We All Are Brian Williams: Confabulation Muddles Our Stories
NBC
News anchor Brian Williams has likely lost his job forever because when
reporting a story on January 30, 2015, he referred to “a
terrible moment a dozen years back during the invasion of Iraq when the
helicopter we were traveling in was forced down after being hit by an RPG.” This was demonstrated to be false, and the
next night Brian Williams himself apologized on the air, saying with amazement that
his “own notes” showed he was in the chopper behind the one that was struck. This incident caused commentators to report
similar misstatements Williams had made about his coverage of the Katrina hurricane
and the fall of the Berlin Wall. Since a
news anchor’s veracity is at the heart of the faith viewers place in choosing
which newscast to watch, Brian Williams was suspended from reporting at all for
NBC, and, far from being one of the most trusted persons in the country, he is
now suspected of being at the best incompetent and at worst a compulsive liar.
Poor Brian.
Sure, he was wrong about what he did in the past, but why is it that
many journalists will tell you that his fall from grace terrifies them because
they know they could be in his place in a flash? The answer is that everybody has many false memories of what he/she has done, and when we
relate our stories of past triumphs or disasters we get many of the facts
demonstrably wrong, though we’d pass lie detector tests showing we believe
every single word we say.
How does this happen? The answer lies in understand the phenomenon called
“confabulation.”
Here’s Wikipedia’s
description of the term:
In
psychology, confabulation (verb:
confabulate) is a memory
disturbance, defined as the production of fabricated, distorted or
misinterpreted memories about oneself or the world, without the conscious
intention to deceive. Confabulation is
distinguished from lying
as there is no intent to deceive and the person is unaware the information is
false. Although individuals can present blatantly false information,
confabulation can also seem to be coherent, internally consistent, and
relatively normal. Individuals who
confabulate present incorrect memories ranging from "subtle alterations to
bizarre fabrications", and are generally very confident about their
recollections, despite contradictory evidence.
Carried
too far confabulation is a mental illness, sometimes caused by brain
damage. But we all confabulate and we do
it constantly. The reason is that even by
the first time we tell a story about something that’s happened to us, we are
fuzzy about many of the facts, but we rarely say that even if we are aware of
it. Instead we fill in the blanks with
what probably happened. As this story is
repeated the false details are finalized in our mind, and with each repetition
new mis-remembrances occur, so that the story wanders even more greatly from
the truth. Someone once said that “the
first time you tell a story it’s fact, and the second time you tell it it’s
fiction.” That’s all too often exactly
right.
I’ve
written in this blog about confabulation before as a difficulty in rape
investigations, since both the victim and the perpetrator will remember what
happened in ways that support their own versions of the incident. [See http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2015/01/rape-biology-and-tricks-of-mind.html] We
tend to be the heroes of our own stories even when videos of the event might
cast us in less attractive roles. As I
write the stories of my life for this blog I’ve often worried about their truth. What’s even scarier is that time and again I’m
not sure of the answer.
Let
me give one example. The following is
from a blog post I wrote about me, my then wife, Charleyne, and the birth of our
son Clayton [see http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2010/09/charleyne-and-giant-cookie.html]:
The baby’s due date was two weeks before
Christmas of 1972, but that holiday came and went, with both of us getting
grumpier about this pregnancy which seemed to have gone on for most of our
lives. On Wednesday, December 27, we went to the movies to see the “The
Poseidon Adventure,” and toward the end of the picture Charleyne’s water broke
(and, given that movie is about disaster on the high seas, that couldn’t have
been more appropriate). She didn’t mention her new condition until the movie
ended (okay, in 2010 she says she did, but, trust me, if I’d have known her
water broke, I’d have destroyed whole rows of seats getting us out of there).
We rushed home and called her doctor. Contractions promptly started, so we
raced to the hospital, but then they mysteriously stopped, and she was sent
home. Our nerves were shot. By Thursday night nothing more had occurred, but
the doctor said Charleyne should come early Friday morning and he would
artificially induce labor. It was time for our baby to be born.
