Thanks for the Memories?

Special Note: I know that this CT is long, and I apologize for that. However, there is so much more about the human memory that is fascinating. In fact, my first draft for this CT was about 20 pages long. So, if this CT seems to have abrupt subject changes, it's because it does. But, I tried to cram the highlights into just a couple of pages.

This CT is important for three groups of people:

(1) those who counsel others on a regular basis
(2) those who are married
(3) those who think that they have a good memory

It Happens to All of Us

Have you ever misplaced your car keys, and couldn't find them for a while? Have you ever gone into a room, only to forget why you went there? Some of us who are "old hands" at this have learned that occasionally when we retrace our steps into the room, we can remember what it was that we were doing. Sometimes just being mentally preoccupied can cause us not to remember smaller things.

How about this one: You're talking about something and you get carried off onto a "rabbit trail," and as you talk, you realize that you don't remember the point that you were making. Ah, the joys of being human.

Thanks for the Memories?

Actor Bob Hope gave us this wonderful phrase, "Thanks for the memories." And, thousands of people have used this phrase in jokes, love poems, friendship conversations, high school and college graduations, and much more.

But, the problem with this phrase is that each person's memories are different from everyone else's, even for those who participated in the same events. So, in reality, it may be more accurate to say "Thanks for my memories."

A Case in Point

In my first senior pastorate, there was a couple (Frank and Ellen--not their real names) in the church who were in their early 50's. Frank and Ellen had two problems with me as the new senior pastor: (1) I was "too young" to be a pastor--I was 28--and (2) I did not preach out of the KJV translation of the Bible.

One Sunday afternoon Frank and Ellen, a few folks from the church, and I were having lunch together. During lunch, someone asked me a specific question about a theological topic. I do not now remember what the question was, but I remember being both pleased and a little shocked by the question because it was about a topic that was deeper than what the average Christian thinks about. I answered the question by giving my opinion about the issue, and soon we were back talking about run-of-the-mill topics that you might hear at any lunch table.

About a week later before one of our services, we were all just talking and fellowshipping. Ellen announced to a few of us that she and Frank had heard the most wonderful and insightful theological truth on Christian TV recently. We all wondered what it might be, and then she told us. Several of the people looked at me in stunned amazement. Then, one of them asked Ellen, "Where did you hear that?" Both Ellen and Frank explained that they had heard it on a Christian program on TV, but they weren't sure what day or exactly what preacher it was.

Source Memory

The reason that the people looked at me with amazement was that what Ellen was recounting were the very words, nearly verbatim, that I had spoken a week earlier at lunch. The fact that Ellen had used my very words almost verbatim, including at least one word-for-word turn of phrase that I had used, showed that I really had been the source. And, even if she had actually heard someone on TV say the same thing that I had, why didn't she just say, "Hey, I heard a preacher on TV make the same comment you made during lunch last week."

The problem that Ellen and Frank had wasn't early stages of Alzheimer's. It was simply the fact that they didn't really like me and they were never happy that I was voted in as the pastor. They simply--subconsciously--projected the words I spoke into their memories. They liked the words, but not the man who spoke them, so they divorced the words from the man. When it was time for them to share those words, they had to have a source, and they automatically projected my words onto a different person.

Daniel L. Schacter is a memory researcher, and appropriately identifies "source memory" as the ability to recall when and where an event occurred. After all, to Ellen and Frank, nothing good could come from this young preacher who didn't even know the right Bible to preach from. Thus their "personal context" created a faulty memory in this particular case.

Personal Context

Before you shake your head at what Frank and Ellen did, you should know that you have done the same thing. But, you did not know you did it. If you did know that you were ascribing a statement to the wrong source, then it would not be a memory problem; it would be a lying problem. So, some of you may be saying, "I've never done that!" But, the fact is, if you did it, you'd never know you did unless someone heard you do it and pointed out your error. Even then, however, most people believe in their memory so much, that they would have to have actual proof (like a video or audiotape of the source) to convince them.

You see, memories are not made in a vacuum. We bring many things to our situations, and we filter our experience through our "personal context." Then, we organize our memories into categories that fit with our "personal context."

