Reviews for Remembering Reconsidered: Ecological and Traditional Approaches to the Study of Memory

The average rating for Remembering Reconsidered: Ecological and Traditional Approaches to the Study of Memory based on 2 reviews is 3 stars.

Review # 1 was written on 2018-04-19 00:00:00 Steven Burrows It's refreshing to read academic writing outside one's usual purview, because one needn't grasp every jargon-laden sentence, nor pay much attention to the statistical process. This book provided an interesting snapshot of memory research in the late 1980s. I read more pop neuroscience than cognitive psychology, so I was impressed by the variety and creativity of approaches that these scholars must use to "capture" our tricksy memories. I especially enjoyed Katherine Nelson's "The ontogeny of memory for real events," which analyzed the recorded bedtime conversations and monologues of a child named Emily from the time she was 21 months old until she was 3 years old. Infantile amnesia (not remembering much from before 3 yrs of age) is a fascinating entry point for learning more about human memory in general. A few quotes for my own remembering. Bracketed text is mine, for clarification. p.320-21 (Spence, "Passive Remembering") "Wollheim makes the distinction between 'the tyranny of the past and the tyranny of something that began in the past and has persisted,' and I think we may experiencce much more of the second....We may feel that we are haunted by particular moments that occur to us [in memory] over and over, but careful study of these 'repetitions' will show, I think, that there are gradual changes over time and that these changes are rule-governed." p.345 (Larsen, "Remembering without Experiencing") "Memories of reported events are born with a shadow, so to speak; there is a duality of the original event and its personal context [of receiving the report]."

Review # 2 was written on 2014-07-09 00:00:00 Patricia Buckingham I read several chapters from this and kind of wish I'd be assigned it again in the future. Lots of good, accessible information in a decently readable format with only a few--from what I saw or have the expertise to catch--errant or imprecise passages, specifically on the nature of personality disorders, wherein there was a mention that those with PDs do not experience rapid mood swings or struggle with mood dysregulation (those with BPD know otherwise), and when talking about gender identity, implying that gendered differences in behavior in children who are several years off from formal operations are innate, based in biology, rather than the product of socialization. In short, girls tend to choose the meeker and milder activities while the boys tend to choose the rough-and-tumble variety because that's what's socially encouraged, *not* because girls are naturally milder and boys wilder. It lacked a discussion on this, and since there were other areas of the book in which sociological contextualizations took place by which to frame psychological manifestations, I don't think the excuse that it's soc versus psych would hold much water.