I have memories of childhood events that my family swears never happened, yet I have actual memories, i.e. I can recall the events themselves, not just meta-memories, like "I went to Disney World, but can't recall much about it."

I've come to believe that some of those memories are memories of dreams. I've always had vivid, realistic dreams, and can often recall details from them. As the years pass, I suspect that some of those memories began to be regarded as memories of real events. I mean, they're still memories-- the key is remembering that you dreamed them. If you forget that, but you still have the memories, it's natural to begin to regard them as real.

Memory, especially in children, is self-focused. I've known children who will swear up and down that something they could have only seen in a movie actually happened to them.

1) I have no doubt that some fathers (and many fewer mothers) cannot control themselves enough to keep their hands off of their own children.
2) I have no doubt that some adults cannot control themselves enough to keep their hands off of small children.
3) I have no doubt that hallucinations, especially in childhood, can seem quite real and yet not be real.
4) I have no doubt that the line between the dream state and the waking state can be hard to distinguish, especially in children, but in many adults too.

Taken all that together, it's quite a mess. Gotta take each case individually. Surely some of these people are guilty. Most likely, not all of them.

A photograph is an exact copy of a circumstance that once occurred. A video is a series of photographs recording the exact circumstances of an event. Most people mistakenly think that their memory is like a photograph, or a video, but it's nothing like that at all.

When you remember something, you're not actually remembering the event, but creating a mental reconstruction of the event in real time. One part of your brain stores "places", and data related to those places. Another part of your brain stores faces. Another part of your brain stores information. Another part of your brain stores voices. And then yet another part of your brain stores "memories".

But a memory is actually just a "description" of an event. It's something like "I was in Place X, with Person Y, and Z occurred." When you try to actually remember an event, your brain calls all of that information and combines it using the same centers used to process fiction and hallucinations. It is essentially rebuilding an event based on all of the data it has available, and filling in the gaps it has with related data and assumptions based on similar data bits.

"False memories" tend to occur when the brain tries to access information without having all of it. For example, I have a very clear childhood memory of one of my sisters falling from the back of my dad's boat when we were little, and then floating face down in the lake until my dad jumped in to get her. The thing is, that never happened. I did go on my dads boat a lot with my sister when I was little, and a DIFFERENT sister did once fall in our pool and floated face down until my dad jumped in to get her, but they were completely different events. My brain somehow found the two memory fragments, connected them, and I can remember it clear as day today. As another example, I was molested for years as a child, but I can actually only remember two events. The events themselves were so long and varied that they couldn't possibly have happened in two events, so it looks like my brain just connected all of the events together into a single memory. My brain knew that "X happened", but it couldn't apply any sort of timeline or context to it, so it simply combined all of the X events into one. It filled in the gaps to try and make the memory make as much sense as it could.

And yes, dreams do sometimes create memory fragments that can create false memories. So can nightmares. So can suggestion. If you can establish even one part of a memory fragment, the human brain will do the best it can to assemble that fragment into a comprehensive memory.

I've had dreams that were so realistic I had a hard time knowing if I did or did not do something.

...and apparently continues to do so without sensory input or motor output (mostly, erm, REM...) while we sleep. Perchance to dream. I have long thought that there is little or no qualitative difference in that world modeling function whether we're awake or asleep-- the main difference is constant recalibration of the model to account for sensory data when we're awake. Otherwise, the input itself can be modeled while we sleep.

Sometimes we think we see things that aren't there.

Sometimes we don't see things that are there, or we don't remember them.

E.g.: How many times do the players in white pass the basketball?

was no gorilla either. Just a person in a fake fur suit with mask/hat on.

dood, get outta the way!

Jesus, it even pounds its chest. I lost track of the number of passes the instant it walked into the frame.

Edit: Was the video a joke, and I'm just dim?

who watch it DON'T see the gorilla at all. They are too focused on white that they ignore evreything dark.

We were told to count the number of passes. I focused only on the ball, completely missed the gorilla.

It was in an audio book I was listening to a year or so ago. The book is called The Invisible Gorilla.

guy in the gorilla suit.....just interesting.

