Talk:False memory

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 18 January 2022 and 1 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Earenas1 (article contribs).

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 April 2020 and 20 July 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Luk3lam.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:08, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Content

Disambiguation is well and good, but why not some discussion and analysis of false memory per se, an important topic that deserves more than a brush-off. I am especially interested in false memory that is motivated by rage (thus distinguishing it from confabulation, which is typically without motivation). I've seen this happen: Person X is so enraged at person Y that he/she creates a false memory of a wrong committed by person Y, which adds to the rage in a vicious cycle. The False Memory Syndrome article, with its emphasis on "recovered memory therapy," doesn't hit the mark on this either. Scribe2u (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Confabulation is typically without motivation; I don't see that what you're talking about doesn't still fall in that category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that the recent issue with Brian Williams as well as other 'examples' such as Ronald Reagan's 'memories' might be mentioned as providing some evidence for the reality of false memories.71.34.211.153 (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

the experience made by Elizabeth Loftus, in 1974, is only reliated to the Framing (social sciences) an example of Cognitive bias. this shoud literaly be deleated. 197.0.190.222 (talk) 21:13, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Mandela Effect

Why does Mandela Effect redirect to this page? Or, more to the point, why isn't the effect explained anywhere in the article? The words "Mandela Effect" do not appear anywhere on it, so anyone following a link that mentions the Mandela Effect will be left completely uninformed. ReySquared^Ⓣ_Ⓒ 09:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

See Talk:Mandela Effect and Talk:Confabulation. The page was deleted and should stay deleted, in my opinion.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:04, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

In that case, the redirect should be deleted too. Or the False memory article should explain what "Mandela effect" is. There was a paragraph in Confabulation but it was deleted last month: [1]

I don't care which, but the current status is dysfunctional and should be remedied. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:35, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

I agree! I came to Wikipedia to search about the Mandela Effect, and it directs me to this page. Because one of Wikipedia's 5 pillars is "Encyclopedia," I would think the Mandela Effect would have a page or at least a section on this page describing what it is. Although controversial, it would be informative to explain what the theory is. Robynrunkel (talk) 22:47, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Wrong! There is a smaller article inside this page. I came to wikipedia about the Mandela Effect, and with some research skills, I found the article interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.66.176.171 (talk) 05:36, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

• Back in 2015 the page was deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mandela Effect, due to insufficient coverage and subsequent WP:RS problems with referencing ... but things change. There are ample examples of good coverage out there now, if you want to take a stab at it.

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/09/20/are-you-living-in-an-alternate-reality-welcome-to-the-wacky-worl/
2. https://thewire.in/110359/shared-false-memories-mandela-effect/
3. http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2017/02/16/mandela-effect-false-memories/#.WK5xFDi1_3s
4. http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/the-mandela-effect-conspiracy-theorists-believe-were-living-in-colliding-alternate-realities/news-story/ac488ee2426335f09d781f50c26ba33a
5. http://www.express.co.uk/news/weird/763194/Mandela-Effect-Conspiracy-theory-parallel-universes
6. https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/mandela-effect-pop-culture-memories

Poeticbent talk 06:15, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

By the way, the redirect has now been deleted.

With regard to those sources, the Discover and Wire articles are identical. In general the sources don't take the theory seriously, using words like "wacky", "WTF", "bizarre" etc, and using headlines like "Conspiracy of the Day: Your Memories of Pop Culture Are Fake and Created by Satanic Scientists".--Jack Upland (talk) 07:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

They describe Broome's purported explanation as "wacky" and such, but the articles document that collective false memories are a thing that happens, and attach the name "Mandela Effect" to them. I'm going to add a brief section to the article about that (since it doesn't seem to fit well elsewhere in the article), so that WP has a place to redirect Mandela Effect to. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:29, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

This violates WP:ONEWAY: "Fringe views, products, or the organizations who promote them, may be mentioned in the text of other articles only if independent reliable sources connect the topics in a serious and prominent way."--Jack Upland (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

