SIO279: How 'The Cut' Dangerously Mishandled Recovered Memory, with Carrie Poppy

Transcript

This transcript was generated automatically and may contain errors — the audio is the record.

0:00:04 Clip: You're listening to Serious Inquiries Only.

0:00:27 Thomas: Is episode 279. I'm Thomas and I've got such a good episode for you today. It's an interview with Carrie Poppy from Oh No, Ross and Carrie, we're talking about recovered memories and a whole thing that happened that she's going to explain involving a story on the cut, it is really fascinating stuff, just a couple of quick things before then, I know I didn't do this. We had kind of a scheduling thing. This was supposed to be last week. Scheduling thingy. And then I also had intended to do a Q&A. I was experimenting with doing a Q&A on the Twitch stream, twitch.tv slash SRS NES, everybody, if you'd like to join along there. And we talked. It's not all Zelda.

0:01:12 Thomas: You know, there's Battletoads. There's other games. But also we talk politics. We talk social justice. Lots of stuff. And I tried to do a Q&A with Lindsay over there. And I just personally didn't feel like it worked out the way I wanted it to, you So anyway, long story short, I was going to release some Q&A and that's why there was kind of a gap week there. But it just added, it didn't really feel like the formats mixed well. So I'm not going to mix formats, no crossing the streams. I tried it once. I didn't like it just because of me. And so if you want to hear, I did answer some emails though over there. If you're dying to hear those, they were great questions and we did get to them. So that's on one more time, twitch.tv slash SRS NES. And you can always watch them after the fact. And I pull everything over the YouTube channel because they do expire on Twitch.

0:02:01 Thomas: So you can find them on the YouTube if they are not still on the Twitch channel. And show notes. All right. All that aside, can't wait to get to this this interview with Kerry. Let's hop on over to it right now.

0:02:19 Thomas: I'm Joined by Carrie poppy. Yes is the yes part of your name. It is to me. How's it going, Carrie?

0:02:24 Carrie: Uh pretty good how are you thomas no it's

0:02:28 Thomas: Yeah I'm more of a maybe I know you're right. I'm probably a no I'm Probably a no who tries to cast himself as a maybe person, but yeah, I'd be more of an Oprah. You're right you nailed me

0:02:31 Carrie: Not it's not as good is it name that's that's fair uh this is a reference to my Twitter handle if anybody's wondering what the heck's going on. My Twitter handle is Carrie Poppy. Yes, because there is an at Carrie Poppy who has had that account since like 2008 and never tweets.

0:02:57 Thomas: In on the ground floor yeah there's Always that, like, whenever you're trying to find a channel or a, you know, a username or a handle, whatever, there's alway that person who's like, "How did you do this in 2007 and not do anything about it? What are the odds, crazy yeah

0:03:11 Carrie: Were you trying to screw me over and then forgot? Or are you another Carrie Poppy, which seems so doubtful? Oh

0:03:17 Thomas: Is it like a time traveling version of you trying to warn yourself about out twitter you know is who knows I'm just

0:03:25 Carrie: My God. It's like Bill and Ted. All

0:03:28 Thomas: So anyway, because your handle is Carrie Poppy, Yes, I can't, I always think like every time I think Carrie Poppy I just think yes afterwards, so it's worked on me, I don't know, it's what you're going for some sort of pavlovian thing yeah well um I'm so glad you're with me thanks for joining me on the show today I I wanted to talk about this where do we even start this article in the cut um that is I mean, if you, if you just read it and take it at face value, like, it, it's, it seems to describe a really horrifying, um, occurrence. Do you want to take us through the the article initially here?

0:03:37 Carrie: The subliminal messaging has worked pleasure Sure. I'll give it my best. So I did not write the article. It's by Katie Heaney, who's a writer for New York Magazine, and uh, New York Magazine also has a website called The Cut, which features select items from their print magazine, and then I think additional material as well. So, um, so Heaney wrote this story that circles around the False Memory Syndrome Foundation, which is an organization that was founded to give sort of the other side of the conversation around repressed memory. So there's a notion out there that you can forget horrible things that happen to you due to a thing called repression, where your mind tries to protect itself by forgetting things. And then later, when you're safe, you can recall those memories.

0:04:49 Carrie: Memories, and there's quite a debate around whether this is so. And as you can imagine, it has resulted in some people, uh, recovering memories that then they, um, used to accuse, say, a parent of sexual abuse. That's the most common, um, thing that happens here. Or, uh, recall a memory of something horrifying that happened at school when you were a child, and so, so on, and then go on to accuse the, uh, the adults involved. So the other side of that conversation is, well, wait, hang on, um, there might also be times when you are remembering something that didn't happen, and that would mean that there's someone being falsely accused. So the False Memory Syndrome Foundation opened to deal with that side of the conversation, and it was started by two people who, who say they were falsely accused.

0:05:39 Carrie: So Heaney was looking at this founding, which is great. It's like very important work for her to see where this all came from, and found some weird, disconcerting details about this family and the people who ran it and things that alarmed her and made her feel like maybe they really did abuse her daughter, is kind of how I read the story. Um, from there, uh, there's quite a tumble into this notion that, um, therefore we should sort of add more skepticism to the concept of false memory. Now we should doubt that, because the people, um, who would most benefit from that notion, shouldn't be trusted, um, and so she, she wrote this article. I, I felt it was quite one-sided, um, and uh, so I wrote a letter to the editor, which I think is about where I entered the picture and where you became aware of me having anything to do with this.