Ask my wife. She makes some change in our home decor and asks if I can spot what is different. In 22 years of marriage, I have about a 5% success rate.

Spotting a gorilla among basketball players, though, I don't know if one gender would do better than another.

the Master placed a small wooden bird in a tree across the field and instructed his students to prepare to hit the bird's eye with their arrows.

He asked the first student what he saw:

"Master, I see the bird, the branch it sits on, other birds above it in the same tree, the sky behind."

The Master told this student to sit down, he would not be able to hit the bird's eye.

Arjuna's turn came and he said "Master, I see the bird's eye". When queried, Arjuna told the Master he saw nothing else. Just the bird's eye.

The Master told Arjuna to draw his bow which he did and hit the bird's eye.

This is the power of single minded concentration. There is a place for it.

...where Arjuna says "Master, I see the bird's eye, and nothing else..." Then The Master told Arjuna to draw his bow, at which time The Master reared back and struck Arjuna in the back of his head with a rock because all Arjuna cared about was the stupid bird.

Of course focus is important, but tunnelvision is a killer.

Of the conservative hatred of that Coca-Cola ad. They were all so upset about America the Beautiful being sung in non-English languages, that they failed to notice the two gay dads roller skating with their daughter in the last half of the commercial.

TlalocW

from experience even expert eye witnesses can get stuff wrong as the memory does play wierd tricks.

there seldom is "solid evidence" and most often no way of getting it.

Yes, people are impressionable and can be manipulated. But to view skeptically all allegations of abuse in the absence of solid evidence discounts wayyyyy too many.

Since any one might be false.

Do you just accept a kind of statistical punishment? "We estimate that 10% of sexual abuse memories are false, therefore we'll look at all the cases of sexual abuse that reach a guilty verdict and randomly toss out 10% of them"?

And if we even say yes to that kind of criminal justice, you can't really apply stats to an individual case. If there's, say, a 10% chance that the person's wrong, do we apply 90% of the punishment? Apply it to 90% of the accused?

Etc.


If we are gullible, we convict the guilty. If we're too skeptical, we exculpate the guilty.

Traditionally, in theory we absolve the guilty when there's doubt. That's one version of "justice."

Traditionally, in practice if we're outraged we demand a pound of flesh without caring about things like provable guilt or innocence. That's the kind of justice that satisfies gut-level thinking.

seriously, check them out as best can be done, but do not discount simply because there is no tangible evidence.

In a court of law, if there is no tangible evidence, just an accusation that could be false (either a lie or a false memory), "reasonable doubt" applies, and the only correct verdict is "not guilty". Does that mean you've "discounted" the possibility that abuse took place? No, you've simply hit a limit what can be done about your suspicions.

In the court of public opinion, or in the private court you hold in your own mind, you can certainly choose to have a weaker or stronger standard of "reasonable doubt" than applies in an actual courtroom for what you think may or may not have happened in a given case. Nothing short of adamant insistence on the complete innocence of the accused, however, with no room left for doubt, amounts to "discounting" an accusation.

happened as they said.

For instance a woman did not get serious injuries during a rape so we can discount her claim of rape. An adult says they were abused by a trusted member of the community yet never said anything while it was happening so we can discount their story.

A person's story can be discounted, held unreliable. It "might" have happened but "probably did not".

"Adament insistence on the complete innocence of the accused with no room left for doubt" is not necessary to discount someone's veracity.

...then by that odd definition, I'm afraid "discounting" is what must be done a great deal of the time, otherwise you enter the world where nothing but any accusation is required to establish unequivocal guilt.

"Adament insistence on the complete innocence of the accused with no room left for doubt"

" anything but absolute trust"

"unequivocal guilt"

You asked what I meant, I answered. Have a good day.

Any dichotomy you heard in my response was me echoing the dichotomy that I think logically follows from what you posted, and me skeptically questioning that dichotomy.

Now you're going to pretend like that dichotomy belongs to me, and is my recommendation or viewpoint?

