The Art of Thinking Clearly: Better Thinking, Better Decisions

See also Social Proof (ch. 4); Not-Invented-Here Syndrome (ch. 74)

---

78
YOU WERE RIGHT ALL ALONG
Falsification of History
Winston Smith, a frail, brooding, 39-year-old office employee, works in the
Ministry of Truth. His job is to update old newspaper articles and documents so
that they agree with new developments. His work is important. Revising the past
creates the illusion of infallibility and helps the government secure absolute
power.
Such historical misrepresentation, as witnessed in George Orwell’s classic
1984
, is alive and well today. It may shock you but a little Winston is scribbling
away in your brain, too. Worse still: whereas in Orwell’s novel, he toiled
unwillingly and eventually rebelled against the system, in your brain he is
working with the utmost efficiency and according to your wishes and goals. He
will never rise up against you. He revises your memories so effortlessly –
elegantly, even – that you never notice his work. Discreet and reliable, Winston
disposes of your old, mistaken views. As they vanish one by one, you start to
believe you were right all along.
In 1973, U.S. political scientist Gregory Markus asked 3,000 people to share
their opinions on controversial political issues, such as the legalisation of drugs.
Their responses ranged from ‘fully agree’ to ‘completely disagree’. Ten years
later, he interviewed them again on the same topics, and also asked what they
had replied ten years previously. The result: what they recalled disclosing in 1973
was almost identical to their present-day views – and a far cry from their original
responses.
By subconsciously adjusting past views to fit present ones, we avoid any
embarrassing proof of our fallibility. It’s a clever coping strategy, because no
matter how tough we are, admitting mistakes is an emotionally difficult task. But
this is preposterous. Shouldn’t we let out a whoop of joy every time we realise we
are wrong? After all, such admissions would ensure we will never make the same
mistake twice and have essentially taken a step forward. But we do not see it that
way.
So does this mean our brains contain no accurately etched memories? Surely

---

not! After all, you can recall the exact moment when you met your partner as if it
were captured in a photo. And you can remember exactly where you were on 11
September 2001 when you learned of the terrorist attack in New York, right? You
recall to whom you were speaking and how you felt. Your memories of 9/11 are
extraordinarily vivid and detailed. Psychologists call these 
flashbulb memories
:
they feel as incontestable as photographs.
They are not. 
Flashbulb memories
are as flawed as regular recollections. They
are the product of reconstruction. Ulrich Neisser, one of the pioneers in the field of
cognitive science, investigated
 
them. In 1986, the day after the explosion of the
Challenger
space shuttle, he asked students to write essays detailing their
reactions. Three years later, he interviewed them again. Less than seven per cent
of the new data correlated with the initial submissions. In fact, 50% of the
recollections were incorrect in two-thirds of the points, and 25% failed to match
even a single detail. Neisser took one of these conflicting papers and presented it
to its owner. Her answer: ‘I know it’s my handwriting, but I couldn’t have written
this.’ The question remains: why do 
flashbulb memories
feel so real? We don’t
know yet.
It is safe to assume that half of what you remember is wrong. Our memories are
riddled with inaccuracies, including the seemingly flawless 
flashbulb memories
.
Our faith in them can be harmless – or lethal. Consider the widespread use of
eyewitness testimony and police line-ups to identify criminals. To trust such
accounts without additional investigation is reckless, even if the witnesses are
adamant that they would easily recognise the perpetrator again.