Researchers Say Taking Photographs Ruins Your Memory

I think it just allows for you to remember more experiences. So while you might not remember a couple things due to the fact that you took pictures, you can do more things that you will remember. So if my brain had a limit of 100k things to be remembered. I took pictures of 50K of those things, I get another 50K of things to remember. If that makes any sense...
 
I think it's more likely people just have lesser mental acuity now than they did before all this technology was invented. Thank you Farmville and Twitter for destroying the minds of the newest generation.
 
Draxanoth said:
I think it's more likely people just have lesser mental acuity now than they did before all this technology was invented. Thank you Farmville and Twitter for destroying the minds of the newest generation.
Click to expand...

The average IQ is up, yet memory retention is down.
 
I've bee saying this for years. I appreciate taking photos, for the sake of a nice photograph, but to remember? I'd rather see it with my own eyes. How often do you actually look back at "event" photos?
 
Rockferd said:
I've bee saying this for years. I appreciate taking photos, for the sake of a nice photograph, but to remember? I'd rather see it with my own eyes. How often do you actually look back at "event" photos?
Click to expand...

I do a lot. It brings out certain other details that your mind might not have prioritized enough to remember.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
The average IQ is up, yet memory retention is down.
Click to expand...

It's prioritising, you are a machine, you have limited capacities and hundreds of systems that shift focus from lower priorities to higher priorities. The ready availability of a massive external information bank means that many storage functions in the brain are less required. If you lose access to that external memory log, your brain will quickly adjust priorities.

It's ultimate expression is more of us controlling our own evolution, we increasing favour higher intelligence than we do greater memory retention and natural selection occurs. We augment our memory retention externally and memory is less important, in multiple generations more successful humans will have a higher emphasis placed on mental acuity instead of memory retention.
 
I don't agree. At least, not as a rule. Having access to limitless information has actually increased my memory retention. It's not like the math vs. calculator debate at all. The more often those synapses are firing, the stronger their myelin sheath, the stronger their neurotransmitters and the stronger your memory.
 
I look at a photo and remember more from that event.
 
What if I forgot I took a picture of the event? Would I have better memory of the event then?
 
Rockferd said:
Maybe it's just me then. If that works for you, fantastic :)
Click to expand...
You might just have better memory than me, haha. :)

Twisted Kidney said:
It's prioritising, you are a machine, you have limited capacities and hundreds of systems that shift focus from lower priorities to higher priorities. The ready availability of a massive external information bank means that many storage functions in the brain are less required. If you lose access to that external memory log, your brain will quickly adjust priorities.

It's ultimate expression is more of us controlling our own evolution, we increasing favour higher intelligence than we do greater memory retention and natural selection occurs. We augment our memory retention externally and memory is less important, in multiple generations more successful humans will have a higher emphasis placed on mental acuity instead of memory retention.
Click to expand...
I agree with this.

LeninGHOLA said:
I don't agree. At least, not as a rule. Having access to limitless information has actually increased my memory retention. It's not like the math vs. calculator debate at all. The more often those synapses are firing, the stronger their myelin sheath, the stronger their neurotransmitters and the stronger your memory.
Click to expand...

I also agree with this. I almost think that both memory retention increases and that more emphasis is on mental acuity.
 
Researchers who aver people that take photos loose photographic memory only adds to their lack of credibility, which reminds me of Albert Einstein's quote: "The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits." ;) Stupidity has no limits, its like when the news media posts unknown food scientist's comments... eggs (or whatever pleases you i.e. whiskey, smokes, ice cream, sex, etc) are bad for you and then another posting comes along... eggs (or whatever pleases you i.e. whiskey, smokes, ice cream, sex, etc) is good for you, then several months past and a newer article declaring: Believe us, really eggs are bad for ...keep those stories coming stupid unknown researchers. :rolleyes:
 
Well if you're busy working the camera the whole time you're going to remember taking pictures instead of remembering what you were taking pictures of. :rolleyes:
 
Yet there are many well done studies which show that people who do not have a record of an event do not remember it correctly. The classic crime witness scenario? You have a staged crime in a class room and everyone is asked to recall what happened, 50 people who all saw the same exact crime come back with all different descriptions of the perpetrator. In many cases not a single person in the glass gets it all right.

I think pictures that force you to know what really happened are better than bullshit memories.