0:06:42 Thomas: I read your stuff first about it, um, just because I was interested, uh, of course, because it's you and I think you're interesting. And uh, so I read it, and what was, what's interesting is because I read your part first and some of the other letters that you've compiled or gathered there, I had one impression of what the article was, and then when I read the article, it's weird, because there's, almost, correct me if I'm wrong, but, like, there's almost no talk about her memories even really being recovered, like they don't spend much time on that at all, so it seemed a little weird Like, I would, would have thought the focus was more on that process, like having read, you know, your letters and some of the other ones first, I would have taught that that was more about this, and so it feels like maybe a little misleading. I mean, I'm trying to go into this not assuming either way, because I honestly, like, the, the description of, of this mathematician Peter Freyd, or whatever, who's at the center of this accusation, like, you know, there's some, definitely some weird stuff in there. I tend to be somebody who wants, default is to believe victims in these things, you know, unless otherwise indicated by something. And so, like, I read that one way, but then when I see just even the very title of the article, "The Memory War: Jennifer Freyd Accuses Her," sorry, "Accused Her Father of Sexual Abuse. Her Parents' Attempt to Discredit Her Created a Defense for Countless Sex Offenders," and, like, that

0:08:06 Thomas: Strikes me as a very unfair way of putting that to say the least yeah

0:08:10 Carrie: I I agree, and I, um, you know, storytelling is a very compelling way to get your point across. And telling the story of this family that obviously had a very fraught history and, um, numerous problems to speak of, um, it's, it's a compelling way to get the reader to just sort of assume that all the science behind, uh, false memory is, is untrue, and all the science in support of repressed memory is real. And, and I agree the writer, Katie Heaney, doesn't seem to spend almost any time, she nods at it a bit, that, uh, oh yeah, and repression's like a part of this picture.

0:08:50 Thomas: She even says, well. I think the, uh, the accuser, Jennifer, uh, I believe denies that she was using any sort of, um, hypnotism or anything like that, and then we'll get to it, I'm sure, but the, the letter written by the parents, uh, or at least the mom, in response, this says, like, here, I, they, I was, was never asked, but I have emails saying, yes, I'm doing, you know, hypnotism about this. I don't know who to believe. You know, it's kind of a, said, or they said, she said, whatever pronouns, somebody said, somebody said. But there's really very little time spent on that in the article, which, yeah, I mean, I think that makes a huge difference as to whether or not, you know. Are they staking out of position on this repressed memory thing or not? And it feels feels a little like they're evading it a little bit in this article yeah yeah

0:09:20 Carrie: Which then seems like a dereliction of duty right because Yeah, this is, this is an issue that then could affect many, many more people. And if we assume that the Freyd story is everyone's story, um, then it starts to look like, oh, okay, the only people who are talking about, um, a false memory must have the same sort of personal history. And I mean, and let me say, I have no idea if the Freyds abused their kid, I mean, there's no way I could know, but, um, but using this one story and and sort of holding it up as, um, emblematic of that, that entire branch of science, I think is, is really a mistake. Yeah.

0:10:17 Thomas: Well, so, um, where did your interest in, uh, in repressed memory stuff come, come from? Did, is there something you got turned on too early on about this issue, or how'd you, how'd come to it? But

0:10:27 Carrie: Yeah, you know, it's always really fascinated me, and I'm not totally sure why. I, I've always been attracted to the sort of weird and wonderful claims, the things that are outside of the scientific understanding, and then how science addresses those things, um, and but gosh, repressed memory is just something that always stuck out for me as like something I needed to know more about and that didn't have a clear answer. You know, like there are things like, gosh, like alien abduction or Bigfoot, where we can point to like very specific explanations and say, okay, we're pretty sure what happened here was this.

0:11:14 Carrie: With repressed memory stories, it's just all so convoluted, and maybe convoluting complicated stuff attracts me, I don't know, but I, I just always kind of wanted to get to the bottom of that. And so I started, started reading about it several years ago, and then as I've been doing my investigative work, um, on my podcast, Oh No, Ross and Carrie, we've run into repressed memory therapies just over and over, and often repackaged as ways to recall your past lives, or ways to remember being in your mother's womb, um, or remember things from when you were under a year old, when your brain is not advanced enough to even form memories.

0:12:01 Carrie: Um, and so then I started to realize, oh my gosh, okay, if this, if this little trick of the human mind is being used by faith healers and spiritual leaders and stuff all over, then it does reflect some sort of hiccup in the human brain system that you are able to harness and redirect. So something's going on here, sometimes intentional, and, uh, you know, and what is that? And so that, that's when I got really interested in Elizabeth Loftus's work on false memory, who, she's presented as sort of a villain in the Cut piece, and I came to, to really, really admire Elizabeth Loftus in that she was so rigorous about the truth and was willing to tell the truth even when it had to be in, in defense of someone awful, someone I would hate to defend. Like, she, uh, she was in the Harvey Weinstein trial, called by the defense.

0:12:58 Carrie: That would make my skin crawl, and finding the courage to do it anyway because you are a scientist and it is the right thing to do, I think, actually shows an immense amount of bravery.

0:13:09 Thomas: I think it's worth noting, you know, before we, I don't know, give anyone the wrong impression, like she specifically wrote in her letter about the details of that, and often, you know, you can be called as a, as an expert in something, and it doesn't mean, like, she was there to say Weinstein was a great guy or something. In fact, she was, I think, explicitly did not accuse any of the victims of fabricating memories. Like, she's there to give her expert testimony about memory. It might be that the defense called her as, as a witness, but that doesn't means she's somehow, like, defending Weinstein necessarily, right?