They're mentioning it prominently, and some of the articles are serious, even if they don't treat the fringe explanation for it with much credibility. But even if you disagree, the bottom line is that we owe it to our readers to mention it. Like it or not, "Mandela Effect" is out there, being used to refer to the phenomenon of collective false memories. People come to Wikipedia looking for more information about it (the redirect that was recently deleted was getting 30–60K hits/month last summer[2]), and – except for this new paragraph – they'd find nothing. While that makes for some ironic jokes along the lines of "I swear I remember Wikipedia having an article about this", that kind of gaslighting doesn't serve the reader. I started looking at this yesterday when a discussion I was following had someone comment that they couldn't find anything about it on Wikipedia. I consider that a black eye – a failure to live up to our mission – and I tried to fix it. I don't think it should have its own article; that would be totally WP:UNDUE. But a paragraph in an article that acknowledges that it's a thing people talk about, explains where the name comes from, and places it in context of the scientific consensus of the subject... is exactly the right solution. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Show me a serious article. But the key point in WP:ONEWAY is connecting the topics. I have never seen an article about false memories in general that refers to the Mandela Effect. All we have are frivolous articles about the Mandela Effect (or rather about the bears etc). The section here implies there is a phenomenon of collective false memories, that the Mandela Effect is a widely accepted term for them, and that the theory is a valid alternative explanation. That's wrong, wrong, wrong. If you come here looking for information about false memories, the Mandela Effect is at best a distraction, at worst an intellectual wormhole. I don't think viewers is the proper criteria. If it was, Wikipedia would host pornography.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Wow, that slippery slope sure appeared out of nowhere. Wikipedia doesn't host porn because arousing people isn't its purpose. Its purpose is to provide people with information, so providing them with information about the so-called "Mandela Effect" falls squarely within that.

Furthermore, I'm confident the paragraph does not do what you imagine it to do. Yes, it does imply that there are false memories that are shared by multiple people; not only is it intuitively obvious that this happens, the cited articles demonstrate that it does. However, the paragraph does not imply that it's a widely-accepted term, but instead identifies the flaky source that coined it (stopping just short of calling it "flaky" for NPOV reasons). And no, it does not imply that the flaky alternate-realities hypothesis is valid, in fact taking pains to point out that pretty much no one thinks so.

But even if the paragraph fails to present the information with adequate academic rigor, then that's an argument for improving what it says, not for removing the only responsible mention of "Mandela Effect" from Wikipedia. Suggestions for how to present the information better would be welcome. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

So basically we have to wait for the media to stop lying about the Mandela effect before we can improve this article. That is a major flaw with wikipedia. The media is well known now for lying and they will continue lying about the Mandela effect for who knows how long.Arnold1 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC) Arnold1 (talk) 12:22, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia just needs to apply its policies of citing reliable sources. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

If you can put up with the off the wall conclusions made in the youtube Something STRANGE Is Happening! The Mandela Effect!!! there are plenty of reliable sources for Oscar Meyer, Looney Toons, and Captain Crunch. You can find your own examples vis Google Newspaper archive. It not so much false memory as it is printing errors that people remember. Heck, one article has "Looney Toons" in the main title but used "Looney Tunes" in the main text ("Coming Soon: Animated look at Looney Toons" Bangor News Aug 16, 1991) The youtuber Perpetual Motion has a host of examples from various newspapers of these typos and misprints.--2606:A000:7D44:100:F0D3:1F4E:FA7D:7810 (talk) 23:27, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

With all the press coverage this (bogus) theory received, I lean on giving it its own article. If Bottle flipping can have one, come on! In any case, I made a slight re-org that may suffice. RobP (talk) 22:30, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

I concur that Mandela Effect is a significant enough cultural phenomenon to be worth its own article now. Quite a bit has been published on it since the original WP article was deleted. We'll just have to be careful with sources. Note that currently this article (ie the False Memory article) includes in its lede a statement that Mandela Effect is another name for False Memory, but that's not quite correct: Mandela Effect is a specific subset of the False Memory phenomenon. Ordinary Person (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