As far as specific memories, sure I don't remember as much, but that is probably because I am not forced to, instead I can use what little brain capacity I have to remember more broader things and just know how I can re-acquire the information when I need it. I think that is more useful.
 
I don't know about ruining your memory but it sure disconnects you from the place you're at. No way around that.
 
LeninGHOLA said:
The average IQ is up, yet memory retention is down.
Click to expand...

Up to a point, IQ rises with knowledge. In other words it isn't a strict measure of intelligence below the high end. So the only reason IQ is up is that knowledge and information are now cheap.

I'd be willing to bet that, controlled for nutrition, the average intelligence of a first-world 12-year-old today is lower than that of one 15 years ago. They have been exposed to much less brain-building activity per day, and much more brain-rotting activity per day.
 
wabbitseason said:
Up to a point, IQ rises with knowledge. In other words it isn't a strict measure of intelligence below the high end. So the only reason IQ is up is that knowledge and information are now cheap.

I'd be willing to bet that, controlled for nutrition, the average intelligence of a first-world 12-year-old today is lower than that of one 15 years ago. They have been exposed to much less brain-building activity per day, and much more brain-rotting activity per day.
Click to expand...

That's what old people say. :D
 
wabbitseason said:
Up to a point, IQ rises with knowledge. In other words it isn't a strict measure of intelligence below the high end. So the only reason IQ is up is that knowledge and information are now cheap.

I'd be willing to bet that, controlled for nutrition, the average intelligence of a first-world 12-year-old today is lower than that of one 15 years ago. They have been exposed to much less brain-building activity per day, and much more brain-rotting activity per day.
Click to expand...

How do you base this? Was MTV the brain building that you speak of?
 
I agree with this article, on trips I take very few pictures but I remember the entire trip and everything it had to offer. My wife is a photo addict, which she scrambles to get on Facebook and rarely talks about the actual trip and fails to remember the various places we visited in the trip.

For me I rather remember the experience instead of showing off pictures to prove I was somewhere, I also don't really care if other people were there either or what they did while they were there unless it was something that could help my experience on the trip should I take it again.
 
I want to find every one of these researchers and punch them in the face.
 
Draxanoth said:
I think it's more likely people just have lesser mental acuity now than they did before all this technology was invented. Thank you Farmville and Twitter for destroying the minds of the newest generation.
Click to expand...

Exactly.. how many people cant tell you their own phone number, let alone most of the people in their phones..

I know i usually cant and yet when i was younger before i had a cell phone i have a boat load of numbers memorized..

How ever at work i could tell you every external IP for every internal IP on every server we have...
 
LeninGHOLA said:
That's what old people say. :D
Click to expand...

Yep. My niece and nephew are bombarded with way more brain stimulating information than I ever was. There's heaps more information for parents these days and so (good) parents are exposing their kids to more good stimuli.

Even chatting to kids from the school I went to growing up (which my sister teaches at, I don't just randomly go to the school to chat to kids :p), they seem to be more advanced than I was at the same age.

I'm sure if you go to an area which is struggling more, then the kids there will in turn be struggling with more issues, but for the most part it seems to me kids are more advanced than they were 15 years ago when I was the same age.

As for the memory thing, I've always had a shit memory for as long as I can't remember. I'm not a big photo taker, but if I'm on holidays I'll like to take a couple of snaps at each place I stay otherwise I'll forget I've ever been there. The picture will prompt me to remember what I actually did at that location.
 
MrGuvernment said:
Exactly.. how many people cant tell you their own phone number, let alone most of the people in their phones..

I know i usually cant and yet when i was younger before i had a cell phone i have a boat load of numbers memorized..

How ever at work i could tell you every external IP for every internal IP on every server we have...
Click to expand...
It just comes down to usage. If you never actually tell people your number, then you won't remember it and with the ability to share contact details and ring a person and they'll then have your number, it's not necessary to actually recite your number.

My last cell number took me ages to remember because I never rang myself to remember it and rarely gave it out to people (if filling out forms, I'd use a different number). My current cell number I remembered within a few days because I used it a crap load of times as soon I got it when filling out forms and gave it out much more frequently.

I still remember a couple of my mate's phone numbers from when I was a kid, ya know why? Coz I'd manually enter it in to the phone each and every time I rang them. I don't even know what his current number is, because when I ring him I just type his name and his number comes up. Good thing, too, because I have about 20 times as many numbers in my phone now than numbers I used to ring as a kid.
 
