When Memory Matters

In reading about memory and what it consists of in the brain (“101 Theory Drive”) my mind wondered and I got to thinking about when I was in my mid 40’s and I noticed that my memory was not as keen as it had been. I attributed it to not caring as much about my work so, without the caring and thinking the work was important my memory did not hang onto information as tenaciously as it had. Even though there may have been some truth in that, the failing memory was likely influenced by ageing. More recently memory has been even worse and that is likely influenced by age and medications. Thus I have eliminated Cymbalta, a SSRI like drug which is known to impair memory. I think there may actually have been some improvement in memory and mental acuity but of course that is a subjective impression.

Still, I go back to my original idea that when a person perceives that something is important one is likely to remember it better. I think that when we are young we are learning about the world and many or most facts help us craft our understanding of the world. We think there is nothing more important than seeing how the world and the universe are so, naturally, we remember it vividly. Later we see that many understandings were wrong or are simply replaced by other understandings so it is not so critical to grasp ideas of how the world is. The cost is that we end up with a memory that is not as vivid. I believe (or at least hypothesize) that if I were to tell myself that something is fascinating and important I would be likely to remember it longer, in more detail and more vividly.

I think that theory is worth a test. If I figure out how to test that theory I’ll write again about this concept...if I remember to.

When Memory Matters

In reading about memory and what it consists of in the brain (“101 Theory Drive”) my mind wondered and I got to thinking about when I was in my mid 40’s and I noticed that my memory was not as keen as it had been. I attributed it to not caring as much about my work so, without the caring and thinking the work was important my memory did not hang onto information as tenaciously as it had. Even though there may have been some truth in that, the failing memory was likely influenced by ageing. More recently memory has been even worse and that is likely influenced by age and medications. Thus I have eliminated Cymbalta, a SSRI like drug which is known to impair memory. I think there may actually have been some improvement in memory and mental acuity but of course that is a subjective impression.

Still, I go back to my original idea that when a person perceives that something is important one is likely to remember it better. I think that when we are young we are learning about the world and many or most facts help us craft our understanding of the world. We think there is nothing more important than seeing how the world and the universe are so, naturally, we remember it vividly. Later we see that many understandings were wrong or are simply replaced by other understandings so it is not so critical to grasp ideas of how the world is. The cost is that we end up with a memory that is not as good. I believe (or at least hypothesize) that if I were to tell myself that something is fascinating and important I would be likely to remember it longer, in more detail and more vividly.

I think that theory is worth a test. If I figure out how to test that theory I’ll write again about this concept.

An Empirical Question

Today I watched a “talking head” show and conservative commentator George Will referred to the employment surge that followed Regan’s tax cut in 1983. Paul Krugman then said that the surge never happened other than a slight bump from direct spending that acted as a stimulus. It was a matter of fact, not opinion, about which they disagreed. It has always seemed to me that is an empirical question. Do tax cuts create such a surge in employment such that tax cuts are an effective way to spend government money to create jobs, or is it an ineffective and inefficient way to create jobs? That is a factual question. The problem is that many variables are involved and the implications loom so large that agreement is nearly impossible to find. Yet we desperately need to know the truth and the losing side just needs to swallow hard and suck it up. I suspect that carefully targeted tax cuts could help raise employment. But the question is: by how much. Could that money be best spent on tax cuts or on something else? We need the questioned investigated by someone who would be willing to let the chips fall how they may and let the truth come out. Why is this so hard?

Islamic Complicity with Evil

Follow-up to my earlier piece on Islam in which I tried to look at the relevant factors in assessing how to view Islam. In that piece I looked at the so called ground-zero Mosque. I concluded that Islam is the most primitive of the major world religions but that probably not all of the 1.27 billion Muslims are evil and ready to act like sociopaths.
One other factor that nudges me to the side of the Muslims is that the whole debate about islamaphobia is reminiscent of previous which hunts driven by bigotry, ethnic prejudice and xenophobia. Whenever a group eagerly looks for reasons to condemn another group of people I wonder what it was like when an accent tribe of cave dwellers found a new tribe impinging on their territory. I would guess they demeaned that group with a vengeance and by villainizing the invading tribe that threatened to take over some of their hunting ground and take their game. They probably worked themselves into lather with all the reasons the other tribe was barbaric, primitive, stupid and ignorant of the spirits. Of course war was the inevitable result—the side of goodness and purity required it.

Since then a couple of other thoughts have come to the surface. In trying to look at the religion as a whole it appears that much about Islam reinforces my basic ideas about religion, especially about an authoritarian religion. It is dogmatic, seeks easy answers at the cost of truth and the benefit of individuals. It advances dogma which can easily be misinterpreted and misused. And when it is misused there are few voices from within the Islamic community to speak up and disagree.

The new element that strikes me is that when the 9/11 bombers acted in the name of Islam there was no real voice that rose from the Islamic community saying that the extremists were perverting Islam. There were a few voices and some in key positions who said the extremists were wrong. But many of them said little or nothing. And as terrorism has continued there have been few voices raised to declare that the extremists are wrong. The loudest voice is that of the extremists. The moderates are very soft spoken or silent. The apparent reason for the silence is that those who disagree may have a fatwa or death threat made against them or they may even be killed. If the moderates are not quiet because of the danger of speaking up then it may be because they do not disagree all that strongly. It is hard to interpret silence.

In the US when an American Christian minister was going to burn some Korans, the threat of it violated the moderate position and posed a threat to American soldiers at war in Muslim countries. There was a groundswell of outrage that got him to back off. Christians are very diverse but the outcry was clear and unified and the minister backed down. With Islamists there is no such clear voice being raised. The moderate Muslims who do speak out do not appear to resonate with the Muslim community.


What does all of this mean? My conclusion is that the Muslim religion is primitive. It allows faith and custom to accept violence and avoid empathy with their mothers, wives and daughters relegating them to lives of isolation and depression.