Tweet
I've been reading an excellent book called Pseudoscience and the Paranormal, by Terence Hines, which has had some interesting information in it regarding perception and memory which has led me to think a little about how often there are postings on here about witnesses and how stories change, sometimes subtly, sometimes not so subtly, between sources reporting them, and whether these show the witnesses are lying or unreliable in some way.
Firstly, perception. Hines writes, "The constructive nature of perception is greatest when the actual sensory input is weak, unclear, or ambiguous."
What he means by constructive nature of perception is as follows: many people make the assumption that the information we receive from the objective world is recorded faithfully by the senses as if they were some kind of videotape; that we receive information passively.
Constructive perception, however, means that we take an active part in creating the meaning or significance of the data which we take in. Our experience of perception is highly subjective. This explains why several people witnessing the same thing can all draw attention to different aspects of what they have witnessed...everyone will see something slightly differently.
The quote above is pertinent in the case of the Ripper witnesses, since all the murders took place at night, in bad lighting etc...exactly the situation where the sensory data is unclear and ambiguous. This would explain why some of the witnesses accounts of what they saw were not completely clear, or that they could not be completely clear of what they saw, or thought they saw.
Similarly he says of memory, those who see it as likened to the act of video recording support the interpretation that "the act of remembering is basically a passive process of retrieving some piece of information that is stored in memory."
This is a mistaken view of memory. Recalling information is really "an interactive process in which the information that is stored can be altered in different ways (added to, made more or less specific, etc) by the situation the 'remember' finds herself in."
He quotes some interesting studies in which students were shown a film of two vehicles involved in a collision. Afterwards, they were split into two groups. One of the groups was asked a question which used the phrase 'smashed into'; the other students were asked a question which used the phrase 'hit' to describe the collision. The students who had been asked the question with the phrase 'smashed into' all estimated the vehicles were travelling at much higher speeds than they were. About a week later, the students were all asked if they remembered any broken glass in the film. The students who had been asked the question with the phrase 'smashed into' all remembered broken glass in the film; the others all remembered there was no broken glass. There actually had been no broken glass, yet the students weren't lying when they said they remembered it...they thought they remembered it because the phrase 'smashed into' would suggest a lot of debris and broken glass. This demonstrates how leading questions can affect memory, and i believe, in relation to the Ripper murders, it is more than likely that when being interviewed by journalists for newspaper reports, leading questions and suggestive remarks made my journalists eager to create a good story may well have influenced what certain witnesses came to 'remember' or 'forget' about the events/suspects they had witnessed.
I've rambled long enough but the whole idea of perception and memory being constructive not passive processes is fascinating to me, and is suggestive of explanations other than lying as to why versions of what witnesses claim to have seen/heard vary somewhat depending on what source one consults. I'd suggest the Police records of any witness statements would be more reliable than press reports, since one would expect them to be using fewer leading questions and to be more responsible in going about the business of assembling as much useful information regarding the murders as possible.
any thoughts/opinions welcome
Firstly, perception. Hines writes, "The constructive nature of perception is greatest when the actual sensory input is weak, unclear, or ambiguous."
What he means by constructive nature of perception is as follows: many people make the assumption that the information we receive from the objective world is recorded faithfully by the senses as if they were some kind of videotape; that we receive information passively.
Constructive perception, however, means that we take an active part in creating the meaning or significance of the data which we take in. Our experience of perception is highly subjective. This explains why several people witnessing the same thing can all draw attention to different aspects of what they have witnessed...everyone will see something slightly differently.
The quote above is pertinent in the case of the Ripper witnesses, since all the murders took place at night, in bad lighting etc...exactly the situation where the sensory data is unclear and ambiguous. This would explain why some of the witnesses accounts of what they saw were not completely clear, or that they could not be completely clear of what they saw, or thought they saw.
Similarly he says of memory, those who see it as likened to the act of video recording support the interpretation that "the act of remembering is basically a passive process of retrieving some piece of information that is stored in memory."
This is a mistaken view of memory. Recalling information is really "an interactive process in which the information that is stored can be altered in different ways (added to, made more or less specific, etc) by the situation the 'remember' finds herself in."
He quotes some interesting studies in which students were shown a film of two vehicles involved in a collision. Afterwards, they were split into two groups. One of the groups was asked a question which used the phrase 'smashed into'; the other students were asked a question which used the phrase 'hit' to describe the collision. The students who had been asked the question with the phrase 'smashed into' all estimated the vehicles were travelling at much higher speeds than they were. About a week later, the students were all asked if they remembered any broken glass in the film. The students who had been asked the question with the phrase 'smashed into' all remembered broken glass in the film; the others all remembered there was no broken glass. There actually had been no broken glass, yet the students weren't lying when they said they remembered it...they thought they remembered it because the phrase 'smashed into' would suggest a lot of debris and broken glass. This demonstrates how leading questions can affect memory, and i believe, in relation to the Ripper murders, it is more than likely that when being interviewed by journalists for newspaper reports, leading questions and suggestive remarks made my journalists eager to create a good story may well have influenced what certain witnesses came to 'remember' or 'forget' about the events/suspects they had witnessed.
I've rambled long enough but the whole idea of perception and memory being constructive not passive processes is fascinating to me, and is suggestive of explanations other than lying as to why versions of what witnesses claim to have seen/heard vary somewhat depending on what source one consults. I'd suggest the Police records of any witness statements would be more reliable than press reports, since one would expect them to be using fewer leading questions and to be more responsible in going about the business of assembling as much useful information regarding the murders as possible.
any thoughts/opinions welcome
Comment