Verified by 
Politicians lie. They also exaggerate and misremember. Each creates an autobiographical past that makes a great story but which probably isn’t completely true. You probably already know that politicians might not be completely trustworthy. Of course, we might be just like the lying politicians except for one critical difference.
The men and women running for president have impressive personal histories. Governors, senators, CEOs, neurosurgeons, and cabinet members. They’ve all made meaningful contributions to society, but apparently, no matter how wonderful your personal story is, you can always polish it with a few extra details.
Ben Carson, for example, already has an amazing story of personal growth, persevering through a challenging childhood to become a famous neurosurgeon. He’s also written an autobiography. And with his recent rise in the polls, he has been the politician currently placed under the investigative microscope. Did he really try to stab a friend, attack his mother with a hammer, and turn down a scholarship to West Point? Was he declared the most honest man after sticking it out through a false make-up exam as part of a psychological experiment? I do not intend this post as an attack on Dr. Carson’s memories. You can find similar personal stories being questioned for all of the candidates.
But let’s focus on Ben Carson for a moment as an example. Are Dr. Carson’s personal stories true? The fact-checkers will tell us. Various journalists have been investigating the autobiographical narratives of Dr. Carson and the other presidential candidates. Through the investigations, we’ll learn if the stories are fact or fiction or some combination of a personal experience glorified in autobiographical retellings. For Ben Carson, this is thought to be particularly revealing and potentially ironic — can he be the most honest man in the room if his memories don’t match what actually happened?
Do you think fact-checking these stories is important? Shouldn’t the lies and false memories promulgated by the various candidates tell us something important about the moral character of these candidates? Actually, I’m not so sure.
The reason I’m not sure these errors tell us much has to do with the important difference between you, me, and the people running for president (besides the relative size of our egos). The important difference is that no one is fact-checking our life stories.
I’m thankful that no one is fact-checking the stories I tell about my life. I am not confessing to lies. But I’m not about to claim complete historical truth either (see my earlier post on the difference between historical and narrative truth). Memories are always reconstructive. We recreate the past every time we retell it. We use information from the events we experienced, add in information from other events, and then mix in some general knowledge. Our audience influences the stories we tell as well. We construct a memory from the past with a particular goal in sharing the story — entertainment, instruction, or simply self-description.
I’m also not the same person today that I was when the events happened. I’ve changed and I continue to change and grow. Thankfully, I'm not the same person I was as a child, adolescent, or young man. Maybe I’m wiser, but making that claim is something of an autobiographical story — it may or may not be true. The current me edits and changes my memories.
Every instance in which cognitive psychologists have studied the consistency of memories over time, they have found that the memories change. Even the memories that you hold most confidently will include changes and may be completely different from versions you told in the past. Memories of traumatic events, relationship events, and childhood experiences change. All our memories change, although with repeated retellings we may eventually settle on a version of the past. But that final version probably isn’t exactly what happened.
But no one is fact-checking your memories. No one is fact-checking my memories. No one points out the changes, inconsistencies, and errors. And if someone tries to fact-check your memories, you don’t believe them. If a friend or family member has a different memory, you assume that the friend or family member is the one with the error. Even with video and photographic evidence, you can claim that what you remember is the part that wasn’t captured in the picture or video.
We judge the truth of our memories by how the memories feel. My memories feel true to me. Does the memory feel complete? Are the visual images clear? Do I remember what I thought? Am I re-experiencing the emotions I felt then? Based on the way the memory feels, we engage in what is called reality or source monitoring. If it feels real, then we claim it as a memory. Generally we don’t really even think about. The memory comes with all that information and a clear sense of personal ownership. No amount of contradictory claims and evidence from someone else will decrease the clarity of our memories. When I have a memory, it is mine. And it feels true (this can even lead us to claim someone else’s memories as our own stories).
I find the attempts to obtain the historical truth about the lives of the presidential candidates somewhat amusing. Of course their memories aren’t completely accurate. Does this tell us something important about the candidate’s character? Probably not. Most of the errors I’ve read about appear to be the sorts of memory errors the rest of us make. But unlike presidential candidates, our memories aren’t fact-checked. Some of the errors may be intentional glorifications of the past. These memories are retold to fit with an overall narrative about the candidate. These stories and memories make the candidate look better and provide a compelling reason to vote for the candidate. But we all tell these self-glorifying stories about our lives and we may eventually come to believe our versions of our lives. Luckily, we aren’t running for president.
Fact-checking the biographies makes for entertaining news stories so I’m sure it will continue. But fact-checking the biographies may not reveal anything important about the candidates. The fact-checkers would serve us all better by fact-checking the claims about proposed policies. But I suspect those articles may prove lower in entertainment value.
Personally, I’m happy no one is fact-checking the stories I tell about my life.
