Response to Jockers, Criddle, et al., Now Available

[_marg]

marge does seem to have some kind of investment in the S/R theory.

I just read this. No Glenn I have no investment...nada..zilch. I'm a non religious individual my entire life and no one close to me involved in religion nor have they any interest. Years ago by happenstance I came across Mormonism on the net and while while reading about Mormonism also read about the S/R theory..and it made the most sense.

I'm not interested in how this affects people's faith in Mormonism. It doesn't affect me personally whether it was Smith wrote the Book of Mormon alone or Smith and Co-horts. I get involved from time to time in discussion only because I have some knowledge albeit not great. The Book of Mormon I was barely able to get through because I found it silly actually. I don't mean to offend anyone who truly believes it, but I should be allowed to speak openly with my take on it.

When I look at the evidence of Smith ..with no observed before hand preparations working on a manuscript, with no revisions during the process, with a rapid pace working with Cowdery, with so many characters involved in the storyline and some complexity as far as genealogy, abridged plates or not my conclusion is that I don't think it would be written without reviewing previously written work and notes. Add to this J.Smith's lack of nterest in writing, the lack of credibility of the Book of Mormon witnesses and then I compare that to the credibility of the Spalding witnesses..along with spalding's MSCC and what the witnesses claimed about Manuscript found..along with spalding's interest in writing, education and life situation and all the other evidence associated with the S/R theory ..and the best fit explanation is that more than one individual was involved in its creation ..as opposed to J. Smith on his own and a spalding manuscript was used at least for a portion. That's it Glenn, I'm not emotionally tied to this, I have no vested interest..I am looking at the evidence objectively as I can and I try not to play rhetorical games in discussion. If someone throws out a few ad homs..I might throw a few back. If someone sticks to the issues..and argues with intellectual honesty I do my best to do the same..and I'll respect them and treat them with respect.

[_marg]

Glenn as to your other post on that study..I spent a bit more time looking into "flashbulb memory" to gain more understanding. The study does not apply to the conneaut witnesses but I have no time tonight to explain. Perhaps you could look into it further and figure out some reasons why. Think about it Glenn. Was Spalding's story reading and hearing it over time on many occasions, having discussions with Spalding about...something that happened quickly to them under emotionally induced circumstances.

You need to read up..what that study is about, and the purpose of that study.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn as to your other post on that study..I spent a bit more time looking into "flashbulb memory" to gain more understanding. The study does not apply to the conneaut witnesses but I have no time tonight to explain. Perhaps you could look into it further and figure out some reasons why. Think about it Glenn. Was Spalding's story reading and hearing it over time on many occasions, having discussions with Spalding about...something that happened quickly to them under emotionally induced circumstances.

You need to read up..what that study is about, and the purpose of that study.

marge, I understand the purpose of that study. I have followed up with a couple of more. The point that I was making from this is that some of those studies also tested everyday memory in conjunction with the flashbulb memory effect and found that everyday memory also fades and has inconsistencies interjected as time passes. That is applicable to the Conneaut witnesses.

All of the witnesses do not note repeated readings of the manuscript.

John Spalding says that "he read to me many passages" when he visited with Solomon in Conneaut not long before Solomon moved to Pittsburgh.

Martha Spalding only says that "he was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people." She mentions no repeated readings of the manuscript. She was probably there at the same time visiting with her husband.

Henry Lake did mention hearing it read many times. He mentions the "tragic figure of Laban" which finds an echo in the tragic figure of Labanko in the Oberlin manuscript, but hardly applies to the avaricious and murderous Laban of the Book of Mormon. A good example of possible reactive memory interference.

John Miller said that he "perused the manuscripts as often as he had leisure". He is also the only one of the witnesses who introduced the idea of the landing at the straits of Darien. (I know, we've been through this before. But he also lived in an area of Pennsylvania where newspapers has reported the "Mormonite" missionaries preaching about the Book of Mormon and describing a movement from the straits Darien northward.

Aaron Wright said that he was at his house one day and Spalding showed him the manuscript and told him about his lost tribes theory. Wright says that they had many conversations on the subject afterwards, but make no mention of repeated readings of the manuscript.

