You actually can’t. Human memory is really quite terrible. Most of your older memories are likely distorted by other people telling you about them, or even just the natural decay that occurs whenever you recall a memory.
That is just factually incorrect
And what people lie to themselves to make them feel better. Humans are great at recollection, why would you claim otherwise…?
The age 0-3 is the only time you should have zero recollection, anything else is something you should talk to neurologist or psychologist about, but sure lie to make yourself feel better I guess…?
The unreliability of memory has been known pretty well for a long time. It’s why eye witness testimony in court should not be given nearly as much weight as the average person gives it.
Right, but remembering nothing isn’t normal either… especially at the young age of 30, you seem to be ignoring major details here.
Just because some events are distorted doesn’t mean all should be. This seems to be the key part of the conversation that you’ve missed. I wasn’t absolute in any of my statements, yet you have been.
Which is factually incorrect, you should be able to recall specific events at all part of your life, your link doesn’t say otherwise now does it…?
The first sentence of your link says the opposite of everything you have claimed…
Despite the vivid and convincing detail with which people can recollect emotional experiences from their past, emotional memory is malleable.
Says its malleable, where does it say it gets erased…? You aren’t conflating these two vastly different things are you…?
But I didn’t say you don’t remember anything. I just pointed out that anything you do think you remember…is very likely wrong. It might be correct, but you can’t know that.
There’s a sentence before that with a major detail you are ignoring.
Unfounded for the main cause, it’s still a cause of the amnesia.
See this quote further down…. You did actually read the article… yeah…? You aren’t just taking a quote of context and using that for the entire basis of your asinine argument… are you…?
But if there are significant memory gaps that may be related to childhood trauma—it may be time to seek support. A therapist is a great place to start. If you sense there’s a medical issue causing your memory loss, give your doctor a call.
So yes, it is absolutely a cause as that SHOULD prove without a doubt….
You actually can’t. Human memory is really quite terrible. Most of your older memories are likely distorted by other people telling you about them, or even just the natural decay that occurs whenever you recall a memory.
That is just factually incorrect And what people lie to themselves to make them feel better. Humans are great at recollection, why would you claim otherwise…?
The age 0-3 is the only time you should have zero recollection, anything else is something you should talk to neurologist or psychologist about, but sure lie to make yourself feel better I guess…?
The unreliability of memory has been known pretty well for a long time. It’s why eye witness testimony in court should not be given nearly as much weight as the average person gives it.
Right, but remembering nothing isn’t normal either… especially at the young age of 30, you seem to be ignoring major details here.
Just because some events are distorted doesn’t mean all should be. This seems to be the key part of the conversation that you’ve missed. I wasn’t absolute in any of my statements, yet you have been.
Which is factually incorrect, you should be able to recall specific events at all part of your life, your link doesn’t say otherwise now does it…?
The first sentence of your link says the opposite of everything you have claimed…
Says its malleable, where does it say it gets erased…? You aren’t conflating these two vastly different things are you…?
But I didn’t say you don’t remember anything. I just pointed out that anything you do think you remember…is very likely wrong. It might be correct, but you can’t know that.
Fun quote from that article, you absolute scholar
I did say usually, I didn’t say only cause you muppet.
Unfounded means it isn’t usually. It means there is no correlation. It’s not usually.
There’s a sentence before that with a major detail you are ignoring.
Unfounded for the main cause, it’s still a cause of the amnesia.
See this quote further down…. You did actually read the article… yeah…? You aren’t just taking a quote of context and using that for the entire basis of your asinine argument… are you…?
So yes, it is absolutely a cause as that SHOULD prove without a doubt….
Which means not usually.
That it could be caused doesn’t mean it is usually caused.