ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













Streams of Consciousness

Streams of Consciousness


The scoop on how we think, feel and act
Streams of Consciousness Home

Forgetting About 9/11

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



World Trade Centers from below

The World Trade Center, 1995. Courtesy of Aaron Logan via Wikimedia Commons.

A decade ago, we lived in an apartment tower in Jersey City overlooking the Hudson River. We had a panoramic view of Manhattan—and of planes flying in and out of the nearby airports. After several years there, I got used to rolling my eyes as my husband pontificated on the make, or approach, of various pieces of equipment as they roared by our large windows.

On 9/11, as we sat down to breakfast, my husband suddenly said: “Wow, that plane is flying awfully low.” That got my attention, wondering if he could really have spotted something amiss. But he soon left for work, only to return a few minutes later. A crowd had greeted his arrival at the train station. The clustered commuters, he determined, were all looking at the aftermath of the first plane strike. As the drama unfolded, we took our five-month-old out of daycare and drove to my in-laws, who resided much farther away from the action.

Like nearly everyone else who lived through that day, I feel I remember it clearly, even though data shows that people’s recollections of 9/11 have, in fact, significantly degraded with time (see How Accurate Are Memories of 9/11?). Recent research published in Psychological Science suggests that some of that distortion is social. My conversations with others about the event—the retelling of my own experience, for example—have etched particular parts of 9/11 in my mind at the expense of other facts and memories.

This latest work is an elaboration of a revelation about human memory psychologists made the mid-1990s. Back then scientists discovered a phenomenon they called retrieval induced forgetting in which a person’s attempt to recall one piece of information causes him or her to forget closely related memories. This type of forgetting explains why repeatedly taking a better route to a friend’s house makes the old route fade in your mind, but has no impact on your memory for, say, how to get to your office.

what remained of the world trade center on 9/11 shortly after its second tower had collapsed

Smoke rises from what remains of the World Trade Center shortly after the second tower collapsed. Courtesy of Wally Gobetz via Wikimedia Commons.

That earlier work applied largely to people’s independent efforts to practice, read or recite material. Yet much of what we do during the day involves interacting with others. So a few years ago, psychologist William Hirst and his colleagues at New School for Social Research in New York City decided to study forgetting in a social context. In their first experiments, they found that one person’s selective recounting of a written story caused both that person and a listener to forget related, unstated information from the story (which they both read) more than unrelated material. Then Hirst, along with Alin Coman, now at the University of Pittsburgh, and David Manier at City University of New York, tested the idea in a more lifelike setting by investigating the effect of conversation on 9/11 memories.

The team asked 22 people who lived in the New York City area on September 11, 2001, to fill out a questionnaire about what they remembered about that day. Then pairs of participants (who did not know each other) discussed their personal recollections of the attack. If either conversant left out specific relevant details from the questionnaire, Hirst, Coman and Manier found, both of them had trouble remembering the omitted items later on. Memories that were closely related to the ones mentioned in the conversation became the most difficult for both the speaker and the listener to access. For instance, if one person shared that she woke up at 8 a.m. that day, but neither she nor her conversation partner then mentioned the time at which they heard about the attack, they each had trouble recalling that detail later. Over multiple conversations, Hirst speculates, that neglected information could become forgotten.

And as people repeatedly talk to each other about shared experiences such as 9/11, as I have, they may trigger a kind of collective forgetting that shapes joint memories. “What people forget in common is also a function of what they remember in common,” Coman says. “If a group of people forget the same things, that will increase the amount of shared information in their memories.” Such morphing of memory through conversation helps forge a collective identity in society by creating a common view of the past, Hirst believes. Other communication practices such as those propagated through the media are also likely to influence both individual and collective memory.

Our conversations with others alter our memories. Courtesy of Alectrevelyan006 via Wikimedia Commons.

I now wonder how listening to other people’s 9/11 stories might have shaped my own. And even though I now know my remembrances of that day are probably warped, I am sticking to my story, because it is truly the only one I have. I don’t mind the fact that my brain does not accurately record all the events of the past as a digital camera might. The notion that my life, including all the people who have enriched it, has distorted my recollection of events is even sort of appealing. I favor the metaphor of my mind as a tapestry stitched together by arguably useless chitchat. In fact, knowing that I enlist others to remake my memories of parties, adventures, romantic breakups, car accidents—and major disasters, doesn’t bother me at all.

