Momento.
August 21, 2005 1:56 AM Subscribe
Why can't I remember things from when I was one, two or even three years old?
I assume it has something to do with pathways in the brain not being properly formed yet, or something like that, but I'd like to know more, if I could.
An anecdote by way of explanation. In a conversation I had today with some friends, as well as my parents, I came to realise that most of us can't remember the things we were supposed to have done at that age. My earliest memories, for example, are from around the age of four. On the other hand, some people, such as my dad, do remember one or two things from when they were that little. So what is the reason that some people remember one or two things from between the ages of one to three, but others, such as myself, remember nothing?
I assume it has something to do with pathways in the brain not being properly formed yet, or something like that, but I'd like to know more, if I could.
An anecdote by way of explanation. In a conversation I had today with some friends, as well as my parents, I came to realise that most of us can't remember the things we were supposed to have done at that age. My earliest memories, for example, are from around the age of four. On the other hand, some people, such as my dad, do remember one or two things from when they were that little. So what is the reason that some people remember one or two things from between the ages of one to three, but others, such as myself, remember nothing?
Also, I'd meant to link to this, as well. But, er, forgot (it's a dandy blog, though). The gist is that some experiments have suggested that toddlers remember some things very well--but are usually unable to describe memories using language that they didn't have at the time of the event being remembered.
Extrapolating that kind of thing further forward into adults' lack of recall of early years is probably a little problematic, but makes more sense (to me) than repression-of-trauma or the brain suddenly functioning radically differently past whatever age. But to the extent it might be true, early childhood may be mostly out of reach because the whole language system used to recall things wasn't around for that early swath of things to recall.
posted by Drastic at 2:39 AM on August 21, 2005
Extrapolating that kind of thing further forward into adults' lack of recall of early years is probably a little problematic, but makes more sense (to me) than repression-of-trauma or the brain suddenly functioning radically differently past whatever age. But to the extent it might be true, early childhood may be mostly out of reach because the whole language system used to recall things wasn't around for that early swath of things to recall.
posted by Drastic at 2:39 AM on August 21, 2005
I'd say the onus is on the people who can remember to explain why they do.. they're the oddballs. Most people start to recall earlier memories as they age, if that comforts you at all.
Lately I've started to meditate, and recall some very early memories. It's kind of fun..
posted by Jack Karaoke at 3:52 AM on August 21, 2005
Lately I've started to meditate, and recall some very early memories. It's kind of fun..
posted by Jack Karaoke at 3:52 AM on August 21, 2005
One explanation that I've heard is that it has to do with language. At that age, you didn't speak English (or whatever your primary language is now) and so memories were stored using whatever toddler-language you were using at the time. As you've learned your current language, you've forgotten the toddler one and, along with it, the ability to access those earlier memories.
posted by Framer at 4:03 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by Framer at 4:03 AM on August 21, 2005
I don't think it necessarily has to do with language but it is related to the same idea - memories are stored contextually. They're not random discrete data points but held in relation to all other memories and sense memories. At an early age we don't have enough context to keep things stored in relation to other things, so the memories get lost.
posted by mikel at 5:46 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by mikel at 5:46 AM on August 21, 2005
Lately I've started to meditate, and recall some very early memories. It's kind of fun..
posted by Jack Karaoke at 3:52 AM PST on August 21
This is an extraordinary claim, and one that probably deserves further examination outside of this thread. What do you mean by "very early"? How do you know they are true memories? What is the mechanism by which meditation allows for the recall of the past? How is this possible if certain early events are not stored in long-term memory at all?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:23 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by Jack Karaoke at 3:52 AM PST on August 21
This is an extraordinary claim, and one that probably deserves further examination outside of this thread. What do you mean by "very early"? How do you know they are true memories? What is the mechanism by which meditation allows for the recall of the past? How is this possible if certain early events are not stored in long-term memory at all?
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:23 AM on August 21, 2005
It's also extremely unlikely that these early-rememberers really have these memories. Early memories are especially prone to interference effects -- like having once heard family stories about events and then reconstructing those into "memories."
