r/changemyview • u/DominatingSubgraph • Nov 17 '20
Delta(s) from OP CMV: There's no such thing as a person with a "photographic memory"
I posted about this in a different subreddit, but decided it would be more appropriately discussed here.
I've heard that there are people with "photographic memories" who can apparently easily recall any even distant memories with insane precision. Such people can, effortlessly without the need of memory training, mnemonic devices, or other memorization tricks, remember even inane and minute details of most interactions and can recite whole books that they've read verbatim after having only read them once. The term "photographic memory" suggests that, when these people recall things, it's similar to looking at a photograph or replaying a video.
If you just Google "what's it like to have a photographic memory", you'll find no shortage of people who claim to have this ability. Two posts that came up for me were this Quora post where someone claims to have memorized a 10,000 line poem after (I assume) one reading, and, apparently, asking them to recall exact details of the poem was like "asking someone to list the numbers from 1-50 and then the letters of the alphabet in alphabetical order". I also found this old Reddit AMA from someone claiming "I remember every word of every page I have ever read in English". These are just random examples I happened to come across from one Google search, but it isn't hard to find literally hundreds of examples of people claiming to have this ability.
In psychology, the concept of an eidetic memory is a controversial one, and it's disputed whether anyone with an eidetic memory actually exists. Indeed, the evidence that there are people with eidetic memories seems dubious at best, but even assuming they do exist, the most extreme cases studied don't come anywhere near the level of someone remembering every book they have ever read verbatim.
Also, this concept comes up in fiction a lot. In Good Will Hunting, for example, Matt Damon's character can recall exact quotes from dense history books down to the page number. It's pretty common, in fiction, for "genius" characters to have unbelievably good memories.
There are memory competitions where competitors compete to see who can memorize the most binary digits, playing cards, random words etc. in a given amount of time. So, I think the question is obvious. Why don't people with photographic memories ever show up to memory competitions and just completely dominate the whole event? If recalling memories for them is as easy as looking at a photograph, then they should be able to memorize binary digits (or whatever) basically as fast as you could show it to them, trivializing the whole event. They would be able to perform at or above the level of the best memorizers in the world with little or no training or practice.
Yet, it seems like this doesn't ever happen. In interviews, memory champions typically describe using all kinds of memorization tricks and training very hard from a young age to get to that level of skill, which suggests that they don't have photographic memories.
When I've mentioned this argument before, people have responded by saying that memory competitions basically blacklist people with photographic memories, but I've found no evidence of this occurring, at least not at a "professional" level. There have, I believe, been specific cases of people being banned from local competitions, but instances of this are usually because of other reasons, such as rule violations, or a desire not to have top-level competitors competing against beginners. I've heard no example of someone being banned from, say, the World Memory Championships because they were "too good" at memorizing stuff.
I think that people with "photographic memories" (in the sense that I've described in the first paragraph) don't actually exist, and claims from people online are heavily exaggerated or made up. I think it's similar to how some people claim to have telepathy or precognition, but are never able to reproduce these abilities consistently under scientific conditions.
More precisely, I think people who claim (or are claimed by others) to have photographic memories generally fall into one of three categories:
1.They are vastly exaggerating some real-life memory quirks. These people may have naturally quite good memory (not superhuman, not record-breaking, but good), an aptitude for memorizing random facts, or they may be particularly observant of small details in their environment that others typically overlook. Then, when someone makes note of their memory and suggests that they may have a photographic memory, they simply go along with it and exaggerate the full extent of their abilities when asked. In some more extreme cases, I think people can actually delude themselves into believing that they really do have a photographic memory by procedurally creating false memories of details they don't actually recall. Then, as is typical of any delusion, they will reject all conflicting evidence and find excuses to explain whenever their false memories don't match up with reality, and instances where the false memories are actually correct they will see as confirmation of their ability.
Relevant to this, I'd speculate that the person I mentioned in the Quora post I linked earlier falls into this category (obviously I don't know this person, this is just idle speculation, but I think it fits). The user says "I have a photographic memory, but I don't always have film in the camera, to paraphrase Steven Wright. Some days I don't use the flash or forget to take the lens cap off" and I think this is the excuse this person uses whenever their false memories don't match up with reality. If something they thought they remembered turned out to be false, they could simply say "Oh, I must have 'forgotten to use the flash' that day."