0:13:44 Carrie: Right, yeah, yeah, that's absolutely right, and, um, that's usually how, as you, as I'm sure you know, I think you're kind of up on the legal system. Um, usually expert witnesses are sort of in that position, they're just talking about whatever they're an expert in, and usually will sort of refrain from commenting on the, uh, the case at hand, though sometimes they do. Um, and yeah, you know, I mean, your job then is to just sit there and tell the science and let the chips fall where they may. And in this case, yeah, like you say, the defense is the ones who called her, but presumably if the prosecution had called her, she would also do that. Work anyway, I didn't mean to go off on an Elizabeth Loftus rant, she's just, she's great. And, um, and so also when I read this story and saw her painted as sort of this defender of abusers, and especially You know, child sex abusers, it was, you know, it just made me feel terrible, um, in that way. And, and again, seeing the science just overlooked in this really obvious way, I just felt like, oh man, as a journalist, um, I'm sort of taken aback that this got printed without really much of anything from the other side of this conversation.

0:14:59 Thomas: And you know, I, I feel like, is it fair to say that, you know, in, in different, I don't know, TV shows or movies, it feels like there is kind of this repressed memory thing that, that's portrayed sometimes as though that would, that would make sense. I mean, there'll, and also isn't there a tie-in to the, like, Satanic Panic, uh, era at all? I know that's another component of this. Do you know much about that aspect of it I

0:15:23 Carrie: Do I, uh, yes, I do. Um, it's, it's wild. If you read this story, you will see a bare mention of the Satanic Panic, uh, that if I didn't know about the connection to the Satantic Panic, I think I would be totally thrown by it reading it in the article, because it's like one line, oh, by the way, repressed memory is also tied to this period in the 80s and 90s when suddenly we thought everyone was in satanic cult. Anyway, um, but so yeah, uh, what happened is that in the, um, the early 80s there was sort of a renaissance of the theory of repressed memory, um, mostly started with this book called Michelle Remembers, uh, that was by a young woman and her therapist, who claims that they had together recovered her memories of being raised in a satanic cult. And the details of her being in this cult are wild, like, um, a tail is sewn to her body, but she has no scars now, um, she's nailed into a coffin and made to eat feces, she, uh, has to murder babies and then eat them. So a lot of stuff she has, um, allegedly forgotten, and, um, and forgot, forgot the whole narrative, not just forgot details. She had no idea she grew up in a satanic cult for, uh, for over a decade. And then now that she's in therapy, her therapist helped her remember it. So this, um, this idea came from Freud, but it was right around the 80s that this really gained momentum in the U.S.

0:16:57 Carrie: So, um. She and her therapist were both Catholic. Um. They They actually claim at the end of the book that they see Jesus in person. I mean, it's the wildest book, but that kind of popularized this theory that there are these underground satanic cults, and they're sexually abusing all these kids, and suddenly different people from all across North America, this actually happened in Canada, but it quickly trickled down here because we love our Nonsense, it just spread all over with people recalling memories of the same thing happening to them and seemingly really believing it, um, but it appears that that was just suggestion. This is just something our brains do. They latch on to stories and recreate them so vividly that they feel about the same as a memory. Yeah.

0:17:23 Thomas: Didn't know that and I would be amazed that that many people had the time to be in a satanic cult, you know, like I couldn't, I mean, I know times are tough now so I feel like I can't manage much of anything, but let alone a satanic cult where I'm sewing tails on people. I mean, that's just a lot of work. There can't be that many of them. I'm just saying, like, the, you know.

0:18:08 Carrie: Yeah, I mean, yes, then the other side of this, the sort of journalistic side, is when someone says something like this, you can't just say, oh, that's too crazy to be true, because some crazy things are true, right? So then you have to go and you have to look. All right, fine, are there underground satanic cults? Um, and people did do that. There's a great book, um, by Debbie Nathan called Satan's Underground where she talks about all the the work uncovering, um, you know, the truth behind these allocations and basically discovering there were none.

0:18:39 Thomas: Gonna say what percentage Percentage, you know, I've read a tiny bit about this, but my impression is that there's almost nothing ever that was found to be true out of any of this. I Was there any little minor thing that they tried to make out to be, this is that right?

0:18:53 Carrie: But Nothing that I can think of that came out because of recovered memory therapy. There are some cases of people being violent in the name of Satan or saying it's in the nome of Satan. Usually they're lone wolves, you know, who probably have some sort of mental illness where they really thought they heard Satan. Very, very rarely there will be a group of people who satanism was kind of their brand and they were, say, a drug gang and, you know, yeah, we're the satanists. But it doesn't seem all that sincere, um, but yeah, as far as getting at it through the memories, I can't think of any case where then it was like, oh yeah, she was in a satanic cult and and then she forgot it. I think that would be a, I think that would stick out in my memory.

0:19:43 Thomas: Well, at the very least the story of this family is like really tragic either way you know like it's It's either there was some abuse, uh, and, like, it wasn't remembered, then what, you know, or this entire thing was based on, I don't know what, I guess, a weird therapy that might have gone on that, I guess, we don't have that much insight into. Like, either way, that's, a that's the real tragedy of the story. And so it makes sense, to you know, as a, as a story for the Cut, for New York Magazine, like, it's interesting but, not, but only covering it from kind of one angle. It really reads, um, at least in my opinion, it really, really reads like, you know, the author's bringing in a lot of Me Too stuff into this and a lot of the bias that comes out of it, which, you know, I totally understand, but it really does seem like a lot of important factual science information is left out and maybe even misrepresented.

0:20:36 Thomas: I mean, the idea that like this whole memory thing, this whole repressive, repressed memory memory thing is, as the title of the article suggests, just something that created a defense for countless sex offenders. I mean, is that backed up by anything?