Others are just total fabrications. I have a vivid memory of rolling backward and hitting my head on a particular rocking chair in our living room when I was 4. Later I discovered that we didn't own that chair until much later. All memories are suspect, early memories even more so.
posted by nev at 8:30 AM on August 21, 2005
Others are just total fabrications. I have a vivid memory of rolling backward and hitting my head on a particular rocking chair in our living room when I was 4. Later I discovered that we didn't own that chair until much later. All memories are suspect, early memories even more so.
posted by nev at 8:30 AM on August 21, 2005
It's also extremely unlikely that these early-rememberers really have these memories. Early memories are especially prone to interference effects -- like having once heard family stories about events and then reconstructing those into "memories."
I totally agree with nev. I think it's more likely that these people have heard the "memory" told by someone else, and have committed it to memory at a later age.
posted by geeky at 8:38 AM on August 21, 2005
I totally agree with nev. I think it's more likely that these people have heard the "memory" told by someone else, and have committed it to memory at a later age.
posted by geeky at 8:38 AM on August 21, 2005
In very early childhood, your brain itself is still forming, and early experiences actually teach your brain how develop.
There's a great experiment, for instance, where they raised kittens in an environment without any vertical lines. As adults, those cats could not see vertical lines. The neural pathways to process them just weren't there. I don't know if there are similar experiments on human subjects — they'd be totally unethical and illegal — but we're probably the same way. Presumbly, those early preconscious experiences lay down the neural pathways that let you have your later conscious experiences.
If that's true, then the things you see as an infant do leave traces on your brain, just not in the form of explicit memories. To use the old brain-as-computer metaphor, a one-month-old isn't storing data yet — he's still having his kernel programmed.
('Course, this is a partial answer at best. It still doesn't really explain why you can't remember being three.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:08 AM on August 21, 2005
There's a great experiment, for instance, where they raised kittens in an environment without any vertical lines. As adults, those cats could not see vertical lines. The neural pathways to process them just weren't there. I don't know if there are similar experiments on human subjects — they'd be totally unethical and illegal — but we're probably the same way. Presumbly, those early preconscious experiences lay down the neural pathways that let you have your later conscious experiences.
If that's true, then the things you see as an infant do leave traces on your brain, just not in the form of explicit memories. To use the old brain-as-computer metaphor, a one-month-old isn't storing data yet — he's still having his kernel programmed.
('Course, this is a partial answer at best. It still doesn't really explain why you can't remember being three.)
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:08 AM on August 21, 2005
A related mystery is why I can remember some pretty random things from toddlerhood but not others: For example, I can recall being young enough that, at the dinner table, I had to ask Dad to take me to the bathroom.
posted by alumshubby at 9:17 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 9:17 AM on August 21, 2005
Whoops, sorry 'bout the rogue italics...
posted by alumshubby at 9:18 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by alumshubby at 9:18 AM on August 21, 2005
This is a fascinating topic -- thanks for asking the question!
early childhood may be mostly out of reach because the whole language system used to recall things wasn't around for that early swath of things to recall.
This has been my guess, but obviously it's only a guess, and mikel's context idea is attractive too.
I completely agree with those who doubt claims to remember extremely early events. We humans are almost as good at fabricating memories as we are at rationalizations.
posted by languagehat at 9:27 AM on August 21, 2005
early childhood may be mostly out of reach because the whole language system used to recall things wasn't around for that early swath of things to recall.
This has been my guess, but obviously it's only a guess, and mikel's context idea is attractive too.
I completely agree with those who doubt claims to remember extremely early events. We humans are almost as good at fabricating memories as we are at rationalizations.
posted by languagehat at 9:27 AM on August 21, 2005
I have a few friends-with-kids who are communicating with their kids with sign language--in some cases the kids are hearing impaired, in others they're just too young to get their little mouths around language. It'll be interesting to see if their kids are able to articulate earlier memories than can kids who had to wait until they could talk to do much communicating with adults. Of course, it will also depend on how articulate they are in sign language--recalling a memory like "me want milk" won't be too interesting to anyone...
