Perhaps, one of them had happy memories of the holiday but ends up sharing the view that it was a disappointment. The shared narrative may be closer to the initial memories of one of the two members of the couple. If one person does most of the talking, it is what he or she chooses to remember that determines what is forgotten because it is inhibited by the retrieval of some memories. Notice, however, that the partners may not have contributed equally to the process of memory construction. These memories become harder to retrieve because the act of remembering different but related aspects of the holiday suppresses them and makes them harder to bring to mind again. The process of doing so inhibits memories of other aspects of the holiday such as the great ice cream they had or the beautiful views they saw. Together they construct a narrative of the holiday as having been a bit of a disappointment.
"If one person does most of the talking, it is what he or she chooses to remember that determines what is forgotten because it is inhibited by the retrieval of some memories." Prompted in this way, the other agrees and adds that the food was bad. The first then prompts the other to remember that the lift in the hotel did not work. One person reminds the other that it was raining when they arrived at their destination the other perhaps thought it had been sunny but gets convinced of the opposite. Imagine, for example, that two people are reminiscing about their first holiday together. Through repetition some memories are facilitated and others suppressed until over time their memories of their shared past converge onto one shared narrative remembered by both. In doing so, they fabricate some details but they also non-consciously inhibit memories of some aspects of the events they recollected. Partners recollect some events but not others they misremember some things and ignore aspects of others. For example, couples in long term relationships often reminisce about their lives together.
It operates in the process that shapes the formation of shared memories of one’s past. The act of remembering some objects actually inhibits memory of related things which therefore become harder to remember, whilst leaving memories for unrelated topics unaffected. Finally, their memory is worst for pairings that were not practiced but belong to the practiced category. However, what they remember second best are those pairs that belong to the category that they did not practice at all. Unsurprisingly, what they remember best are the pairs that they practiced because of the cues. Finally, participants are tested to see how many pairings they remember. Subjects are only given cues about some pairings and only within one category: ‘animal’ for instance. Subsequently, they practice remembering (retrieving) some pairs using cues such as ‘animal-d….’ which they must complete. Thus, for instance, participants have many pairs like ‘animal-dog’, ‘animal-cat’, ‘vegetable-spinach’, ‘vegetable-broccoli’ and so forth. The other is an exemplar within the category such as ‘dog’ and ‘spinach’. One is a word for a category of things such as ‘animal’ or ‘vegetable’. Subjects are given pieces of paper with pairs of words. "By prompting some thoughts, statues suppress others, thus promoting an ideological view of the past." Let me explain first how retrieval-induced forgetting (RIF) works in the lab before describing how it can be socially shared in the wild, so to speak. Psychologists have established the existence of a phenomenon known as socially-shared retrieval-induced forgetting (hereafter, SS-RIF). Surely, I hear you say, this is preposterous! Statues are not a means of mind control. Seeing figurative public art every day subtly manipulates our minds. By prompting some thoughts, statues suppress others, thus promoting an ideological view of the past. In fact, monuments make us forget more than they help us remember.
#Example of social amnesia free
However, there is nothing free and open about the contribution of these statues to our discourse on British History. Both Chris Patten and Mary Beard argued in favour of keeping the statue because removing statues of individuals with whose views one disagrees is contrary to freedom of speech and historical accuracy. In the official defence of this choice, something no one can object to was called upon: freedom of speech. One may speculate about the true reasons behind the staunch resistance by this institution against the students’ protest. The student campaign to remove a statue of Cecil Rhodes from Oriel College at Oxford University failed.
0 kommentar(er)