Ingfei Chen contributed to this blog.

Ingrid Wickelgren About the Author: Ingrid Wickelgren is an editor at Scientific American Mind, but this is her personal blog at which, at random intervals, she shares the latest reports, hearsay and speculation on the mind, brain and behavior. Follow on Twitter @iwickelgren.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.



Previous: Money Can Buy Isolation More
Streams of Consciousness
Next: Goldie Hawn Plunges into Brain Science




Rights & Permissions

Comments 5 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. rgcorrgk 4:11 am 09/2/2011

    Dear Ingrid Wickelgren, no doubt you are a fine person, cute & bright; however, the blog above with the title “Forgetting About 9/11″ struck me as disconcerting. Excuse what might seem an admonishment; but, it feels like I’m reading a smiley face here. The suggestion is there could be just a tiny breach of decorum. For some, 9/11 is still like yesterday (to get an idea, imagine it just happened and the cries of the grieving and dying are still in the air). Yes, 9/11 is an opportunity to learn about “forgetting”; but, first and foremost, it is a maniacal deliberate hate crime, an atrocity (not just a “major disasters “), a crime that brings to mind other unspeakable atrocities, even the Holocaust!
    You find personal comfort in distortions of memories (I see your point); as for me, any loss of the truth is a concern. And, while yes, the subject should be scientifically understood; but, more importantly, when the subject is a crime of this magnitude, distorted memories deserve correction.
    Richard Carlson

    Link to this
  2. 2. cwaos 4:56 pm 09/2/2011

    I don’t disagree with your comment – however your credibility is certainly at issue when you refer to a grown woman as “cute”

    Link to this
  3. 3. WildLatin 10:54 am 09/3/2011

    cute:Attractive in a pretty or endearing way…
    I don’t see a problem. I find many grown women, who I don’t know and only see in a photo, as cute. I don’t see why anyone complementing another has to be perceived as demeaning.
    With the 10th anniversary of 9/11 very close I am sure we will all receive many media reminders of the horror. There is no danger of it being perceived otherwise in our shared memories.
    I enjoyed the discussion of the present understanding of memory process and believe that this shared event is a particularly appropriate example- with a title that caught my attention.

    Link to this
  4. 4. iwickelgren 1:29 pm 09/6/2011

    @rgcorrgk: Thanks for your comment. Certainly, I do not mean to minimize the significance of 9/11. I was personally terrified that day–and frankly, for many days after it. I was also deeply sad, as I became aware that acquaintances of mine, and friends of friends, had perished. It was a terrible act.
    But regarding memory, the distortions we are talking about here are relatively minor. They are generally affect details such as timing and personal experiences, not more essential aspects of the event. To read more about this, please see the new link I just posted to the piece, “How Accurate Are Memories of 9/11?” Thanks again.

    Link to this
  5. 5. psikeyhackr 11:26 pm 10/18/2011

    Does Newtonian Physics apply to skyscrapers? Shouldn’t the physics profession have demanded to know how the steel was distributed down the twin towers in 2002? But Ten Years later we do not have that data.

    The significance of 9/11 is that the nation that put men on the Moon has not explained how airliners weighing less than 200 tons with 34 tons of jet fuel could result in the TOTAL DESTRUCTION of skyscrapers 2000 times their mass in less than two hours. People are just supposed to BELIEVE it. That is the significance of 9/11. Engineering schools are not building models demonstrating how it could happen.

    So the psychological nonsense of the 9/11 decade is the true significance of 9/11 not the events of that day. This should have been resolved in 2002. So how can so many people admit they were so dumb?

    Thanks to 9/11 the Physics Profession has spent a decade proving that physics is history.

    It can be rewritten to serve anybodies agenda.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT4BXIpdIdo

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Holiday Sale

Black Friday/Cyber Monday Blow-Out Sale

Enter code:
HOLIDAY 2014
at checkout

Get 20% off now! >

X

Email this Article

X