I tend to trust my own early childhood memories when they're strictly internal--a dream I had when I was three, rather than an anecdote I've been told about myself.
posted by pessoa at 9:56 AM on August 21, 2005
I tend to trust my own early childhood memories when they're strictly internal--a dream I had when I was three, rather than an anecdote I've been told about myself.
posted by pessoa at 9:56 AM on August 21, 2005
The common explanation I've heard is that the hippocampus doesn't mature till age 3 or 4. And the hippocampus is crucial for encoding memories as long-term memories.
posted by Gyan at 11:54 AM on August 21, 2005
posted by Gyan at 11:54 AM on August 21, 2005
Via my oldest nephew, I witnessed an interesting example of how certain early memories seem to fade quite quickly. When Thomas was a toddler (2-ish), he developed an imaginary friend/character named Robot Jack, who was sort of a robotic, magic version of the cartoon character Samurai Jack. For well over a year (maybe close to two), Thomas's bedtime ritual always included a "regular" story from a book, and a Robot Jack story that either his parents or I would tell him. (Robot Jack was also discussed widely during the day as well -- what Robot Jack ate for lunch, the bad guys Robot Jack was fighting while Thomas was at nursery school, the special circumstances under which Robot Jack could fly, etc.) In short, Robot Jack was a major part of his daily imagination, play, and (burgeoning) language. When he was around 3-1/2 or so, he gradually stopped requesting Robot Jack stories, and poor old Robot Jack wasn't really mentioned any longer.
Thomas is now about 5-1/2. Recently I was over at their house for dinner, and was flipping through TiVo when I noticed Samurai Jack was on. I said, "hey, Thomas, it's Samurai Jack -- Robot Jack's friend!" Thomas looked at me like I was nuts and said, "who?" My sister looked up from the table and said sort of sadly, "he doesn't know who Robot Jack is anymore. He doesn't remember." Thomas giggled and said, "oh yeah, my parents say I used to have a friend named Robot Jack. But you know what? They're crazy."
posted by scody at 1:51 PM on August 21, 2005
Thomas is now about 5-1/2. Recently I was over at their house for dinner, and was flipping through TiVo when I noticed Samurai Jack was on. I said, "hey, Thomas, it's Samurai Jack -- Robot Jack's friend!" Thomas looked at me like I was nuts and said, "who?" My sister looked up from the table and said sort of sadly, "he doesn't know who Robot Jack is anymore. He doesn't remember." Thomas giggled and said, "oh yeah, my parents say I used to have a friend named Robot Jack. But you know what? They're crazy."
posted by scody at 1:51 PM on August 21, 2005
Pessoa's sign language thing is interesting, but probably only for those kids who are actually hearing impaired. My sister did sign language with my neice, but now that she's talking, there's no need for the sign language and I'm sure she's forgotten much of it, just like the forgotten toddler language mentioned in an earlier post.
posted by clh at 1:54 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by clh at 1:54 PM on August 21, 2005
I don't know. I do have one or two memories from a very early age. Nothing clear or interesting, but I did manage to describe the shape of the room where my first crib was based on an early memory, though we left that house when I was 18 months old. The memory is a somewhat indistinct picture of a room from the position of lying on my back with my head toward the wall. There is nothing but the visual, no thoughts at all. Of course most rooms would be boxes, so this wouldn;t mean much, but there was a staircase up to my left and an arch over it and the ceiling was slanted. I never saw pictures of that house, or had it described to me, so I think I did actually remember.
posted by Nothing at 1:54 PM on August 21, 2005
posted by Nothing at 1:54 PM on August 21, 2005
I think it's language. When I was about 35 I traveled in Africa for six weeks, and I kept a diary religiously, with a target of 4 pages a day. This forced me to put my impressions into words --- what the leaves looked like, what experiences I had, etc.
When I finished the trip, I found that my memories were much more vivid than of almost any other experience in my life. The act of putting my impressions into words concretized in a way that allowed me to retain them. Since then, when I want to remember something I make sure to turn into clear words in my head, not just a vague sort of impression.
Toddlers, of course, can't do this. They don't have words.
posted by alms at 6:33 PM on August 21, 2005
When I finished the trip, I found that my memories were much more vivid than of almost any other experience in my life. The act of putting my impressions into words concretized in a way that allowed me to retain them. Since then, when I want to remember something I make sure to turn into clear words in my head, not just a vague sort of impression.
