dr. elsewhere here
No doubt the attentive among you have noticed how frequently the memory card is being played when Republicans come under fire for....well, just about everything. Hastert does not recall being warned about Foley, Bush doesn't recall "stay the course," Mehlman doesn't recall Abramoff, and neither does Rove, and of course the original play in this game, Libby does not recall the details of discussing Valerie Plame's CIA identity.
Not long after Libby was indicted, his legal team made clear his memory - burdened as it was with affairs of state, understand - would be his defense.
To that end, they announced their legal expert for this defense (or lack thereof) would be one Daniel Schachter, a man whose work and person I know quite well. I did research with him at Harvard some years back, and found him to be of impeccable character and integrity, a hard worker and very polite, if a little shy and awkward. It was endearing, really, and I really liked his wife, who clearly thought he was endearing, too. Dan's work was also impeccable; he is the most cited psychologist on record, and memory is his game.
I can't deny I was not just a little startled that he would agree to do this work for Team Libby. I was at Harvard during the last decade, and there wasn't as much pressure to discuss politics as there was the latest experimental results or statistical method, so I honestly have no clue what his political persuasion might be. Academics were once almost all liberal, but that changed during the Reagan years when research got to big bucks and the business model took over academia. Sigh; another sad tale for another time.
[As a brief aside, I keep waiting for someone to point out how truly frightening it is that so many of our Republican officials have so much trouble with their memories. Not only should it cause us considerable concern regarding their ability to govern all those complex affairs of state, but it sure makes one wonder if Reagan's memory disease is contagious to WH Republicans; neither a comforting notion.]
A month or two ago I noticed that Team Libby had switched from Dan's expertise to someone else, but the source did not specify. Well, evidently today this new expert testified, and questioning did not go so well for her, or - therefore - for Libby.
Elizabeth Loftus is well known, and I am pretty familiar with her work, which has focused on "false memory," particularly as related to court witnesses and adult accusations of incest in childhood. She emphasizes the constructive qualities of memory, the way we piece together elements of events like a puzzle, but one that does not really fit the original perfectly, or even very well. Very controversial stuff, as you can imagine. Though she enjoys considerable currency and clout, her work is not without flaws and has suffered a considerable amount of skepticism. In research, this is not so bad as long as your work is generally honest and reasonable and they spell your name right; if it generates other research, even to debunk you, it's all part of the process. The trick is to avoid making stupid assertions and designing stupid experiments; not really that hard, especially by the increasingly bizarre standards. But, alas, yet another story for another time.
Evidently, Fitz could have made quite a reputation for himself on those NIH committees that refuse research grants to all the scientists who come begging. Not only did he point out internal contradictions to both her testimony and her professional position, but he forced to admit that she did not recall having been cross-examined by him in a previous case where she appeared as an expert.
Actually, that fact might - in a sort of twisted, ironic way - sort of prove the point Libby is after; memory is, after all, pretty flimsy stuff. But at the moment of her testimony, it seems to have served Fitz's purpose to discredit her as an expert witness. The courtroom went uncomfortably silent, reports suggest. The WaPo said Fitz "sliced her up."
Creepy image, right here at Hallowe'en. But as a metaphor in this context, I'll take it.
5 comments:
I really am appreciative of the hard work you guys have been up to of late on this blog. Even Dr. Elsewhere seems to be apologizing less. ;) Keep up the good work.
On the subject matter at hand, forgetful Republicans, hasn't there been REAL studies going back to the Greeks about this exact science of human memory? That 95 percent of what we remember as humans is visual or experienced as opposed to other means? That is quite high and kind of proves the fact that rightwing "studies" and "think-tanks" are nothing more than liars and propagandists? Can anyone name one think-tank that has done anything good since Bush took office?
I just heard an interesting podcast on Oct. 18th with Alan Watt where he mentions these studies and conclusions about memory and sources it. His sources are always the elites themselves instead of someone else writing ABOUT the elitist philosophy. I will have to go back and take a listen and see if I can come back and comment with better authority and sources.
If you haven't heard Watt, you may not take Alan Watt too seriously and poopoo him a bit abruptly as he does lean a bit too conspirational for your usual outlook, IMHO. But there's no denying that Alan Watt has read more of the elitists writings going back centuries than just about anyone else I have heard or read. I mean who REALLY has read Brezinskis and Soros' books cover to cover as well as the others?
I do not have great respect for Elizabeth Loftus, who quit the APA after people started to complain about her antics. I know that false memories do exist, but there is no such thing as "false memory syndrome."
Such a hifalutin' word: "syndrome." What does that word mean in this context, anyways? The word refers to the aggregate symptoms of a disease. And that disease would be....what, exactly?
Loftus' work was pretty much destroyed by the Carlton Study conducted by Kristiansen et al.
