In the article, "'Hearing the news' versus 'being there': Comparing flashbulb memories and recall of first-hand experiences" by David Pillemer, Pillemer argues that people have an easier time recalling those memories that effect them personally compared to those they simply hear about. The example used in the article of an important event that people worldwide heard about is the attack on September 11, 2001. I do remember hearing about this event, but even more than that, I remember where I was and what exactly I was doing when I heard about it. Since I was not actually at the scene of the attack, I did not personally experience it. Therefore, I do not remember everything that actually occurred there. However, since I did personally experience hearing about the attacks, I can recall almost everything that was going on in my life when I heard of it.
Even being present during something, it can still be hard to remember every aspect and get all of the details right. During class when Aaron acted like a disruptive student, I tried to block what he was saying out because it did not seem important to me and I was trying to focus on the material we were being taught. Later when I found out that it was all an act and that we had to make a skit of what exactly had occurred, I had a really tough time recalling all of the details of what was said even though I was present during the entire event. A major reason for this is probably due to the fact that what was happening at the time had no significant important to me or any emotional connection attached. However, this does show that it is hard to get something documented exactly as it happened. Just hearing about an event makes it somewhat difficult to recall. Being there during the event makes that event easier to recall because of that personal connection, but it is highly unlikely that all the details of the event will be exact unless it is of huge significance to that person and has emotional ties.
No comments:
Post a Comment