Tweet
'Time to introduce something new.
I reckon it's fair to say that there are hundreds of studies undertaken by qualified people who tell us that human memory is a process of encoding, storing and retrieving information; and oft times the recollection is divorced from the event in at least some respect. That process is subject to external influence and internal bias.
Those qualified people are authoritative in their discipline and it is entirely acceptable to cite them. Obviously, in the event the statistics and the evidence is sub-standard, then their qualification as an authority is diminished.
This is the reason why historians judge a primary source according to its authoritative nature, at least in part. It's the reason why you will see footnotes on just about every article you read, citing qualified people. Clearly, an article on the history of London buses wouldn't cite an authority on London post boxes, nor someone who didn't really know much about London buses irrespective of any claim to be an authority on the subject.
It is entirely legitimate to claim that the opinion of someone who is an authority on a subject, i.e. qualified, carries more weight than somebody who is not qualified in that subject. 'Don't believe me? Ask historians and consider every article you have read which is complete with footnotes citing qualified people as opposed to some fella sat in the pub with his dog.
Anyway, in addition to that which has been put forward, let's have a look at the following.
I'm making no comment on it at the moment with the exception of making one point. In the main, I'm putting it forward for consideration.
The one point I'm making is as follows:
We could argue until the cows come home about the percentages mentioned in the articles below, but there is a broad theme supporting that which I posted earlier, and that theme is memory doesn't work in the manner that the layman assumes; and that being the case they're telling us that taking Albert at face value simply because he spoke with confidence or because the layman finds it hard to believe that he couldn't remember the event as it actually was, is misplaced and uninformed confidence.
A few articles among many:
Brain Science: The Forgetting Curve–the Dirty Secret of Corporate Training : Learning Solutions | The Learning Guild
Research on the forgetting curve (Figure 1) shows that within one hour, people will have forgotten an average of 50 percent of the information you presented. Within 24 hours, they have forgotten an average of 70 percent of new information, and within a week, forgetting claims an average of 90 percent of it.
People remember only 20% of what they read… but 80% of what they see | by iDashboards UK | Medium
Studies show that people remember: 10% of they hear, 20% of what they read, 80% of what they see. And this is because the human brain process visual cues better rather than the written language.
Why do we remember what we remember? - Vox
“Memorability might indicate how our brain prioritizes information,” Bainbridge (cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Chicago), says. “So almost like a sorting algorithm that you might imagine Google uses to search.” In other words, as our eyes scan an image, certain shapes, textures, objects, and attributes are prioritized to be stored in our memories, while others are deprioritized. This seems to happen instantaneously, and it’s something we’re apparently not consciously aware of.
I reckon it's fair to say that there are hundreds of studies undertaken by qualified people who tell us that human memory is a process of encoding, storing and retrieving information; and oft times the recollection is divorced from the event in at least some respect. That process is subject to external influence and internal bias.
Those qualified people are authoritative in their discipline and it is entirely acceptable to cite them. Obviously, in the event the statistics and the evidence is sub-standard, then their qualification as an authority is diminished.
This is the reason why historians judge a primary source according to its authoritative nature, at least in part. It's the reason why you will see footnotes on just about every article you read, citing qualified people. Clearly, an article on the history of London buses wouldn't cite an authority on London post boxes, nor someone who didn't really know much about London buses irrespective of any claim to be an authority on the subject.
It is entirely legitimate to claim that the opinion of someone who is an authority on a subject, i.e. qualified, carries more weight than somebody who is not qualified in that subject. 'Don't believe me? Ask historians and consider every article you have read which is complete with footnotes citing qualified people as opposed to some fella sat in the pub with his dog.
Anyway, in addition to that which has been put forward, let's have a look at the following.
I'm making no comment on it at the moment with the exception of making one point. In the main, I'm putting it forward for consideration.
The one point I'm making is as follows:
We could argue until the cows come home about the percentages mentioned in the articles below, but there is a broad theme supporting that which I posted earlier, and that theme is memory doesn't work in the manner that the layman assumes; and that being the case they're telling us that taking Albert at face value simply because he spoke with confidence or because the layman finds it hard to believe that he couldn't remember the event as it actually was, is misplaced and uninformed confidence.
A few articles among many:
Brain Science: The Forgetting Curve–the Dirty Secret of Corporate Training : Learning Solutions | The Learning Guild
Research on the forgetting curve (Figure 1) shows that within one hour, people will have forgotten an average of 50 percent of the information you presented. Within 24 hours, they have forgotten an average of 70 percent of new information, and within a week, forgetting claims an average of 90 percent of it.
People remember only 20% of what they read… but 80% of what they see | by iDashboards UK | Medium
Studies show that people remember: 10% of they hear, 20% of what they read, 80% of what they see. And this is because the human brain process visual cues better rather than the written language.
Why do we remember what we remember? - Vox
“Memorability might indicate how our brain prioritizes information,” Bainbridge (cognitive neuroscientist at the University of Chicago), says. “So almost like a sorting algorithm that you might imagine Google uses to search.” In other words, as our eyes scan an image, certain shapes, textures, objects, and attributes are prioritized to be stored in our memories, while others are deprioritized. This seems to happen instantaneously, and it’s something we’re apparently not consciously aware of.
Comment