No, it isn't. No reputable expert on false memories says that.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The Mandela Effect as a cultural phenomenon is larger than the "false memories" and should be separate. The Mandela Effect goes beyond simply what people call the Mandela Effect into theories about multiple universes. The X-Files had an entire episode devoted to this. Not to mention a movie called the Mandela Effect that gets its own page. It is ridiculous and embarrassing at this point that the redirect brings you to this morsel of information. C'mon people. 2601:182:4381:E60:711F:F7BF:E057:907E (talk) 02:57, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

That episode has an article. That movie has an article. (Should we mention and link to those in the article?) The multiple-universe conjecture that gets passed off as a "theory" is explained here. I think we've got it covered. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:16, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Collective false memories?

"Collective" is the wrong word. It means there is some joint experience that these people share. Now, this would be true if the fringe theorists were right, and these people had experienced an alternative universe or something like that, but we shouldn't imply this is right. All we can say is that these memories are supposedly relatively common. It's like a commonly misspelled word. We don't say a "collectively misspelled word" because that would imply we misspelled it together. There is no togetherness or collectivity in this phenomenon (except in the minds of the fringe theorists). No, these people are all making the same mistake individually, but perhaps for the same reasons...--Jack Upland (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Note: If changes are made to the section header, they would need to be reflected in the redirects to it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Also, we shouldn't imply that the research of a qualified scientist is the equivalent to the opinions of someone who got lost in the toilets at a fantasy convention.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:14, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

If they're making the same mistake for the same reasons, that is a commonality. The fact that people false-remember Sinbad as "Shazaam", rather than some other performer or some other character, is not random. The basis isn't paranormal, but rather is (for example) people being exposed to the same false-memory-inducing factors. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:10, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

REPEAT: If changes are made to the section header, they would need to be reflected in the redirects to it. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:06, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

I'm planning on making some changes to this section. I agree that the real world examples of false memories included in this section seem to be common, and that some more than others seem to be memory based errors (e.g., Mandela Effect and Bologna clock example) while others remain a bit unclear (e.g., the misspellings).

But I suggest we use the Collective False Memories as the heading and elaborate this section to first start with current experimental findings on collective false memories and the mechanisms behind how false memories can emerge in social settings and how collective false memories can be formed. The current section can then follow with the note that there has been suggested to be real world examples of collective false memories. Currently the article does not have a section noting research on false memories in social settings and this seems like a good place to include it especially since it also relates to the concept of collective false memories.

Using the heading Collective False Memories and elaborating on it in this way could show that there is scientific evidence and potential cognitive explanations for the phenomenon rather than supernatural reasons having to do with alternative universes. It could also show that some examples suggested are less clear to be false memories exactly than others, which would be representative of where the research stands. Aymp458 (talk) 18:05, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

As explained above, I do not agree with the use of the term "collective", but I think some research would be good.--Jack Upland (talk) 19:12, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

How common is the "Mandela Effect"?

The article says, with emphasis added, "a somewhat commonly reported false memory is that the name of the Berenstain Bears was once spelled Berenstein. Another reported example is the widespread occurrence of false memories of a 1990s movie titled Shazaam..."

The New Statesman says, "Over the years, hundreds of people online have shared memories of a cheesy Nineties movie called 'Shazaam'". Fiona Broome says "perhaps thousands" also have a false memory of Mandela's death. When discussing those experiencing the "Effect" in general, the Telegraph says "many", "some", and " groups". Snopes says "many", "some", and "quite a few".