Think, Feel, and Believe

A personal context consists of everything we think, feel, and believe. Here are some of the items that are part of our personal context: love, hate, fears, likes, dislikes, prejudices, beliefs, hurts, anger, bitterness, morality, education, knowledge, ignorance, and experiences. And--and this is important--no two people have the same personal contexts.

Even when two people experience the same "happening," they do not experience it exactly the same. This is easy to illustrate with a simple example. Suppose that a husband and wife are together in their car. The husband is driving and the wife is in the front passenger seat. They get in a car wreck. The mere fact of their positions in the car makes it impossible for the two of them to have the "exact same" experience, though they both went through the same auto accident.

Pride

Another part of our personal context is pride. And, yes, we all struggle with it even when we think we don't. In memory research, I came across a very interesting story about two men trapped on a snow-covered mountain for a few days. One man kept a journal. After they were rescued, a memory expert interviewed the man who had kept the journal. First he asked the man to recount certain highlights of the events, and then after that, they turned to the man's journal to see how accurately he'd remembered certain facts. Now none of us would expect that the smaller details would all be accurate. After all, these men were in the most stressful of situations. But, what about the big events? How about the actual rescue itself? When the Journal-man recounted from memory the story, he stated that he was the stronger of the two and it was he--not his partner--who was able to meet the rescuers and lead them to their camp. However, when he opened and read his own journal, he discovered that he was in fact the weaker of the two men and it was in reality his partner who had gone out to meet the rescue team! He was shocked. He "remembered it vividly," yet his memory was wrong.

Why would he remember the incident so incorrectly? Well, it is obviously better for one's ego to think that he was the strongest. It is better to be a partner in the rescue than to be rescued. I'm sure that some of you are thinking to yourselves, "Well, I would not do that. My memory has never played tricks on me like that." How would you know if you had never had external verifications? If this man hadn't had that journal to refer to, he would never have known that his memory had "tricked" (or failed) him.

Who Hit Whom?

Years ago, I worked in an office that had a small men's restroom. One day I was in a hurry, and I came rushing into the men's room, flung open the door (which didn't have a lock), and hit another man on the head with the door! I was sorry for what I had done, but he was even more embarrassed since he had not yet fully attired himself after his bathroom visit. I profusely apologized, and he just quickly recovered and left the bathroom.

About two months later, I was in the bathroom, and he came in. He opened the door cautiously as he entered. When he saw me he said, "Oh, I was being cautious because I didn't want to hit you on the head with the door again like I did a couple of months ago."

Before I had a chance to correct his memory he left allowing me time to finish up. As I did, I began to wonder: Who hit whom on the head with the door? Why did I just automatically decide in my mind that his memory was faulty? I mean, I had a vivid memory of that embarrassing occasion, but how could I be certain? Often, it is only sheer arrogance that keeps some people proclaiming that their memory is the accurate one.

My friend was about my age; he was a bright and intelligent man. He owned and operated his own business. Why should I simply assume that my memory was correct while his was wrong?

But, why? Why would both of us remember being the guy who had opened the door onto the other man's head? Pride may have been the factor. Perhaps neither of us wished to remember being the poor sap that got hit on the head, and one of us conveniently remembered the events incorrectly to salve our ego.

It's Disturbing

It seems--as well as I can remember--that I have always been fascinated by the psychology of memory. I was a pastoral counselor for many years, and I was always amazed at how couples could have such varying memories of the same event, argument, or first date! And, when I counseled friends who had gotten into an argument, it was more than interesting to hear how each person viewed the incident from his or her perspective.

When I first started counseling, I figured that two people with such varying memories meant that one person was lying. I felt that it was my job as the counselor to "discover" who was telling the truth, and who was lying.

The problem with that, however, was that in many cases both parties were equally believable. So as I coupled the fact that both were people of integrity with the fact that memory is a "slippery animal," I began to realize that in some cases, I would never really know what the bare facts of the case were . . . and furthermore--and this is the disturbing part--the two people would also never truly know the actual facts of the case because their minds had filtered the incident or argument through their "personal contexts," and the memories that each person had were "the facts as they perceived them to be," and not precisely as they truly happened.

