“Many people believe that memory works like a recording device. Memory works a little bit more like a Wikipedia page: you can go in there and change it, but so can other people”
So says Elizabeth Loftus an American cognitive psychologist and expert on human memory*. And she walks her talk with an impressive array of research.
She was consulted by Harvey Weinstein who asked her: ‘How can something that seems so consensual be turned into something so wrong?’
Memories are reconstructions; they are not literal representations of what actually happened … (memory) is highly malleable and open to suggestion.
She has also shown that false memories can be embedded by leading questions and psychotherapy.
In a 2013 TED talk entirled “How reliable is your memory” she reported that one project had identified some 300 people who were convicted of things they didn’t do, based on DNA analysis. Three quarters of the cases were due to faulty eyewitness memory.
The implications for eyewitness based testimony and the validity of repressed memories are huge. It means that single witness evidence should not be regarded as sufficient evidence of truth, unless there is other direct evidence to support it.
In the US, some states refuse to prosecute cases based on recovered memory testimony and some insurers decline cover to therapists on recoved memory malpractice suits.*
Testimony from Professor Lucas in the two headline inquiries in Australia into rapes by a Minister or in a Minister’s office may well be enlightening.
But sadly, the outcomes of those inquiries have already been decided, without the need to hear evidence.
In my view, the sooner we get rid of juries, eyewitness evidence and judges the better: we need to promote universal surveillance, compulsory truth serums and lie detection and use a computer to evaluate the evidence.
*Wikipedia – Elizabeth Loftus
2 thoughts on “Memory is not what I thought it was”
Who will program the computer and tell it what to do? A judge, politician? Some of South Africa’s outdated laws on forestry, agriculture and environmental issues contradict each other. Old laws that should have been repealed are still there. I think lawyers love it. The more confusing the law the more loopholes lawyers find.
Loopholes are bread on the table for them. Or caviar?