Shutting up the Table Coach

[CrisBrown]

Hi jedi,

I'm with you. My friend was born and has lived in Germany all of her life. She was listening to the speech when it happened. She remembers her contemporaneous reaction. The argument that she, and your high school math teacher, had their memories redrawn by a 1988 Newsweek article is so patently absurd as to be laughable.

Of course, lately, it seems that all academic discourse begins with the premise that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable, thus allowing people who were not witnesses to the events in question to assert a greater knowledge of what happened than those who were. It's the ultimate triumph of theory/ideology over experience.

Cris

[Fred Garvin]

[ QUOTE ]
The argument that she, and your high school math teacher, had their memories redrawn by a 1988 Newsweek article is so patently absurd as to be laughable.


[/ QUOTE ]

The 1988 Newsweek article is the first place it is known to have appeared in print as a gaffe. See, this is an assertion that can be proved false.

[Blarg]

It's an unfortunate fact that eyewitness testimony is inherently unreliable. Sometimes witnesses to a crime can't even agree on whether the attacker was black or white, had short hair or long, did or didn't have a beard, jumped into a car or ran away, etc. And it's been shown repeatedly in studies that people will often change their memories according to coincide with what others are saying. Memory is definitely flawed and highly volatile.

Which is not addressing the whole JFK thing, a matter about which I have no opinion.

But I'm sure many tens of thousands or more people have gone to jail or had their lives and careers ruined by mistaken eyewitness testimony given by perfectly good people with the very best of intentions. I don't believe in coddling crooks one bit, but it's no loss that eyewitness testimony is sometimes not just taken for granted as being perfect proof.

[CrisBrown]

Hi Blarg,

Yeah, yeah, eyewitness testimony is not reliable, and therefore the theory wonks know more about what people experience than the people who experience it. Sorry, but I've heard that old saw way too often in arguments, and oddly, almost invariably by someone who wasn't there trying to claim greater expertise than someone who was there.

This is hardly the sort of event in which eyewitnesses testimony breaks down: high-stress, momentary, and very often involving cross-racial identification. This was listening to a speech on the radio ... a speech my friend heard many times later, because it was a profound moment in post-war German history.

But hey ... what would she know? She was only ... there. German is only ... her native language. I'm sure Fred has far greater credentials than this, so definitely take Fred's word for it.

Cris

[Fred Garvin]

[ QUOTE ]
But hey ... what would she know? She was only ... there. German is only ... her native language. I'm sure Fred has far greater credentials than this, so definitely take Fred's word for it.


[/ QUOTE ]

You are as dishonest as you are foolish. There's no need (and I have no desire) for anyone to take my word for anything. As I've pointed out, the peculiar part of the research I've pointed too, is that it actually deals in testable hypotheses, addresses technical questions of German grammar and idiosyncracies of Berlin vocabulary, these no doubt are boring compared to identity politics from someone committed to saying whatever they please for strategic value in an argument. Congrats. You win again.

[cold_cash]

[ QUOTE ]
You are as dishonest as you are foolish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your overconfidence is your weakness.


P.S. - I didn't think it was possible for someone to come off like a #1, Grade A, sanctimonious, "holier than thou" know-it-all in under 10 posts, but I see I was terribly mistaken. Nicely done.