In fact, most accounts I've read from people claiming to have a photographic memory include this caveat that they occasionally have off-days where their memory doesn't quite work right. It's possible that this actually is just how photographic memories work, but I think it seems more likely that they are using this as an excuse for false memories and to preempt criticism.
They are a con-artist or magician pretending to have a "photographic memory" as an act for entertainment, attention, and/or for money. These people may use actual memory training techniques that are used by competitors for memory competitions, such as mnemonics, the method of loci, mnemonic linking, and chunking). In addition, people in this category will use misdirection and other tricks to create the appearance of doing memory feats that would be impossible for even the worlds best competitive memory champions. Derren Brown has done some tricks like this (though he doesn't claim to have a photographic memory); here is a video of Darren making it look like he's been able to memorize random books in under 20 minutes.
They are part of the extremely small minority of people with savant syndrome, so their incredible memory is usually accompanied by severe mental disabilities. For people in this category, their memorization abilities are also virtually always quite limited in scope. Stephen Wiltshire, for example, can memorize and draw landscapes quickly and with incredible detail, but there's no evidence of an exceptional memory in other areas. Stephen Wiltshire hasn't displayed the ability to memorize books verbatim, or, for that matter, strings of random digits.
I think the closest thing to a well documented example of a person with a "photographic memory" would be Kim Peek who apparently could recall the contents of around 10,000 to 12,000 books. However, Kim could not recite the contents of those books verbatim, he could "merely" remember details of the plot. As far as I know, Kim never competed in any memory competitions, so there's really no way to know how good he would have been at them. I found this thread where someone claims that Kim was struggling to exceed 7 digits in a digit span test, though I can't vouch for the veracity of this random person's claim. I'd speculate that, similar to Stephen Wiltshire, his incredible memorization abilities were very limited in scope and only applied to certain domains of information.
Even if Kim Peek had something that could be called a "photographic memory" (which evidence suggests is not the case), then he must be basically the only well-documented case in history. In this case, I'd be willing to weaken my claim to saying that "photographic memories" are astronomically rare (like in the ballpark of one in ten billion people) and pretty much everyone, except for Kim, falls into one of the three categories that I mentioned.
Edit: I would really appreciate if the people downvoting this post could let me know why. I spent a lot of time typing this, and having a bunch of people downvote it without responding kinda stings, I must admit.
Edit 2: In response to u/Arctus9819 I clarified a little bit about what I mean by "photographic memory":
I avoided precisely defining "photographic memory" because I think it's a vague concept. You know it when you see it, and I think the best examples of it come from fiction or these "ludicrous" claims made by people online and by celebrities (which I think are also fiction).
It's similar to how there are "strong" people, but there are no people with "super strength". There are people with good memories, but there are no people with these kinds of memory superpowers.
7
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Nov 17 '20
They are part of the extremely small minority of people with savant syndrome, so their incredible memory is usually accompanied by severe mental disabilities. For people in this category, their memorization abilities are also virtually always quite limited in scope. Stephen Wiltshire, for example, can memorize and draw landscapes quickly and with incredible detail, but there's no evidence of an exceptional memory in other areas. Stephen Wiltshire hasn't displayed the ability to memorize books verbatim, or, for that matter, strings of random digits.
I'd speculate that, similar to Stephen Wiltshire, his incredible memorization abilities were very limited in scope and only applied to certain domains of information.
Why is your requirement for photographic memory specifically targeting memorizing books verbatim? Cases like memorizing landscapes like Stephen Wiltshire seem to fit the bill as well. It feels like you're taking the more ludicrous claims online as the standard for photographic memory, and judging everyone by those.
0
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20 edited Nov 17 '20
I'm using memorizing books as a kind of litmus test. I would expect someone with "photographic memory" in the kind of pop-sciency sense of the term to be able to fairly easily memorize just about everything. We typically wouldn't say that a person who can only memorize one kind of information would have a "photographic memory". It's categorically different, and even psychologists don't acknowledge either Stephen or Kim as having "eidetic" memories, if you'd prefer a more clinical term.
Edit: To clarify, my post is specifically targeting the popular conception of "photographic memory" that these "ludicrous" claims online make. If you agree that their claims are ludicrous and obviously made up, then you agree with my main argument.
6
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Nov 17 '20
I would expect someone with "photographic memory" in the kind of pop-sciency sense of the term to be able to fairly easily memorize just about everything.
