Let’s say for a moment that the belief “memory is like a muscle and can be strengthened through exercise” is false. Why is it that anybody would willingly, and even inflexibly, believe in something that is false? The answer: logic.
It isn’t a false logic that leads people to false conclusions. It is rather a misinterpretation of the logic that we are continuously learning to use every day. The term “reasoning error,” which describes this phenomenon, is the key focus around which Dr. Thomas Gilovich wrote his book: How we Know What Isn’t So: The Fallibility of Human Reason in Everyday Life. There are various reasoning errors which cause beliefs ranging from legends to the supernatural. A few of these reasoning errors which might explain people’s belief in exercisable memory are: the ‘inferring causation from correlation’ effect, the ‘post hoc’ effect, the ‘representativeness’ effect, and the ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’ effect.
1) Inferring Causation from Correlation-
This reasoning error occurs whenever an event is seemed to cause another event that is unrelated. For example: Seattle, Washington is only sunny on average 60 days a year, coupled with Seattle’s high rates of suicide some people falsely conclude that a lack of sunshine causes suicidal tendencies.
I apologize for the graphic nature of this illustration but it is a common example of inferred causation.
Memory strengthening activities thought to be effective due to testimonials from past customers who assure that their success is related to having purchased the activity.
2) Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc-
This reasoning error, often shortened to ‘post hoc’, is similar to inferring causation from correlations. Post hoc, however, is when causation is assumed from two events happening one right after the other and is often the cause for superstitions like good luck charms. Someone nervous about an exam, instead of studying, chooses to play a memory enhancing video game, they will account for their score on the test with any number of reasons relating to the game: it’s a success when they receive a good mark, although it’s possible they were prepared for the test or that the game provided some temporary enhanced awareness; if they receive a poor mark they will conclude that they haven’t played the game enough to enhance their memory yet.
This is much like when John Doe’s favorite basketball team has lost 3 games in a row, then when he’s wearing one of his favorite shirts and his team wins he might conclude that wearing this now lucky shirt helped his team win and he will make sure to always wear this shirt whenever his team is playing, even if it needs a good wash instead!
3) Representativeness-
This reasoning error assumes correlation between two things or events because they are similar and is often caused by stereotypes. For example, whenever you meet someone, they are categorized into a social group by a set of norms; if someone with spiked hair is holding a skateboard you might assume they are just like every other ‘punk’ you have ever met whether that be a good impression or bad.
List-memorization is a popular memory enhancing tool because memorizing lists of information to recall later is like taking tests. If people can successfully memorize these lists, they will assume it means they are more capable of memorizing other information more accurately.
4) Self-fulfilling Prophecy-
This reasoning error when someone causes the outcome they expected. Thinking that they are going to have a good day will put them in a good mood and in fact cause them to be more likely to have a good day!
Some studies (Bandura) have suggested that confidence in our memory may provide the focus required to perform well on memory tasks. Accepting this as true, believing that a memory workshop has made their memory better might enhance their memory performance.
Gilovich, Thomas. (1993). How we Know what isn't so: the fallibility of human reason in everyday life. New York, NY: The Free Press.
Bandura, A. (1989). Regulation of cognitive processes through perceived self-efficacy. Developmental Psychology. 25(5), 729-735.
