I got a distinction for my first semester subject PSYC121 Foundations of Psychology A
I am studying three subjects this semester
The kids came down for the September/October holidays
Caleb was especially difficult to capture on camera these holidays because he wouldn't hold still and smile at the same time!
So here's what's on my mind today:
"Other research on the reconstructive nature of memory has demonstrated that the simple act of retelling a story can introduce inaccuracies into memory (Marsh, 2007). When people retell a story, they may streamline it, embellish the facts, exaggerate their role, and so forth. In such retellings, people may be aware that they are being a little loose with the facts (Marsh & Tversky, 2004). However, what is interesting is that their intentional distortions can reshape their subsequent recollections of the same events. Somehow, the “real” story and the storyteller’s “spin” on it probably begin to blend imperceptibly. So, even routine retellings of events can contribute to the malleability of memory." Weiten Psychology: Themes and Versions 2014.
And here's my question:
If we know from research that memory can be inaccurate, how can we trust things that have been passed down from generation to generation by word? More specifically, the gospels weren't written by the disciples themselves. Apart from Luke, who history tends to favour as Paul's physician, we don't have any accounts of the gospel that are even second hand. How much of what we believe is actually accurate? Paul's letters, I will concede are exact documents, but the gospels in my mind are on shakier ground. There are some accounts that are repeated in the other gospels and so I am more confident with those, but if stories are changed in a retelling, if memory is affected so easily, how do we trust in the validity of the gospels?
Anyway, just a random thought going through my head as I prepare for a quiz on memory!
I hope this post finds you all well