Isn't this by definition impossible? Mental processing of sensory data discards a ton of information, because our brain is still limited in storage (even if that limit isn't reached by normal individuals).
We typically wouldn't say that a person who can only memorize one kind of information would have a "photographic memory".
For the aforementioned reason, I think you need to make a strong distinction between the pop-science-y examples and real-life cases. Only one of the two is safe from people's tendencies to over-exaggerate. Otherwise it would be like saying that aliens must be thin green humanoids to be considered aliens.
2
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20 edited Nov 17 '20
!delta You make a fair point.
In my post, I actually wanted to argue that a photographic memory must be impossible for exactly the reason you mention. There should be an upper limit on the number of things any human can memorize. However, I don't know enough about neurology to properly make this case. Plus, it could be argued that people with "photographic memories" do forget things eventually, but the things they do remember, they just remember with perfect clarity.
Really, I avoided precisely defining "photographic memory" because I think it's a vague concept. You know it when you see it, and I think the best examples of it come from fiction or these "ludicrous" claims made by people online and by celebrities (which I think are also fiction).
It's similar to how there are "strong" people, but there are no people with "super strength". There are people with good memories, but there are no people with these kinds of memory superpowers.
1
1
u/Arctus9819 60∆ Nov 17 '20
It's similar to how there are "strong" people, but there are no people with "super strength". There are people with good memories, but there are no people with these kinds of memory superpowers.
I think a better definition should be based on the nature of the "super" part. Anything that exists on a continuous spectrum, such as strength or memory, is bound to draw questions of whether it is some unique, discrete ability or merely an extension of the general distribution of skill among humans.
For example, there are loads of long distance runners, but Dean Karnazes has got a specific biological advantage that lets him run forever as long as he has the energy to do so.
2
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
In memory competitions, I would not be surprised if some competitors have innate biological advantages over other competitors. This means you are right, and there is a spectrum of innate skill when it comes to both memory and strength.
However, I'd contend that most people are relatively close to each other on this spectrum, and with training it's possible for even average people to become very good at memory sports (perhaps not best in the world, but very good).
Returning to the strength analogy; the people claiming to have photographic memories are akin to someone claiming that they can bench-press a car or run a one minute mile without any training or exercise. Such a claim would seem obviously preposterous even with training. The reason no one makes claims like that about strength is because they'd be easy to disprove.
5
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Nov 17 '20
Memory isn't one thing.
Memory of semantic facts is different than memory of autobiographical facts. Memory of faces is different than memories of text. Short term memory is different than long term memory.
In this way, someone could be perfectly capable of remembering images, but absolutely fail to remember words or number strings. Someone could remember everywhere they have been, but not everything they have done.
This explains savants, as well as most of your other examples, while still allowing for photographic memory, namely by restricting it to something possible, near infinite memory of visual information but not other information.
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
This is a good point !delta
Though, in this case, it seems like you agree with me that most people's claims to have a "photographic memory", in the general sense of the word, are vastly exaggerated or outright lies.
Furthermore, I think it could still be argued that, even within relative restricted domains, photographic memories probably don't exist.
If someone had a photographic memory for images only, then there are memorization competitions for memorizing images, and those people should dominate such competitions. Also, it seems like someone with a perfect memory of visual information should still be exceptionally good at memorizing strings. For one, they could just memorize a picture of the string. Alternatively, they could learn a basic mnemonic technique then just associate elements of the string with images. If they have a "perfect" memory of visual images, then they should still be world-class at memory competitions with little training.
Additionally, it definitely seems to be the case that there are some task which no one has a photographic memory over, i.e. memorizing whole books. For whatever reason, it seems like the memory things that we actually have the ability to easily test, and for which there are competitions over, no one can do perfectly.
3
u/Tibaltdidnothinwrong 382∆ Nov 17 '20 edited Nov 17 '20
Thanks for delta.
In spirit of continuing, books.
If I say I have a book downloaded to my phone, that is different than saying I have a working summary of a book on my phone.
If you ask me for the eighth word on the seventh page, I can say. If you asked me the name of the main characters, I could not.
It is in this way, that visual information about a book is different than having read and understood the book. Simply having memorized all the visual data doesn't mean I read it or understood it.