The Bologna clock memory has been studied, but with the other examples the numbers are impressionistic. Globally, hundreds and thousands is not many at all. And it is global, not just American — and the USA has millions of people. The comments on Broome's website are international, and the newspapers I've mentioned are British. There doesn't seem any basis for saying that this is "widespread" or "somewhat commonly reported". All we can glean from these reports, apart from the Bologna example, is that a small sample of people have made online posts testifying to their bad memory. I don't think this is notable, but if it is notable, I don't think we should call it "widespread" or "somewhat commonly reported". But if we simply say "some" people said this, it is clearly not notable. I think the only solution is deletion...--Jack Upland (talk) 09:27, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

This again? The term "Mandela Effect" is widespread enough – and talked about from time to time in enough mainstream sources – that Wikipedia has a responsibility to report something about it. Deleting this information would just feed into an unfortunate meta-phenomenon, in which people are sure they read about something called the Mandela Effect on Wikipedia, but can't find anything about it. Mentioning it in one paragraph in context with information from reliable sources on the subject, is how WP serves its readers best. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 21:49, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Well, I've already edited the article to avoid making false claims about the prevalence of this.--Jack Upland (talk) 07:15, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

You've also removed information about who coined the term and what she meant by it. You seem very concerned to discredit Broome and her idea, but not talking about them doesn't do that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

I've got a perfect right to edit the article. I deleted the information about Broome because it's not notable. This isn't an article about the Mandela Effect. The sources indicate that the false memories about the Berenstain Bears and Shazaam are far more widespread than any belief about Mandela. She thinks that "perhaps thousands" worldwide have some kind of false memory about Mandela's death, but her website indicates that these memories are varied. Well, that's not notable. No source that I've seen says it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:35, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You have a right to edit the article, and I have a right to tell you that you're making it worse. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:16, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're complaining about.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with your recent edit is that – by removing any reference to the person who coined "Mandela Effect" and what she thinks it means – it sounds like some kind of professionally accepted term. I know that isn't what you intended, but that is how it reads now.

Frankly, I think you've got it into your head that, because Broome is "wrong, wrong, wrong", that no article that mentions her and the Mandela Effect as a cultural phenomenon can be considered a reliable source, and that WP policy requires us to say nothing about it. And I think you are fundamentally mistaken about that. Whether you want to believe it or not, she and her "theory" are out there in the public arena, they've been written about in mainstream media, and there are people want to know more. The fact that the Mandela Effect redirect to this article currently gets 4000–8000 hits a month[3] demonstrates that people are coming here to learn something about it. You seem to believe that our responsibility is to tell them nothing (or as little as possible). I disagree. I think we should report the consensus of the cited reliable sources (that her theory is kooky nonsense... in more NPOV terms) and we can't say that without also saying who she is and what she claims. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 16:49, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I think this is an article you've spent too long editing, you should pull back, and stop editing. You're in grave danger of violating any number of Wikipedia's policies. Of which, I'm sure, you're intimately aware 129.6.250.102 (talk) 15:19, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Or, in layman's terms: "We know where you live". 77.105.219.41 (talk) 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7539:1500:3826:3E0B:B292:DFE3 (talk) 18:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

1. If you think Fiona Broome should be mentioned, Jason, just add her back in. 2. I've edited on the "Mandela Effect" topic since last year, which is not a long time in Wikipedian terms. I wasn't involved in the deletion of the original article. 3. What Wikipedia policies am I in danger of violating? 4. Jason, your argument really supports having a separate article, rather than shoehorning the "Mandela Effect" into an article on mainstream scientific views.--Jack Upland (talk) 21:07, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

1. Thank you. 2. OK. (3. Not my fight.) 4. An AFD deleted it as insufficiently notable for a separate article. But there's a lower standard for mentioning it in the context of another more general article, and my arguments are in support of that. This isn't "shoehorning" (especially when it's covered so briefly), it's covering the topic of "false memory" thoroughly, including a pseudo-scientific aspect that – like it or not – should be documented. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't accept that the claim that "perhaps thousands" out of a population of 8 billion have various hazy false memories of the death of world-famous Nelson Mandela is notable. I don't think there are sources that says that it is.--Jack Upland (talk) 10:17, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

I've added citations for sources that report/comment on her claim. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:51, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Maxine Berry

I added Citation Needed to this section, but I'd also like to call attention to this sentence, " In February 1997 Jennifer Gerrietts, Argus Leader, South Dakota Maxine Berry, sued her therapists and clinic that treated her from 1992-1995 and, she says, made her falsely believe she had been sexually and physically abused as a child when no such abuse ever occurred." What is that part starting with "Jennifer" and ending with "Dakota"? Is that a poorly-entered attempt at a citation? IAmNitpicking (talk) 11:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right. Probably best to just find some reliable sources and rewrite that section based on them. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

"False memory is often considered for trauma victims"

With this sentence, WP says in its own voice that the people in question are real trauma victims, and their memories are not false memories. Thus, WP embraces fringe ideas.

