Not having read the article, I'll just offer this: contrary to Bob's
armchair evaluation of the problem, the experimental literature
sugggests that processing efficiency may be related to "storage".
The OLD, OLD, literature suggests that amount and/or "depth" of
processing is highly correlated with subsequent recall of items
"processed". Depending on how one construes it, "efficiency" in
processing could be the limiting factor in amount of processing
accopmplished within the time allowed for item presention and/or
"rehearsal", and/or the number of semantic "anchors" to which the items
could be associated (by this "processing").
So, in answer to his (rhetorical) question ("since when--?") I'll give
a straightforward, naive, humor-challenged concrete answer: since
before you were born (I believe published studies go back at least that
far; you WERE born AFTER The War, weren't you?).
A more general point: note his chutzpa, hubris, ignorant arrogance, or
whatever; does he forget that John is simply CITING the article? Or
does he arrogantly assume that THE INVESTIGATORS REPORTING THIS STUDY
haven't thought about this question as he has (in those many hours in
the armchair)? Why does he suppose they bothered to DO this study, if
it were not an open question?
Is he unaware of the fact that such studies (especially when reported
in a rigorously peer reviewed journal such as this one) have included a
thorough search of the literature for previous approaches to this
question? Very probably, they had to cite the history of this problem
as part of their justification for asking grant money to fund the
study--so this idea (which to Bob seems not in need of experimental
evaluation) no doubt seemed worth testing even before the results of
the study had to pass editorial review.
I wonder if Bob's ideas on air-bags and trigger locks have been
developed in the same careful, critical manner (and the same deep
armchair) as his ideas about memory? (Speaking as a grateful friend of
someone whose life was saved by an airbag...)
F. Frank LeFever, Ph.D.
New York Neuropsychology Group
In <7na12p$rdd$1 at usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu>
mihalek at FORMULA1.smtp.anes.upmc.edu (Robert M. Mihalek) writes:
>>In article <932636592.710664 at server.australia.net.au>
>"John" <johnhkm at netsprintXXXX.net.au> writes:
>>> A study
>> published in the July issue of the American Psychological
Association's
>> (APA) journal Developmental Psychology demonstrates that age-related
>> differences in memory are related to storage capacity and not to
processing
>> efficiency.
>>>Since when is processing efficiency classified as memory?
>>In my opinion, memory has two basic components: storage and retrieval.
>If an event is not stored, it won't become part of "memory." If said
>event is stored, but then cannot be retrieved, it may as well not be
>there (wherever "there" is!).
>>>Bob Mihalek=================================================
>please remove the name of the RACE SERIES for e-mail replies
>==========================================================
>It's for your own good, don't you know? From air bags to trigger
>locks, Big
>Brother just wants to keep you safe and healthy. His only concern is
>your welfare, which you are far too stupid to take care of yourself.
>So
>just sit back, relax, and enjoy your padded cell.
> ----- Bill Lind @ Free Congress Foundation--------
>