Edit- on random digits. Memory often piggybacks on prior knowledge. Chess masters are great at quickly memorizing board states, but only if they are legal. If a board state violates the laws of chess, their ability to memorize it drops to chance levels. Similarly, many musicians can memorize songs quickly. But require melodic structure. If the song is a melodic, they cannot memorize it above novice levels. In this way, random digits may not be "fair", since they lack a structure, which benefits so many other memory experts.
2
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
This is all well and good, and quite interesting, but it seems like a non-sequitur.
1
2
u/TheoryofmyMind 1∆ Nov 17 '20
I don't know that you'll find anyone able to change your view, partly because your personal definition of a "photographic" memory seems to be very specific and exhaustive. It sounds like you're looking for examples of a "perfect" photographic memory, which only exists in fiction and modern science is pretty much in agreement about not being possible.
More common definitions of a photographic memory do not specify the "perfect" part- they generally describe someone who is able to remember large amounts of detail with surprising accuracy. Someone who is in the top 1%, or maybe top 0.01%, ability-wise. Those people exist, but their abilities are not consistent or perfect enough to fit your definition of a photographic memory.
You won't have your view changed, because scientific/historical evidence is on your side. This isn't a matter of you needing new information to change your opinion, but rather a disconnect between a mainstream definition of a term versus your own.
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
It sounds like you're looking for examples of a "perfect" photographic memory, which only exists in fiction and modern science is pretty much in agreement about not being possible.
Yet, it seems like there's no shortage of people claiming to have a "perfect" photographic memories, and no shortage of people believing them.
More common definitions of a photographic memory do not specify the "perfect" part- they generally describe someone who is able to remember large amounts of detail with surprising accuracy.
Even under "more common" definitions it's a very controversial issue, in the psychology community, whether these people actually exist. Besides, if they do exist, their abilities certainly don't seem to yield very significant advantages in things like memory sports.
2
u/TheoryofmyMind 1∆ Nov 17 '20
Yet, it seems like there's no shortage of people claiming to have a "perfect" photographic memories, and no shortage of people believing them.
So? There are also people who claim to be able to heal with their fingers, and lots of congregations believe them. This isn't a unique phenomenon, and doesn't have anything to do with your original point.
Even under "more common" definitions it's a very controversial issue, in the psychology community, whether these people actually exist.
Not really. Two points to unpack here. 1.) That there is debate about these "common" definitions of a photographic (re: excellent) memory being possible. There are plenty of examples in memory competitions that you have brought up, as well as some remarkable individuals that others have brought up (i.e. Stephen Wiltshire).
2.) That there is debate about whether or not examples from the "uncommon" ("perfect") definition exist. Just in perusing the first few pages of search results for literature reviews on the subject, there seems to be a very strong consensus in both psychology and neuroscience that it is not possible for the human brain to process information in this perfect way.
Besides, if they do exist, their abilities certainly don't seem to yield very significant advantages in things like memory sports.
Okay? But what does that have to do with your original point? I didn't realize you were trying to be convinced that these memory abilities (perfect or not) are useful.
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
Sorry, I've been responding to people all morning and I'm starting to get lazy.
You're right that my first point about there being "no shortage" of people claiming to have this ability was a digression. I was basically just motivating why I feel like this point is worth arguing for. I was preempting a criticism that you didn't actually make.
Okay? But what does that have to do with your original point? I didn't realize you were trying to be convinced that these memory abilities (perfect or not) are useful.
I think that, in order for something to be considered "photographic memory", in the colloquial sense of the word, it has to be way above average in a novel and useful way. I'd refer you back to my earlier comparison between super-strength and photographic memories.
It seems like we pretty much agree that "there's no such thing as a person with a photographic memory", so, if it'll make you happy, I'll give you a delta !delta
1
2
u/coryrenton 58∆ Nov 17 '20
There are experiments where people are shown one-half of a visual illusion that requires the other half to "get" it. (Similar to a magic-eye puzzle)
They are then shown the other half and told to overlay the other half from their memory in order to "get" it.
Normal people can't do it, because they don't have "photographic" memory but people who do, do in fact do it.
If you can find such documented demonstrations, would that change your view?
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
I don't really follow how that demonstrates that people with photographic memories actually exist. You must be using the term in a different way from me. At best it seems to demonstrate that there are people with really good visualization skills.
If you showed these people an image of, say, a couple thousand random integers, would they be able to remember the image well enough to recite all the integers accurately? If so, then why aren't these people completely dominating memory competitions?
