Freudian Suit

The Supreme Court of California has agreed to hear an appeal by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus (currently at UC Irvine, and probably the most famous undergrad alumna of the UCLA Psych Dept). Loftus is being sued for breaching the confidentiality of the subject of another psychiatrist's study. Putting aside the obvious Tarasoff meets Moore jokes, or how the UC Regents should invest in writing a Torts casebook, I'm more drawn to the the story behind the case.

The Plaintiff was profiled in a journal article by a psychiatrist to "prove" the existence of repressed memories. Loftus then used some shady techniques (private investigators, confidential court records, etc.) to get info on this subject. She and a colleague then published an article arguing that the memories were probably false.

Loftus has had a crusade against repressed memory for quite some time now. But she's probably just the loudest spokesperson of research psychologists in general. A significant majority, if not all, reseach psychologists either don't believe in the repressed memory phenomenon or argue there is no evidence of its existence. Clinical psychologists and psychiatrists swear by repressed memory. Fights have been known to break out at talks on the subject. Imagine a therapist with 20 patients who claim to have been molested being told that those memories are not real. I agree with the researchers.

It is difficult to discuss this subject without someone's emotions getting the better, but it needs to be done. To date no study has shown that your brain is capable of accessing a memory that was once forgotten. This is not the same as you remembering something that you couldn't remember 5 minutes earlier. That's just a problem of retrieving...the memory is still there. Repressed memory implies the memory is extinguished but then returns (with the aid of a therapist and maybe hypnosis). Which leads me to the second points, studies by Loftus and others have EASILY created false memories in individuals. The classic case is the video of a car accident followed by a series of questions. One question will ask something like, "How fast was the car traveling as it approached the stop sign?" when it was actually a stop light or a yield sign or something. Later, the person will claim that there was a stop sign at the intersection, rather than what they ACTUALLY saw.

The LA Times had another story in its main section on how brain cells recognize familiar people and places, or more accurately how we store that information in abstractions. This is why I have issues with eye witness identification, and why I am not too eager to embrace repressed memories. Memory can be created and it certainly can be altered. The Catholic Church may have wanted to rid itself of bad press (even God needs a press agent these days), but if the victims' claims were based on repressed memories, I would have defended vigorously. I did say "if" because I think that the vast majority of the cases were not repressed memories just people who had not come forward as children.

In the end, I think the suit will be dismissed because much like anyone in the general public, Loftus owes the subject no duty of care. On the bright side, the UC will now sell repressed memory cell lines on the open market.