User talk:ClareParlett/sandbox/Approaches to Knowledge/Seminar Group 11/Truth in Memory

Brainstorm phase
Brief summary of the brainstorm had on the 16th of November (Tingjun, Lola, Malina)

We established that we were interested in looking at :
 * How substances usage or abuse can tamper with one's memory
 * How reliable is eye-witness testimony (looking at real life cases)
 * How does memory evolve over the course of a lifetime
 * Collective false memory (e.g Mandela effect)

We also thought of ending the Wikibook chapter with an open question about how memory plays a role in the society and how it can have a major effect on it (Historical,Legal...)

After having done a bit of research on the matter, I believe we can have a clearer directive such as :

Truth in memory : The Reliability of Eye-Witness Testimony

A/ Introduction 1) Explaining the memory process  2) Defining "eye-witness testimony"

B/ The Process of Remembering and Altered Memory 1) Memory Recall/Retrieval Here we can add informations and studies about suggestions that alter one's memory. 2) Memory Evolution in a Lifetime 3) Memory tampered by substance usage or abuse 4) Memory in the face of trauma

C/ Memory in the Courtroom 1) Reappearance Hypothesis  2) Cases of False Memories in the Courtroom

Tell me your thoughts on this! Should we continue in this direction or should we change directions? --Malinabodea (discuss • contribs) 19:02, 20 November 2018 (UTC)

We divided the work in terms of the themes that each of us we're more interested in : Lola will focus on cases, while Tingjun and I will focus on the process of memory and the alteration of it. The introduction and conclusion will be collaborative. --Malinabodea (discuss • contribs) 12:58, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

something removed from truth and law as a result from our meeting with Clare
Indeed, the psychologist Ulric Neisser made a study revealing that the majority of jurors believe in “reappearance hypothesis” which implies that memories are stocked somewhere in the mind and can be retrieved using various methods (eg. therapy, hypnosis…). Many studies have proven memory to be a reconstruction rather than an exact replica of the event, hence false memory can easily be mistaken as true, solid evidence.

Another Structuring option
In court, the accuracy of memory from the aspect of perceiving events mainly depends on two kinds of factors: the event factors and the witness factors.

The event factors: 1.Exposure time: the amount of time that the observer was exposed to the incident. The longer exposure, the better the reality was remembered. 2.Frequency: how frequently can the observer see the event happening. The higher the frequency, the more accurate the memory. 3.Detail silence: some abnormal and attractive silence under the circumstances will be more interesting to witness yet more memorable. 4.Type of facts: due to its content, some information is easier than others to be remembered. For instance, the speed of a car is especially hard to be recalled in comparison with other details like someone's height or hair colour. 5.Violence of an event: The existence of violence behaviour will reduce the accuracy of recalled memories.

The witness factors: 1.Stress: Stress, as one of the emotionally arousing states, only encourages the quality of memory if being in a moderate situation; in other words, it would cause decrements if being either too low or too high. 2.Expectations: 'observation is peculiarly influenced by expectation, so that errors mounting to distinct illusions or hallucinations may arise from this source...We tend to see and hear what we expect to see and hear'.

After this, we should find more on how witness testimony

Tingjun Notes

General Discussions and Questions
Once a witness or a victim has a false memory when can the law go against it ? As long as it is a truth for him and that he took an oath to say the truth I don't think that the law can go against it, I mean file a complaint against him or suing him, since it is just human faultiness. However, what it can do, is reduce the cases of false memory by carefully collecting more psychological data on the eyewitness (if he/she experiences intense trauma, consumes alcohol, age problems...) and also to make judges aware of memory problems the eyewitness may have. Furthermore, I honestly do not think that the legal system puts enough importance on being historically truthful (as we have seen in the lack of definition and the search for "evidence" even if faulty) which is indeed a real problem for our society. In a way, I can understand why : working with psychologists involves a lot of funds invested just in eyewitnesses, and it can really be time consuming (with nearly 572 cases per day in the UK from April to June 2018, if we add the extra research in it will take longer for these cases to be solved hence pilling up) --Malinabodea (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)


 * We are currently at around 1 787 words which is enormous in comparison to what we have to do which is 1 200 words. We have to shorten it and cut some bits. --Malinabodea (discuss • contribs) 18:42, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Notes on Conclusion
I think that in the conclusion, which I humorously named "Ideas to Remember" for now, we could stress on the importance of having truthful and accurate eyewitness testimonies as faulty ones send a considerable number of innocents in prison. However, I also think that we could discuss how the legal system acknowledges the problem of faulty memory and, for example, provides experts in testimonies to weight in on the subject. We could also propose some methods that may be more reliable for the legal system. --Malinabodea (discuss • contribs) 14:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)

For the conclusion let's say that in the courtroom " evidence" should be more based on DNA evidence, forensic evidence (especially now that we are getting more and more advanced on forensic science) than on witnesses as they can have false memory as well as just lie. I think it is a good idea !--Malinabodea (discuss • contribs) 20:30, 3 December 2018 (UTC)