How does this jive with "take a picture, it will last longer"?

h_E1_CE5_ED2.jpg
 
Its one of the things I hate about digital photography, people have no limits anymore.

Ten years ago on a three week vacation I would take three 36 exposure rolls of film and that would cover the entire holiday with probably 10 shots to spare. The pictures you took had to be worthwhile and thought out.

As a result those holidays feel far more alive looking back at the pictures than reeling through 589 digital shots. Even cutting the digital ones down to 100 still seems lifeless.

I know people that go away for two weeks and take nearly 1000 pictures. They must have spent the entire holiday looking through a viewscreen.

I would switch back to film for important occasions if it wasn't for the fact its getting harder to find places developing film.
 
daglesj said:
Its one of the things I hate about digital photography, people have no limits anymore.

Ten years ago on a three week vacation I would take three 36 exposure rolls of film and that would cover the entire holiday with probably 10 shots to spare. The pictures you took had to be worthwhile and thought out.

As a result those holidays feel far more alive looking back at the pictures than reeling through 589 digital shots. Even cutting the digital ones down to 100 still seems lifeless.

I know people that go away for two weeks and take nearly 1000 pictures. They must have spent the entire holiday looking through a viewscreen.

I would switch back to film for important occasions if it wasn't for the fact its getting harder to find places developing film.
Click to expand...

The other way to look at it is that if you have to make every shot count, you waste more time and energy on each shot, so the net result is much the same. I do take more shots when I'm using a digital camera, but it's mostly because I can check the photo immediately and decide whether or not it's shit and want to retake it or take a different angle or different zoom. If something really takes my fancy, I'll take batches of 4 or 5 images at a time. I don't think I waste any more time than if I had a film camera though (other than the fact if I had a film camera I'd probably not even take it with me in the first place because I couldn't be fucked with all the rigmarole of it :p).
 
daglesj said:
Its one of the things I hate about digital photography, people have no limits anymore.

Ten years ago on a three week vacation I would take three 36 exposure rolls of film and that would cover the entire holiday with probably 10 shots to spare. The pictures you took had to be worthwhile and thought out.

As a result those holidays feel far more alive looking back at the pictures than reeling through 589 digital shots. Even cutting the digital ones down to 100 still seems lifeless.

I know people that go away for two weeks and take nearly 1000 pictures. They must have spent the entire holiday looking through a viewscreen.

I would switch back to film for important occasions if it wasn't for the fact its getting harder to find places developing film.
Click to expand...

It goes both ways for me. The digital era made taking pictures so easy and plentiful that my family doesn't even gather around for group photos anymore, even on special occasions.

On the other hand, sometimes I look through some of the mundane shots of my backyard that I took for no reason except maybe to test the (new at the time) camera. I'm glad that I kept them around because I've inadvertently chronicled the gradual change of my backyard over the years and I started looking at all the subtle changes we've made to it since then. Now I wish I photographed some parts of the yard that weren't in the frame!
 
Well all I know it I'd rather spend my holiday only having raised the camera to my face 100 times rather than 1000.

Also part of the reason I keep just a 1GB CF card in my DLSR. Gives me 120 RAW shots and thats it.
 
Knowledge is so transitory now. When you need to know a fact, you hit Wikipedia or whatever, and the fact doesn't stick with you past 15 minutes after it's had its use.
 
So when cameras were invented, people thought taking photos would capture the subject's soul. It's the same analogy.
 
I must suck then lol

I don't take many pictures when I go places (maybe 5 - 8). But I also don't end up remembering much detail either. I have too much stuff going through my head to recall much details if stuff. I can't just close my eyes and picture something. For example I know how to describe an apple, can't picture it in my mind. I was just in San Francisco 3 months ago for a week. I might still be able to describe a few things, but can't picture them in my head. So while I don't take pictures, I also lose a lot of "memories" about trips or events also
 
daglesj said:
Well all I know it I'd rather spend my holiday only having raised the camera to my face 100 times rather than 1000.

Also part of the reason I keep just a 1GB CF card in my DLSR. Gives me 120 RAW shots and thats it.
Click to expand...

Just because someone takes 1000 photos instead of 100 photos doesn't mean you're having the camera raised to your face 10 times as often.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top