Oliver Smith stated that Solomon had boarded with him for about six months when Spalding first came into the area. He said that he had heard read one hundred pages or more. He does not say that he had heard them repeatedly. There is a problem with Smith's timeline because Solomon moved to the area in late 1809 or early 1810. Most of the witnesses put the start of the writing some time in 1812.

Nahum Howard also said that Spalding had shown him his writings frequently and he had read them. Surprisingly, his details are more sparse than those of those who seem to have heard the writings only briefly.

Artemas Cunningham noted seeing and hearing about the story only one night. He said that he had spent the better part of the night reading them and conversing about them.


All in all, those are not very good odds for all of those witnesses remembering the names and details of that manuscript so vividly twenty plus years later, unless there was some type of reinforcement. Roger has touted his ability to remember the names of the characters of the Winds of War after twenty years, but there had been intervening refresher training from the miniseries. It was advertised very heavily and had some great ratings.

Glenn

[_Roger]

mikwut wrote:

I would kindly be obliged for you to answer the following:

Do false memories exist in normal functioning adults?

Sure, but not all memories are false, in fact I would guess the majority are probably not, and common sense alone is enough to tell us that purposely imposing false memories on groups with a 100% success ratio is even more rare.

Does memory fallibility exist in normal functioning adults?

Of course and so do accurate memories.

Does the science of false memories and memory fallibility apply to the conn. witnesses?

To the extent that you wish to use it, only if they were actually exposed to the Roman Story. But they deny that. Would that denial have constituted lying in order to hang on to the sincerely held false memories? Or even after being confronted with the same material you use to make your diagnosis, you know better than they do and can safely conclude that they are still clinging to their false memories regardless of their explicit and seemingly sincere denial?

Now some questions for you, mikwut....

1. If the Conneaut witnesses had actually been exposed to a Spalding novel that was different from the Roman story, but similar to the Book of Mormon, in what way would you have expected their statements to be different from what they are?

2. Because it is possible for memory to be faulty, does that mean all memories are faulty? If not, what is the scientific basis for determining whether a memory is faulty or not? Is there a foolproof method? (Please try to be succinct).

3. Assuming the Con. witnesses actually were suffering from false memories, does that mean that none of what they said was accurate? If not, how do you separate accurate memories from false ones in what they stated?

4. Assuming the Con. witnesses actually were suffering from false memories, how do you explain the later witness statements? More false memories?

All the best.

[_Roger]

marg wrote:

So that youtube test of memory didn’t correlate at all with the situation with the Conneaut witnesses.

First of all it was done by a magician, it wasn’t a scientific study. And he used a few tricks one being he talked excessively fast and created an overall sense of urgency. He gave on a screen a list of 15 words..read them ..such that the audience had 20 second exposure. The words were easily confusable ..they were .. good, nice sugar, honey, candy, chocolate, cake, pie, soda, sour, bitter, tart , tooth heart, taste..(he had them mixed in a different order)

He said: " You are going to write down as many words. I’m going to show them and read them to you..ok? And as soon as we’re done , as soon as we’re done (he clicks his fingers) you’re going to have 1 minute to write down as many of those words as you can possibly remember. Don’t cheat, keep an eye on your neighbour make sure they are not cheating but we’re going to write down as many of these as we can remember

All right here we go.."

After 20 seconds he tell them “you have 1 minute to write down as many of them as as you possibly can”

While they are writing he says: many of you will find that the 1st words will come easily and then you will hit a wall – don’t give up, close your eyes and try to remember and you’ll be able to remember 3 or 4 more words. It’s important that you get as many as you possibly can."

So let’s look at some of the particular’s in this situation.

The test is presented like a game..this is not a serious witness situation
- A sense of urgency is created for people to be quick in what they write down
- Only 20 seconds of exposure to the data..only 1 minute to write down their recall of words
- They are encouraged to not stop after they’ve written down what they can remember, encouraged to keep going..and use their IMAGINATION to get 3 or 4 more words (in other words just guess)
- Told it is IMPORTANT to get as many words as possible.

So after the test..he asked the audience how many recalled the word "sweet" and many put up their hands.