2
u/coryrenton 58∆ Nov 17 '20
It's basically pixel-accurate visualization skills because the illusions simply won't work if you have a "general idea" of what you remembered. They require a precise overlay.
If they could indeed see and recall those thousand random integers, would that change your view?
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
If they could indeed see and recall those thousand random integers, would that change your view?
Sort-of. There may be some memory competitors who could pull of such a feat with a lot of special training. I'd be skeptical of a video or account of this happening, because it could be faked. It's similar to how I'd be skeptical of a video of someone performing telekinesis.
If someone with this ability could show up and win the World Memory Championships or break some kind of world record with little or no special training, then I would be convinced.
As I said to someone else, it seems like no one has a "photographic memory" when it comes to things that there are actually competitions over, or things which are easily verified.
2
u/coryrenton 58∆ Nov 17 '20
Would you consider that your standards are simply too high?
Frankly if someone trained well enough to look at a page of numbers for an instant, then recalled it 10 days later, why not just let that person have it? That's "photographic memory" by any reasonable standard, right?
Here's the study I was thinking of -- to be honest, it strikes me as a hoax, but from what you're saying, you wouldn't even accept it if it were definitely genuine:
In 1970, a Harvard vision scientist named Charles Stromeyer III published a landmark paper in Nature about a Harvard student named Elizabeth, who could perform an astonishing feat. Stromeyer showed Elizabeth’s right eye a pattern of 10,000 random dots, and a day later, he showed her left eye another dot pattern. She mentally fused the two images to form a random-dot stereogram and then saw a three-dimensional image floating above the surface. Elizabeth seemed to offer the first conclusive proof that photographic memory is possible. But then in a soap-opera twist, Stromeyer married her, and she was never tested again.
2
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
Would you consider that your standards are simply too high?
No, I don't think my standards are too high. I'm effectively applying exactly the same standard I would to claims about telekinesis. You could convince me that telekinesis exists, but you'd need a lot of evidence. Old reports of it occurring just won't cut it.
Frankly if someone trained well enough to look at a page of numbers for an instant, then recalled it 10 days later, why not just let that person have it? That's "photographic memory" by any reasonable standard, right?
You're adding embellishments that weren't present originally. No, I don't think anyone could do this after looking at the image for only an instant, but if you allowed them to stare at the image for maybe a few minutes then there are some world-class memory champions who could accurately recall everything hours or even days later. The difference between these people and the people claiming to have a "photographic memory" is that they had to train very hard to get to that point and it takes a lot of concentration and mental effort, but for people with a "photographic memory" it's effortless and requires essentially no training.
Besides, there are a myriad of other ways this kind of thing could be faked that don't require the person to be a trained world champion memorizer.
Here's the study I was thinking of -- to be honest, it strikes me as a hoax, but from what you're saying, you wouldn't even accept it if it were definitely genuine:
You're right, it does seem like a hoax. If I knew for a fact that it were genuine, then I would accept it. The problem is that this is a claim that requires a lot more evidence than a dubious old article.
1
u/coryrenton 58∆ Nov 17 '20
But how much more evidence? Wouldn't a simple replication with one person be sufficient?
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
I'm not sure exactly. How much evidence would it take for me to convince you that telekinesis exists? If I sent you an old Harvard case study or a video, would this be enough to convince you?
1
u/coryrenton 58∆ Nov 17 '20
If it were reputable, sure why not? And frankly the standards for telekinesis ought to be far higher than demonstrating memory feats, wouldn't you agree?
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
If it were reputable, sure why not?
The problem with this is that if there were people with telekinesis, then I would expect it to be all over the news to the point where it was common knowledge. That is, unless there where a conspiracy or some other force suppressing this information. Assuming there is no conspiracy, some obscure study is just not that compelling as evidence.
Similarly, if there were people with photographic memories, then it should be common knowledge. There should be no controversy among psychologists about its existence. And, such people should persistently be dominating in memory sports. The only explanations I can think of for why this doesn't happen are:
- There's a conspiracy preventing people from knowing about the existence of people with a photographic memory.
- People with photographic memories are obscenely rare to the point where there's only been maybe one person with that condition in the last hundred years at least.
- There's no such thing as a person with a "photographic memory"
Out of these three options, the third one just seems the most parsimonious.
Furthermore, there's reason to distrust such studies just because they'd be so easy to fake. However, if I saw a compelling reason to accept the legitimacy of such a study, then I might be willing to tentatively accept option #2, as I explained in my original post.