This is disturbing for most people because they think that their memory is "smart" and works much like a video. They simply remember the facts. The person most likely to be a problem counselee is the one that believes himself (or herself) to have a solid memory "of the facts." Most people not only believe that the memory is nothing more than simple, factual recall, they believe that their memory is better at simple, factual recall than yours is.

Just the Facts?

Next, most people believe--incorrectly so--that they can always separate the facts of an event from their emotions elicited by those facts. This error is inadvertently reinforced by counselors who ask these two questions; "What did he (or she) say to you?" The counselee answers the question, and then the counselor asks, "And, how did that make you feel?"

This two-part question goes far in reinforcing the idea that the memory is simply a recorder of facts, but the reality is that the memory is malleable, and it is tainted by our emotions.

Obviously there are some things that people can recall correctly and with disconnected emotions, but generally if a couple have come for counseling, their emotions play a large role in how they remember "the facts."

The Myth of Vivid Memories

Everyone agrees that we all have vague memories. Sometimes when I talk with my wife about past events, those events--like a certain vacation--seem vague to me. Certain things stand out more than others, and when I am in the "vague memory" category, I capitulate to my wife's memory--which she insists is better than mine. But, at other times I recall certain things with vividness. It's as though I can close my eyes and see it as clearly as the day it happened. In fact, I have argued with these words before, "But I remember vividly!"

What I have discovered, however, is that "vividness" in no guarantee of accuracy. So, when I hear people say--especially during counseling or an argument--that they remember "like it was yesterday," or "vividly," it really does not convince me that they are therefore correct. Vividness, no matter how real it seems or feels, is no guarantee of accuracy.

Meet the Student, Associate Professor, Doctor

In an interesting study of short-term memory, researchers brought a man into their college. They dressed him in Levi's and a t-shirt, gave him some books to carry, and sent him into a college classroom. The professor was privy to the research and so played along. The man interrupted the classroom lecture, approached the professor and spoke in low tones. The professor introduced the man to his class as a transfer student . Then, the professor told the man he had the wrong classroom, and he directed him to the room he should be in. The professor began to lecture, and after a few minutes, he stopped his lecture and began to quiz his students on the man who had just come into the room. He asked them what the man had been wearing, how tall he was, how old he looked, and some other things as well.
Then the researchers dressed the visitor in a nice pair of slacks, a nice shirt, and gave him a leather handbag to carry. Then they interrupted yet another classroom of students. This time the man was introduced as a new assistant professor . After a couple of minutes the man left the room, and that professor asked his students the same set of questions that the other professor had.

For their finale, the researchers then dressed the man in an expensive three-piece suit, and they gave him a top-of-the-line leather briefcase to carry. They interrupted yet another classroom of students. This time the man was introduced as Doctor So-and-so, the new Dean of Students . After a couple of minutes the visitor left the room, and the professor asked his students the same set of questions that the other professors had.

Amazingly, as the man grew in "position" (from a lowly transfer student to a professor to a dean), the students remembered him differently. With each successive "position increase," the students remembered him as being older and taller. The amazing thing was that the differences in height ranged from five feet six inches to six feet one! His age also dramatically increased.

Why? Context. We expect certain things to be, and our minds tell our memories that's what they are, and viola, we have incorporated our "context" into our memories.

Again, some people who read this will say, "That's not me! I would not do that!" Well, with all we know about the memory and its inability to be 100% accurate, it would be wise to simply think that maybe, perhaps, even you could contextualize your memory--after all, we all do it.

Maybe these errors in memory don't seem like a big deal to you. Sure, the details of the man's height and age may be off, but the basic memory is still correct. It's not as though it's a false memory--as if it had never happened at all.

Completely Fabricated Memories

Well, I don't have space to go into all of the details, but researchers have been able to plant utterly fabricated memories into well-educated adults by exercising three simple factors: (1) the power of suggestion, which included leading questions, (2) context, and (3) time--months, not years. In a matter of three to six months, they were able to produce in people "vivid memories" that the subjects really believed they had experienced! (By the way, I am not talking about hypnosis. And, that is a topic for another CT at a later time, but suffice it to say that the sensationalistic hypnosis things you've seen on TV, making people bark like dogs, and think they were dying of thirst, and so on is all simply entertainment. Hypnosis is not that powerful and no one under hypnosis actually loses control of his or her own will. The idea that a hypnotist can make people do all of these odd things that they would not normally do is simply a popular myth.)

