I’m fascinated with memory, and how it works. This interest is practical rather than theoretical. I find that an understanding of memory is important because 1) I’ve often been a student (I’ve spent 10 years of my life in college and university and plan for another three or four more years of study) and had to memorize information, and 2) because we all depend on memory in our day to day lives, for everything we do, although I’m particularly interested in how our memories can give different people conflicting accounts of the same incident.

There are a couple of recent articles in the Times that deal with memory:

Idea Lab - Memory explains some of the limitations of memory, including erroneous eyewitness testimony and vulnerability to being misled by “spin.” Understanding the limitations of memory is important so that we don’t place too much faith in it. Every time, for example, that we retrieve a long term memory we risk adding to or altering it. It’s possible for us (or others) to change our memory of events such that we believe the new version. “Could there possibly have been two people in the car? Did one of them maybe have a beard?” Leading questions make us vulnerable to changing our memories.

In Divided They Fall, Nick Kristof discusses research showing how existing opinions lead to bias in how we perceive and remember events. He also goes into how this leads to polarization — we seek validation for our existing beliefs and opinions and ignore or dismiss contrary evidence. This has led to conservative and liberals in the US living in separate “meme-pools” in which they pay attention only to people with like views. (Actually, liberals are a bit better than conservatives at paying attention to contrary views).

Kristof’s column is based on Farhad Manjoo’s new book, “True Enough: Learning to Live in a Post-Fact Society.” I plan to get a copy.