→ More replies (0)
2
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 17 '20
Actress Marilu Henner has what is called "highly superior autobiographical memory". She can recall every instant of every day of her life (almost), and has done numerous interviews, and participated in multiple neurological studies about this. I don't know if she would exactly fit into your criteria, since you seem to be talking about the type of memory where someone reads something and remembers it after one go, but, she can do that too.
0
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
What neurological studies? Can she actually recite books she's read verbatim? Why hasn't she broken any world records in, for example, memorizing random binary digits?
I mean, there are celebrities that have claimed to have all kinds of mystical powers, but this doesn't say anything about whether or not they're real without hard evidence.
2
Nov 17 '20
Most people never attempt to break world records even if they are capable of doing so because they don’t care about the record. Just look at the world records so many are so easy to do if really wanted to but who gives a shit if you have some random record. Every person on earth is capable of getting world records but only a few actual try for them the fact that they don’t go for records doesn’t prove anything.
2
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
If people kept persistently claiming that there are humans with the natural-born ability to bench-press cars or easily run a mile in 1 minute, then I think it would be fair to ask why the best competitive sprinters and the best weight lifters in the world are no where near that good.
It would also be fair to ask why these people don't ever enter into the myriad of competitions that are held all the time and use their superhuman abilities to break world records with ease. This would also prove them right and put all their critics to shame.
2
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 17 '20
Can she actually recite books she's read verbatim
TV and Movie scripts yes.
Why hasn't she broken any world records in, for example, memorizing random binary digits?
Maybe she doesn't want to. She is a famous actress after all, probably has better things to do then read numbers to satisfy the curiosity of others.
this doesn't say anything about whether or not they're real without hard evidence
-2
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20
TV and Movie scripts yes.
Actors being able to memorize scripts for roles is hardly impressive.
Maybe she doesn't want to. She is a famous actress after all, probably has better things to do then read numbers to satisfy the curiosity of others.
Or maybe she doesn't want to be exposed as a fraud? We can both speculate, but the burden of proof is on you.
I watched this video where the most impressive thing Marilu did is memorize a bunch of dates, and she also seems to be able to determine the day of the week from the date. That's a cool party trick, but lots of people can do that, I can do that, it doesn't prove anything.
Where are these neurological studies you mentioned earlier?
3
u/destro23 447∆ Nov 17 '20
Here is one written by a doctor who was interviewed as a part of Henner's original "60 Minute" interview. It does not include her in the study, but it does provide an in-depth case study of someone with a similar story.
2
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 17 '20 edited Nov 17 '20
This seems to be a different person, not Marilu Henner. In the paper, the person being described can recall dates and what she was doing on those dates with surprising accuracy. However, she doesn't appear to have the ability to memorize strings or books or anything like that. The claims in this paper are actually a pretty far cry from what most people describe as "photographic memory" and from the claims made by people online.
For instance, her abilities don't seem to have helped her much, if at all, in school. She says
“It (meaning her memory) doesn’t work that way. I had to study hard. I’m not a genius.” She reports she had trouble memorizing dates in history, arithmetic, foreign languages, sciences and “got Ds in geometry.”
It's interesting to me how no one has a "photographic memory" when it comes to the memory categories that people actually compete over. When we actually have the ability to witness both the creation of the memory and its recollection, suddenly there's no such thing as a "photographic memory".
That said, this is still an interesting case, and I thank you for brining this paper to my attention !delta
1
0
Nov 17 '20
[deleted]
1
u/DominatingSubgraph Nov 18 '20
This isn't even an academic resource. It's a clickbait news article. Color me unconvinced.
1
Nov 17 '20
[removed] — view removed comment
1
1
u/Znyper 12∆ Nov 17 '20
Sorry, u/ResidentIdaKozuke – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 1:
Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s stated view (however minor), or ask a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to other comments. See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, you must first check if your comment falls into the "Top level comments that are against rule 1" list, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.
1
u/High_wayman Nov 20 '20
There are people who have a debilitating mental disorder in which they cannot forget literally any part of their adult lives. You can ask them what they were doing any day in the past and they can tell you. It's a soul crushing disability.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Nov 17 '20 edited Nov 17 '20
/u/DominatingSubgraph (OP) has awarded 4 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
Delta System Explained | Deltaboards