If you don't think my reading dichotomy into what you posted is deserved, then argue about how I misunderstood you. It's pretty poor reading comprehension to not notice how skeptical (if not downright derisive) I was being about black-and-white thinking on this issue.

Thank you.

...create doubt, blame the victim for 'not remembering correctly'. Discount childhood as a phase when memories are vague and often incorrect....

If there were not a serious problem this would not even be on the radar screens.

have the expertise to properly plant the false memory?

A parent or a law enforcement officer can do it so easily that they can do it without even realizing they are. All it takes is the solid and repeated assertion an event happened and not only will the child be likely to believe it happened, but because memory is a reconstructive process, they will begin to spontaneously develop more detail in the memory.

that their biological mother neglected them and didn't love them. To the point where they wrote their mother that they demanded to be adopted by the foster parents. Classic case of false memory syndrome.

We convinced the judge, who returned the children (shellshocked albeit) to their mother. They're happily reunited.

or done stuff, its amazing how convinced she is that she went on our honeymoon with us. the mind is an amazing tool.

had to live through the horrible trauma of having been sexually assaulted by her father.

But it seems very important to many people to completely ignore that fact.

Even a genuinely believed allegation isn't evidence or evidence of absence. That is why we have a criminal justice system in the first place.

I don't know if Woody Allen molested her or not. The only person who knows for sure is probably Woody Allen.

must have been mistaken because the criminal justice system didn't convict their abusers? I see.

The criminal justice system doesn't work very well in the case of child sex abuse because of statutes of limitations and disbelief of the accusers. (No, really, believe it or not, that happens, can you believe it?)

Most children who are sexually abused by parents or caretakers never get a hearing, and the abusers never get punished. So the recourse isn't effective, and the only thing these people can do is tell their stories. Knowing that they will be accused of lying, and knowing that they will be pummeled.

If any of these people claiming neutrality came out with any statement that was not a variation of, "but she's deluded," I'd believe they were neutral. But they are not. The clear assumption in these posts, including yours, is that she is lying or wrong, and he is innocent. How is that not a witch hunt against the person who was molested?

people who dont believe her. thats the problem with cases involving he said she said, its a balancing act between the rights of the alleged victim and the alleged perp. unfortunately its the nature of the beast that battle lines get drawn and people drag their own issues into it.

If you thought I said that then you are either completely misunderstanding me or you are willfully misrepresenting what I said.

What I ACTUALLY am saying is that people, especially children, can have detailed and vivid memories of even that which did not happen. What I am also saying is this phenomenon can and has lead to false allegations of sexual abuse in the past. What I am not saying, and what you are clearly not getting, is that this does not mean that all allegations of sexual abuse are false. It means that we should be cautious when we examine such allegations and nothing more or less.

Please clarify that, if you would as I think many of us are assuming different things there.

Thank you

Obviously there would rarely be physical evidence remaining. However collaboration by many different victims with little contact would qualify. Testimony that puts the potential abusers at the right place and the right time to match the memories would be other such evidence. There are many other things that could support a claim of abuse in the past. My point isn't that such allegations need to be dismissed out of hand. My point is that there needs to be more than just an allegation, because of what we understand of how these kinds of false memories can work. There is this idea that an allegation must be true because "no one would lie about something like that", however people can make false allegations without even lying in the way we would conceive of a lie (a false statement the person understands to be untrue).

that explanation, it looks like you are saying don't believe anyone who was abused in private because there is no physical evidence. And that discounts way too many since abuse typically happens in private with no tangible evidence, esp at a later time.

But a legal threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt does not encumber my or anyone else's right to free speech. We have every right to believe Dylan Farrow, and chances are FAR more likely that she was molested than not. Evidence on the low percentage of false allegations makes that the case. So while you can pretend it is more likely she is lying or there is an equal chance of it, that is factually false. That doesn't mean there should be a lesser legal burden, but it does mean judging him guilty as an outside observer is not irrational, stupid, or unsound. In fact, it is an entirely rational response.

What if the child isn't old enough to tell time?

This gives the advantage to the adult, always. Pedophiles know that, and they use it against their victims.

not a memory when she first reported it because it had just happened - was accurate and the assault did happen as she said it did.

