Human memory is flawed. But a new book says that’s OK
In Memory Lane, two psychologists lay out the vagaries of how we remember
A new book proposes that human memory is like a Lego tower, built from the ground up, broken down, put away and rebuilt each time it’s called to mind.
LeventKonuk/iStock Editorial/Getty Images Plus
Memory Lane
Ciara Greene and Gillian Murphy
Princeton Univ., $29.95
There are countless metaphors for memory. It’s a leaky bucket, a steel trap, a file cabinet, words written in sand.
But one of the most evocative — and neuroscientifically descriptive — invokes Lego bricks. A memory is like a Lego tower. It’s built from the ground up, then broken down, put away in bins and rebuilt in a slightly different form each time it’s taken out. This metaphor is beautifully articulated by psychologists Ciara Greene and Gillian Murphy in their new book, Memory Lane.
Perhaps the comparison speaks to me because I have watched my kids create elaborate villages of Lego bricks, only to be dismantled, put away (after much nagging) and reconstructed, always with a similar overall structure but with minor and occasionally major changes. These villages’ blueprints are largely stable, but also fluid and flexible, subject to the material whims of the builders at any point in time.
Memory works this way, too, Greene and Murphy propose. Imagine your own memory lane as a series of buildings, modified in ways both small and big each time you call them to mind. “As we walk down Memory Lane, the buildings we pass — our memories of individual events — are under constant reconstruction,” Greene and Murphy write.
In accessible prose, the book covers a lot of ground, from how we form memories to how delicate those memories really are. Readers may find it interesting (or perhaps upsetting) to learn how bad we all are at remembering why we did something, from trivial choices, like buying an album, to consequential ones, such as a yes or no vote on an abortion referendum. People change their reasoning — or at least, their memories of their reasoning — on these sorts of events all the time.
Modern dilemmas also come up, such as whether fake news and deepfake videos have particular sway over our memories or even create false ones. Don’t panic, the authors write. Digital fakes can influence memories, sure. But so can written stories, gossip from a neighbor or a leading question from a cop. “We don’t need to generate technophobic fears of a digital future where our memories will be distorted — our memories can already be distorted very effectively by nondigital means.” The sentiment is alarming, but also strangely comforting.
Greene and Murphy offer another comforting message again and again: Our memories are fallible and flawed, but these slips are features, not bugs. These imperfections are a product of a flexible memory system that allows us to learn from the past, plan for the future and respond to unexpected events. Forgetting may make our brains more efficient by jettisoning extraneous fluff so we can focus on the important memories. It may even keep us happier by allowing time to ease the sting of painful experiences, the authors write. “Instead of attempting to force your memory to be something it is not, we advocate accepting it just the way it is — flaws and all.”
Buy Memory Lane from Bookshop.org. Science News is a Bookshop.org affiliate and will earn a commission on purchases made from links in this article.