Her name often comes up in politically-charged controversies, since her work can be used to discredit the testimony of otherwise-unshakeable witnesses. She frequently testifies on behalf of people accused on child molestation. If the Foley matter ever comes totrail, rest assured that she will be called in to call into question every claim not supported by an internet trail.
She is also the expert witness of choice for accused rapists. Check out this site:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/QUTLJJ/2002/10.html
I realise that we are moving some ways away from Scooter, but you may nevertheless want to read this excerpt:
"Beyond these overt adoptions of FMS theory, several Canadian researchers have found that even judges who have denied expert witness status to proponents of this theory on the basis of its lack of scientific reliability have gone on to rely on FMS claims in their scrutiny of the evidence. In their study, Katharine Kelly, Connie Kristiansen and Susan Haslip used a random sample of 10% of the 170 sexual assault judgments that they found on the Quick Law database in Canada, both criminal and civil, wherein “false memory” or “FMS” was referred to in a sexual assault case, in order to examine the judicial treatment of this type of evidence.[35]
"The analysis derived from the work of Kelly et al identifies several common themes that emerge in the legal treatment of FMS. First, FMS may be accepted as “fact” by judges who either repeat its premises or affirm its “common sense” logic: some say, for example, that careful scrutiny is required for all recovered memory and caution that a woman's demeanour is an unreliable indicator of her credibility because while she may be honest, equally she may be deluded.[36] Interestingly, this basic acceptance of the risk of false memories flies in the face of judicial acknowledgment that FMS is not a “science” and is not accepted by the medical community as a recognized syndrome. Furthermore, Kelly et al note that in none of the cases they examined did the judge put the spectre of false allegations or false memories in statistical context,[37] leaving the erroneous impression that it is a widespread phenomenon.
"Second, the introduction of FMS discourse in court narrows the issues for adjudication by maintaining rape prosecutions as single-issue trials limited to scrutinizing the woman’s credibility.[38] At the same time, of course, this focus obscures the issue of the credibility of the accused man in those cases where he testifies. It may even elide the significance of the additional evidence that corroborates the crime.
"Third, FMS discourse generates new myths that discredit women and deny men’s responsibility for rape. These myths are deeply gendered and some are specifically anti-feminist. In the cases, the FMS premises that women are highly suggestible to implanted memories, that abuse is too traumatic an event to ever be “forgotten,” and that the real perpetrators of abuse are feminist therapists who have brainwashed their clients, appear in many forms. For example, Kelly et al note cases that consider whether a woman has FMS simply by having seen “too many therapists,” having read a single line in one book, or having participated in group therapy.[39]"
joe, thanks for this. i didn't want to get too deep into the complications of the controversy, as there actually are two sides to it. i witnessed professionally therapists 'help' clients recall abuse as well as conjure up multiple personalities. i think those cases are relatively rare, however, and certainly not frequent enough to merit some kind of diagnostic category. leaving apa, for what it's worth, during the early 90s or so was not that unusual, as many experimentalists left in mass exodus to form the aps, which is more research oriented, as opposed to the apa which is more clinically oriented. for what it's worth.
i have to say i find loftus an odd choice as their expert. ya gotta wonder what prompted that choice. dan, on the other hand, was an excellent choice; unimpeachable, and unflappable. my suspicion is that he could not give them the unequivocal position in the direction they wanted. i suspected that would happen when i saw they'd signed him up.
mondo, forgive me (another apology; sorry!), but i don't quite follow your point about republicans and memory and the greeks. i beg to differ on the point about 'real' memory studies since the greeks; amazing work has been done (my area, roughly). and no, it is not the case that 95 percent of memory is visual; don't konw what you mean by 'experienced or other means'. alan watts had some wise things to say, i agree, though not always strictly buddhist. to my mind, elitists are the ones who talk about what others think about the original great minds, although that's not quite right because all the greatest minds have talked about all those before them. that doesn't make them snobs, nor does it make them wrong or power hungry. in fact, the greatest minds are amazingly humble and modest in all things. thinking deep thoughts seems to me to be a particularly safe enterprise in terms of keeping oneself as far away from republicans as possible.
Joseph?
Make out with me.
That is all.
Doc, your post wanders far afield, but is a fascinating and intelligent one.
As regards this false memory problem: you of course know the multi-universes hypothesis of quantum physics? Well, I have come to the conclusion that as individuals our pasts are not always or necessarily identical. For example, I am convinced that when my wife and I converse, we sometimes are referring back to different pasts. Also happens sometimes with my kids. That is, we did in the "past" inhabit different realities, which easily explains why we have differing memories of "what happened."
I'm not up on the journals. But I guess if any academic advanced this hypothesis he or she would be banished from academia-land.
Yes, I'm at least half-serious.
Post a Comment