In his TED talk, Daniel Kahneman discussed how understanding memory is a key factor to understanding wellbeing and happiness. He explained that we have two selves: the experiencing self and the remembering self. The experiencing self is constantly in the present, where as the remembering self maintains the story of our life through memories of the past. Most moments of the experiencing self’s life are lost; very few are stored by the remembering self.
One of Kahneman’s first anecdotes is quite relevant to our recent class discussions on memory. He told of a man who was enjoying listening to a beautiful concert; his experiencing self was delighting in every minute of the music, until there was a loud screeching noise at the end of the concert, which ruined the whole experience. Kahneman points out that it was not the experience that was ruined, but rather the memory of the experience that was ruined. Only one moment of the concert was unenjoyable, however, it tainted the entire memory.
Another question related to memory that Kahneman asked is: Why do we put so much more importance on memory relative to the importance we put on experience?
8 comments:
In his TED talk, Daniel Kahneman said that "what defines a story are changes, significant moments and endings." To illustrate this point, Kahneman used the example of the colonoscopy patients. Each patient experienced pain at varying levels and consistency. In regards to the diagrams presented, it appeared to the audience as if Patient A experienced "less" pain, and thus a more positive memory, because the procedure was shorter than Patient B. However it was Patient A who reported a stronger negative memory and more pain. This resulted because the last experience during the procedure was intense pain, causing a negative memory.
The article Beta Blockers and Traumatic Memory: A Dulling Experience by K. Smythe is about the immersing research of using beta blockers to create less emotionally negative memory. "Beta blocker drugs appear to interfere with these strong emotional memories by interfering with the stress hormones epinephrine and norepinephrine." The goal is to help patients suffering from post-tramatic stress disorder (PTSD), especially veterans. However the debate right now is whether "working through" the memory in order to grow from the experience is more important than just the cure. Also, the implications of beta blockers being misused as a way to desensitize people against violence, either criminal acts or military initiatives, is a distinct possibility.
I have had experiences similar to Kahneman’s concert story. Growing up, I did ballet 20 hours a week and was always told before a performance “don’t fall, that’s all anyone will remember. If you start to shake come down from full pointe for an eight count”. I’m sure anyone who has performed on stage has been told something similar; make any mistake you make on stage look intended. The memory the audience has of the performance is just as important, if not, more important than their experience.
As I researched mood and memory recall I found this article: http://www.lurj.org/article.php/vol2n2/recall.xml. I found Bower’s theory about depression very interesting. Those who suffer from depression are obviously, in a sad mood and that sadness will activate other sad memories in their mind which, inevitably, will worsen their sad mood, creating a vicious circle. The theory is flawed though as, interestingly enough, people in sad moods generally recall more positive events than people in a more positive mood.
Daniel Kahneman is a Nobel Laureate, and his particular interest is behavioural economics. His anecdotes and explanation of the difference between happiness and wellbeing as well as the difference between the ‘experiencing’ self and the ‘remembering’ self could be put to use in public policy making. When he was asked the question at the end of the talk, he noted that although this was starting to happen in other western countries, he thought it would be some time before it impacted on public policy in the USA.
I am wondering why that would be, considering many believe that the USA is often considered to be a leader in the area of democracy and public policy.
On a personal level it is interesting to start thinking about yourself, with regard to the ‘experiencing’ self and the ‘remembering’ self. I often wonder about just what happiness actually is and why it means so many different things to so many different people, and as Daniel Kahneman explains it is not such a useful description as it can be used for so many different things.
Daniel Kahneman talks about the ability of a person to judge her life's happiness on the ability to differentiate between the two selves: the experiencing self and the remembering self. "It's not about a happy a person is, it is about how happy a person is when she thinks about her life". Now the question that this brings up for me is which self is more important to please? Can we be content in our lives by living in the immediate, living at a consistent happiness, or should we alter the way we live in order to make moments which we can remember, living from one extremely happy event to the next?
Its a little unfortunate but it sounds right. Growing up I often heard people saying things about trying to leave people with good memories of themselves as if the last thing they did would alter all the experiences they had with that person.
After listening to this TED talk I started to look up lingering negative memories and found this article about erasing specific bad memories.
http://www.livescience.com/7315-drug-deletes-bad-memories.html
It sound like science fiction and the article even talks about the movie eternal sunshine of the spotless mind but apparently studies show that the drug propranolol, when paired with therapy, can be used to weaken specific traumatic memories. It seems to have limitations but is interesting nonetheless. This also made me wonder how the mind naturally suppresses bad memories and if it is any way similar to this treatment.
He says Happiness now a days is an open term. It is used very loosely.He mentions that our memory tells the story, a story that our experiencing self lives by. Our choices are based on our memories The experiencing self and remembering self have 2 different definitions of happiness. A persons past tells you more about them then the present. For instance I know this guy who travels all over the world because of his job, but lives in the slums of Washington Heights. The life he lives everyday is very different from the life hes already lived. If he were to look back at his life, he'd say he'd accomplished alot, but his present self is not as happy. Although he gets to travel alot, his present is not as happy as you would think it would be.
In my opinion, we can pick up some memories out of a whole complete experience. For example Kahneman told of a man who was enjoying listening to a beautiful concert; his experiencing self was delighting in every minute of the music, until there was a loud screeching noise at the end of the concert, which ruined the whole experience he says. However we can remember good memories from an experience, but it depends on us, our mental situation and experiences surrounding us and of course time. People perceive different memories in different ways as they grow up. For example a teenager who just graduated from highschool might think of the whole experience as unachieved, poor, sad etc. but after a while as we grow up our point of views on what happens in life change, thus we can look at things differently with a different approach. For example after couple years that teenager might think of that experience in a lot more positive way. So even i agree with the point that he says what defines a story are changes, significant moments and endings; it would not apply to every situation and time and experiences through that time might affect those memories and change it because what we remember builds up through time and might distort/change/perceived in a different way because of a changed state of mind.
Post a Comment