Well of course, if they are playing a game, to write down as many words as possible, to use their imagination and write down more even when they stop and given confusable words briefly for 20 seconds..is it any wonder or surprise some people wrote down the word "sweet"

So Mikwut under the circumstances above in which there is virtually no correlation between that memory test and the Conneaut witness situation..one can not draw a conclusion from it about memory and apply it to the conneaut witnesses. That is science being used incorrectly and misapplied.

So this is why I said Id go through each study individually. We need to understand well how the tests were done..in order to determine if there is a high correlation between the particulars employed in n any particular study with the particulars of the Conneaut witnesses situation to be able to draw any probably conclusion.

Only when there is a high correlation can you or anyone…conclude something with regards to the Conneaut witnesses memory. And the burden is up to you, to show the high correlation.

It's pretty obvious that what we have here is simply an attempt to wear marg down, while claiming she's the one who doesn't know what she's talking about, when it's obviously the other way around.

First, a host of "memory studies" are touted as demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the Conneaut witnesses were false memory sufferers. As marg takes the time to go through the list, it becomes clear that the ones she looks at simply do not apply. A fifth grader could see the differences in the above example with the Conneaut witnesses, but the point is to wear the investigator down. So if one study is shown to be non-applicable then three more are mentioned as though those were the ones that she should have checked out. It's little more than a game.

Marg is correct: the burden of proof should be on those attempting to diagnose false memories from 2 centuries down the road. So mikwut and Glenn and Dan, in all their vast, superior knowledge, should cite the BEST two examples that demonstrate THEIR conclusion that the Conneaut witnesses were suffering from false memories and stop trying to waste marg's time.

[_marg]

marge, I understand the purpose of that study.

Glenn the burden is on you to show the correlation between the conneaut witnesses and any memory study which you think justifies dismissal of their statements based on faulty memory.

The purpose of that study was not to show how poor memory is in general. It was a counter to previous studies which claimed via their studies that flashbulb memories have high consistent accurate memory on some details..better than normal memory of a normal event in an individual's life. There is still controversy in this area.

I have followed up with a couple of more. The point that I was making from this is that some of those studies also tested everyday memory in conjunction with the flashbulb memory effect and found that everyday memory also fades and has inconsistencies interjected as time passes. That is applicable to the Conneaut witnesses.

No kidding no one has been arguing that memory does not fade in time. The conneaut witnesses said that. But not all memory in time becomes unreliable. Some long term remains and is accurate ..especially on information unique and not easily confusable.

http://www.cc.gatech.edu/classes/cs6751_97_winter/Topics/human-cap/memory.html

Long-term memory is intended for storage of information over a long time. Information from the working memory is transferred to it after a few seconds. Unlike in working memory, there is little decay.


There are two types of long-term memory: episodic memory and semantic memory. Episodic memory represents our memory of events and experiences in a serial form. It is from this memory that we can reconstruct the actual events that took place at a given point in our lives. Semantic memory, on the other end, is a structured record of facts, concepts and skills that we have acquired. The information in semantic memory is derived from that in our own episodic memory, such that we can learn new facts or concepts from our experiences.

Long-term memory processes
There are three main activities related to long term memory: storage, deletion and retrieval.
[u]Information from short-term memory is stored in long-term memory by rehearsal. The repeated exposure to a stimulus or the rehearsal of a piece of information transfers it into long-term memory. Experiments also suggest that learning time is most effective if it is distributed over time.[/url] Deletion is mainly caused by decay and interference. Emotional factors also affect long-term memory. However, it is debatable whether we actually ever forget anything or whether it becomes increasingly difficult to access certain items from memory. Having forgotten something may just be caused by not being able to retrieve it ! Information may not be recalled sometimes but may be recognized, or may be recalled only with prompting. This leads us to the third provess of memory: information retrieval.

There are two types of information retrieval: recall and recognition. In recall, the information is reproduced from memory. In recognition the presentation of the information provides the knowledge that the information has been seen before. Recognition is of lesser complexity, as the information is provided as a cue. However, the recall can be assisted by the provision of retrieval cues which enable the subject to quickly access the information in memory.