0:20:54 Carrie: Well, I mean, I think you could count them. So not countless. But I mean, it's definitely true that people who have eventually been convicted of those sorts of crimes will call memory experts to the stand if some piece of the evidence against them deals with memory, and that's why you have people like poor Elizabeth Loftus having to testify in the Harvey Weinstein case, um, but, uh, you know, does that usually get someone off who who hasn't abused anyone, and this was just sort of a, you know, a way to give them an out? I think that's putting the cart before the horse, right? We, we don't know if that could happen, and that's why we need more and better science and forensics in every case. We don't want to just ignore a branch of science and hope everything shakes out okay.

0:21:52 Thomas: Yeah, but also there's a distinction between, there's two different things going on. There's, right, I mean there's Dr. Loftus who would be testifying about memory maybe in general and how that could work and possibly that sort of angle, but then there's this foundation that seemed to be, you know, targeted more toward this specific repressed memory thing, um, that I don't think, and I think in, in the letter that, um. The letter, uh, from Pam Freyd, who's, uh, the mom and the wife of Peter Freyd, the uh accused uh father, the, that letter talks about the fact that it's like, you know, we never would have defended, and we didn't defend these types of people, like, for example, when they bring up either Weinstein or they bring, um, Kavanaugh and, uh, Dr. Blasey Ford, um, that was never any sort of repressed or recovered memory. They, and and the way this

0:22:13 Carrie: Pam Yes,

0:22:45 Thomas: Article blurs those distinctions between like, here, this foundation, you know, suggesting this foundation is defending all these abusers versus like, well, no, this is a more specific thing than just anyone who remembers their abuse and might be a little fuzzy on details. That's a different thing than a repressed or recovered memory, don't you think?

0:23:06 Carrie: Absolutely. I mean, the way we do forget is we forget little pieces of the story, right. You forget what someone was wearing. You forget whether two people were in the room or three. But if the memory was very important to you, and especially if, especially if the memory was shocking or painful, you're far more likely to remember it and at least remember it narratively, remember x happened to me, even if, you know, you can't pull together every single little detail to paint the picture. What we, we really, I don't think, have any compelling evidence of is this concept that you go through something horrible, it's so traumatizing that your brain erases it in an effort to protect you from the pain of ongoing trauma. That I don't think we have any evidence for.

0:24:04 Thomas: Yeah. You talked about in your letter why that wouldn't make sense exactly. And feel free to take us through that if you'd like to.

0:24:10 Carrie: Yeah, so, I mean, so I think PTSD tells us a lot about how memory works, and And someone has PTSD, post-traumatic stress disorder, what happens is that they've been through something terrible, the classic example being they've been in combat, in war, and they come home, they are safe now, but they hear something that reminds them of gunshots, and it spooks them, they have panic attacks, and they can't convince their brain, oh no, actually I'm safe now. That is just a similar sound. You don't need to send off alarm bells every single time I hear it, um, but the brain just keeps trying to protect them by signaling, oh, you are in extreme danger right now, you need to act, um, and this is generally how our brain handles trauma. It says, oh my god, you went through something terrible, let's make sure that doesn't happen to you again by by making any sign of it extremely loud, um, and the repression theory, which was originally Freud's, is this idea that instead the brain says, well, no, that would be so painful that I'm going to do the absolute opposite. I'm going to make it so that the guy, um, who is in war and hears gunshots immediately forgets and now is constantly putting himself

0:25:30 Carrie: In danger on the battlefields because he can't, he can't recognize the sound of enemy fire. This would be ridiculously unhelpful of the human brain and

0:25:40 Thomas: Gunshots what are those let me go figure yeah that doesn't seem like evolution would would would want to do that I

0:25:46 Carrie: Yeah, evolution is really the the thing to think about here, because that's where anxiety comes from, is an evolved need to keep ourselves alive by making us scared of things that could hurt us. So yeah, it doesn't make a sort of intuitive sense why this would protect you, and in fact, I think it would protect abusers more than victims because you wouldn't even recognize your abuser the next day, um, so, uh, also is not backed up by any sort of evidence. This is just something Freud just kind, kind of came up with one day, and don't get me started on old Freud.

0:26:21 Thomas: Was gonna say, I'm, I'm absolutely not an expert, but every person who, uh, has any knowledge of psychology or is in that at all, uh, hates Freud, so I feel like maybe Freud it just anecdotally but from my experience I feel like freud doesn't hold up in a lot of ways I'm

0:26:39 Carrie: That's right. Yeah, I too am not an expert, but from my reading, read stuff about Freud's life and his methods, and I think, oh, L. Ron Hubbard, the founder of Scientology. I think you could write down quotes from Freud and L. Ronald Hubbard and mix them up and play a great game trying to get people to guess who's who, and I think having very low success

0:27:03 Thomas: Gonna have to keep that in the back of my mind if I ever need a game for something, maybe, if we ever are, you, if you and I are ever to do able to do another live show together, perhaps we can we can do that for fun. Yeah, I mean, there is a sense though, obviously, in that memory is pretty unreliable, and there may be, ways is there a difference between recalling stuff that you just haven't thought about, or how, you know, because I can certainly relate to that, you know. You, I can certainly relate to like, obviously I haven't been abused that I know of until I see a hypnotist or something. No, I haven'T been abused or anything. So I can't, obviously, I'm not speaking from that experience, but just in everyday life, like being in a situation and something sets off your memory and like, oh my God, I have not thought of that in 30 years or something, you know, and so there is that sense. Is that something distinct from this or, know, because that seems to be something that could happen to anyone. One. You might have a memory that you just never thought of, or you haven't remembered for a very long time. What's the difference there?

