW - me
exWH - serial cheater
2 awesome kids
Divorced 12/2011




Many a good man has failed because he had a wishbone where his backbone should have been.

We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face... we must do that which we think we cannot.
--------Eleanor Roosevelt
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108
B
Member
Offline
Member
B
Joined: Jun 2008
Posts: 6,108
Originally Posted By: ForeverHers
Truth doesn't change.


QFT


BW - me
exWH - serial cheater
2 awesome kids
Divorced 12/2011




Many a good man has failed because he had a wishbone where his backbone should have been.

We gain strength, and courage, and confidence by each experience in which we really stop to look fear in the face... we must do that which we think we cannot.
--------Eleanor Roosevelt
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: ForeverHers
Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
Ok, been slapping a particular blog all over the place. I am not associated with it, I just have a particular love for it since it deals with psychology, psychological processes, and psychological bias.

The tagline says it all: A Celebration of Self Delusion.

We are all, unfortunately, self delusional... with varying extents. For instance, I am extremely deluded! O_o

I tend to like the writing here, because it is presented in what I feel is an easy-to-read format. Often, the studies involved in each article are linked at the end. Verifiability.

So, as my overactive mind is clicking through the recovery process, a lot of these things have again come to the forefront of my thinking, and I just feel it proper to share and discuss it with people here.



Misinformation Effect:

The Misconception: Memories are played back like recordings.

The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.

In terms of issues presented on these boards, the misinformation effect directly addresses the rewriting of marital history, and the ever changing view of mistakes made.

Thoughts?


Okay, I'll play along for a little bit.

The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.

I, and many courts, would disagree with your conclusion concerning eyewitness testimony.

For example: If you caught your wife in bed with another man, you would be an eyewitness to the truth. I sincerely doubt that your "memories" of that event would be "constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available."

Truth doesn't change. And eyewitnesses to "life changing events" will not have current circumstances or "information" (whatever you meant that word to mean) make them construct something new, especially not something that denies the truth, unless they are in some way mentally incompetent or mentally ill.


So, what then is the truth according to your memory? The fact that your wife was in bed with another man? The identity of that man? What that man looked like?

If your wife never identified the man you saw her in bed with, would you be able to hunt him down and visually confirm who he was?

The courts may say yes, but repeated scientific study says no.

I'm sure you can think of plenty of people from your past, and not quite picture their face - yet, when you run into them again, suddenly you can remember them PERFECTLY.

That's because you now have something to construct from.

You don't have to believe it, though. grin


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
So, what then is the truth according to your memory? The fact that your wife was in bed with another man? The identity of that man? What that man looked like?

If your wife never identified the man you saw her in bed with, would you be able to hunt him down and visually confirm who he was?

The courts may say yes, but repeated scientific study says no.

I'm sure you can think of plenty of people from your past, and not quite picture their face - yet, when you run into them again, suddenly you can remember them PERFECTLY.

That's because you now have something to construct from.

You don't have to believe it, though.


HHH, I think you are playing games, word games, mind games, and not too successfully. Not sure why you might think this is amusing or helpful, but this may be some weird "coping mechanism" you are using for some reason. But, once again, I'll naively play along, but I must warn you that this loses its "attractiveness" rather quickly because it becomes nonsensical.

So having said that, let's respond to your latest weirdness that attempts to "prove" this "construct theory" you are positing:

"So, what then is the truth according to your memory? The fact that your wife was in bed with another man? The identity of that man? What that man looked like?

If your wife never identified the man you saw her in bed with, would you be able to hunt him down and visually confirm who he was?

The courts may say yes, but repeated scientific study says
no."


The truth is that my wife was having an affair. It was with another man. It did involve sexual encounters over the course of the 6 years of the affair. The "identity" of the man was confirmed by 3 primary source witnesses: 1) my wife as the active person cheating on our marriage; 2) by the face-to-face admission to me by the OM; and 3) by the many photographs of them from over the years in various states of undress and dress that I discovered and that led to the affair finally "coming to light."

Yes, even if my wife did not identify the man, I would have been able to track him down from the photographs, especially since I knew he was a former co-worker with my wife.
And that's about as "scientific" as you can get. So your "scientists" may well be wrong and their studies may well be junk, or biased, slanted, designed to produce the outcome they were looking for.

Ever heard that "a picture is worth a thousand words?" Ever heard that "cameras don't lie?" I can hear him now trying to make use of you "theory," "That's not me in that picture with my 'johnson' hanging out."

