Dan Vogel wrote:What you call “cues to the story” can actually be contamination of memory. This is what Loftus was trying to demonstrate. Lawyers can’t ask leading questions for similar reasons, but Hurlbut had no such restrictions. Some of the witnesses probably discussed the subject prior to Hurlbut’s arrival. Possibly taking the form of “I remember this … Do you remember that?” Newspaper accounts linking the Book of Mormon with the lost tribes probably contaminated their memories as well. Generally, the harder one has to try to remember, the less reliable that memory is.
Dan a lot of faulty memory is a result of what Daniel Schacter refers to as "source memory" issues. And in the studies you've been using I believe they all involve poor source memory. Just to give some information on this..I'll quote.
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/sourcemon/sourcemon-paper.htm"Memory for source involves correctly identifying the context in which an item was experienced. Any aspect of context can be considered in testing source memory accuracy (e.g., whether an event was actually experienced vs. imagined; whether a sentence was spoken by a male or female voice; whether a written word was presented in a blue or red font). Numerous studies have shown that, in general, memory for source is less accurate than item recognition memory (i.e., remembering simply whether one experienced an item or not) and involves more active processing and attention (Troyer, Winokur, Craik, & Fergus, 1999). Because source monitoring involves more active processing, and likely depends on frontal-lobe executive functions (Cycowicz, Friedman, Snodgrass, & Duff, 2001; Troyer et al, 1999), it should be more vulnerable than item recognition, especially in situations involving divided attention."
Daniel Schacter say p. 114 in "Searching for Memory: The Brain,The Mind and the Past ..."Recent research show clearly that source memory is extremely fallible and that failure to remember the correct source of acquired information are responsible for various kinds of errors and distortions in eyewitness recollections and other aspects of everyday memory."
And on page 115 "Various studies have shown that misleading information does not eliminate the original memory; when people are given appropriate tests, it is possible to demonstrate that the original memory still exists. But there is mounting evidence that participants in such experiments often suffer serious source memory problems: they have difficulty recollecting whether they actually saw the yield sign or just heard about it later." (re Loftus study car scene with stop/yield sign)
For a more detailed explanation and example: from skeptik.com
source memory"Many people have vivid and substantially accurate memories of events which are erroneous in one key aspect: the source of the memory. For example:
In the 1980 presidential campaign, Ronald Reagan repeatedly told a heartbreaking story of a World War II bomber pilot who ordered his crew to bail out after his plane had been seriously damaged by an enemy hit. His young belly gunner was wounded so seriously that he was unable to evacuate the bomber. Reagan could barely hold back his tears as he uttered the pilot's heroic response: "Never mind. We'll ride it down together." ...this story was an almost exact duplicate of a scene in the 1944 film "A Wing and a Prayer." Reagan had apparently retained the facts but forgotten their source (Schacter 1996, 287).
An even more dramatic case of source amnesia (also called memory misattribution) is that of the woman who accused memory expert Dr. Donald Thompson of having raped her. Thompson was doing a live interview for a television program just before the rape occurred. The woman had seen the program and "apparently confused her memory of him from the television screen with her memory of the rapist" (Schacter 1996, 114). Studies by Marcia Johnson et al. have shown that the ability to distinguish memory from imagination depends on the recall of source information."
So people who have a poor memory of the context of the source of the memory which was the case with the Loftus study "lost in the mall, which is the case with eyewitness statements who attribute misleading questions as what they saw/heard etc, which was the case with the youtube Mikwut cited in which the audience tried to recall a list of words and thought they read "sweet" as part of the list but they were confusing that with their previous memories/knowledge of similar meaning word to the words they were trying to recall. In these situations people think they have an excellent memory but they are confusing one memory with another or many others and it appears to them they are remembering well.
This was not the situation with the conneaut witnesses. First we are dealing with a number of witnesses with consistent recall of a similar story to the Book of Mormon with aspects which they say were identical. We know Spalding wrote MSCC and that it was shown to some of them as per mention in Howe's book. ON MSCC was written in Hurlbut's handwriting...”The Writings of Solomon Spalding, proved by Aron Wright, Oliver Smith, John N. Miller and others. And in Howes book he writes "This old manuscript has been shown to several of the foregoing witnesses, who recognize it as Spalding's, he having told them that he had altered his first plan of writing by going farther back with the dates and writing in the old scripture style in order that it might appear more ancient. They say that it bears no resemblance to Manuscript Found." Plus we have the 1914 finding of a draft of Aron Wright's unsigned statement..it says ...I have examined the writings of S Spalding Esq. SD Hurlbut which he has obtained from SD Spaldings widow I recognize them to be the handwriting of SD Spalding but not the manuscript I had refferance to in my statement before alluded to as he informed me he wrote in the first place for his own amusement and then altered his plan and commenced writing a history of the first Settlement of America the particulars you will find in my testimony dated August 1833.
So there is Aron Wright, Oliver Smith and John Miller who are shown MSCC and tell Howe that's not the one they were referring to. So this is not an example in which they don't have a good source memory and were simply confusing MSCC in their memory with the Book of Mormon when giving their affidavit initially to Hurbut. In addition Rachel Derby daughter of John Miller in her statement to Arthur Deming said: I well remember D.P Hurlburt's coming to our house about fifty years ago and his telling father that he was taking evidence to expose Mormonism, and hearing him read from the Book of Mormon. Frequently father would request Hurlbut to stop reading and he would state what followed and Hurlbut would say that it was so in the Book of Mormon.