I certainly made clear that I wasn't implying that the existence of false memories means that every allegation of sexual abuse in the distant past is false though.

See the thread about the Salem witch hunts, for example.

has been talking about. Of course.

By the way, I love in that last post how you tossed in the idea that I was "willfully misrepresenting." Nice touch, in this context!

Some of which very strongly imply that anyone who doesn't believe it happened is calling the woman a liar. My point was that a person can say something happened, believe it is true and yet be entirely wrong. I wouldn't comment on the specific case because, as I've repeatedly said I have no idea if it happened or not.

Got it.

You wanna try reading my OP again? Preferably until you grasp what I am actually saying.

You appear to think that because I am making the very well researched and scientifically supported point that a person can believe they experienced sexual abuse without actually having experienced it because of a phenomenon called false memories, that I personally believe that this MUST be the case in the specific instance that spawned the discussion that spawned my OP.

Yet in my OP I clearly state that, just because this phenomenon does happen, doesn't mean that all or even a majority of cases of sexual abuse long remembered are false. I mean I even go out of my way to say that this doesn't mean we should dismiss allegations out of hand, just with that we should view them with caution, especially if they aren't supported by other evidence.

Wow, I must be very duplicitous there. I mean I'm practically saying and putting into bold something that completely contradicts your reading of my post. I must have only thrown that in there to deceive people from the true meaning. That is the only logical conclusion, I mean otherwise I wouldn't be saying or believe what you are repeatedly accusing me of saying or believing.

Or something.

Never mind that what you say is accurate and fair.

Someone is putting well thought out ideas out there and you respond with pithy one liners that attack them. GREAT conversation skills.

Without any ideas that suggest that that party might not be wrong. Then he, and others are insisting that he has put forth a "fair and balanced" view.

We've all seen how that works out.

And nice going with throwing that personal insult in there. It lets us all know what to expect from your communication skills.

Seriously tell me. The existence of false memories? We have documentation of that. That false memories have lead to the conviction of innocent people for crimes including sexual abuse? We have documentation for that.

So tell me please, what on earth am I wrong about?

The most offensive thing about the OP was pretending it was just a general observation instead another slam at an actual child who was victimized.

It's a good opportunity to block people I wouldn't want to associate with in life.

The fact I have the GAUL to bring well researched science into a discussion on what is essentially about the nature of eye witness testimony must mean that I personally believe that person isn't telling the truth.

do not constitute "well-researched" science. Good grief.

I am more than happy to provide peer reviewed journals on this topic. I can PM you a reading list if you want.

I did include an interview with you one the foremost experts in the field.

Why do you prefer to focus on the rare over the very common? That something exists does not make it common or even likely.

Everyone knows those things have happened in the past. That something is possible doesn't make it probable. There was nothing remotely scientific about your sources. Calling them such is a false appeal to empiricism unsupported by your links. Additionally, you have completely and repeatedly ignored the far more common data that such abuse is common place and that perpetrators are seldom convicted. Why is that?

If 99.9% of accusations are true, do the courts just get to skip to trial and go straight to sentencing? Do we get to adopt a lower standard for conviction?

No one is disputing what you are saying. What I would like to see you address is how you believe this should affect court proceedings and the bar to convict.

Except the part where you posted:

"That is why even a entirely believable allegation should be viewed, if not skeptically, at least with caution..."

"That is why even a entirely believable allegation should be viewed, if not skeptically, at least with caution in the absence of solid evidence."

Do you understand the purpose of a sentence in the English language? The purpose of it is express a complete and self-contained thought. Clearly what I am saying is that a believable allegation (something that COULD be true as in the abuser did not ride into the scene on flaming chariot or was not out of town at the time) should be viewed cautiously if there is not also solid evidence supporting it.

Just like how we would expect anyone to view any allegation of a crime cautiously if there isn't also solid evidence supporting it.

Seriously, that was intellectually dishonest in the supreme. I feel like I was just on Luffa Billy or Hannity's show.