Or maybe it's just "Clintonspeak" for the meaning of "IS?"

"I'm sure you can think of plenty of people from your past, and not quite picture their face - yet, when you run into them again, suddenly you can remember them PERFECTLY.

That's because you now have something to construct from."


This is nonsense to apply to "truth." The TRUTH is that the person existed, not whether or not I can describe him years after the fact. Try asking me to describe someone to a sketch artist shortly after seeing them, and I'll bet the artist could draw a fair likeness.

Also, seeing someone is not the issue, nor is "remembering them perfectly," if they are real people. All seeing someone does is confirm the truth and brings into focus their current appearance versus what they looked liked like in the "past."
There is no "constructing" there, there is confirming there.

"You don't have to believe it, though."

Good, because I don't believe it. It's "psychobabble" at best. smile


HHH, don't you think it's time you stopped playing whatever game you seem to playing with this nonsense?

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
I am pretty curious as to what game it is that you are implying that I am playing?

In fact, my intention wasn't debate - that was your intention by applying disagreement.

So, let's deconstruct, again, what you are saying; in your case you had 3 different witnesses, and photographs.

The photographs, in and of themselves provide current material to work with.

In fact, your entire scenario is not what I presented, at all, in any manner.

This does not deconstruct the theory. Neither does tossing out "slant and bias" nonchalantly without providing evidence, nor specifying said bias or slant. Additionally, this effect being discussed has been confirmed in numerous studies, through varying methods.

What game are you playing at, then?

I have to, by your stance, assume that you did not read the article linked; I'll go a step further. I'll link some further articles;

http://www.slate.com/id/2254054/

http://www.holah.karoo.net/loftusstudy.htm

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=How+Our+Brains+Make+Memories+|+Science+%26+Nature+|+Smithsonian+Magazine&expire=&urlID=425056823&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.smithsonianmag.com%2Fscience-nature%2FHow-Our-Brains-Make-Memories.html%3Fc%3Dy%26page%3D1&partnerID=253167&cid=90849619

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/com...ood-668019.html

http://www.livescience.com/health/081022-erased-memories.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/mice-memory.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/how-memory-works.html

While I doubt you have the desire to read a single one of those, what I want to put on the table here, is this is the deconstruction of a base psychological bias in and of itself. It's not some "new aged" idea, it's been known and studied for decades, and is, in fact, employed by advertisers and politicians.

My "game" is discussion, not debate.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015




Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
However, even doing that, I think I met my own intention. I don't want to be right, correct, or... I don't know, can't think of a third.

I am an arguer. I argue to understand, and to be understood.


This statement is a self-admission of your intent: you like to debate. That's fine, so do I having been a former debater. But you then go on to protest that you don't want to debate, which is disingenuous and an attempt to plant "false information" that someone will naively accept as "truth."


Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
I am pretty curious as to what game it is that you are implying that I am playing?


The game you are playing is that you want your preconceived "truth" to BE "truth" that can be applied to every situation. You made no attempt to qualify your statement. You presented it as an absolute truth that applies to all situations. Then you try to back it up by presenting more psychobabble that is based on manipulation of the data and the situation to achieve the result that was intended.


Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
In fact, my intention wasn't debate - that was your intention by applying disagreement.


Nonsense. You asked: " Thoughts?"

That was a direct invitation to a "debate" using the premise you stated, and by implication since you stated it, that you believe and that it has direct application to denying or questioning the reality of TRUTH.



Your Premise: "The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.

In terms of issues presented on these boards, the misinformation effect directly addresses the rewriting of marital history, and the ever changing view of mistakes made."


Rewriting of marital is history is a common occurrence. That's due to the "Fog effect" and attempts by the WS to rationalize and justify their CHOICE to have an affair. But in the real world, not the "pyschobabble world," the FACT is the adultery. The details of the marital situation that led to the affair is a component, but the only truly relevant fact in affairs IS the fact of the affair itself. It either occurred or it didn't occur. IF you want to limit the concept of "misinformation" to the rationalizations used and the justifications drawn from those rationalizations, then I'd say fine. But you didn't limit the applicability of your premise to just an affair situation, you expanded it to be inclusive of ALL situations when you said, "which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable." That inclusiveness is what is WRONG and why I gave you my own personal experience as a means to "falsify" your statement. It does not hold up in ALL situations, as you stated, and is therefore ONLY applicable to a given specific situation.



Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
So, let's deconstruct, again, what you are saying; in your case you had 3 different witnesses, and photographs.

The photographs, in and of themselves provide current material to work with.

