The Memory Illusion: Remembering, Forgetting, and the Science of False Memory in Science and Inquiry

Feb 21, 2017 Charlene rated it it was amazing

Shelves: abnormal-psych, decision-making, constructs

I am conflicted about this book. It deserves 5 stars because of its excellent investigation into how memory works and the book's ability to convey the finer points to a large audience. Writing such an accessible book on an important topic, such as faulty memory, will help make the much needed shift from understanding memory as something that is a bit faulty but is, in general, fairly reliable to understanding memory as a retrospective analysis of an old memory that does not reflect the actual ev I am conflicted about this book. It deserves 5 stars because of its excellent investigation into how memory works and the book's ability to convey the finer points to a large audience. Writing such an accessible book on an important topic, such as faulty memory, will help make the much needed shift from understanding memory as something that is a bit faulty but is, in general, fairly reliable to understanding memory as a retrospective analysis of an old memory that does not reflect the actual event as much as it reflects what the *current* you thinks about a completely overhauled representation of a past event.

Shaw is really gifted at making this complex subject very relatable to her audience. However, as with many authors who are able to simplify the subject about which they are writing, Shaw falls into the trap of trading in accuracy and critical thinking for the sake of simplicity. Despite the criticisms listed below, I will be giving this book 5 stars because the nature of the work is so important to humanity if we are going to have an updated and more accurate understanding of memory. Some examples of the author's poor critical thinking ability are as follows:

-She unquestionably accepts a study on false memories in bees-- even going so far as to call it a seminal work. First of all, it's far too early to call it that. Second of all, unless the methods are solid (and I think they are far from solid), then the findings mean nothing. The study on bees in no way suggested they had false memories. Being too much of a cheerleader about this type of study means that many people will question the rest of what is presented in this book. What a shame, because much of the rest of the book was phenomenal.

- Another example of sloppy critical thinking was exhibited when Shaw talked about trauma. Anyone taking an undergrad class on trauma learns that a key rule in understanding trauma is to parse out those who have suffered different types of traumas (e.g. "shameful" rape v. natural disaster), different ages when suffering trauma (child v. adult), different perceptions of the same trauma (locus of control / attribution style), and the type of social and emotional support received after the trauma that affected the perception of trauma. Unless you include these things in your analysis, your analysis is going to be truly terrible. Shaw didn't look at these things; and thus, her analysis of trauma was truly terrible.

- A third example lies in her relating studies of technology. She was so short sighted in regard to this section. (Anti-tech people usually annoy me to the point that I cannot bring myself to give them more than 2 or 3 stars. This book was a rare exception.) One study involving tech looked at the impact of screen time on kids' ability to learn. But "learning" was defined as how many novel words a child learned. There is so much more to learning than the acquisition of words. Using a smart device teaches the child how to relate to the larger world of disseminated information. So, if while learning how to use tech, a child is a bit slower at word acquisition, I would not call that a deficit in learning. I would call it a bad research measurement. Similarly, when trying to understand attention and distraction (e.g. cell phone use), it would have been *essential* to compare hands-free calls to controls (perhaps someone talking to a passenger who is indeed inside the same car, sitting in the passenger or back seat). Such a critical look at the hands-free study is never attempted in this book. Why didn't she at least try to discuss methods? There are great studies on cell phone distraction and attention when driving or doing other tasks. Why not include good studies and at least mention the controls so that the reader can have confidence that the author knows how to critically interpret a study? Maddening.

As I said above, even with these flaws, the book will get a full five stars from me because despite her lack of critical understanding in some areas (noted above), Shaw actually excels in critical thinking when it comes to the overall process of memory formation and retrieval. The vast majority of what she presented in this book is exceptional. For example, one particularly great aspect of this book was the following:

- Shaw gave many examples of how one person, who never experienced an event, could come to believe they had actually experienced an event. She used Loftus studies as well as her own to make this point, over and over. And, it was beautiful. (The studies included the usual suspects: subject was made to believe they experienced something as a child after parents made up fake event, subject was made to believe a car smashed or merely bumped into another car based on the word choice in the retelling of the event, etc)

- Having given the reader a plethora of examples and having also provided the reader with a deep and easy to comprehend understanding of how memory coding and retrieval actually works (contrary to how we thought it worked), Shaw tied it all to Solomon Asch's study. Solomon Asch conducted one of the most famous studies in the psychology of perception (or peer pressure, depending on how you understand the results). He showed participants 3 lines; one short, one medium length, and one long. He had fake participants in the study who tried to mind-fuck the real participants by telling them to misbelieve what they saw with their own eyes. The confederate participants confidently declared that the short line was longer than the medium line. Nothing could be more simple than identifying short, medium, and long length lines. And yet, the vast majority of the real participants *agreed* with the confederates that the shorter lines were longer than the *obviously* longer lines. What could make them do such an absurd thing? There has been a debate about this for a long time. Some suggested they caved to peer pressure (they lied and said the line was longer so they would fit in and not be embarrassed). Some say they actually change their perception and genuinely *saw* the line as longer, once everyone else said it was longer (thus showing that seeing is not always a simple biological process but can indeed depend on what others see). Professors, researchers, and authors alike have tried to make a case of either. I have enjoyed almost all explanations, no matter what side they tried to prove. I have to say that Shaw's discussion of Asch's lines and memory is possibly the best discussion I have ever read. That alone made the book 5 stars and made up for any other sloppy analysis.

If you take some of the studies (and her annoying anti-tech stance) with a grain of salt, this book is fantastic and absolutely worth reading. ...more

52 likes · Like · see review