It is dishonest in the extreme to take an idea expressed with a clear and obvious condition, strip the condition from the idea and act like that is what the person supports.

It is like I said "I like cold soda on a hot day" and saying "WHY ON EARTH DO YOU SUPPORT DRINKING COLD SODA ON A COLD DAY?!?!?!". No I bloody well didn't say that and you know I didn't say that.



That is just sad. You owe yourself better than to debate in such a way.

that is exactly how our criminal justice system is supposed to work.

It is supposed to look at the accuser with skepticism. It's why we have multi-person juries and a reasonable doubt standard that is generally set at 95% confidence. It's supposed to be hard to convict somebody given that you can't unring the bell once you send somebody to prison. You can't give that person back those years.

The entire point of the legal system in our history, from England and through to our own constitution is to make it hard to convict somebody.

OP about Salem.

What the blue fucking hell is wrong with some people.

Thank you for wading through this festering sewage, I hope you managed to reach some people.

trying to find out where my mistake in judgment is, because I just can't get it through my head that, "she's lying," or "she's deluded" or "she's the victim of brainwashing" isn't a completely neutral statement with respect to this case.

It's like there is a big oatmeal ball in their brains in the place where, "there is a possibility that what she said actually happened," would go in the brains of other people.

But, really, I think that some of these responders truly just don't entertain the notion that she might be telling an accurate story, and they just don't see why that is an omission. Underneath the horror I feel in compassion for those who report sexual abuse, there is a really fascinating cultural statement. Not a good one, but a fascinating one.

If you have something to disprove the existence of false memories. I'd be happy to hear it.

What claims did I make that are untrue? I'd love to know so that I don't make them again. Please include quotes and the refutation if you would.

but i got to go with innocent until proven beyond doubt. it sucks sometimes but any other system of justice sucks.

You know damned well that is not what anyone is saying and yet you persist in putting this absurd spin on your argument. It's why I refuse to take you seriously. I am relatively sure I'm not alone in that.

When my daughter was five, she wistfully asked me, "Remember when I was a baby and I could fly?" Imagination on steroids.

I can clearly recall standing on the sidewalk in front of my house, and seeing my mother making doughnuts in the kitchen as it got dark outside. The problem is that the kitchen was in the back of the house and not visible from the sidewalk. But this memory is so strong that I can't get it out of my brain even 55 years later.

Of course not. This is the problem with the whole false memories must mean everyone is suspected to be lying about child abuse meme. It would certainly be suspect if someone who has never professed memories of child abuse is suddenly claiming to remember them. Planted false memories should certainly be suspect in cases like that. But the claim that all abuse memories should be immediately suspect because memories in general are unreliable is ridiculous.

happened. It wasn't a memory. Now she is just reiterating what she said then.

And yes, the best attitude is to be agnostic. That is my point.

Each of these threads starts with the assumption that Dylan Farrow is either lying, delusional, or deranged. That Woody Allen is a victim of a witch trial (i.e. innocent) that Dylan Farrow is telling false memories (therefore Woody Allen is innocent) or that Mia Farrow is a crazy woman who deluded her child (therefore Woody Allen is innocent.) None of them acknowledges the other side of this, and all of them speak in support of the innocence of Allen.

My favorite: Moses Farrow is a family therapist and sides with Woody Allen, and therefore Woody Allen is innocent. Which fails to mention that the eleven other surviving children support Dylan Farrow's story.

Yes, let's be agnostic, by all means. Let's acknowledge that there is a possibility that this woman's story is true.

This is proof you're not getting this concept.

Having a false memory does not require a person to be lying, delusional or derange. It requires them to be a child and be repeatedly told something wrong by an adult.

Is that the case in this instance? Again I said I don't know and I don't know how any reasonable person could say they do. However, no matter what she is probably and victim of something and has my sympathy.

MAYBE SHE IS RECOUNTING AN EVENT THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED!

Maybe it has nothing whatsoever to do with a false memory. Maybe it has to do with some guy that molested a child.

This possibility is what is missing from all these posts, and from your OP.