And this is what the conneaut witnesses described. The Book of Mormon helped them retrieve some information such as names, however some items they mentioned were highly memorable and non confusable..such as "it came to pass" and written in biblical language.

All of the witnesses do not note repeated readings of the manuscript.

Is that the only factor here which indicates how much exposure to Spalding's material..is whether a witness noted "repeated readings"? And if they don't note repeated readings they you think you can assume a one time exposure and therefore figure that will correlate with the one time event exposure of the study you cited? Are you seriously suggesting that what the majority of the witnesses describe is a one time short term exposure? Gosh what a waste of time this is.

John Spalding says that "he read to me many passages" when he visited with Solomon in Conneaut not long before Solomon moved to Pittsburgh.

Right and by the description he gives..it certainly was not simply a few passages. It had to have been many passages in order to recall to the extent that he did of Spalding's story. And if he stayed with Spalding and Spalding was noted to read to people as his story progressed there is no reason to think John Spalding had little exposure or a one time exposure through discussion, or through hearing Spalding read.

Martha Spalding only says that "he was then writing a historical novel founded upon the first settlers of America. He represented them as an enlightened and warlike people." She mentions no repeated readings of the manuscript. She was probably there at the same time visiting with her husband.

Right and Martha Spalding also describes lot of details ..which would not have occurred in one brief or a few brief readings and discussion with Spalding.

Henry Lake did mention hearing it read many times. He mentions the "tragic figure of Laban" which finds an echo in the tragic figure of Labanko in the Oberlin manuscript, but hardly applies to the avaricious and murderous Laban of the Book of Mormon. A good example of possible reactive memory interference.

Anytime you want to explain why it's a good example of possible reactive memory interference go right ahead. On second though I'd prefer you don't to save time. But meanwhile he describes Spalding frequently reading the story to him and with the details he gives it was not a one time brief exposure

John Miller said that he "perused the manuscripts as often as he had leisure". He is also the only one of the witnesses who introduced the idea of the landing at the straits of Darien. (I know, we've been through this before. But he also lived in an area of Pennsylvania where newspapers has reported the "Mormonite" missionaries preaching about the Book of Mormon and describing a movement from the straits Darien northward.

Again..not a one time short term exposure and certainly with the details he gives he appears to have been exposed often over time.

Aaron Wright said that he was at his house one day and Spalding showed him the manuscript and told him about his lost tribes theory. Wright says that they had many conversations on the subject afterwards, but make no mention of repeated readings of the manuscript.

He said they had frequent conversations. Later he says regarding historical part of Book of Mormon.."I know to be the same as I read and heard read in the writing of Spalding. So he also read Spalding's work himself.

Oliver Smith stated that Solomon had boarded with him for about six months when Spalding first came into the area. He said that he had heard read one hundred pages or more. He does not say that he had heard them repeatedly. There is a problem with Smith's timeline because Solomon moved to the area in late 1809 or early 1810. Most of the witnesses put the start of the writing some time in 1812.

Right he says he read and heard read during a 6 month period when Spalding lived with him...100 pages or more. He also mentions Spalding discussed it with him as well. This is not an individual exposed briefly to a one time event.

Nahum Howard also said that Spalding had shown him his writings frequently and he had read them. Surprisingly, his details are more sparse than those of those who seem to have heard the writings only briefly.

Well the sparsity of detail counters your belief that Hurlbut was putting words in the witnesses mouth via coaching. Once again though this witness describes discussions with Spalding on the material as well as frequent reading of it.

Artemas Cunningham noted seeing and hearing about the story only one night. He said that he had spent the better part of the night reading them and conversing about them.

Finally one person who had fairly brief exposure comparable to the other witnesses as he only spent a day or 2 with spalding...even though that time was spent discussing the book. He seems to have a good recall of it, he may have been very interested and may have a good memory.

All in all, those are not very good odds for all of those witnesses remembering the names and details of that manuscript so vividly twenty plus years later, unless there was some type of reinforcement. Roger has touted his ability to remember the names of the characters of the Winds of War after twenty years, but there had been intervening refresher training from the miniseries. It was advertised very heavily and had some great ratings.