0:27:10 Carrie: There we go I'm totally yes So this is sort of the difference between, there's so many questions involved in this kind of story, there's the scientific questions, and there's journalistic questions, and that's more of an individual question. Okay, if I remember something, um, how true should I treat it, um, And from my studying of this issue, I think we should be skeptical of all of our memories, um, but they can all be sort of, um, landmarks that point you toward further inquiry. So if you think that you remember something that's quite troubling, um, I think looking for outside corroboration is pretty much the only thing you can do, and you know, if you suppose that you were, um, uh, say sexually abused, and you really, this really eats at you because you, you know that the person who you remember abusing you, uh, is still alive, and maybe, say, working at a school or something, I can see why, now this is very important to you to figure out whether they're guilty. But memory is the starting point.

0:29:03 Carrie: It's not the stopping point. We just, we cannot look at even a brain scan and tell a false memory from a real one. Systems Our of the brain that create memories and recall them for you are nearly indistinguishable from the systems of the brain that imagine, um, so yeah, on its own, the flavor of a fake memory and a real memory are going to look pretty identical to the person experiencing them, they're so bad

0:29:34 Thomas: Yeah. It's kind of annoying how bad our memories are. At least mine anyway. Yeah, and like how, you know, susceptible they are to being kind of altered every time you recall something or, you knows, details that at the time you think or you absolutely are sure we're there can be wrong like it's really incredible yeah

0:29:57 Carrie: Yeah, um, and it's discouraging. I think I feel, feel the the same anxiety that I imagine a lot of people are feeling hearing this, because it just leaves us out to see as far as what to do, um, and that really sucks because hypothetically we're talking about someone forgetting abuse and then remembering it and then really wanting to know if they're supposed to act, are they, are they supposed to protect others, what should they do, and not really having great tools for what you do at that point. That freaking sucks, and it does put a certain power in the hands of people who would abuse especially really young kids, and that stinks, but we can't pretend that bad tools are good ones to try to get us out of that pickle, you know, uh,

0:30:48 Thomas: And, and, you know, correct me if I'm wrong, but you're not making a judgment as to the truth or falsehood of this particular claim or anything, right?

0:30:55 Carrie: You mean in the case of the Freights? Oh, yeah No, I, I have no idea. Yeah, I couldn't know. I will say, if it's accurate that at one point she used hypnosis, that's a very important data point, um, not because hypnosis is some trance-like state where someone has control over your thoughts, I think hypnosis has kind of misunderstood that way, but it is an agreement, agreement to, um, be very susceptible to the hypnotherapist suggestions. That's basically all hypnosis is. I will lay down and you tell me stuff and I'm gonna go with it, um, and that for certain people is just so, so powerful, um, and can just get your brain going and creating stuff and, um, and so if that was what Jennifer did, that's incredibly, incredibly relevant.

0:30:57 Thomas: Yeah of jenifer's claim Yeah, what I mean, this is, I'm imagining this is something you've come across in your work, like, what the hell is hypnosis and is it actually useful for anything? Do you know these answers?

0:31:53 Carrie: This is an area I want to look into a bit more, but I have looked a lot and sometimes I wonder like, is the answer even out there yet? It may not be, but definitely disagreement about this, especially in the space of cult experts. There's a cult expert named Steve Hassan, um, who thinks hypnosis is a real thing and a power people have, and they can just sort of hypnotize you, maybe even without you expecting it, um, I, from my reading, it seems to me like it's, it's just what I described before, it's juste the sort of agreement, like, okay, Thomas, I'm gonna lay down, I'm gotta get myself really sleepy and, um, uh, really sort of open and in a creative space, and I trust you to to lead me along and

0:32:05 Thomas: Sorry I fell

0:32:46 Carrie: Sort of a guy well

0:32:46 Thomas: Asleep too I just that's what would happen I'd be like oh what were we doing oh god I'm always tired I don't know I yeah no I wouldn't be good at it you're getting very I just fall asleep before the person every time oh god sorry I'm always tired it's just me I'm

0:32:52 Carrie: Then you shouldn't have this job um uh yeah the absolutely not the treatment for you um yeah so I actually think of it a lot more like a guided meditation you want to go to someone who does really good guided meditations right you don't want them um, I don't know, leading you on a guided meditation where you walk into the sea and get eaten by jellyfish. That's unpleasant and your brain will produce those images and that would be horrible. Um, it's the same sort of thing, except on top of it, they're telling you that it's true, that it'S all real. Um.

0:33:32 Thomas: Plus it's such a it seems like a really easy pitch to me if, and you talked about, you know, the alien abduction angle and that, you know, if you are, I don't know, someone nefarious or something where it's like so many people have in their lives, you know, whether they're depressed, whether anxious, whether, whatever it might be, it seems like such an easy sell for someone to be like, oh, this, here's what it is. Let me help you. You have some trauma that you just don't remember. And that'll explain everything wrong with you. And like every, every way you're not feeling right that feels like a pitch that could work on a lot of people that kind of how

0:34:08 Carrie: Sure.

