Elizabeth Loftus Changed the Meaning of Memory | Hacker News Reader

Elizabeth Loftus Changed the Meaning of Memory

newyorker.com

50 pointsHooke18 comments

Why can't 2 things be true? That Weinstein is a horrible person and that memories of something 20 years ago can be flimsy and vague.

The same thing happened in that Ivan The Terrible trial. Horrible as it is, people in their 80s recollecting what happened in their 20s is hardly reliable.

They are both true, but that's the problem. It's not enough to know Weinstein is a terrible person; we want to punish him for specific acts of wrongdoing. However, our evidence for those acts is inherently unreliable. Our desire to punish wrongdoers must be tempered by the fact that memories are not reliable evidence.

How thoughtful of you! It's funny though that people like you never show up when the accused doesn't have an army of lawyers. In those instances, no one ever goes "guys, our desire to punish the accused must be tempered by the fact htat memories are not reliable evidence! Maybe she kinda wanted to be raped and can't remember it"

Either memories are reliable or they are not. It seems they are not. You're free to deny that fact or to refute it with counter-arguments, but claiming "people like me" are discussing it because we fear "an army of lawyers" puts you a step away from tin foil hat territory.

Exactly, anyone can dispute the facts, that's why being able to hire better lawyers totally doesn't affect the outcome of the case, right? /s

The article discusses the oddly selective memory of this legendary memory researcher, and omits the fact that she taught for years at California State University Fullerton, where I encountered her many times.

Are you attacking her, or the article, or both?

Whats the issue about her time at Fullerton?

What's her oddly selective memory. Her research speciality is memory, what are you trying to say about her?

Because I read this comment before I read the article it also didn't make sense to me.

Then I read the article and it did.

I feel like there should be a tick box, 1. "Have read the article", 2. "Have flicked over it" and 3. "Have not read the article"

[2]

I read the article. I don't get it. I read the article before I posted here. I read the wiki page about her as well, and went looking for her citation index.

Not an attack. Point of interest. About oddly selective... did you read TFA?

They forgot.

Sweet!

She never taught at Cal State Fullerton. Here is her CV:

https://ucirvine-my.sharepoint.com/:w:/g/personal/eloftus_ad...

Those of us in her classroom would disagree

What is it that you are trying to imply? Please be straightforward.

Her 50-page CV lists 4 speaking engagements in Fullerton in the last 50 years. No teaching or faculty positions.

I’m not sure why I always have to be implying something. I am stating a fact. She taught at Cal State Fullerton.

That was a fascinating read. It took me a while to adjust to the writing style, but in the end it suited the story well.

Really good read. And what a dodgy character, in my opinion.

> The only time she has ever turned down a case for reasons of repugnance was when she refused to testify for a man accused of operating the gas chambers at Treblinka.

( ... )

> Loftus said, “I was reeling. How about the presumption of innocence? How about ‘the unpopular deserve to have a defense’?”

Maybe in the latter case, the fact that she was promised $14k made the difference? Or maybe rape isn't bad enough that you lose the presumption of innocence, and genocide is? Or maybe she just wanted to participate in something so high profile.

> “I have to admit,” she told me later, “that it is fascinating to be, you know, in the trenches with the trial of the century.”

Reply on news.ycombinator.com