In fact, your entire scenario is not what I presented, at all, in any manner.

This does not deconstruct the theory. Neither does tossing out "slant and bias" nonchalantly without providing evidence, nor specifying said bias or slant. Additionally, this effect being discussed has been confirmed in numerous studies, through varying methods.

What game are you playing at, then?


You can claim "innocence" or simply being "misunderstood," but that is simply YOU deconstructing what you DID say. I don't have to "pull from memory" what you said because you wrote it and I can quote it verbatim.

Again, you made a blanket, all inclusive, statement that you presented as FACT.

I simply showed you that your premise in that statement was false, it is not all inclusive of all situations.

As for your article upon which you based you statement, it's a fine example of psychological manipulation of a situation designed so as to achieve the predetermined result of the author, and then an attempt to apply it to situations where facts ARE known.


Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
I have to, by your stance, assume that you did not read the article linked; I'll go a step further.


You would assume wrongly then.

But to humor you a bit, here is the complete article and I'll even give you some comments and observations about the article:


Misinformation Effect
June 3, 2010
tags: Elizabeth Loftus, False Memories
by David McRaney
The Misconception: Memories are played back like recordings.
The Truth: Memories are constructed anew each time from whatever information is currently available, which makes things like eyewitness testimony unreliable.

"Have you ever been telling a story about something someone else in the room also experienced?
If so, have you ever disagreed on what happened? If you cant both be right, what does that mean?

Take out a piece of paper and get ready to write.
Really do it; it will be fun.
Ok.
Now, read this list of words out loud one time and then try to write as many of them as you can remember on the paper without looking back. When you think you have them all, look back.
Dont read past the block of words until youve finished.

Go:
door, glass, pane, shade, ledge, sill, house, open, curtain, frame, view, breeze, sash, screen, shutter

Now, take a look at the list. How did you do?
Did you write down all the words?
Did you write the word window down?
If presented properly, 85 percent of people will remember seeing window in the list, but it isnt there.
If you did, you just gave yourself a false memory thanks to the misinformation effect.

In 1974, Elizabeth Loftus at the University of Washington conducted a study in which people watched safety films of car crashes.

She then asked the participants to estimate how fast the car was going, but she divided the people into groups and asked the question differently for each. These were the questions:
About how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?
About how fast were the cars going when they collided into each other?
About how fast were the cars going when they bumped into each other?
About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other?
About how fast were the cars going when they contacted each other?

The peoples answers in mph averaged like this:
Smashed 40.8
Collided 39.3
Bumped 38.1
Hit 34.0
Contacted 31.8

She raised the ante by asking the same people if they saw broken glass in the film. There was no broken glass.

Sure enough, the people who were given the word smashed in their question were twice as likely to remember seeing glass, and people from every group falsely remembered seeing it.

Since then, hundreds of experiments into misinformation effect have been conducted, and people have been convinced of all sorts of things. Screwdrivers become wrenches, white men become black men, etc.

Studies show you can become convinced you were lost in a shopping mall as a child even though you never were.
Loftus even convinced people they shook hands with Bugs Bunny when they visited Disney World as a kid.

There are many explanations as to why this is happening, but the effect is well established and predictable.

Scientists generally agree memories arent recorded like videos or stored like data on a hard drive. They are constructed and assembled on the spot like Legos from a bucket in your brain.

Neurologist Oliver Sacks once had a patient who became colorblind after a brain injury. Not only could he not see certain colors, he couldnt imagine them or remember them. Memories of cars and dresses and carnivals were suddenly drained, washed down. (You can read more about his research in his book, The Island of the Colorblind.)

Even though this patients memories were first imprinted when he could see color, they now could only be conjured up with the faculties of his current imagination.

Each time you build a memory, you make it from scratch, and if much time has passed you stand a good chance of getting the details wrong. With a little influence, you might get big ones wrong.

Loftus has rallied against eyewitness testimony for decades now, and she also has criticized psychologists who say they can dredge up repressed memories from childhood.

Think back to the exercise above when you falsely saw curtains in the list of things around a window. It took almost no effort to implant the memory.
Wait, was it curtains?"


Manipulation to achieve the desired result. CAN someone be "Implanted" with false information that they will believe was real? Of course they can. That isn't the issue. The issue is "what" truth is being examined.

There is a list of words, how many does someone remember. Some will remember all of them, some a few, and some may even "add" something to the list. So what.

