The only way we know anything is our memory. We must rely on it to stay sane, make calculations, and learn from experience. But just because it’s all we really have, is it reliable?

Our Gemara on Amud Aleph discusses a dispute between Rabbi Yochanan and Rav Huna as to the extent that witnesses can use written notes to remind them of their testimony.  Rav Huna requires that they remember some aspect prior to reading their notes, and then the memory is legitimate and recovered.  Rav Yochanan holds that even if they have no recall until after they read their notes, but the notes jog their memory and then they remember the testimony, it is acceptable.

How does memory work?  If we were not used to living with it every day, we might wonder, “Either you remember something or you don’t, what does it mean to try to remember something?”  Clearly, human experience shows us that there are matters that are recorded somewhere in the file cabinet of our brains that we cannot access without a cue or retrieval device. It is analogous to folders in a file cabinet but the tabs are missing.  It is hard to find the file, but once we open it, all the data is there.  What do we know about the science and neurology of memory?

According to Memory Kathleen B. McDermott & Henry L. Roediger (“Encoding, Storage, Retrieval”,  nobaproject.com):

Remembering involves three processes: encoding information (learning it, by perceiving it and relating it to past knowledge), storing it (maintaining it over time), and then retrieving it (accessing the information when needed). Failures can occur at any stage, leading to forgetting or to having false memories. The key to improving one’s memory is to improve processes of encoding and to use techniques that guarantee effective retrieval. Good encoding techniques include relating new information to what one already knows, forming mental images, and creating associations among information that needs to be remembered. The key to good retrieval is developing effective cues that will lead the rememberer back to the encoded information.

Good retrieval, like the case described in our Gemara, is dependent on correct cues for retrieval.  Sights and sounds, as well as emotions, even smells, play into how a memory is filed and what cues we use to remember it.  It is not uncommon for a Gemara to describe a teaching that was studied, “While we were traveling”, see for example Yoma 85a and Chaggigah 14b, and the next daf Kesuvos 21b, which talks about a teaching of a certain rabbi who came to sell sesame seeds.  Mnemonics or deliberate associations between objects make these “file tabs” larger and more indexed. Humorous or strong and stimulating associations help as well. If you want to remember to take your second suitcase on your trip, imagine yourself tripping on it and falling down the stairs.  If these stairs are the ones you will pass before you leave the house, this strong association will trigger the memory.  The Talmud often uses acronyms and mnemonics (siman) as memory aids.

However, that is in terms of retrieval.  The challenge is that memory can be distorted way before retrieval.  How the memory is encoded has much to do with how we perceive and interpret matters, but once we retrieve the memory, we retrieve it with the sureness of the strength of the emotions in the memory. People have difficulty unblending the actual hard data and their own perceptions and conclusions. The implications of distorted or poor memory on testimony can be significant.  In “The Neuroscience of Memory: Implications for the Courtroom”, Joyce W. Lacy and Craig E. L. Stark report:

The Innocence Project in New York City (www.innocenceproject.org, see Box 2), which advocates the use of DNA testing to exonerate wrongfully convicted people, lists 310 exonerated individuals (as of July 8th, 2013). These individuals were typically convicted on the basis of eyewitness testimony and spent an average of 13.6 years in confinement before being released. They are thought to be only a small sample of the total number of wrongfully convicted people, as DNA evidence is only available in a limited number of cases (e.g., those involving sexual assault).

Legal implications aside, as a therapist, I am struck at how often couples have vivid memories of recent events that are completely contradictory.  They often will argue and get frustrated with each other, casting doubt on integrity and honesty.  However, usually neither spouse is lying.  Rather, they each are remembering much more than the facts, but also what they attributed and perceived.  For example, on the day of a family wedding, everyone woke up late and a flight was missed.  The missed flight, like most of life’s mishaps, is a combination of many factors: The cab came late, you woke up late, one of the kids forgot something and you had to go back into the house, and the lines at security were long.  One spouse might encode one aspect as the main reason for missing the flight, while another might encode a different one.  If there is negative sentiment override (Gottman’s term for the tendency of conflictual couples to interpret neutral data as negative), the spouse will likely remember the main cause as having to do with the spouse’s negative character trait.  So, many years later, each spouse will genuinely remember the “reason why we missed the flight for Mikey’s wedding is because you ….. (fill in the blanks).”  One spouse will blame the other for poorly managing the children, and the other for waking up late.

The best remedy out of arguments such as these are to forget about the facts and follow the following two-step process:

1. Validate the problem or flaw that is being described, in principle, even if you do not believe in that case you are guilty or it was the cause of the mishap.
2. Agree in principle on what is a better procedure going forward to avoid the problem, whether or not you agree with the historicity of the problem.

In our above example, each spouse could validate the concept without getting stuck in the facts.  One spouse could agree it is better to wake up earlier and set the alarm.  Another could agree that certain childcare needs must be anticipated and planned for in advance, given the typical chaos that children naturally bring. For extra credit, if the recollected problem involves a weakness that is thematic and true, even if in their instance you believe yourself to be innocent, why not just validate that generally this is a shortcoming of yours and you need to work on it. Of what difference does it make, that technically this time, it wasn’t your fault?

The first part of the process of memory is perception.  We often draw conclusions and attributions from our perceptions and remain convinced about their veracity. However, data and attribution are vastly different and we must always check our assumptions before we allow our anger and frustration to fester.  You know as a fact that your husband came home late, (once again!), and you just had to wait until the food got cold or dried out.  Your attribution is that he is thoughtless and selfish.  You know that your wife was yelling at the kids when you walked in the door, but your attribution is that she is overwhelmed and impatient with the children.  While these attributions might have some truth, it is a good idea to be curious and ask in a non-accusatory manner.  “How was your trip home?  Was there anything unusual going on at the office that delayed you?” , or “How did your day go with the kids?  Was it this tense just at the end, or was it difficult throughout?  Where there important moments, successes or challenges that you want to tell me about?”

If you are careful to monitor and clarify your assumptions before you make conclusions, your memories will become less laden with resentment, and the situations where you have frustration and disappointment will be more isolated instead of feeling like and endless hopeless pattern.

Translations Courtesy of Sefaria, except when, sometimes, I disagree with the translation

Do you like what you see? Please subscribe and also forward any articles you enjoy to your friends, (enemies too, why not?)