And no, no reasonable person could say they know, but in not knowing, it is not reasonable to jump to the notion that she is brainwashed or that he is the victim of a witch hunt. Both of those presuppose his innocence.

My lord, do you even read my posts?


"Is that the case in this instance? Again I said I don't know and I don't know how any reasonable person could say they do. However, no matter what she is probably and victim of something and has my sympathy."

I mean that is a genuine question. Repeatedly all I get from you is things that could be answered if you bothered to actually read and process the text I am sending you way.

they actually are. That is a genuine observation.

So there is really not much more to say here.

If you are consistently implying things that are directly contradicted by and asking questions that are answered in my posts, then maybe it isn't the secret subtext of my words that only you can read that is leading you astray. Maybe you're the one letting your own biases color my words.

Maybe?

Possibly?

Bueller?

Bueller?

because the vision I have is so real, so visceral. I'm not weighing in on what Dylan does or does not remember...I'm just saying that I have this vivid, real memory of something that I now know..never happened.

and when they find their voice to tell their tale, a popular defense is the phenomenon you describe. Imagine how many child rapists enjoy the freedom to abuse children for their entire lives because no one believed the rapists victims.

In some cases you may find that children's memories may not be fully reliable but in almost every case you can count on a pedophile to lie, lie very well from lifelong practice and to rape again.

Children's memories may be spot on, colored by later influences, or wholly fictitious.

Pedophiles pretty much always lie and often are repeat offenders.

That doesn't provide a solution to the problem of how to find justice for the actual victims without punishing the falsely accused.

If you want to avoid punishing the falsely accused, the result is that you have to let a lot of pedophiles walk away unpunished.

If you want to avoid having the guilty walk free, you wind up punishing a reasonable number of innocent people.

The 3rd way is to find additional evidence: people who remember evidence from a single incident, records of physical evidence from the time, additional victims, evidence that the pedophile retained. All this does is confirm the childhood memories. Yes, it says we doubt a single witness' testimony. Yes, we usually doubt a single witness' testimony, so it's not like that's a new thing.

There is no 4th way.

Oddly, I wound up arguing this a good 24 hours before I realized what and who the entire discussion was about.

Chances of that are FAR greater than false memory. But then you know that.

to establish and reinforce the false memory. That's going to be extremely rare. Not every vindictive other is even capable of doing it if they wanted to.

A study conducted in 1986 found that 63% of women who had suffered sexual abuse by a family member also reported a rape or attempted rape after the age of 14. Recent studies in 2000, 2002, and 2005 have all concluded similar results (page 8).

Children who had an experience of rape or attempted rape in their adolescent years were 13.7 times more likely to experience rape or attempted rape in their first year of college (page 9).



Why would a victim of sexual abuse by a family member report rape or attempted rape at such a higher portion than the population in general? And what is it about people who have experienced a rape as an adolescent that attracts rapists at college? Is there something about these people that attract rapists that the rapists pick up on? Is there some observable characteristic that could be isolated about these early childhood victims that could be used to identify them and get them protection or skills which would help them deal with their high level of attraction to rapists?

These statistics are frightening and there must be a way to use them to better society.

Child abuse affects a person for life. It leads to low self-esteem and makes them more vulnerable to predators, who have an uncanny ability to identity victims. It's not that are more likely to report rape but they are more likely to be raped. Also child abuse survivors are more likely to lead high-risk lifestyles (sex workers, alcoholism, drug abuse) that increase the likelihood they will be targeted.

to tell their story, they aren't believed anyway. You know what that does to a child's self-esteem? Not a lot that's good, that's for sure.

of a time when people actually valued a person's right to determine who is able to touch them, when they didn't automatically determine victims were lying or falsely misremembering, and when they took allegations of sexual assault seriously and sought to have them prosecuted. It's a false memory of a time and place where rape culture didn't exist, where it wasn't painstakingly constructed through dismissing the testimony of one victim after another. It's a completely false memory because it never happened. Such a place never existed because people do not want it to exist.