The Cars collided. That is the fact. How fast the cars were going depends on other facts NOT readily available. What they remember about the crash is irrelevant to how accurate they "estimated" the cars were traveling prior to the collision. They were given a changed scenario where words used were designed to alter the "fact" of the speed that might generally result is the "degree" of the impact of the cars. But if you gave the same "Test" to someone who is trained in this sort of observation, like my son who is a cop and has "estimated" speed very accurately and confirmed that speed with radar, they will likely "score" much higher on the "eyewitness" scale.

Again, even if I wanted to agree that people's perceptions can vary, and I would agree to that, the CONCLUSION drawn that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable in ALL situations" is an incorrect conclusion. Even in the scenarios cited, not ALL eyewitnesses got that information wrong. SOME actually, even given the intentional manipulation by the tester, got the information (their memory of what actually happened) correct, but the article focused on the ones who "missed" or "added" information and you have attempted to extrapolate that to ALL situations. The article itself proved that contention is false.



Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
While I doubt you have the desire to read a single one of those, what I want to put on the table here, is this is the deconstruction of a base psychological bias in and of itself. It's not some "new aged" idea, it's been known and studied for decades, and is, in fact, employed by advertisers and politicians.

My "game" is discussion, not debate.


You are correct in one assumption, I have no desire to spend my time reading articles for your enjoyment when I already know your premise of applicability to ALL situations is false.

A premise that has merit in the context of your statement is that "if you tell a lie often enough, it will become the truth." Big deal. It's still a lie.

And the Emperor HAS no clothes too. That is the truth.

Here's another one: "You can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time."


Last point regarding the article: "Even though this patients memories were first imprinted when he could see color, they now could only be conjured up with the faculties of his current imagination.

Duh! The condition was changed by BRAIN DAMAGE. The capacity of the brain was altered by the brain injury. To conclude that has some support for the premise is both illogical and false. His "memories" of color may still be there, but is ability to access those memories was evidently destroyed. Just like the data on your hard drive is inaccessible if you don't have a fully functional computer that has the capacity TO access the stored data. Just as the patient might have to be "re-taught" colors for future observation and classifications of new memories post brain injury, you might have to get a new computer to access what's stored on your harddrive. But for now, we can't get a new brain to replace the damaged areas of the patient's brain.


And with that, I've spent enough time on a senseless "rabbit trail."

Good luck in your discussion.

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
So, I read this. I reread this. I picked it apart, I turned it over.

Here's the conclusion; proof by verbosity, qualifiers by amphiboly, false attribution (adding the word "all" to the eyewitness testimony statement), straw man, along with a lot of slippery slope, appeal to authority, and lack of any evidence which is not anecdotal. You aren't debating, you are rambling.

Nothing independent and verifiable was brought to the discussion.

I provided the the scenario and data based on what you stated. Rather than going with the identified scenario, you provided your own scenario in which current data, and verification by other sources was available.

This is not in line with the discussion. This is you rewording the discussion.

So, here's another scenario, let's see if you can stick with it.

You are standing in line at a store when it is robbed. You get nothing more than a short glance at the perpetrator, who shoots and kills the store clerk. There is no video security. You are the only witness. 2 months later, you are brought in to identify the perpetrator. Could you do it?

HUNDREDS of studies say no.

Then, you go as far as to reverse the presented information; memory is not pulled up like data from a hard drive.

You then continue by stating

Originally Posted By: ForeverHers
Duh! The condition was changed by BRAIN DAMAGE. The capacity of the brain was altered by the brain injury. To conclude that has some support for the premise is both illogical and false. His "memories" of color may still be there, but is ability to access those memories was evidently destroyed. Just like the data on your hard drive is inaccessible if you don't have a fully functional computer that has the capacity TO access the stored data. Just as the patient might have to be "re-taught" colors for future observation and classifications of new memories post brain injury, you might have to get a new computer to access what's stored on your harddrive. But for now, we can't get a new brain to replace the damaged areas of the patient's brain.


You do know that memory and color perception are completely different areas of the brain? You are jumping to the conclusion that because the area which dictates color perception was damaged, that somehow the memory centers were damaged as well. I think that the neurologist in this case would have taken this into account. In fact, had he not, the study would have been dismantled in peer review, and never published.

The ad hominem, thinly veiled or not, also brings nothing to the discussion.

The thing that you fail to realize, and refuse to recognize, is that this particular psychological bias is a component of the "fog effect." And I intend to bring other components up for discussion. You can red herring all you want with terms like "psychobabble," but you have NO SUPPORT FOR YOUR CLAIMS.

