News Harvard-associated Psychiatrist Disputes Repressed Memory

[Pietro]

I think this opinion won't be a popular one but here it goes.

No problem -- it's not a popularity contest; it's a discussion. :) The whole point is to get multiple perspectives, even if they differ from what "seems" to be the consensus. Thank you for posting your perspective -- it adds greatly to the discussion. :D

I certainly agree that looking at these things in a historical context is a good idea, and quite useful. Anthropologic context can help us determine whether we're looking at something new or simply a rehashing of something known for ages, as you mentioned. For me, it was the authority with which the researcher tried to assert his point of view, while attempting to back this up with such weak evidence. It's bad science to make grand statements with little rigor to back them up, behavior better left to the advertising industry. ;)

Ostensibly, he doesn't even accept the existence of repressed memory -- and yet, as you pointed-out, he does seem to contradict himself.

You are very correct, I think, to point-out that trauma, as we perceive it today, must be considered within a historical context. In ages where public hangings and gladiator fights were the norm, where warfare involved the direct slicing and dicing of one's foes, and the death of infants and children regularly, trauma would take-on a much different meaning. It doesn't necessarily mean that these things weren't traumatic -- but that, if this is one's norm, it's possible that people lived in some form of denial perpetually.

Also, people didn't live all that long in times past. Around a 100 years ago, the average lifespan was around 50, I believe, and much less than that, the further you go back in time. People didn't have time for a whole lot of self-reflection and personal growth -- they were busy working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, in many cases. The whole idea of "personal growth" that should apply to all is very much a latter-day concept.

Perhaps we have more time, now, to examine our own lives, which would have been quite a luxury in years past; I don't know. This would definitely be a worthy subject for study. I would just hope it be done with much more effort expended on research, and much less arrogance, than presented in this article. :)

 

[Eleanor]

Thank you Candleflames for a most toughtful and nonreactive response to the article! I also think it adds to the discussion.

I think your suggestion that we look at repressed memory in the same context as all "lost and recovered" memories is a very insightful one. Surely we ought to at least consider that the underlying mechanism is the same.

Did they use our modern idea of trauma or did they take into account an appropriate historical idea of what experiences would be outside the norm? The word "trauma" itself is a relatively new addition to our language. The ideas of what is harmful and what is to be expected has radically changed over years. It was common to watch loved ones suffer over long periods and die from injuries that ranged from serious to even minor.

The idea of psychological trauma is indeed new. It came into popularity with Freud. And historically human beings have been exposed to far more traumatic events than modern humans in industrialized countries are typically exposed to. One might reflect that cat burning was a popular form of entertainment in Medieval times. Three alternatives present themselves to me immediately upon reflection on these facts: 1) perhaps repressed/recovered memories were SO common they merited no mention. Just another unpleasant fact of life that one dealt with. 2) perhaps pervasive small and medium traumatic events in the environment rendered one "insensible" in general. and desensitized one to big traumas or 3) perhaps some measure of safety is necessary to recover memories, and since that basically never occurred no one ever did recover any memories. There are no reports of live births delivered naturally after a C-section either - because no one survived a C-section. No one reports on the difficulty of post cancer recovery, because no one healed from cancer. If the circumstances for recovery are not possible, then the recovery doesn't take place. So if recalling the memories is a part of a healing process that requires relative safety - what if that never occurs?

Not sure I buy the long life hypothesis tho. Life spans got significantly shortened by the increasing urbanization and industrialization. Socrates (350BCE) drank the hemlock at age 70 over the objections of his friends who thought he had another 20 good years to go. People did die more often at younger ages dues to disease, and in some periods violence. But in stable populations if you made it past childhood you had a good shot at living until a fairly old age. (So say my historian friends...)

Speaking of Socrates - Plato reports that Spartans, in order to make their children better warriors by making them less fearful, would bring small children out to watch battles - so that they would be used to the noise and the smell and not be distracted by it later when they went into battle themselves. No report on how uniformly this worked.

I noticed something else - what does "forgot their identity" mean? And did they remember them? Is this dissociation? If so, surely that adds weight to the possibility of recovering memories, if the identity gets recovered, that is.

 

[Candleflames]

People didn't have time for a whole lot of self-reflection and personal growth -- they were busy working 12 hours a day, 6 days a week, in many cases. The whole idea of "personal growth" that should apply to all is very much a latter-day concept.

This is a very important point. It's pretty common for people to use a busy lifestyle to insulate themselves from having to deal with the memories. Way back when busy wasn't so much a choice, it was necessary for survival amongst the general population. Those that did have the time to contemplate would have been a part of the church and their contemplation would have been more on spiritual salvation rather than their own earthly functioning. We still come across the issue of what would they have considered injurious to the self.

perhaps some measure of safety is necessary to recover memories, and since that basically never occurred no one ever did recover any memories.

This is an excellent point. Just think how much effort it is taking us to feel safe and supported and we have a wide variety of resources that didn't exist even a hundred years ago.

I'd also like to posit that both leisure time to be contemplative and getting caught up in painful memories would, on their own, degrade an individuals sense of safety and/or ability to meet basic needs. It would take an incredibly understanding community to allow someone who is unable to contribute to the work to reap the bounty of the work. That's something that is difficult to find even now.

what does "forgot their identity" mean?

By today's definition it's a dissociative fugue state. A great shock to the brain, either physical or psychological, causes a complete loss of the existing self. It's the one where people create totally new identities. It's also the amnesia we see in books and movies the most.

That's what irritates me the most about this article. The grand claim is that repressed memories don't exist yet the details of their finding indicate that it does. The lead researcher is splitting hairs by recognizing certain types related memory loss while denying that those same references can be indicative of more. It's as if he is looking for evidence that will fit perfectly into his preconceived notion of what the evidence should look like. I think he wants a reference that follows a certain plot pattern and nothing else will be valid.

 

[anthony]

I don't think anyone should take much notice of what one person thinks... and certainly not label Harvard due to one professors theories.