But when I told this story at Clayton’s 20th birthday
party, Charleyne said it wasn’t true. In
her telling when her water broke she promptly reported this to me and I poo-poo’d
the information and insisted we continue watching the movie. I was astounded when I heard her say
this. We’d both become so focused at
that moment in 1972 on making sure nothing went wrong with the baby that I’d
have taken her announcement as major important news.
Indeed, in my version of the story, I clearly remember asking her in an
exasperated voice why she hadn’t told me during
the movie, and she was the one who’d said it wasn’t a big deal (or something
like that).
Now this is an instance
where our versions of an important incident—her water breaking during a movie
and what we did about it—are completely at variance. One of us has to be wrong. Hmm. Is
that true? Perhaps there’s a middle
ground: she told me that her water broke but I didn’t hear or perhaps didn’t
understand what she meant. But if that’s
the explanation why would she sit there and wait out the end of the movie
before we dealt with this issue? Indeed,
even if her version of the story is right that’s the same question. She knew then and knows now (we are still
great friends) that I would have done anything she wanted when it came to
making her pregnancy as easy as possible.
In the end all that can be said is that the truth will never be
known about what we said to each other at the end of that movie. And it doesn’t really matter in the long run
of things.
But for poor Brian Williams confabulation has ruined a brilliant
career, and, at age 55, his professional reputation as a journalist is fodder
for comedy routines [to see what I mean Google “Brian Williams Jokes”]. If all journalists were on the air night
after night and making comments about stories they were covering, which was
part of Mr. Williams’s job, similar confabulation problems would likely arise,
just as they would if any of us had all our stories fact checked nightly by
millions of viewers. He never meant to lie on the air—that would lead to the
penalty he’s paying as I type this. But
confabulation has honest people telling unintentional lies, and the penalties
for that are severe, often far beyond what this predictable human misstep calls
for. Think of
what happened to Brian Williams like this: he was a victim of confabulation, as
are we all. What he said on the air
about his helicopter experience was a mistake,
but it was not a conscious fabrication. Now
decide how much he should be punished for this mistake, but at least ask the
right question.
Famous author, scientist Arthur C. Clarke had this to say about
the subject in one of his books:
“What is human memory?" Manning
asked. He gazed at the air as he spoke, as if lecturing an invisible audience—as
perhaps he was. “It certainly is not a passive recording mechanism, like a
digital disc or a tape. It is more like a story-telling machine. Sensory
information is broken down into shards of perception, which are broken down
again to be stored as memory fragments. And at night, as the body rests, these
fragments are brought out from storage, reassembled and replayed. Each
run-through etches them deeper into the brain's neural structure. And each time
a memory is rehearsed or recalled it is elaborated. We may add a little, lose a
little, tinker with the logic, fill in sections that have faded, perhaps even
conflate disparate events.
“In extreme cases, we refer to this as confabulation. The brain creates and recreates the past, producing, in the end, a version of events that may bear little resemblance to what actually occurred. To first order, I believe it's true to say that everything I remember is false.”
“In extreme cases, we refer to this as confabulation. The brain creates and recreates the past, producing, in the end, a version of events that may bear little resemblance to what actually occurred. To first order, I believe it's true to say that everything I remember is false.”
------------------------------------------
A Guide to the Best of My Blog, April 29, 2013: http://douglaswhaley.blogspot.com/2013/04/a-guide-to-best-of-my-blog.html
Well said. I am just learning about confabulation...
ReplyDeleteWilliam Hirstein's, Brain Fiction...
as I have been trying to understand...
and be patient with...
my soon-to-be 91yo mother's memory errors.
Some of the implications dawned on me this morning...
in effect, that, yes, we all confabulate...
and what that means in our "grasp of reality" or not.
Went searching for more info and found your article from April. Fascinating.
Reinforces my awareness of social constructs and how far we actually are from the images we project. Thanks.