I found the reading on Mindbugs fascinating, especially the idea of how our memory can heavily affect what we consider to be reality. For example, the misinformation effect is something that can have large consequences in certain situations. I am very interested in studying the structure and flaws of our criminal justice system. Considering how many people are wrongfully convicted of crimes that they did not commit, it leads me to question why we continue to rely on something as unpredictable and subjective as eyewitness testimonies as much as we do. The fact that even the smallest language change can shift our perception and reality is scary to me. I can’t even begin to count how many times my family and I will argue over details in even the most minor stories. We all have different versions of the same event and are convinced that the way we remember it is correct. Applying that idea to a larger scale, like the criminal justice system in the U.S. is very problematic, and has the ability to affect the lives of so many individuals.
Critical Thinking
Because our memory is so important to our reality, we can actually distort reality to reflect our memories. That’s really scary, especially when we make big decisions based on our memories. I know that there are ways to improve your memory, but that takes a lot of time and practice. I rely on my memory a lot, and some of the points from this reading make me wonder if I should.
I agree; the problematic affects that misinformation effect can have on our criminal justice system is quite intriguing to investigate. Its scary how our criminal justice system continue to rely on eyewitness testimonies considering how anyone can just twist their memory into a favorable result.
I agree that eyewitness testimony should not be taken as the “Holy Grail of Evidence” that it seems to be treated as right now. I think part of the issue is that law enforcement is incentivized to close cases and their performance is measured by how many cases they close, meaning they will accept eyewitness testimony in replacement of physical evidence because they want to succeed in their job. I think that part of the issue lies in the case-solving process.
What Alex said above is exactly correct; the police sometimes feel pressured to solve cases and find a culprit so they can employ (directly or indirectly) language that is suggestive of one suspect over another. For example, in my leadership class last semester we learned about a case where a man was given the death penalty for a crime he was completely innocent of. Yet the police felt pressured to arrest and convict a suspect, therefore, they targeted him with false witness testimonies and evidence. As you have stated, it is so dangerous that we rely on witness testimonies that can be so flawed. Furthermore, we can also see how implicit bias plays into effect with these witness testimonies. It would be interesting to hear what the authors have to say about implicit bias in tandem with the misinformation effect.
I was also fascinated by how much memory can change our perception and completely shift how we view and learn things. It is, quite frankly, scary to think about how one faulty memory can have drastic responses or reactions.
This idea that we all have different versions of the same event is something that I think about a lot. On one hand, however, I believe this can be advantagious in social interactions if it is observed and one then takes this knowledge to approach life in a way where they are very verbally clear to others about their interpretations of events. It can be dangerous if one is not aware of this difference in interpretation though.