Also, "often" is WP:WEASEL. There has to be a better way to say this. I think the earlier version, before the IP's changes [4] was such a better way. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:55, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

I think it's attempting to say that actual trauma victims can also have false memories? The "crystal clear recall" of a traumatic incident can potentially be quite inaccurate. Or perhaps it's saying something else entirely. --tronvillain (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

It was introduced last month by an IP: [5]. The old version was "False memory is often considered regarding childhood sexual abuse", and the IP added a half-relevant news source relating to the Kavanaugh case and quoting Richard McNally.

Since the case is about abuse, but not childhood abuse, the IP had to introduce the "trauma victim" stuff. I think the edit is botched and should be reverted, or better, we should try to find another wording for "regarding". How about "accusations of childhood sexual abuse"? --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:44, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

Copy-paste work

The following chapters have been added to this article as well as to False memory syndrome - as a copy-paste job - by User:Christinab06:

• Trend in Psychiatry for Recovered Memories
• How Memory Works in the Brain
• How Traumatic Memories Hide in the Brain
• Skepticism of the Theory
• False Memory Syndrome in Popular Culture

I do not think those chapters are useful, well-written, or NPOV. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Or well-sourced, of course. --Hob Gadling (talk) 21:22, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Section removed on brain structures and memory. Was a general and not entirely accurate and thorough paragraph. It isn't necessary to include here since it includes nothing specific about the neuroscience underlying false memory. "Brain Structures Associated with Memory Three parts of the brain constitute where memories are stored: Amygdala—Regulates emotion and is a part of memory consolidation, which is the method of shifting new learning into a long-term memory. When a memory is especially emotionally charged, the amygdala is better able to encode memories.

Hippocampus—Involved with both normal recognition and spatial recognition, any damage to this area of the brain may lead to the inability to develop new explicit memories.

Cerebellum—Processes procedural, or implicit, memories. That is tasks performed just below being consciously aware.

How Memory Works in the Brain The cerebrum, or forebrain, makes up the largest part of the brain, and it is covered by a sheet of neural tissue known as the cerebral cortex, which envelops the part of our brain where memories are stored. Glutamate and GABA (two amino acids), act as the yin and yang of the brain, steering emotions by determining whether nerve cells are excited or inhibited (calm). Under normal conditions the system is balanced. But when individuals get hyper-aroused and vigilant, glutamate surges. Glutamate is also the primary chemical that helps to make it easy to remember memories stored in the brain. "Procedural memory, the unconscious memory of skills, for example, knowing how to ride a bike, is dependent upon repetition and practice and will operate automatically like muscle memory. Declarative memory, 'knowing what,' is memory of facts, experiences and events."

How Traumatic Memories Hide in the Brain Memories of traumatic experiences hide deep in the brain, causing psychiatric problems. The memory of early childhood abuse can be forgotten and remembered with more or less accuracy. “It’s difficult for therapists to help these patients, Dr. Jelena Radulovic, the Dunbar Professor in Bipolar Disease at Northwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine said, because the patients themselves can’t remember their traumatic experiences that are the root cause of their symptoms.” A special mechanism of the brain has been discovered to store stress related memories. If the brain registers an overwhelming trauma, then it can essentially block that memory in a process called dissociation or detachment from reality. "The brain will attempt to protect itself". The same way the body can wall-off an abscess or foreign substance to protect the rest of the body, the brain can dissociate from an experience. In the midst of trauma, the brain may wander off and work to avoid the memory."Aymp458 (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Section "Skepticism of the theory" - is copy pasted from the article on false memory syndrome. Will remove it.

