Talk:Forgetting

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 16 September 2019 and 18 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Hsandall.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 21:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled

The article states: It is subject to delicately balanced optimization that ensures that only the least relevant memories are deleted, as well as a security process ensuring that dangerous information will not harm us. Forgetting can be prevented by repetition and/or evaluation of the information. As we are examining this part of mind, this function of mind, we shouldn't forget that this is still not an exactly explained property of mind.

This is an inaccurate description since memories are not "deleted." And the process of recall is much more complicated than what this article conveys. Lifesnadir 13:31, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, research does indicate that some memory is deleted. The concept of "Trace Decay" is exactly that and everyone encounters it. At one time, the general theory was that memories merely lost their cues and thus became inaccessible. Some in neuroscience continue to take sides. Perhaps the article should discuss both. Thanks Neverland1 (talk) 00:22, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Re: tag on article

HAHA! God, that made me laugh. "An expert on forgetting"! You can't be an expert on something you forgot about :-P --Ben 13:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that made me laugh too, but not for the same reason (= . --Armaetin (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

there needs to be more information about Hermann Ebbinghaus's experiment concerning what he concluded Hoopin4me (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Isnt Decay Theory the same as Trace Decay Theory and should be removed or compiled into one? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.192.88 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Undue weight on Seven Types of Forgetting

I think this long section is far too weighty in this article. This is one article by one academic, not some kind of scholarly consensus, and it was posted in one big gulp by an IP contributor who has never posted anything else. I appreciate the work they went to, but I don't think it's really encyclopedic, and certainly far too detailed. I'm not going to edit it, but I really think someone should take a look. · rodii · 17:44, 3 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong information

This article says that forgetting is the loss of a memory that somebody previously had. In reality, there's another kind of forgetting where not thinking about a memory can cause them to do something they wouldn't have done. For example, sometimes somebody forgets to go to a detention then when the teacher tells them the next day that they got a second detention for forgetting, they don't act as though they were never told they were given a detention so the memory of being given the detention was not lost. Another example is when somebody who has previously learned all the names of restaurants owned by Cara Operations hears somebody else call out one of those names then 5 minutes later, they can't think of that name but as soon as they hear it again, they can tell that it's the same name as they heard called out before. Although there may be no reliable source for the existence of that type of forgetting, the issue is a wrong statement, not the absence of a statement. Maybe the first sentence of the article should be reworded to say that the loss of a long term memory is a kind of forgetting. Blackbombchu (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]