So these are not similar situations to the studies you have been using and Mikwut in which people are briefly exposed to information...word list, short story paragraphs, scenarios "lost in the mall" and people end up confusing what they are trying to recall as presented in the study with some other memory or memories. And they think they have a good memory but they are remembering the wrong thing or confusing it with some rather mundane similar memory.
I haven't written up a post yet but what the Conneaut witnesses describe is an elaborately encoded memory of listening to, and discussing with Spalding his story and in some cases as well reading it on their own. It is a unique event not something easily confusable with something mundane. And what they describe is a memory of the context in which they remember the story.
If memory was so reliable you wouldn’t lose your keys … but you do. Usually you look many places before you find them. Why are the keys always in the last place you look? … because you stop looking when you find them:)
What you are describing here is a mundane event in which someone hasn't made an effort to remember. If one isn't paying attention to common events such as placement of keys, it's either not remembered due to lack of attention or it sometimes is confused with other times of that same type of event. i.e. I take pills everyday and because it's a daily ritual if I don't use a system to remembere it is difficult to differentiate one day versus another with regards to taking them.
Nephi and Lehi didn’t act like cues because they didn’t lead them to remember stories or plots.
It's possible that Nephi and Lehi could have acted as retrieval cues to other memories of the story, but that wasn't what I was thinking. The Book of Mormon acted as a retrieval cue with those names to recalling those names. Without that retrieval cue of the Book of Mormon they probably wouldn't have remembered those names...it's possible they could have but I doubt it. However the Book of Mormon could have helped jog their memory on aspects of spalding's story which was well encoded in memory.
I would expect it to be the other way round. Plots would be remembered. For example: “I remember this hero cut this ruler’s head off and stole some brass plates … I think his name was Nephi.” Martha Spalding says: “The lapse of time which has intervened, prevents my recollecting but few of the leading incidents of his writings; but the names of Nephi and Lehi are yet fresh in my memory, as being the principle heroes of the story.”
She remembered emigration to America and splitting into factions, war, and burying the dead in mounds. This is similar in both works, but it comes from the Mound Builder Myth. The fictional names in the Book of Mormon are likely false memories, not cues. Probably the only person with deep encoding was probably Spalding. While the general themes in Spalding’s romance were memorable, the actual contents and writing were not. Indeed, the details of its contents, exact wording, and especially names, would be difficult to remember.
She didn't say she remembered in the book he was writing "burying the dead in mounds". Apparently Spalding had discussions about what his book was about, so what they remember will be from both sources..discussions about the story as well as exposure to the actual story. She said .."All his leisure hours were occupied in writing a historical novel, founded upon the first settlers of this country. He said he intended to trace their journey from Jerusalem, by land and sea, till their arrival in American; gave an account of their arts, sciences, civilization, wars and contentions. In this way he would give a satisfactory account of the old mounds so common to this country.
She may have actually remembered much more but put little effort into giving Hurlbut a statement and only put what she thought was the essence necessary. Hurlbut was a nobody to them and Mormonism wasn't important either other than their connection through spalding. As far as you think she should remember plots not names...it all depends. Those names are unique and if she had listened to the story a number of times over a period of time they may have stuck in her memory. Recall without any retrieval cue would likely have been difficult and perhaps much less would have been remembered had that been the case, but as I said if given a retrieval cue it serves to jog memory. Nothing in MSCC jogged any witnesses memories of it being the one they had referred to in their initial statements.
The fictional names in the Book of Mormon are likely false memories, not cues.
It's not just one witness Dan...there are 8 and there were more except they weren't included in Howe's book. And then there are the witnesses other than the conneaut witnesses whose statements support the conneat witnesses statements. As I pointed out to you previously those studies you have been using involve situations in which the memories are confusable with other memories..it's what Daniel Schacter referred to as "source memory" and they are cases where the source of a memory is confused with another memory. But given the information such as witnesses being presented with MSCC and Miller's daughter's statement which I quoted above...they clearly acknowledge a different manuscript than MSCC was written by Spalding and that one had same attributes as in the Book of Mormon. There is no indication really Dan that their memory was false. I appreciate there are studies showing people can have false memories and yet think they remember well but those are what I've mentioned ..related to source memory issues.
Probably the only person with deep encoding was probably Spalding. While the general themes in Spalding’s romance were memorable, the actual contents and writing were not. Indeed, the details of its contents, exact wording, and especially names, would be difficult to remember
Yes, Spalding would've course likely have a deeper encoded memory than theirs. And he likely could have elaborated in great detail his story. They didn't get into a lot of detailed elaboration...the bit they did, it's difficult to know which is a function of retrieval cues from the Book of Mormon and which is a function of recall without retrieval cue. However what they describe are ingredients in elaborately encoding of memory. Ggranted I'm not getting into explaining why at this point..but given what they describe...it's is very reasonable that after 20 years they should have some memory of their experience and of the story and even more detailed memories as a result of the Book of Mormon being a retrieval cue.
Memory diminishes with time, though not all memory ..20 years in my opinion and based upon my experience is not all that long. It may diminish but isn't necessarily lost. It may simply need to be recalled. Not all of it will be recalled or recalled in detail but it's reasonable to remember within 20 years a unique event, which was repeated over time and of course once again, retrieval cues help to bring back memories.
Now your argument for false memory would be justified if it was just one person you were talking about. But as the numbers who remember increase and given the context of their experience which supports a well encoded unique long term memory..the likelihood of faulty memory decreases. Add later witnesses supporting the conneaut witnesses and the "faulty argument" further decreases in likelihood.
(P.S. I need to get a hold of and install a dictation program before I continue with this discussion. There is to much typing involved if i want to quote from Kindle books I've downloaded. )