0:34:08 Thomas: It goes with with this thing yeah is that is this something that's still prevalent or is it something that was more in this 80s satanic panic era or what's your sense of that right

0:34:08 Carrie: And it does. Oh, yeah. Yeah, I mean, it's definitely still happening and they're, uh, you know, if you believe in repression that's not going to affect your ability to get, you know, a license as a therapist, um, even though that's completely based on bad science, um, and there are definitely people who will still do these sorts of therapies, uh, I do think it was having much more of a renaissance in the 80s and 90s, but it's definitely still out there, and especially just the concept, uh, of repression in general, even if people haven't heard of the therapy, often people will think, well, it's probably based in science somewhere because they've heard it so much there's that availability bias

0:34:52 Thomas: It was on a tv show or something so it feels like it's real I

0:34:55 Carrie: Yeah, um, and there's also, I, I would be remiss not to point out this book called The Courage to Heal, um, that had a huge, huge effect on this, uh, where it's, it's this book written by by a creative writing teacher and her student, people with no psychology qualifications, as I do not. So there's that. But they wrote this huge manual about how to deal with your trauma. If you have, basically, any psychological symptoms to speak of, are you often anxious? Oh, you were probably sexually abused and forgot about it. Do you sometimes have trouble initiating sex? Okay, probably sexually abused and forgot about it

0:35:40 Thomas: Was just making that up earlier, like, off the top of my head, but that does seem to be, okay, I nailed it, that is take anything That's currently wrong with people, I mean, that's what most of the woo that I'm sure you encounter on your show is like, take common problems everybody has and then here's my particular woo explanation for it

0:35:58 Carrie: Yep I mean and and it's also what scientology uses with auditing The whole idea is, oh, oh, you have this problem with your personality, that's because there was some experience that you've uh sort of sublimated that will really explain this, and you know, you, you lead them through this guided imagery until they're recalling things from in the womb. It's all, it's all the same process. Oh.

0:36:20 Thomas: And sorry for the tangent, but I, that's why I've always found it kind of helpful to have the sort of atheistic worldview in some ways, because I'm just like, yeah, why would we expect to be fine? I don't know, why would we expect that?

0:36:32 Carrie: Right.

0:36:32 Thomas: Nature like it's just as an evolved ape you know like Like why would it, all the things we would have had to deal with in our evolutionary history, why would we expect that we would just be fine in the world? I don't, I don't know.

0:36:43 Carrie: Yeah, no, for sure, for sure, yeah, I think about that all the time, even with um like the naturalistic fallacy where people will Presume that if they have um, well, if you have diabetes, it must be because you're doing something wrong, because obviously nature wants you to be alive and healthy. And whole what no it doesn't what what?

0:37:00 Thomas: Forever to a hundred. Yeah. And

0:37:03 Carrie: Nature was trying to kill us forever.

0:37:06 Thomas: Totally, and the idea that nature would even want you to be mentally well, know, like you honestly, like maybe nature, I'm not an expert again, as always, but like maybe nature would want you you to be freaked the hell out all the time, just in case something is wrong. You know, like just in case there's a predator out there or something's going to eat you, or do you have enough food for tomorrow? Do you, you know, I feel like it would be more expected than not that we would be kind of messed up. And I don't know. I feel Like that worldview maybe might help a little bit to inoculate you against the idea that there's something wrong with you all the time and that there's some woo that's going to fix it. I don't know.

0:37:40 Carrie: No, I think that's totally right, and a lot of the things that we assume are uniquely wrong about us are things that everyone around us is also worried are uniquely wrong about them, yeah.

0:37:52 Thomas: Well, all that tangent aside, guess I two questions. One, is there anything that you wanted to critique about this article that we didn't get to? And secondly, after that is how was this letter received, if at all, by the guy?

0:38:08 Carrie: Right, um, so yeah, this is the part that I'm the most interested in because I actually have the room to speak on it as a journalist, is how the writer and the editors and the publication handled all this. So they're covering this story that has enormous implications, and as we've discussed, kind of ignores those implications or shoehorns them in. And then they start receiving these letters. So when I sent in my letter to the editor, I didn't get a reply. Fair enough, every publication gets to publish whatever letters they want, um, but I I happened to cc a couple of people who were mentioned in the article, so Elizabeth Loftus, who we've talked about, and then Lucian Greaves, who's an activist who works in this area a lot, and um, so they both wrote back and said, oh, what, you know, what a great letter, I'm sure you want here back, just like we didn't. And I said, oh, did you guys both write letters? Oh, yeah, yeah. So they sent me their letters and I said, wow, I mean, these, even if they don't agree with your conclusions, these are compelling letters that tell another part of the story. And I, I think are worthy of consideration by readers. That's very strange. And they said, oh, you don't know the half of it. Okay, hang on, let me get you in contact with this person who wrote a letter. And all these people start forwarding me the letters that they had written, um, either as letters to the editor or just directly to the editor with complaints asking for corrections and clarifications and saying, I either, I didn't

0:39:41 Carrie: Get a reply, or I got this sort of, oh sure, we'll, we'll correct this one tiny detail, um, sort of reply. And so I, I said, okay, I think I'm, I'm just gonna print all these letters, um, so I, I wrote to the editor, The Cut. So again, The Cut is the website, New York Magazine is the print magazine, and both of these are owned by Vox Media. So I got an email back from the editor. Let me back up. I said to him, I'm going to be printing all of these letters from these people whose letters you haven't printed. I'd like to also include the only response you've offered, which was a short email he wrote in response to Elizabeth Loftus, but let me know if there's anything else I should include, like if you have a formal statement I've missed. And he wrote back and said, um, I don't give you permission to use my response to Elizabeth Loftus. And I thought, that's very strange. So, so I went to Dr. Loftus and I said, did he express anything to you as if it was off the record or yeah, Or privileged in some way? And she said, no. I, I wrote back and said, uh, okay, I just want to be clear, um, are you asserting that your communication with her was privileged in some way? And he said, no, just, I, it's my writing and you can't use it, I own the copyright, okay,

