By now, I believe most conflict professionals are aware of the malleability of memory, the problematic role that storytelling therefore can play in a dispute, and how to "correct" for the shifting narrative. Here's a concise reminder of the shiftiness of memory.
From "When Memory Commits an Injustice" (Wall Street Journal):
Consider our collective memories of 9/11. For the last 10 years, researchers led by William Hirst of the New School and Elizabeth Phelps of New York University have been tracking the steady decay of what people recall about that tragic event. They first quizzed people shortly after the attacks, then after one year, and found that 37% of the details had already changed. Although the most recent data have yet to be published, they're expected to reveal that the vast majority of remembered "facts" are now make-believe.
...
In recent years, neuroscientists have documented how these mistakes happen. It turns out that the act of summoning the past to the surface actually changes the memory itself. Although we've long imagined our memories as a stable form of information, a data file writ into the circuits of the brain, that persistence is an illusion. In reality, our recollections are always being altered, the details of the past warped by our present feelings and knowledge. The more you remember an event, the less reliable that memory becomes.
That’s interesting. I’m wondering if the intensity or trauma surrounding an event has any effect on the degree to which memory is altered?
Ivy Roberts
Seattle Based Mediator
425.533.8322
Posted by: Ivy Roberts | April 20, 2012 at 01:29 PM