"Skepticism of the Theory False Memory Syndrome has been described as a widespread social phenomenon where misguided therapists cause patients to invent memories of sexual abuse (McCarty & Hough, 1992). The syndrome was described and named by the families and professionals who comprise the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (see Freyd, March 1993, p. 4), an organization formed by parents claiming to be falsely accused of child sexual abuse.

Since its establishment in 1992, the False Memory Syndrome Foundation has received 14,000 reports of sexual abuse accusations based on recovered memories.

Proponents of the syndrome claim that it is occurring at epidemic levels, and some have gone so far as to characterize it as the mental health crisis of the 1990s (e.g., Gardner, 1993, p. 370). Critics, on the other hand, have suggested that the syndrome is based on vague, unsubstantiated generalizations, which do not hold up to scientific scrutiny (e.g., Page, 1999), and that the syndrome's primary purpose is to discredit victims' testimony (e.g., Murphy, 1997). This article critically examines the assumptions underlying the concept to determine whether there is sufficient empirical evidence to support "False Memory Syndrome" as a valid diagnostic construct. Epidemiological evidence is then examined to determine whether there is data to support claims of either a public health crisis or epidemic.

Experts have described recovered memory theory as "either the most fascinating psychological discovery of the 20th century or the centerpiece of the most embarrassing mistake modern psychiatry and psychotherapy have ever made." Recovered memory theorists believe that individuals repress memories of traumatic events deep in the psyche.

The American Psychiatric Association (1993) in a statement on the issue of false memories, stated that repression did occur, but was unable to provide convincing references. On examination of a list of 31 references none adequately demonstrated that it took place. Meanwhile, studies in cognitive psychology have shown very clearly that memory is highly malleable and is a reconstructive process, not to be compared with the replaying of a disc or the review of an engraving or a videotape. The hypothesis that memory – so subject to attrition with time and so liable to revision by motive – can be recovered in a pristine form or even in a 50% accurate state after years of neglect, inattention or suppression becomes untenable." Aymp458 (talk) 21:34, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Section on Ethics- removed. not sure how exactly this is related to false memory specifically. just broadly on therapist and client relationship which doesn't seem appropriate here.

There are four principles by which all psychologists are required to act, including respect for the dignity of personals and people, competent caring for the well-being of persons and peoples, integrity, and professional and scientific responsibilities to society. However, some people emphasize the ethical dilemmas arising in relation to three main areas: the survivor's relationship with the therapist, with other family members, and with the alleged abuser. The issue here is “that when one person intervenes in a conflict between two other persons, perhaps to help the one at a disadvantage, he or she enters into the dynamic relationship between the original parties, becoming embroiled in the drama, and in the emotions it has generated. The other parties involved can then turn upon him or her, and roles can rapidly reverse.” This becomes further complicated when a “social worker initially intervenes to rescue children from alleged abuse; the parents and media portray this as persecution of innocent people; the social worker as rescuer quickly becomes seen as the persecutor of the family; the alleged persecuting parent then becomes seen as the victim of interference by professionals”. Aymp458 (talk) 21:42, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Section below- removed- does not seem to be adding any additional information that hasn't already been included in the article. Also it seems like a very confusing read.

Memory Distortions Once memories are successfully transformed from a short-term memory to a long-term memory, the memory is then classified under either being an implicit or an explicit memory. If the action is physically performed, it would be classified as an implicit memory. Implicit denotes that the memory is not part of one's consciousness, rather is formed through behaviors, such as riding a bike, skateboarding, also known as muscle memory. Alternatively, explicit memories are those of facts that one can subconsciously remember and recall.

Bias has many avenues, such as gender bias. Egocentric bias, which is essentially glorifying ones “achievements”. Finally, there is hindsight bias, in which one allegedly knew the outcome of a predicament, but only after the fact. Meaning that during which said predicament took place, the certainty was not as prevalent.

Misattribution occurs when one mistakenly confuses the source of information, this may occur with simply confusing two people or a time mix-up.

