-----
The Evidence
A recent series of studies by University of Oregon psychologist Michael Anderson, Ph.D., and his colleagues suggests that quashing memories could impede our recall. In the study, which used what Anderson has termed the "think/no-think" paradigm, he asked 32 college student participants to memorise pairs of unrelated words, like "ordeal, roach." Then he showed the participants the first word in each pair and asked them to either think of the second word or to consciously try to avoid thinking of it.
Finally, in the recall phase of the study, Anderson showed the participants the first words again and asked them to recall the second words. He found that participants were nearly 20 percent more likely to remember words that they had been asked to think about than words they'd been asked to avoid thinking about.
"Obviously this research is proof of principle," Anderson says. "In the past, people have said that there's no mechanism for memory suppression...and here's a mechanism."
Anderson also wanted to make sure that the participants had actually forgotten the target words and were not simply continuing to come up with diverting thoughts when they saw the cue word. So in a second experiment, he showed them related clues (like "insect R__" for roach) and asked them to recall the target word that best fit that clue. Again, participants were less likely to remember the words that they had been instructed to avoid thinking about.
Of course, in the real world people rarely try to suppress a thought as simple as a single word. Given this, other researchers have picked up and are extending Anderson's work. University of Colorado at Boulder psychologist Marie Banich, Ph.D., for example, is investigating whether Anderson's think/no-think paradigm will work for nonverbal as well as verbal stimuli, and for emotional stimuli. In a study in press at Psychological Science, she and her colleagues used the same research design that Anderson did, but instead paired pictures of faces with pictures of different scenes--some neutral, like a hippo in a lake, and some emotional, like the aftermath of a car crash.
As in Anderson's study, Banich had her participants memorise the face/scene pairs, then showed them the faces and asked them to either think about or avoid thinking about the associated scene.
She found two things: First, the think/no-think paradigm worked--participants recalled the scenes they'd been asked to think about better than the scenes they'd been asked not to think about. Second, it actually worked better for scenes with emotional content than for scenes with nonemotional content.
This result makes sense, Banich says: "Emotional regulation requires us to have cognitive control over things that are difficult for us to think about."
-----
But memory suppression happens in two different ways, quite varying ones actually.
"One mechanism, direct suppression, disengages episodic retrieval through the systemic inhibition of hippocampal processing that originates from right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (PFC). The opposite mechanism, thought substitution, instead engages retrieval process to occupy the limited focus of awareness with a substitute memory. It is mediated by interactions between left caudal and midventrolateral PFC that support the selective retrieval of substitutes in the context of prepotent, unwanted memories."
I believe that I am much more effective at the second method, mostly because my mind is way too active to be constantly on watch to inhibit memories. Furthermore, the fact that I don't deny the existence of these memories, but instead, sneer at them or react negatively implies that I have substituted the emotions of the memories. Pessimism? To an extent. To look at these memories from as negative a perspective as possible and then re-register them. This way, even the most heartwarming of memories become a taboo, so much so I find myself disgusted at the remembrance. What an absolutely terrifying yet fascinating mechanism. The power of self-deceit is incredible.
I've once said before, most truths in the world, those not supported by empirical evidence, are truths only because they are supported by public opinion. If the whole society decides to believe in a lie, that lie becomes the truth. That is also why people can find other cultures to have beliefs so stunningly different from their own. In some bizarre society, having many wives/husbands may actually be a moral thing, being selfless with love and all, and because it part of their culture, it is the truth for them.
What I'm getting at is that this huge lie I'm pulling myself into will not remain a lie for long. The very fact that I'm surrounded by people with the same horrible opinion of one person makes it much easier for me to submerge myself into the lie. Humans adapt. I will adapt the lie into a truth. "I hate him" was a lie. Now it is an assertion. Soon, it will become an undeniable truth. "What he say was the truth" soon becomes "He's a bloody liar." Oh, the power of self-deception. A beautiful topic to research on actually...after A levels.
I've once said that I could never stand seeing you upset. Those are words that came from a soft-hearted person. In this world, soft-hearted people never remain soft-hearted their entire lives, unless fate is to kind as to give them a protector willing to preserve the innocent and care intensely for that gentle heart. Most would just learn to harden up, because we are not as fortunate. I cannot stand seeing you upset, so I harden my heart, closed my eyes and turn away. If in my eyes, you don't exist anymore, then I obviously can even stand seeing you die in front of me - well, I can't exact see it anymore, can I?
How funny would it be if I had succeeded as an INFJ and brought emotion to the that one INTJ, yet at the same time, I take one step closer to becoming an INTJ myself? The INTJ takes one step towards INFJ and develops his Fi. The INFJ takes one step towards INTJ and abandons her Fe. "I finally see what it means to care about people. You guys were precious to me." "I now understand the true weakness of emotions. I don't want to be weak anymore."
Just as there is a disappointed idealist behind every cynic, there is a broken-hearted caring person behind every cold-hearted person. People learn many lessons throughout their lives, but whether these lessons make them a better person is another story. Just look at Kaneki Ken from Tokyo Ghoul. After he is captured and tortured, he becomes selfish and concludes that being kind is a weakness. Is that a favourable character development at all? Well, he did become stronger.
I think that if it's possible, one day in the future, I meet the me before all this went to shit, she would probably hate who I have become. Oh, you think I'm regretting this? The sneer on my face scares me too. "Hey, who cares what she thinks? She's dead, isn't she? You've always killed her." I feel like right now, I'm trying to suffocate the air out of the person inside of me who once believed in those immature ideals. Once upon a time, just the thought of me regretting the person I have become is enough to get me to turn back and retreat the way I came from. Now? I simply laugh and walk on, leaving the dead corpse of that stupid, naive girl behind.
Hey, once upon a time, if I were asked if I would continue loving someone if they didn't love me back, I would raise an eyebrow and say "Of course I would. Why shouldn't I?" It frightens me that now, I'd probably laugh and say "Do I look stupid to you? Why should I?" I think it's a gift of us INFJs, to so easily turn away and reverse a situation when it has reached its finality. INFJs are not naturally a ruthless type, quite the opposite actually. But when an INFJ is pushed to that extreme, and that person should totally get an award of achieving such a feat...like multiple stab wounds to the stomach, then I think it's probably one of the scariest thing in the world. INFJs are the type to hold their friends so closely that they naturally bring a kind of warmth with them. When we learn to be ruthless, it's like pouring a bucket of ice-cold water onto someone who just came out of a warm sauna.
This is, actually, the first time I have been able to close my eyes to someone and clearly say "I don't care if you die...actually I hope you do, a painful death ideally." Hey, you should approach me...so I can do it myself.
No comments:
Post a Comment