But, chances are, no one is going to implant completely fabricated memories into your mind, so what's the big deal?

The big deal is this: the memory is not accurate like a video or audiotape or a snap shot. Your memory is flexible and alterable and malleable. Since this is the case, you should be careful when you argue with your spouse or whomever about the past.

Eyewitness Testimony?

With all of this relatively new information about the fallibility of the human memory, one major area of jurisprudence has to be closely reviewed: the eyewitness. With the advancement of DNA research in forensic science, some researchers have been able to discover that people in prison--for the most heinous crimes, e.g., rape, murder, etc.--were in fact innocent. But, back when the person was on trial, the key piece of evidence that convicted him was "eyewitness testimony." But, context plays a very big role in one's memory, and the context under stress, like witnessing a murder, is even more taxing.

I was not accused of murder, but when I was in college in Texas, a fellow student--who was positively sincere--identified me as the person he saw "with his own eyes" causing a disturbance in a certain class. The man was so convinced that it was me that he himself confronted me. I was about to become angry when I realized that this man actually believed he saw me in that classroom. The truth was, however, I was not even a student in that particular class, and I was on the other side of the campus in my own class, with about 30 other students and the professor, the day of the incident. Even after all of the evidence, which was convincing to those in charge, the man who "saw me with his own eyes" said, "I know it was you." But, the reality was, I had never set foot in that classroom before.

Fascinating Story

Memory researcher Donald Thomson was on a television program lecturing about the unreliability of eyewitness testimony.

Later that evening, he was arrested and placed in a lineup. A rape victim identified him as the man who had attacked her.

However, the rape had occurred at the time he was on TV, so he had an airtight alibi.

Later it was discovered that the rape victim had been watching his memory program on TV just before the attack occurred. The women had somehow confused her memory of Thomson's face on TV with her memory of the rapist.

Memory is actually a mixture of events that you (1) saw, (2) heard, (3) experienced, (4) felt and (5) interpreted within your overall and immediate context at the time. But, it does not stop there. And, as time goes by, your memories of that event change as they are then tainted by new experiences, feelings, and also from things people said about the event; from various suggestions by others and further thoughts and interpretations by you. All of which is, remember, filtered by your personal context.

Conclusion

With all of this in mind, I want to point out just two very important passages of Scripture.

Luke says:

Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. Therefore, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning , it seemed good also to me to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught (Luke 1:1-4)

And, John says, This is the disciple who testifies to these things and who wrote them down . We know that his testimony is true (John 21:24).

I thank God for the inscripturated Word of God. If anyone has a memory failure about a certain truth or passage of Scripture, the "Gospel Journal" has been written down for all of us who have memory problems.

My wife keeps telling me that I am losing my memory, and I keep telling her,
"Ah, no big deal. Memory is over rated anyway.

Memory Test -- Check Your Memory

Why not check your memory. Here is how this memory test works. Have someone else slowly read the list of words to you from group one. Then, after the words are read, write down as many words as you remember.

Then, do the second group of words the same way.

IF YOU DO NOT HAVE SOMEONE NEAR BY TO READ THEM TO YOU , you may simply read them out loud yourself, and then turn completely away from your computer screen and write down the words you remember (do not cheat, or you will spoil the fun).

After you have written down all that you remember, check your list against the ones below.

GROUP ONE: sour, nice, candy, honey, sugar, soda, bitter, chocolate, good, heart, taste, cake, tooth, tart, pie

GROUP TWO: mad, wrath, fear, happy, hate, fight, rage, hatred, temper, mean, fury, calm, ire, emotion, enrage

Next, after you have done the Memory Test, and you have written all of the word and checked them against this list, click here TEST RESULTS for more information about this memory test . . . but DO NOT click on this link until after you have done the memory test, or you will spoil the fun.