SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Lane3 who wrote (38022)4/5/2004 3:49:18 PM
From: Nadine Carroll  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 793957
 
I thought this was an interesting op-ed on the unreliability of memory:

The Fog of War
By DANIEL L. SCHACTER

Published: April 5, 2004

CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — With Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, set to testify before the 9/11 commission on Thursday, much attention is being focused on the expected discrepancies between her recollections of the Bush administration's response to terrorism issues and those of Richard Clarke. One of the two, popular thinking goes, will ultimately be caught in a lie. Already, differences have come to light between how Mr. Clarke, the former counterterrorism director for President Bush, and another White House colleague remember the specific events of 9/11.

In Mr. Clarke's book, "Against All Enemies," he recounts the responses of senior administration officials on that day. Many of Mr. Clarke's recollections conflict with those of Franklin C. Miller, a national security official who worked closely with him. For example, Mr. Clarke writes that Mr. Miller advised the secretary of defense, Donald Rumsfeld, to leave the Pentagon by helicopter; Mr. Miller said in an interview last week that he never spoke to Mr. Rumsfeld that day. The two men also have contrasting recollections of the details of important decisions, like providing fighter escorts for Air Force One when it took off from Florida. According to Mr. Miller, Mr. Clarke's memories contain dramatic embellishments that would "make a great movie" but do not reflect the reality of what happened.

These accounts may seem perplexing given the momentous nature of the unfolding events. One might even wonder whether one of the parties has engaged in willful distortion. But these conflicts need not involve bad faith on the part of either person.

Indeed, conflicting recollections are neither unfamiliar (recall the testimonies of Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill in 1991) nor surprising. The way the brain stores and retrieves information, research shows, can sometimes lead people to hold different memories of the same event.

Memory errors can be classified into seven categories (sometimes called sins). Three are especially relevant to conflicting recollections: transience, misattribution and bias. Transience is the term for the well-known fact that memories tend to fade over time (unless we rehash and discuss them frequently). Experiments show that specific details of an experience are lost more quickly than general information about it.

In one such study, 12 people were asked to summarize their activities during a "typical day" at work; they also were asked to recount exactly what they did the day before and a week before. The study confirmed what some researchers suspected: the day-old memory was a nearly verbatim record of what actually happened, but a week later memory was closer to a generic description of what usually happens. With the passage of time, memory shifts from a reproduction of the past to a reconstruction that is heavily influenced by general knowledge and beliefs.

Similar considerations almost certainly apply to what Mr. Clarke and Mr. Miller remember. Of course, 9/11 was not an ordinary day at the office. Shocking experiences like the terrorist attacks or the explosion of the space shuttle tend to be better remembered than mundane occurrences. But studies show that with the passage of time, people can forget and distort details of even these experiences.

Such errors are sometimes associated with the memory sin of misattribution, where we remember aspects of an experience correctly but attribute them to the wrong source. For instance, a college student recalled that she first learned of the Challenger explosion in 1986 from television, when the actual source was a group of friends. Misattribution errors can occur for traumatic experiences, as in the case of a rape victim who accused a psychologist of assault based on her vivid memory of his face. In reality, she had seen the psychologist on television just before she was raped.

Because parts of misattributed memories are accurate, people can maintain high confidence in such mistaken recollections. Both Mr. Clarke's and Mr. Miller's accounts are probably correct in some respects, but either one may have fallen victim to misattribution, leading to different claims about who said what to whom.

Bias, a third memory sin, occurs when current knowledge, beliefs or feelings distort the past. For example, studies have shown that we often inaccurately recall political attitudes we held in the past. Our recollection ends up reflecting our current attitudes instead. Research also reveals an egocentric bias, meaning we remember the past in ways that reflect positively our current self — a bias from which government officials are not likely to be immune.

Transience, misattribution and bias occur even when we do our best to recollect the past accurately. Without external corroboration, we cannot know for certain which aspects of Mr. Clarke's or Mr. Miller's account are off the mark — but we do know enough about memory's sins to implicate the likely culprits. It's something the commission, and the country, should keep in mind when Ms. Rice testifies as well.