0:40:52 Thomas: Like on the record. Yeah. Off the record, right. Yeah, executive

0:41:14 Carrie: So this is yeah, this is very silly, um, because as he knows and as I know, um, copyright is meant to protect, of course, your written work so that if you want to go and sell it, you get all the profit because you wrote it, so this Sort of implies he's gonna go and sell his letter to his acknowledgement of this

0:41:14 Thomas: Copyright law Yep, it was a really good email I'm gonna you know turn it into a feature-length film someday

0:41:44 Carrie: This email that's like well you make a good point about paragraph three we'll change that word oh

0:41:49 Thomas: You know what's funny is I actually had this exact same thing happen to me one time uh this is a repressed Memory that I'm, no, I, I don't know if, you've, I won't, I won't bring the show down but to 10 seconds, I don't, if you've encountered uh world-class asshole James Lindsey anywhere on Twitter, uh, but uh, yeah.

0:41:53 Carrie: Interesting Yeah. I think so.

0:42:09 Thomas: He used to be less world class like first he was local class asshole you know you have to work up the ranks to world- class asshole a Q Anon weirdo now, but anyway, um, he, uh, I had him on my show and he made a bunch of claims about some bullshit, you know. It was all about that account, said 10 seconds, I should have said a minute and a half. That account that used to just blast graduates' thesis titles and stuff. I'm blanking on what the name of it was. And I asked him, so as.

0:42:39 Thomas: I do on a lot of shows, I just asked him via email after the fact, hey, shoot me any sources you have for stuff. And I do that with everybody. If there's any links or sources I should put in the notes. And I did, I asked him for that and he, every single citation he gave me was just to this Twitter account basically that was doing this thing, and so I was like, okay. And so I did, I, I had to mention that on the show, I was like, hey, this guy is being a world-class asshole, here's all his citations. And he responded that.

0:42:39 Carrie: Yeah Oh.

0:43:09 Thomas: I violated his copyright like literally the same words I violated his copyright by publishing his email so is there some asshole school of law these people go to or something yeah

0:43:12 Carrie: What I really suspect is that um the editor knew this was bullshit and hoped that I wouldn't, um, but I did, uh, because this is, this is covered by fair use, which is a, a whole area of of legal expertise, but basically if you are reporting on someone's words and, uh, and making a new piece of criticism, uh, by reporting on their words, um, then, then it is, it is perfectly legal to use their original wording, um, it would be different if he had written an entire book and I published that on the internet, but this was just, just such a clear fair use usage, and so of course I, I went to my lawyer and I said, listen, I'm 99% sure, but I just want to ask you, I'm in the right, he's in the wrong, right? And he said, yes, please write back and tell him to fuck off. And, uh, uh, I said no, thank you, won't do that, but I did write back and said, no, this is fair use, I'm, I'm going to be publishing it. And he, uh, sent it to their lawyer, so I got another, another email from, um, someone at Vox Legal saying again, this is our copyright, you can't use this

0:44:42 Carrie: Yeah and I again copied my lawyer and said, um, no, I, I, I, in fact, can use this, uh, it's definitely fair use, and I suspect you know that, and hope that I don't. And, uh she wrote back and told me she wished me well which is legal speak for fuck off, um, but it is also legal speak four, oh shit, you know what you're talking about, so I'm

0:44:42 Thomas: The doubling down yeah very weird yeah

0:45:16 Carrie: Not going to advance this

0:45:16 Thomas: It could be like you called my bluff I get it all right I'm done I did did my best for my person I'm supposed to be representing and

0:45:24 Carrie: Right, exactly, I sit in an office all day doing this, I don't actually give a shit, um, yeah, so uh, so I went ahead and and made a very long Medium post with all of these letters, uh,

0:45:38 Thomas: I assume you're instantly put in prison for violating copyright law right and And that's why I'm talking to you on the prison phone now.

0:45:40 Carrie: Mags. Oh my god copyright prison is so Cushy, it's so great here, you have a dog, you have a cat, you've got all the books you could possibly read, plants, your fiance gets to come, it's so nice, Thomas. Yeah.

0:46:02 Thomas: White collar crime, I guess. I don't know. Yeah. Two Americas. Anyway, so you published it and there are no consequences, legally speaking, at least yet. Okay.

0:46:06 Carrie: Highly recommend yeah that's Right, um, so far, uh, nobody has, you know, tried to send anyone after me again. Um, I continued to get letters, including that one from Pam Freyd, and um, I said, sure, you know, I'm going to, I'll publish anybody's who already sent a letter to the New York Magazine because I just want to show the the volume of what they got here from people who know what they're talking about. Um, so you know, regardless of whether her story is accurate or you know what happened in their family, her her point of view is is relevant, so I put hers up, which of course then made a few people um upset, so then I invited those people to send me their letters. So anyway, now I've got this very long post.

0:47:03 Thomas: Lots and lots. So there are people who are upset by Pam's letter in particular. Do you have dueling letters going back and forth now?

0:47:10 Carrie: Well, just yesterday, there was a professor who reached out, well, who tweeted at me and said, you know, called her a liar and sort of tried to question her credibility. And, you Know, I said to him like that, that could could all be true that's all fine but like the way to handle that as a journalist is to cover all of that so the reader gets to make a decision, it's not to sublimate anything that might go against your views, um, that's what we call manipulation. Yeah.

