Don't trust your memory, Why we misunderstand each other, What makes a habit easier to form

Weekly I/O #97: Memory Distorted by Words, Language Games, Six Elements of Simplicity, Innovation-to-Imitation Ratio and Patent, Having No Opinion

If you're new to Weekly I/O, I share five things I've learned each week, hopefully to help both you and myself gain a better understanding of the world and live more fulfilling lives.

This week’s edition of the newsletter is exclusive to subscribers. If you'd like full access to this post and all the Weekly I/O archives, please consider subscribing!

Hi friends,

Here's your weekly dose of I/O. I hope you enjoy it!

---

Input

Here's a list of what I learned this week.

1. Our memories can be easily altered by simple changes in wording or external suggestions. When watching the same traffic accident, people recalled cars moving faster if asked how fast they were going when they "smashed into" each other instead of "contacted" each other.

Paper: Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory

This super fun paper shows how a single word can change our memory of an event.

In Elizabeth Loftus's 1970s study, she had a group of participants watch short videos about traffic collisions. Afterward, they were asked to estimate the speed of the cars involved in the collisions. However, they were asked with subtly different wording.

Without access to the actual speed, they could only make guesses based on what they remembered. One group of participants was asked to estimate how fast the cars were going when they "contacted" each other. Their average estimate was about 31 miles per hour.

Another group was asked how fast the cars were going when they "smashed into" each other. The average estimate for this group was about 41 miles per hour. Simply changing the wording from "contacted" to "smashed" inflated speed estimates by 33 percent!

And that's not all. One week later, Loftus asked the participants to recall the event and answer, "Did you see any broken glass?" Even though broken glass was not present in the video, those subjects who received the verb smashed were more likely to say "yes" to the question.

These results are consistent with the view that the questions asked after an event can cause a reconstruction in one's memory of that event. They also raise an important issue: Eyewitness testimony often significantly affects courtroom verdicts, yet Loftus's research reveals how unreliable these memories can be, easily influenced by lawyers, investigators, or even everyday discussions. How can we determine if eyewitness memories are truly reliable?

I first learned about this paper from Why We Remember.

2. Wittgenstein's language games: Words don't have fixed meanings tied to things or ideas but derive their meaning from how we use them in particular contexts, like playing different games with unique rules.

Book: Philosophical Investigations