Oh, speaking of bias - next time you decide to make a bias call, how about providing a description and evidence that is verifiable? Is that too hard to a former debater? Simply using the word - as you put it "playing word games" - again, brings nothing to the table.

No, sir. It is I wasting my time on a tortoise chase.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
Continuing the foggy trail, and in light of previous posts, I present to you;

Confirmation Bias

The Misconception
: Your opinions are the result of years of rational, objective analysis.

The Truth: Your opinions are the result of years of paying attention to information which confirmed what you believed while ignoring information which challenged your preconceived notions.

Guilty; "death/sneezes come in 3's"

In terms of "the fog" this is where marital history is reviewed, and only negatives are reviewed.

"You never did ______."

Quote:
...you tend to come up with a hypothesis and then work to prove it right instead of working to prove it wrong. Once satisfied, you stop searching.

You seek out safe havens for your ideology, friends and coworkers of like mind and attitude, media outlets guaranteed to play nice.

Whenever your opinions or beliefs are so intertwined with your self-image you couldnt pull them away without damaging your core concepts of self, you avoid situations which may cause harm to those beliefs.

Over time, by never seeking the antithetical, through accumulating subscriptions to magazines, stacks of books and hours of television, you can become so confident in your world-view no one could dissuade you.


An affair requires a shift of core concepts of self - it requires a shift of opinion and belief to lead a double life which is, at it's very core, wrong. So, in interest of defending the actions, in interest of justifying the belief, Confirmation Bias is applied to present "a bad marriage."

The opposite was true for myself. I looked back, and instead remembered the good things.

"How could you do this when I did _____?"

I can't say if this is true for all betrayed spouses, however.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
I'm sorry, but you continue down the same line of reasoning and purpose that you seem to have set up from the beginning:

Get over yourself!

With the title of your thread you set the intent and purpose of what you wanted to argue.

Your premise was that "eyewitness testimony is unreliable." That was an ALL-inclusive statement. It allowed for no exceptions to the statement. SOME eyewitness testimony can be unreliable. But some eyewitness testimony is very reliable.

Later in your post you tied that blanket statement to the condition of marital infidelity.
No one denies that rewriting of marital history often occurs. But your attempt to use the Wayward Spouse's rewriting of history to justify their adultery is a limited application of the blanket statement. In that limitation, the statement would be true.

Likewise, the truth of infidelity is not dependent upon misinformation or attempts to "add" things that were not there. The "specifics" of some details are not what is important, the FACT of the infidelity, the breaking of the marital covenant IS what is important. Likewise, the often heard statement from Wayward Spouse's to the Betrayed Spouse; "Why don't you just forget it and get over it!", also denies the reality of the fact of the betrayal.

The underlying premise of your statement, especially as you are trying to apply it to marriage and recovery is that because the details are "unimportant" or "unreliable" that all "eyewitness" testimony about the affair is unreliable and should, therefore, be discarded.

Your basic premise would seem to be that Truth is unimportant, or at least "relative."

My point is very simple; the truth of adultery is very important and very relative to the one flesh entity known as "marriage."

If you want to play psychological games to give you some mental comfort, then by all means do so for yourself, knock yourself out, but please dont tell me or anyone else to "Get over yourself!"

Or perhaps you might want to contemplate how that thread title might apply to you and your own situation?


Quote:
However, even doing that, I think I met my own intention. I don't want to be right, correct, or... I don't know, can't think of a third.

I am an arguer. I argue to understand, and to be understood.


That may be true sometimes, but in this case you set up this thread with the specific intent to be "right" in whatever you thought you were doing with the thread. And as I said earlier, I'd "play your game" for a little while. That little while has ended.

But I truly and sincerely hope that this is not how you apply your logic and reasoning to your marriage. You DO want to be right and you do like to argue, but not for understanding. You like to argue to prove your preconceived notion correct. At least in the case of this thread anyway. Hopefully there are situations when you really are more interested in discussion rather than setting people up as a foil for you.

Truth matters. So does your slant in how you present things, and then get bent out of shape when someone doesn't "agree" with you "right down the line."

This sort of psychological study has application, but as in all things, it must be understood in the limited context in which it is to be applied. The variation in "observation" and memory is well known, and all those studies do is show it. They also do not show that ALL people ALL THE TIME "fail" in the details. Some people are very good at details. People with photographic memories are especially good at the details. People trained to observe are very good at remembering details.

The problem enters in when you attempt to apply one "truth" to a completely different set of issues. It applies to "rewriting" of marital conditions, it does NOT apply to the fact of adultery and the purposeful breaking of the marriage covenant that was entered into by both spouses in the marriage.