0:47:47 Thomas: And far more the expert on journalism than I am, but even my understanding from reading the book about the Weinstein stuff and all those kinds of things, like even those kinds of stories, you still seek comment from Weinstein. It's often that they just don't do, they almost never do, you know? But if you had a willing Weinstein, for example, who wanted to respond to all these things and the reporters refused to listen or certain things they tried to dispute, that would be a little bit off journalistically, right? Do I have that correct?

0:48:21 Carrie: Yes yeah yeah I mean that That would be against the standards of, you know, pretty much any ethics board or any like SPJ is the Society of Professional Journalists has a code of ethics that most journalists adhere to. And it would certainly be against that. To be clear, The Cut and New York Magazine did talk to Pam Frey. They did interview her, it seems, many times. Uh she but she feels

0:48:49 Thomas: She claims that they didn't ask her about certain things and that she had proof of certain things that they did not ask her. Her about, right.

0:48:56 Carrie: Right, and that, you know, her, she was sort of, uh, her quotes were taken out of context and she offers some of that surrounding context, some of which seems quite notable. Um, and there's another source in the story, Jimmy Cone, who says the same, says that, uh, his, his very brief statement to them when they reached out was sortof cut up and reused in this way he totally didn't agree with. Um, so you know, all of these perspectives on the piece seem pretty relevant and I think they just don't want to deal with it anymore, so They have the bigger platform, so they're just going to deny access to it. We're

0:49:36 Thomas: We uh have we caught up to now, is that pretty much all of it, which

0:49:40 Carrie: Pretty close. Um, I did, just, yeah, a couple days ago, get an update from Pam Freyd that she had just heard back from New York Magazine. Um, and I, I still have some reviewing to do on that, so I can't talk about it too much, but there should be additional stuff on this Endless Medium post if anybody wants to spend an afternoon reading it. Hey!

0:50:03 Thomas: I did um yeah So, okay, well then you want to give a top line takeaway, you know, kind of reiterate what's your overall takeaway from this whole thing, and of course I'll post the links and where people could follow up on the letters and keep an eye if there's, if there are more developments too, uh,

0:50:19 Carrie: Gosh, there's so many, again, like from a journalistic stance and a science stance and a personal stance, and I don't know how to disentangle them, being a science fan and a, a journalist and a person. But I guess the biggest one for me is for my fellow bleeding hearts who really want to protect victims, and I am one of you, have to remember that the way to help people tell their stories is to help them corroborate them. It's not just to repeat them and hope they're true, it's especially for journalists, it's to help them go back and see what kind of documentation they can get for it or other people who agree with their account.

0:51:07 Carrie: When we just say, again, especially as journalists, when we say I believe you and I'm just going to print your story, you're kind of sending that person to the wolves to be potentially torn apart, heart because you haven't done any work double checking it for them and the world will double check it. So, um, it's, I think it's a dereliction of duty to both the person accused and the accuser.

0:51:35 Thomas: What about, uh, repressed memory, I guess, uh, questionable at best, yeah.

0:51:41 Carrie: That's right, I mean, I, I will say at, at this point in my, uh, I don't know, several year journey of reading as many scholarly papers as I can on this subject, I haven't seen anything that made me go, oh okay, maybe, um, So it's controversial at the very, very least, um, and I think it's a concept that we could probably assume is false until proven otherwise, and I think we'll be waiting a while. What?

0:51:57 Thomas: All. Right, well, she is Carrie Poppy, yes, and of course the show is oh no ross and carrie is there anything else we should plug while we're at it oh

0:52:17 Carrie: Is On my mind, and I didn't make it, but I was just thinking about it today, there is a, a docuseries called The Most Dangerous Animal of All, uh, that is so good and no one's talking about it, everyone go watch it, it's Not. You're gonna read the log line and be like, this is just a true crime documentary, and what, why, no, it is not what you think it is, go watch, yeah, oh,

0:52:46 Thomas: That is a plug that you wouldn't know this, but that is designed for me because, like, well because I'm not really a true crime for true crime sake guy you know I don't really like reading about Horrible violence and death and seeing all that, but like sometimes like it's so interesting that then I do get into it, you know, I'm like, okay, I do do want to watch it, but then I feel icky if I'm like, I don't really want to unless there's a compelling, so this is perfect, you've given me the perfect plug, because it sounds like it's not exactly that thing, but it'll be interesting, and so I'm going to check it out

0:52:51 Carrie: Me. Too mm-hmm Uh-uh. Yeah. Yeah um thomas I think you personally are gonna love it but you're gonna watch a full episode and be like what is carrie talking about and then then you'll be like I see what carrie's talking about the

0:53:27 Thomas: I trust you I trust so what was it called again the what it huh the most what's it on

0:53:35 Carrie: Most dangerous animal of all what is is it on it was uh it was fx uh you know I think it yeah I think hulu gosh I'm not sure

0:53:42 Thomas: So hulu I think I yeah, probably. All right, I will go check that out. I didn't expect that plug at the end of this, but I'll take it.

0:53:49 Carrie: That's my plug a thing I watched one time oh my

0:53:53 Thomas: Everybody needs a thing to watch right about now, I think. So that's a great plug. Carrie, thanks so much for coming on. Really appreciate it.

0:54:00 Carrie: Pleasure thanks for having me

0:54:10 Clip: Thank you so much for listening to Serious Inquiries Only. If you like the show, the absolute best thing you can do is support us at patreon.com/seriouspod. The second best thing you can do, is please share it on social media or by word of mouth. Speaking of social media, follow me on Twitter at Serious Pod. If would like to be Facebook friends, send me a request at facebook.com Thomas podcast. If not up for that level of intimacy, that's fine. Maybe you want to join the discussion at facebook.com/groups/SIO members. Thank you again for listening. We'll see you next time.