The more we know, the easier we are to deceive

Image result for Dr Ciara Greene from University College Dublin
Dr Ciara Greene, University College Dublin
This confirms the reason academics, scientists and reputable journalists don't print things without thoroughly confirming their sources. At least two sources for a piece of information before posting anything. When I see anything posted with only a single source, I discount it until I have a chance to confirm the story from other independent sources.

I'm not alone in this, and this research clarifies why this is such an important practice.
*  *  *  *  *

The more we know, the easier we are to deceive

Knowing a lot about a subject means you are more likely to have false memories about it. That is the paradoxical conclusion of research presented by Dr Ciara Greene from University College Dublin to the annual conference of the British Psychological Society's Cognitive Psychology Section in Barcelona.

Dr Greene and Anthony O'Connell, then a Masters student at University College Cork, asked 489 participants to rank seven topics (football, politics, business, technology, film, science and pop music) from most to least interesting.

They were then asked if they remembered the events described in four news items about the topic they selected as the most interesting and four items about the topic selected as least interesting. In each case, three of the events depicted had really happened and one was fictional.

The results showed that if someone was interested in a topic, this increased the frequency of accurate memories relating to that topic. But it increased the number of false memories too -- 25 per cent of people experienced a false memory in relation to an interesting topic, compared with 10 per cent in relation to a less interesting topic.

And having a high level of knowledge about a topic -- as measured by the number of true memories recorded -- rather than just an interest, increased the frequency of false memories too. People who were more knowledgeable about a subject were nearly twice as likely to remember incidents relating to that topic that never happened.

Dr Greene said: "Increasing scientific and public understanding of the causes of false memory is an important goal, particularly in light of some of the more negative consequences associated with the phenomenon, including faulty eyewitness accounts and the controversies surrounding false memories of traumatic childhood events. I hope that promotion of knowledge about false memories may provide some inoculation against their harmful effects."

Story Source:  Materials provided by British Psychological Society (BPS).  "The more we know, the easier we are to deceive."  ScienceDaily, 25 August 2016. 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Workout supplements: An emerging eating disorder in men?

Image
therewontbeanydoves.wordpress.com When developing a fictional character, you may not think about the character using large amounts of over-the-counter dietary supplements.  Especially a man who uses large amounts of workout supplements. While there has been widespread publicity on the dangers of the non-prescribed use of anabolic steroids, not much is said about legal, over-the-counter supplements.  Are there risks?  And if so, what are they?  There are several things the writer should consider. Supplement use is becoming an eating disorder with many men who use them to prepare for and recover from a workout. There is growing evidence of a link between muscle-building supplements and testicular cancer. There is evidence that over-the counter medications and supplements are the most common causes of drug-induced liver failure (a rare event, but still a risk.)  There is even evidence that, “certain popular herbal and dietary supplements can also cause liver damage,"
Read more

Remember faces but not names? You got it wrong.

Image
Source:   Daily Excelsior So, you think you're good at remembering faces, but terrible with names? New research has revealed we are actually better at remembering names than faces The cringe-worthy experience of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name leads many of us to believe we are terrible with names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. With the Christmas party season fast approaching, there will be plenty of opportunity to re-live the familiar, and excruciatingly-awkward, social situation of not being able to remember an acquaintance's name. This cringe-worthy experience leads many of us to believe we are terrible at remembering names. However, new research has revealed this intuition is misleading; we are actually better at remembering names than faces. The authors of the study, from the University of York, suggest that when we castigate ourselves f
Read more

Using Artificial Intelligence to Predict Violence. . . or to Control It?

Image
Dell EMC InFocus A staple of science fiction is a future where artificial intelligence (AI) is used to control people's behavior, or, in which AI supplants the human element. I have mixed feelings about AI, its uses, and our future.  For one thing, it's questionable that the human brain can increase in size or complexity without causing the system to slow down.  The brain of a "genius" isn't larger than yours or mine, its simply organized differently.  The difference between early versions of humans and modern humans is in large part, size.  Yes, brain organization plays a role, but until the latest iteration of us, brain size was the critical factor. If we as a species have survived based on brain size, and brain size has maxed out, how do we continue to evolve intellectually?  Better organization?  Yes, but can we ever hope to create and control this type of evolutionary activity? One solution to maxed human brain size is creating an interface
Read more

M.I.T. Research Explains How Will Rogers Observation Works

Image
Finally it appears that MIT has gotten involved in proving Will's syllogism, "There are three kinds of men. The one that learns by reading. The few who learn by observation. The rest of them have to pee on the electric fence for themselves." Read his statement carefully.   ONE learns by reading.   A FEW who learn by observation. Then there's the rest of us. The reason for this, it turns out, is a special circuit in the brain that you or I need to have a functioning version of to actually learn by observing others.  Based on how we all behave, it is a circuit most of us must be missing.   Or perhaps it shorted out the first time we peed on an electric fence and it has yet to grow back.   *  *  *  *  * Brain circuit helps us learn by watching others Scientists pinpoint neural interactions that are necessary for observational learning Researchers have identified a brain circuit required to learn by watching others. This circuit,
Read more

War Leaves 17 Women for Every Man

Image
Source: Psychology Today This report of a "Y-chromosone Bottleneck" that occurred seven thousand years ago raises some interesting questions. In it, the author theorizes that war may have the effect of simplifying the male genome to the point that it's like having but one man for every 17 women.  Sounds like a male fantasy, but is it good for humanity and the potential for our survival on our planet? Research shows that healthy populations depend on genetic diversity such as in this report from 2015,  Genetic Diversity Linked to Today's Taller, Smarter People .  So if war has the effect of creating a male genome bottleneck, does the bottleneck limit the diversity needed to maintain a healthy population?  Could genetic bottlenecks be the reason that some militarily aggressive cultures such as the ancient Romans and Greeks are very peaceful today?  i.e., have they had the aggression breed out of them by years of wars in which the most warlike men died in bat
Read more