THINKER'S ALMANAC - January 28

What can the Challenger Space Shuttle disaster in 1986 teach us to understand how memory works?

Subject:  Flashbulb Memory - Challenger Study

Event:  Challenger Disaster, 1986

On Tuesday, January 28, 1986, at precisely 11:30 EST, the Space Shuttle Challenger broke apart shortly after takeoff from Cape Canaveral, Florida.  The explosion killed everyone aboard. 

Not only was the Challenger disaster a major tragedy of the United States space program but it was also an unprecedented public tragedy:  it is estimated that 17% of the U.S. population witnessed the launch on live television.  This audience included thousands of students who watched from their school classrooms to see Christa McAulliffe, a high school teacher, who was attempting to become the first teacher in space.  

                                                                Image by WikiImages from Pixabay 

At the time of the tragedy, psychological researcher Ulric Neisser was in the midst of research on human memory, attempting to better understand how memories are stored and retrieved.  He saw an opportunity to test the accuracy of what is known as flashbulb memory, a supposedly vivid and detailed memory of a dramatic moment, such as the memories that people have of remembering where they were and what they were doing when JFK was assassinated in 1963.  Based on his own flashbulb memory of December 7, 1941, Neisser was having doubts about just how accurate these memories are; he initially remembered hearing the news of the Pearl Harbor attack when the broadcast of a baseball game he was listening to was interrupted.  He later realized that although this was a vivid memory, it could not be true.  There were no baseball games in December.

Seizing on the recency and the public nature of the Challenger tragedy, Neisser saw an opportunity to gather more data on flashbulb memories.   The day after the tragedy, Neisser asked students to write down detailed accounts of where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news of the Challenger explosion.

The next step in Neisser’s research required patience; after waiting nearly three years, he then asked the same students to recount their memories of the fateful 

day.  Although all the students were confident that their memories of the day were accurate, the results of the study revealed something different: one fourth of the students had memories that were completely different, while half had memories that were somewhat different.  Less than ten percent of the students got all the details correct. 

Neisser’s work gives us all a better, more realistic picture of human memory.  It shows that even those memories that seem most vivid and distinct to us may not be completely accurate.  Each time we access a memory, we reconstruct it and potentially conflate some details, such as how Neisser remembered listening to a baseball game when it was more likely a December football game (1).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is a flashbulb memory, and what does the research show us about how accurate these memories are?

Challenge - Memory On Trial:  What are the implications of research on flashbulb memories when it comes to eyewitness testimony in a trial?  Do a little research on this topic, and write a paragraph that provides instructions for jury members that tells them what they need to know about the fallibility of human memory.

Also On This Day:

January 28, 1986:  Credulous believers in the 16th century prophecies of Nostradamus look to the following passage as a prediction of the Challenger disaster.  Most, however, realize that it is an example of hindsight bias at work, the erroneous habit of thinking that something that an event from the past was more predictable than it actually was:

From the human flock nine will be sent away,

Separated from judgment and counsel:

Their fate will be sealed on departure

Kappa, Thita, Lambda the banished dead err (I.81)

Sources:

1-Martin, Douglas. Ulric Neisser Is Dead at 83; Reshaped Study of the Mind. New York Times 25 Feb. 2012.

THINKER'S ALMANAC - January 18

What is the difference between “humor” and “wit”?

Subject:  Connotation and Denotation - Roget’s Thesaurus

Event: Birthday of Peter Mark Roget, 1779

On this day in 1779, Peter Mark Roget was born in London. Roget is best known for his groundbreaking work, Roget’s Thesaurus, originally published in 1852.  Roget’s work is a pioneering achievement in lexicography — the practice of compiling dictionaries. Instead of listing words alphabetically, as in a traditional dictionary, Roget classified words in groups based on six large classes of words: abstract relations, space, matter, intellect, volition, and affections. Each of these categories is then divided into subcategories, making up a total of 1,000 semantic categories under which synonyms are listed. Like a biologist creating a taxonomy of animal species, Roget attempted to bring a coherent organization to the English word-hoard.

                                                            Image by PublicDomainPictures from Pixabay 

In order to make the categories more accessible, Roget’s son, John Lewis Roget developed an extensive index that was published with the thesaurus in 1879. Roget’s grandson, Samuel Romilly Roget, also worked to edit the thesaurus until 1952.

No one knows for certain how many words there are in the English language, but because of its liberal tradition of borrowing and adopting words from any language it rubs up against, there are more words in English than in any other language. In fact, there are so many more words in English that it is unlikely that the idea of a thesaurus would even be conceived of for a language other than English.