Daniel L. Schacter, a professor of psychology at Harvard, is the author of "The Seven Sins of Memory: How the Mind Forgets and Remembers."

nytimes.com



To: Lane3 who wrote (38022)4/5/2004 4:23:19 PM
From: Sully-  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 793957
 
An Open Letter to Dan Rather and CBS News

The American Thinker
April 5th, 2004

Dear Mr. Rather:

I was stunned when I read some of the language concerning civilian contractors who risk death in Iraq, which you reportedly used in a segment on your CBS Evening News March 31st. Like many other Americans, I stopped watching your broadcast some time ago, so I am relying on published reports of what you said, after reporting the murder and desecration of the bodies of four American civilian contractors in Fallujah.

If these are reports are accurate, Mr. Rather, I demand an apology on behalf of myself, the many other patriotic Americans who are working, or have worked as civilian contractors in Iraq and other danger zones, and especially on behalf of those contractors who have, as you put it, paid “the ultimate price.”

You reportedly said, ““What drives American civilians to risk death in Iraq? In this economy, it may be, for some, the only job they can find,” while the screen displayed the heading “Risking Death” over a video of people standing in a job application line.

The so-called news segment which followed painted contractors in Iraq as perennial losers who are so desperate that they would “risk anything for a decent paycheck,” as your colleague Bob McNamara put it. You, Managing Editor Dan Rather, have slandered all Americans who voluntarily contribute their skills to dangerous missions around the world, be they in or out of uniform.

I’ll leave the facts and figures of the true employment picture in the US to others. They have already debunked your theories about risk-taking and unemployment. I will simply state that the true nature of these contractors puts them head and shoulders over news anchors.

Mr. Rather, these men and women are all volunteers who have a strong desire to contribute their professional skills, learned over many years, to a noble mission of liberating people from tyranny, and securing a future of freedom and democracy, while protecting America from terrorism.

For example, there is Scott Helvenston, a former Navy SEAL, who was among the four security guard contractors killed in Fallujah. After service in his elite branch of the Navy, Scott started a career as a fitness instructor. Once again, he rose to the pinnacle of his profession, as a trainer to Hollywood stars, and also as a stunt man. He personally trained Demi Moore for her role in the film G.I. Jane. Many critics were astonished at the extent to which she was able to develop her physique, under the training regimen Scott developed for her. I would hardly call him “desperate.”

Or, take the case of Mr. Art Linderman, the supply truck driver noted in your news segment. I never worked with him, but I have known other heavy equipment operators, skilled and experienced professionals, who could have at any time worked in the United States, who nevertheless made the decision to go and drive relief trucks in Somalia. They knew the risks. Some of the men I knew were beaten severely while in theatre in Somalia. But their sense of mission and purpose never faltered.

I have personally worked with upper level managers of substantial civilian companies, who took unpaid leaves of absence in order to help train soldiers prior to deployment overseas. They were not desperate, Mr. Rather. Some took substantial cuts in pay. They did this out of patriotism.

I have had the honor of meeting civilian contractors who virtually rode the coattails of the first US combat brigade into Bosnia. Their mission was to establish and run the logistics operation at the abandoned Yugoslav airbase at Tuzla. Initially sleeping under the stars, just as the soldiers did, these professionals helped set up the vital air link to Europe for NATO forces. If they had failed, supplies and personnel would have had to come entirely over a treacherous land route all the way from Hungary.

By the way, these people at Tuzla Airbase worked for Kellogg, Brown and Root, which is now a subsidiary of the dreaded Halliburton, a favorite object of scorn for many media figures, whose number one workplace hazard is a paper cut.

I could go on about the myriad tasks civilian contractors do in support of the US and our military, both Stateside and overseas. But the point is that this has historically been a critical capability in our national security equation, and these people will continue to play a vital role in the War on Terror, and in the dozens of other forward operations going on around the world.

People hire on with these companies for many reasons, including money, just as people weigh their decision to volunteer for the Armed Forces. Whatever the motivations and circumstances which enter into each personal decision, in the end, they all go out to hazardous locations to do their best for our country.

Mr. Rather, I am afraid that what you seem to do best is spin the truth for political ends. This is your right. But it is not right with me when you dishonor some of America’s best. You owe us all an apology.

It is quite apparent that you are the desperate one, not my civilian compatriots.

Sincerely,

Douglas Hanson
Major (Ret.), USA
Gulf War I; 90-91

Civilian Contractor
Multi-national Division (North)
Bosnia-Herzegovina
98, 99

Civilian Contractor
Coalition Provisional Authority
Baghdad, Iraq
Summer 2003



Douglas Hanson