Suggestibility is the effects of misinformation from external sources that leads to the creation of false memories. Incredibly similar to misattribution however, the main difference is misattribution is a muddled false memory fabricated by one, where as suggestibility is when someone else is offering specific, almost accusatory questions or comments. Aymp458 (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

Also removed. Additional information needs to be included if this is. It does not seem to fit in any existing sections. There is a growing body of evidence that false memories are created whenever memories are recalled. [citation needed] [further explanation needed] Aymp458 (talk) 23:54, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

When the memory is NOT false

Has any reliable work talked about how some of these supposedly false memories are real...but not in the way people think? For example, in the promotional material Forrest Gump does indeed say "Life is like a box of chocolates" but says "Life was like a box of chocolates" in the actual movie. Then there are articles that use the wrong name (Fruit Loops rather then Froot Loops) (Cereal (continued from page 1) Herald-Journal - Mar 8, 1995 pg 6).--2606:A000:131D:6018:C0AC:AE57:F028:993D (talk) 16:15, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Some of the sources used in "Commonly held false memories" discuss this issue.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:18, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

"Commonly held false memories" not longer exists in the article so what sources address this?--174.99.238.22 (talk) 12:07, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Flase memory in black flag ops and fake news

See the WMM in Iraq article for full quote:

In a study published in 2005,[130] a group of researchers assessed the effects reports and retractions in the media had on people's memory regarding the search for WMD in Iraq during the 2003 Iraq War. The study focused on populations in two coalition countries (Australia and USA) and one opposed to the war (Germany). This led to three conclusions:

The repetition of tentative news stories, even if they are subsequently disconfirmed, can assist in the creation of false memories in a substantial proportion of people. Once information is published, its subsequent correction does not alter people's beliefs unless they are suspicious about the motives underlying the events the news stories are about. When people ignore corrections, they do so irrespective of how certain they are that the corrections occurred. ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

-> Let us add it here. Zezen (talk) 15:21, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

The Skeleton Theory

I'm not sure that this is an established theory in cognitive/memory psychology. While the content might be true, I am uncertain if it can be called by this name and if the reference provides enough linked evidence to be a valid citation for this section. Ak509ak509 (talk) 17:45, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Imagination inflation

Consider discussing the imagination inflation effect and linking it to the imagination inflation article. Imagination inflation is an effect that has been proven to produce false memories. Ritapsych250 (talk) 22:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC) ritapsych250

Good idea, yes and perhaps cite Garry et al 1996 and Goff and Roediger 1996. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Section name for "Commonly held false memories" vs "Mandela effect"

@JasonAQuest: Is there an actual reason for your revert? Why do you prefer "Commonly held false memories" over "Mandela effect", under which the phenomenon is commonly known and from which there is a redirect? — MarkH₂₁^talk 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, there is an actual reason. It's about Wikipedia procedures. I "prefer" the way the article handled the subtopic (at least before you took it upon yourself to unilaterally restructure it) because that version was reached by consensus. (Perhaps you've heard of that process?) Your changes were made as if the discussion reaching that consensus didn't exist or didn't matter (or more likely: you didn't bother to look at it), and I object to that. For example, there is concern about legitimizing the term and concept of "Mandela Effect", as if it were something other than pseudoscientific nonsense. A top-level section covering the whole subtopic of "commonly held false memories" as "Mandela Effect" would suggest that's a legitimate term for it. But, as an example, the Bologna clock is definitely not an example of some imaginary "Mandela Effect", and thus should not be described under that section header. There's been a bit of back-and-forth about this already, and your inattention to that is a problem. If you think that consensus should change, it is up to you to make argument for why, before making any such changes to the article. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:51, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Regarding WP procedure: lack of prior consensus for a new edit is not a valid reason for reverting and is against the spirit of WP:BOLD, which you should be well aware of. If you have a reason (as you gave above after being prompted), at least have the courtesy to mention it in your revert edit summary or create a talk comment after the revert, lest you come off as status quo stonewalling. Also, please note the distinction between “revert because there is no prior consensus on the new version of ___” (not very valid) and “revert because there is existing consensus on the former version of ___” (reasonable and valid).