Roget continued the English tradition of borrowing words when he selected a Greek word for the title of his collection: thesauros which means treasury or storehouse.  Roget’s original title for his work was The Thesaurus of English Words and Phrases Classified and Arranged so as to Facilitate the Expression of Ideas and Assist in Literary Composition.

Like the association of Webster with dictionaries, Roget’s name has become synonymous with thesauri (the irregular plural of thesaurus). Also like Webster, the name Roget is no longer under trademark; therefore, just because a thesaurus is called Roget’s does not mean it has any affiliation with the original work of the Roget family (1).

Generations of writers have turned to Roget’s work to assist their writing.  One example is American writer Garrison Keillor, who praised Roget in a 2009 article called, “The Book That Changed My Life”:

The book was Roget’s International Thesaurus.  It not only changed my life, but also transformed, diversified, and modulated it by opening up the lavish treasure trove of English, enabling me to dip my pen into glittering pools of vernacular, idiom, lingo, jargon, argot, blather, colloquialisms, officialese, patois, and phraseology of all sorts. . . .(2)

Not all writers or English teachers are fans of the Thesaurus, however.  Sometimes it’s a little too easy for a student to grab a thesaurus and insert a synonym that doesn’t quite work in context.  For example, a student once wrote the sentence:

Today I ate a really good donut.  

Searching for a synonym for the word “good” in his thesaurus, he revised, as follows:

Today I ate a really benevolent donut.

It’s because of mishaps like this that the Irish novelist Roddy Doyle gives the following advice:

Do keep a thesaurus, but in the shed at the back of the garden or behind the fridge, somewhere that demands travel or effort. Chances are the words that come into your head will do fine.

Because there are so many synonyms in English, it’s important for writers to become students of the subtleties of language. The best way to do this is to look at both the denotation of a word and the connotation of a word.  A word’s denotation is the literal dictionary meaning of a word; connotation is the implied meaning of a word along with the feelings associated with that word.  Denotations can be found easily in a dictionary, but connotations are a bit harder to find.  The best way to learn about connotations is to study words in their natural habitat — that is in the writing of professional writers.

Notice, for example, how the writer Charles S. Brooks (1878-1934) explores the subtle differences between the words “wit” and “humor” in the following excerpt:

Wit is a lean creature with a sharp inquiring nose, whereas humor has a kindly eye and comfortable girth. Wit, if it be necessary, uses malice to score a point–like a cat it is quick to jump–but humor keeps the peace in an easy chair. Wit has a better voice in a solo, but humor comes into the chorus best. Wit is as sharp as a stroke of lightning, whereas humor is diffuse like sunlight. Wit keeps the season’s fashions and is precise in the phrases and judgments of the day, but humor is concerned with homely eternal things. Wit wears silk, but humor in homespun endures the wind. Wit sets a snare, whereas humor goes off whistling without a victim in its mind. Wit is sharper company at table, but humor serves better in mischance and in the rain. When it tumbles, wit is sour, but humor goes uncomplaining without its dinner. Humor laughs at another’s jest and holds its sides, while wit sits wrapped in study for a lively answer (3).

Recall, Retrieve, Recite, Ruminate, Reflect, Reason:  What is the difference between a word’s denotation and its connotations, and why is this distinction important for effective thinking and writing?

Challenge - Is a Rant the Same as a Diatribe?:  Clear thinking, cogent communication, and coherent writing depend on diction -- a writer’s word choice.  Effective thinkers and writers must be students of words, and they must -- like Charles S. Brooks -- take time to understand the subtle distinctions between words.  Just because two words are listed as synonyms does not mean that they are interchangeable.  What are two words that — even though they are synonyms — do not mean exactly the same thing?  What are the subtle differences in the words’ denotations and connotations?  Using Charles S. Brooks’ paragraph as a model, write a paragraph comparing the differences between one of the word pairs below:

mob/crowd, laugh/giggle, student/scholar, teen/juvenile, old/ancient, wealthy/rich, gregarious/social, frugal/cheap, watch/gaze, bright/smart, late/tardy, sleep/slumber, transform/change, proud/arrogant, wisdom/intelligence, confident/cocky, jail/prison

As you write, consider both the denotations and especially the connotations of the two words.

Sources:

1 – Crystal, David. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the English Language. Cambridge University Press, 1995.

2- Keillor, Garrison.  “The Book That Changed My Life.”  Best Life. March 2009: 46.

3-Brooks, Charles.  “On the Difference Between Wit and Humor.”

http://fullreads.com/essay/on-the-difference-between-wit-and-humor/