1. Is there enough evidence for him to be convicted in court? My understanding is that it's too late to try him at this point, but would there be enough evidence? I don't know - I'd have to sit in court. I understand there was evidence but there was no trial when Dylan was 7. I guess seeing that evidence would be a good start. But I'd obviously have to see enough evidence to vote to convict him if I were seated on a jury.

2. Is he or is she more likely to be lying/confused? I am not a court, and I can make a determination about who I feel is more believable. I am not bound by the same requirements as a court. I think he has a great deal more to gain by lying than she does, and in fact it's probably worse for her to say what she's saying than to ignore it, regardless of what is true and what isn't. Also, he has shown poor judgement about boundaries in past relationships. The article that has been posted a trillion times as supposed evidence that he is not guilty actually tipped me more the other way. It sounded like it was written by a fanboy and brought up so much irrelevant stuff (what does Dylan's brother's paternity have to do with whether she was molested?) that I question the motive for writing it.

So I agree that he can't be found guilty in court unless he is proven guilty. I also know that I am capable of thought and can have an opinion on this, and my opinion need not have the same standard as a courtroom. Lots and lots of people are never brought to trial who are guilty. Lots and lots of people are found not guilty in court but are actually guilty. I don't have to assume she is lying unless I personally see evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The evidence that exists isn't even available to me.

Our society has a very hard time taking victims seriously. We don't have to assume they're surely telling the truth, or assume they absolutely aren't confused, but we should really listen to them and consider what they say and not dismiss them because we haven't personally been given enough evidence to convict them. Their voices deserve to be heard.

I think she's more likely to be telling the truth than lying or confused, and I think he has a much greater motive to lie than she has. I know this happened during a custody case and when her mother was upset with him, but I still find the idea that this is a false memory less likely than that it is a plain old memory. I would have to see the evidence that was collected when she was 7 to know whether there is enough evidence to convict him. Without seeing the evidence, I'm at "more likely than not" and I'm aware that wouldn't be enough to convict.

It is very thoughtful.

I couldn't see out of my right eye for 3 months. You definitely don't forget something like that.

If you make a claim you must provide evidence and prove your point. Until then I will ALWAYS be skeptical. However, just because someone can not provide proof does not mean that one is wrong or lying. To say one is lying is also making a claim and requires proof and evidence and requires skepticism.

Note the link. I am talking about real scientific skepticism and not denialism.

I know statistically that false claims of sexual molestation are very low. Statistically, the odds are on the side of the accuser. I also know how faulty eye witness testimony can be, how the mind can play tricks on people, and that the testimony of children is far less reliable than adults.

From what I know of the case, both sides have witnesses and very little hard evidence. I think it is most likely that Dylan's version of events is the truth, but I am not completely convinced by either side. So, other than saying what I think COULD of happened, without further details or evidence I would abstain from making any decision for certain.

What I do know, is that I find it very troubling, and to a degree resent, that some people want that I completely forgo any attempt at being objective and open-minded on the matter. That to even so much as LISTEN to the other side somehow makes me a bad person. It is like so much as considering the possibility that Dylan's account might be faulty, corrupted, or even knowingly or unknowingly false makes me an accessory or enabler of the US rape culture.

I am not going to surrender my ability to think and reason for myself because it makes someone feel better, or to anybody for any reason. I believe in questioning and being "skeptical" of everything.

where some parents taught their child from an early age some religious myths. They quoted their holy books and sang childhood songs that told about the wonderfulness of their deity, which may or may not have matched their holy books at all. And you know what? That child grew up into adulthood... and actually believed those stories and did not depart from those myths.

False memories really do happen in many different ways.

Completely irrelevant.

People learn religious stories but they don't think those things actually happened to them. They learn them as true stories, as others learn history lessons in textbooks as true stories, but they don't become false memories and are nothing like false memories.

But I see little difference in having repeated lessons of myths portrayed as fact to live by... and false lessons of stories about real people portrayed as fact to live by. One says a mythical being has power over you and you better beware... the other says a myth about a real being has power over you and you better beware. Both require a lot of psychological intervention to overcome whether found within one's self or from a professional.

What exactly would you classify as sewage? My OP?