False and real memories

I'm very interested in the phenomenon of false memories. At a trivial level I have a strong memory about the bridge event last night... but for various reasons I know it can't be correct, so I settle for being confused about it.

At the most serious end of the spectrum I have lived with someone who had memories of childhood abuse. No-one can say for sure whether those memories are true or false. The tendency is to believe the accuser, but observing the situation from close hand, I am genuinely perplexed. It is a very difficult situation. And so much hangs on it - someone's mental health, someone's freedom or imprisonment. Not having a memory one is certain of believed has in the past been so distressing it has led to suicide. But certainty is not a guarantee of accuracy - as I know from my own experience.

For example, and again at a trivial level, as often happens to people of my age my memory for names has become unreliable. I forget the names of people I know quite well and see often. And when I do that, I also have a certainty that the forgotten name begins with a particular letter. I've spent a lot of time trying to recall someone's name which I am absolutely certain begins with S, and when I finally get the name, say by asking the person, I find it begins with another letter entirely. I works for places too. I want to tell someone about that place up the M1 I visited recently... but I can't remember the name. I know it begins with N - Nottingham, Northampton, Newark, Nuneaton... no none of those. Ah, now I remember; Sheffield. This happens so often I have learned that it is as good as certain that my certainty is wrong, and the name as good as definitely begins with a letter other than the one I am certain it begins with!

In criminal cases the evidence of eye witnesses is usually taken as decisive. But researchers into memory are well aware that our memories are much less than reliable. People have been convicted on eye witness testimony: the witness is certain of what he saw, the jury convicts. But at appeal some other evidence comes along, something incontrovertible such as DNA, and the conviction has to be overturned. The witness's memory, of which they were certain enough to put someone's freedom in jeopardy, proves to be wrong.

There is a report in The Guardian today about some research that has been done with mice. Technology is such that the researchers were able to plant a false memory in the brains of mice and observe its effects. This is just the first step. It may help us to understand human memory better some time in the future, or it may help someone to manipulate our memory to our disadvantage. But at least it is a step towards greater awareness of the unreliability of memory. I suspect that the greater the certainty the greater the chance that memory is wrong. We'll see. But I tend to think that anything that reduces our cocksureness of being right all the time is going to be a good thing.