Dear Reader,
There has been recent discussion about the idea of memory and the reliability of such when examining historical events. Memory is typically compared with data or facts when considering a notable event in history, or something of significance. This topic caught my eye because it not only raises the question of whether or not memory is reliable, but how heavily emotion plays a role within memory and how it could potentially change the initial recollection of an event.
A prominent component of communication amongst humans is the transmission of stories and memories. We invest time into considering others’ memories and we carry them with us, eventually passing them on. We ourselves are comprised of memories; our knowledge is rooted within them. When examining an event where memory and data is available as a source, I believe that naturally, humans find more authenticity in the details of the memory. This is largely a result of empathy and the desire to relate; there is a common preference to personal accounts rather than factual accounts, because they are not as applicable or relatable. Data is certainly reliable if you are seeking evidence and facts, but not in the pursuit of a descriptive recollection. I’ve found that our eagerness to relate to others’ memories or emotions ties us to a larger community and brings a feeling of interconnectedness. In our sociology lectures, we’ve been studying the idea of “collective consciousness”, and how we all desire to be a part of a bigger picture. If you relate this concept to the basis of memory, you’ll find an undercurrent of connection amongst the provider and the receiver of the information.
The question that arises when considering the concept of memory, is which factors make it potentially unreliable. Surely not every memory is trustworthy? Memory typically evokes strong emotional reactions, which could ultimately cause a distortion of information. However this does cause the remembered portion to be more prominent, not because of the importance of the event, but because of the emotions associated with it. For example, if two people were present during a historical event, they would convey completely different perspectives. As psychologist Dr. Fiona McPherson puts it, “…it does seem clear that, in some circumstances and for some types of stimuli, at least, the emotional attributes of a stimulus do affect the way we perceive it and process it – that is, the encoding of the memory.” (McPherson, 2011). I’ve concluded that in the pursuit of making an emotional connection, or rather if you prefer personal accounts, memories would serve as a more useful source. However, with the goal of examining data, creating a hypothesis or theory, data would be the favored source. It is ultimately up to you and your preferences.