Originally Posted By: HeadHeldHigh
An affair requires a shift of core concepts of self - it requires a shift of opinion and belief to lead a double life which is, at its very core, wrong. So, in interest of defending the actions, in interest of justifying the belief, Confirmation Bias is applied to present "a bad marriage."


This is news???

Do we need "psychological terms" to know that it happens frequently as Wayward Spouses seek to rationalize and justify DOING what they want to do?

"Confirmation bias" in your language is the same as "Sin" in mine. People seek whatever rationalization they want to in order to "allow" themselves to do whatever they want to do (in the case of adultery - sin).

"Selective memory," "Rationalizations," "Moral Relativism," etc., are terms that can be applied that are used frequently to ENABLE someone to do what is "wrong." Change the standard of "right and wrong" behavior and you can justify any behavior anyone WANTS to do.

And that really has nothing to do with memory. It has everything to do with self-preeminence and the granting of the right to oneself to DO whatever they feel like doing. It has to do with justifying in their minds any sort of reason that gives them the license to sin.

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
FH, I'm not going to waste my time with you. You aren't debating, you are arguing. You make claims, assumptions, and accusations - all loosely and based on your own opinion - without any supporting evidence.

Never again presume to lecture me on my marriage. I am not your child, and your patronizing arrogance and willful ignorance and denial don't gain you any points in the conversation.

I don't care how long winded you get, don't care what words you try to twist by wrapping in quotes, don't care if you use biblical quotes, don't care what you capitilize, don't care if you try to qualify your statements by inserting "fact" and "truth" as if just using the word makes the statement so.


My mother is married to a piece of work like you, and it isn't respectable, it's distugsting and arrogant, and I have no reason to tolerate it. Thank you, however, for teaching me the importance of the forum ignore feature.

Adios.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
F
Member
Offline
Member
F
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
ROFLMAO! The pot calling the kettle black!

Not to worry, I have no desire to say anything about your marriage.

You use a set 'em up thread and then get bent out of shape when someone disagrees with you . Seems like I was correct in my assumption about you after all.

So it seems you do need to "Get over yourself!"

Knock yourself out with your ad hominem attack method.


Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
E
Member
Offline
Member
E
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 5,736
So what the author of the study is saying is that we can't trust the study.

After all, if eyewitness testimony is suspect, or that observations can be swayed by how the question is formed, then doesn't that call this and every other study into question?

Isn't the author saying that personal biases bend the truth. How does the author prevent that very truth from impacting the study results and their interpretation?

The study calls itself into question.

Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
H
Member
OP Offline
Member
H
Joined: Oct 2010
Posts: 5,121
Likes: 1
Originally Posted By: Enlightened_Ex
So what the author of the study is saying is that we can't trust the study.

After all, if eyewitness testimony is suspect, or that observations can be swayed by how the question is formed, then doesn't that call this and every other study into question?

Isn't the author saying that personal biases bend the truth. How does the author prevent that very truth from impacting the study results and their interpretation?

The study calls itself into question.



Pluralize that. Studies. Hundreds over the past 30 years. In controlled environments, under rigorous scientific rules - and then peer-reviewed prior to publishing in scientific journals.

This is evidence-based research. The claim isn't "ALL" - that is being assumed. The claim of "all," however, isn't enough to dismiss the claim.

The burden of science; you can deny anything and everything you like, but you need proof, you need evidence. You need both of those to make a claim, or to deny a claim.

This isn't politics.

Though, I understand we live in a world where people will accept an unsupported claim like "immunization causes autism" without going any further.

However, both of these psychological biases feed into exactly why that is so; people don't want to have their beliefs or opinions challenged, they just want to be right.

Welcome to the argument culture.


"An expert is a person who has made all the mistakes that can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr

"Smart people believe weird things because they are skilled at defending beliefs they arrived at for non-smart reasons." - Michael Shermer

"Fair speech may hide a foul heart." - Samwise Gamgee LOTR
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3

Link Copied to Clipboard
Forum Search
Who's Online Now
0 members (), 30 guests, and 53 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
Olivia 80, Brad344, Bobbyboy341, Steve123, kenmw
71,696 Registered Users
Forum Statistics
Forums67
Topics133,537
Posts2,322,679
Members71,697
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
Building Marriages That Last A Lifetime
Copyright © 1995-2020, Marriage Builders®. All Rights Reserved.  |  Web Development by SunStar Media.
Site Navigation
Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5