Interpretations

[Coolydudey]

Watched "eternal sunshine of the spotless mind" today. Although my conclusions are on the philosophical side, I am still sticking it in psychology as that is, strictu sensu, the category they belong in.

Assume any event or chain of events. These events leave us with memories. The process of engaging our memories entails many variables (chronological order for a chain of events, quality of memory, emotional distortion, etc.). This means that any conclusions we draw from the memories, or any emotions that are caused by them, are biased, changeable, and can be contradictory. This in turn also means that we can influence both the rational and emotional mind just by controlling the way we engage our memories.

This last fact is what is used by the movie (although I'm pretty sure they weren't consciously aware they were using it) to come up with an optimistic view for relationships (chronological order in a chain of events was employed for this), and to an extension, to encourage an optimistic view about life in general.

But this got me thinking about something else as well. Now assume a persons working memory (the amount of things they can remember at once) can hold approximately a set amount of items (which is realistic, if not just scientifically proven). If, in a given (pertinent) chain of events only certain items are held in memory at once (we are assuming a limit), then these items will form collectively an impression of the whole chain of events in someone's mind. Given humans tendency to keep in mind the most recent events, then the impression of the chain changes rapidly as new ones happen (this is of course dependent on the person). So for example, if in a relationship things are going well, and then a couple of bad things happen, the mood changes slightly, a couple more bad things happen, and so on, then it spirals (very quickly) into a breakup (which is in accordance, at least in quite a few cases, with what actually happens, as in the film).

 

[nightstreaking]

I loved that movie (the scene with the faceless characters was particularly delightful). I don't have much to contribute, but I once read a quote to the effect of, "People are not our most recent conversations with them. They've been the same from the beginning."
This is of interest to me as I am inclined to support the proposition that there is no objective way to perceive other people--or anything else, really.
I wonder how much emotional content it takes for an older memory to remain and override more recent ones, and if that makes the conception of a person or relationship any more objective (is objectivity needed? I would assume so).
The distortion is interesting, too. When you rationalize or contextualize a previously heavily emotional memory, what happens to it (do the images/symbols remain intact though they're leeched of feeling-associations)?
I'm not sure this has been useful, but you've given me something to think about!