Yes, I did not read the prior discussions about the Mandela effect and thanks for pointing them out to me. I don’t see a consensus in the sections above for the current section title, I’m now fine with leaving the section title as it is based on your reasoning. Just give the actual reason next time and tone down the hostility. — MarkH₂₁^talk 04:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above makes it pretty clear that the phrasing and presentation of that section was arrived at via discussion and compromise. That's what a consensus looks like. Before making wholesale changes to an article, one should always check the Talk page for aspects that have been the subject of contention. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:58, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The discussions above don't say anything about the name of the section except for the one about whether "collective" being the correct word (Collective false memories?, 2 years ago). The other discussions are that a few editors think it should be mentioned somewhere in the article, one or two think that it shouldn't be mentioned at all (Mandela Effect, 3 years ago), and a follow-up between two of those editors on the same mention-or-not discussion (How common is the "Mandela Effect", 2 years ago).

The Collective false memories? discussion doesn't demonstrate any consensus for using "Common false memories" as a section title, any consensus against using "Mandela effect" as the section title, nor any consensus for anything else except adding research and changing redirects after a title change. In fact, the only discussion about the actual section title is that one editor prefers using "Collective" and one editor prefers not using "Collective". — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:06, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I think using "Mandela effect" as a heading gives too much weight to a ridiculous fringe theory.--Jack Upland (talk) 23:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

If it becomes a regularly used term (in the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME) for the general phenomenon of commonly shared false memories (not the alternate reality nonsense), then the term has grown beyond the fringe theory from which its name derives. Then undue WP:PROMINENCE is no longer the issue. It’s not clear at this point that this has happened, but it may well happen. — MarkH₂₁^talk 23:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Early Work

The first sentence in this section reads "The false memory phenomenon was initially investigated by psychological pioneers Pierre Janet and Sigmund Freud.", but lacks any detail as to how Janet and Freud impacted or investigated false memory. Any insight or information as to the role these two played in false memory would be useful. Luk3lam (talk) 01:54, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi Luk3lam. I teach and have written about Janet's and Freud's contribution to the history of false memory. Their impact was to more excacerbate the problem rather than to identify it in a skeptical way. Hippolyte Bernheim preceded Janet and Freud and he did seem to warn about the problem of false memories in a more skeptical way. Janet's theory of dissociation, and Freud's theory of repression actually led to psychotherapies that tended to dig to recover memories leading to false memories. I can help further if needed. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

DSM

The original article was written around 2009. It says that false memory syndrome is not included in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders but refers to it without citation or date. As the DSM is revised from time to time, I think someone should determine what version was the source of the OP's information. If the following suggestion wouldn't be considered original research, I suggest someone check the latest edition to verify whether the claim holds true in 2022.

Cwilsyn Cwilsyn (talk) 03:30, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I have just CTRL-F for "false memory" and "false memories" in the latest (DSM-5) and it is not mentioned once. Memory confabulations and errors are probably mentioned in places, but not the false memory syndrome phrase. Academicskeptic9 (talk) 08:32, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

New study about Mandela effect

Rebecca Watson hits the nail on the head again: Hey, remember when Nelson Mandela died? In 2013? 23 years after he was released from prison? Or maybe you, like “paranormal researcher” Fiona Broome, distinctly remember Nelson Mandela dying while still IN prison, and maybe instead of simply assuming you’re an idiot who just didn’t pay attention to extremely important events in world history that directly impact millions of marginalized people on another continent, you think that this must actually be evidence that you are from an alternate universe where that DID happen, and now you’ve been thrust into this new dimension where everything is pretty much the same except that one thing.

Anyway, she links this preprint: [6]. Not useable for Wikipedia yet but I thought I'd share it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:05, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The purpose of Wikipedia Talk pages is to discuss changes to the article. Jason A. Quest (talk) 03:54, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Human Cognition SP23

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 20 January 2023 and 15 May 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Zoejones107 (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Serenity D-B (talk) 20:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)