[/quote]

Glenn the experience of those witnesses do not correlate with the one time short term event of the study you cited.
The witnesses overwhelmingly described exposure over time, repeated exposure by more than one means, they listened to spalding read, discussed with Spalding , they read his story and other than Artemas given what they recalled of the story and given what they said... they were exposed over time and it had to have been quite a few times. None of them described a one time short term event. What they said they remembered..they described as remembering well. And some noted that the Book of Mormon aided in bringing back some of the memory.

[_marg]

It's pretty obvious that what we have here is simply an attempt to wear marg down, while claiming she's the one who doesn't know what she's talking about, when it's obviously the other way around.

Thanks Roger, I am feeling worn out :)

First, a host of "memory studies" are touted as demonstrating beyond a reasonable doubt that the Conneaut witnesses were false memory sufferers. As marg takes the time to go through the list, it becomes clear that the ones she looks at simply do not apply. A fifth grader could see the differences in the above example with the Conneaut witnesses, but the point is to wear the investigator down. So if one study is shown to be non-applicable then three more are mentioned as though those were the ones that she should have checked out. It's little more than a game.

Thanks for pointing this out.

Marg is correct: the burden of proof should be on those attempting to diagnose false memories from 2 centuries down the road. So mikwut and Glenn and Dan, in all their vast, superior knowledge, should cite the BEST two examples that demonstrate THEIR conclusion that the Conneaut witnesses were suffering from false memories and stop trying to waste marg's time.

Thank you..and I think Dale is getting annoyed by it all as well.

[_GlennThigpen]

Glenn the experience of those witnesses do not correlate with the one time short term event of the study you cited.
The witnesses overwhelmingly described exposure over time, repeated exposure by more than one means, they listened to spalding read, discussed with Spalding , they read his story and other than Artemas given what they recalled of the story and given what they said... they were exposed over time and it had to have been quite a few times. None of them described a one time short term event. What they said they remembered..they described as remembering well. And some noted that the Book of Mormon aided in bringing back some of the memory.[/size]

marg, the witnesses did not "overwhelmingly" describe exposure over time. Only a couple of them indicated repeated exposure. The Conneaut witnesses were attempting to recall something that they were last exposed to in varying degrees over twenty years previous with no indications of intervening memory refreshment. Two aspects of the flashbulb memory studies that are pertinent to the Conneaut witnesses is the fact that vivid recollections are not an indicator of accuracy and that once the false information is inserted via whatever method, it is believed as strongly as correct information. This effect has been borne out by other studies testing other types of memory also.
During those intervening years potential memory retroactive interference elements were introduced or reintroduced into the culture, such as speculation about the lost tribes as ancestors of the American Indians, name intervention as in Laban and Labanko. The straits of Darien as in John Miller, who was living in an area where it was published in a newspaper.
Added to that, there is reason that they even though of it at all, in the form of Hurlbut.
Long term memory can be modified by leading or suggestive questions. That is a very real possibility there. Roger has admitted that the reason the witnesses looked into the story at all was because they were trying to find out if the Book of Mormon was the same as Spalding's story. Confirmation bias is also possible there.
There are too many elements that can lead to memory contamination to ignore. Too many contradictions, things that were supposed to be in Spalding's story that are not in the Book of Mormon. Too close a correlation between the exact details that the Conneaut witnesses supposedly remembered that the witnesses that Hurlbut did not remember. Such as those names. There is the 1813 date on the letter in the Oberlin manuscript which indicates that Spalding was still working on it after he left the Conneaut area. There is Josiah Spalding who described the Oberlin manuscript when Spalding was supposedly working on the "second manuscript".
There is the Oliver Smith story who has Spalding working on the "second" manuscript in early 1810 which would have given him no chance to alter his idea, go back further in time, etc.

The list of problems is extensive and have only been answered by "just so" scenarios without any evidence to back them up.

Glenn

[_MCB]

Confirmation bias is also possible there.

When I see Mormons using that expression, I simply smile gently.

[_Dan Vogel]

Roger,

3. Assuming the Con. witnesses actually were suffering from false memories, does that mean that none of what they said was accurate? If not, how do you separate accurate memories from false ones in what they stated?

When it doesn’t match up with either the physical evidence or more reliable testimony.