Toddlers, of course, can't do this. They don't have words.
posted by alms at 6:33 PM on August 21, 2005
Optimus: to be brief, the meditation is my own method, based on certain principles I've picked up here and there. The earliest was from age 4, the others are mostly 5-8, which for me is very early, my memory is extremely poor.
Of relation to the thread, the memories that I've recalled are very vague notions, a fabric, a fruit tree, a car, the face of an old family friend, nothing involving sensations or emotions. I asked my mom about the memories without telling her why, and she figured out what most of them were. I am suspicious, but they seem to hold up to a bit of scrutiny.
I wouldn't be so quick to simplify it, alms.. Language may be a facilitator of the memory process, but I wouldn't call it the boss. You might have a similar experience by carefully feeling things, or taking a picture. I notice that when I take a picture, the moment tends to stay with me, regardless of whether I ever look at the resulting photo.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 6:57 PM on August 21, 2005
Of relation to the thread, the memories that I've recalled are very vague notions, a fabric, a fruit tree, a car, the face of an old family friend, nothing involving sensations or emotions. I asked my mom about the memories without telling her why, and she figured out what most of them were. I am suspicious, but they seem to hold up to a bit of scrutiny.
I wouldn't be so quick to simplify it, alms.. Language may be a facilitator of the memory process, but I wouldn't call it the boss. You might have a similar experience by carefully feeling things, or taking a picture. I notice that when I take a picture, the moment tends to stay with me, regardless of whether I ever look at the resulting photo.
posted by Jack Karaoke at 6:57 PM on August 21, 2005
The brain doesn't finish developing until the fourth decade of life, when the final frontal myelination cycle completes. I once heard a neurosurgeon describe a neonate as a 'brainstem prep' (what scientists call a cat that has been decorticated.)
"Not far from true," I said to his retreating back, "just as you yourself are a walking Kluver-Bucy syndrome."
Normal child development is basically an illustration-in-action of these anatomical processes, new connections being formed and new abilities being made manifest.
Jack Karaoke is correct to suggest that remembering is not confined to language. The other day, I was examining a patient whose left hemisphere seizure had terminated seconds prior. I showed him a keychain, jangled it, and asked him to name it, which he was unable to do. I also showed him a pen and asked him to name it, which he could not do. A nurse asked him to recall the word "Rabbit."
Then, I placed the keys into his (left) hand, and let him feel them. He did so, and was able to pantomime their use (ideomotor praxis was intact) but could still not name them.
Ten minutes later, after he was speaking normally, I asked him what things I had shown him. He was able to state "keys" with no hesitation; he didn't even recall the pen, or the word "rabbit."
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:16 PM on August 21, 2005
"Not far from true," I said to his retreating back, "just as you yourself are a walking Kluver-Bucy syndrome."
Normal child development is basically an illustration-in-action of these anatomical processes, new connections being formed and new abilities being made manifest.
Jack Karaoke is correct to suggest that remembering is not confined to language. The other day, I was examining a patient whose left hemisphere seizure had terminated seconds prior. I showed him a keychain, jangled it, and asked him to name it, which he was unable to do. I also showed him a pen and asked him to name it, which he could not do. A nurse asked him to recall the word "Rabbit."
Then, I placed the keys into his (left) hand, and let him feel them. He did so, and was able to pantomime their use (ideomotor praxis was intact) but could still not name them.
Ten minutes later, after he was speaking normally, I asked him what things I had shown him. He was able to state "keys" with no hesitation; he didn't even recall the pen, or the word "rabbit."
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:16 PM on August 21, 2005
There's a great experiment, for instance, where they raised kittens in an environment without any vertical lines. As adults, those cats could not see vertical lines. The neural pathways to process them just weren't there. I don't know if there are similar experiments on human subjects — they'd be totally unethical and illegal
Nature provides us with some analogous experiments. For example, infants born with congenital cataract will never be able to see properly if the cataract isn't corrected by age 3 or so (ambylopia ex anopsia). After a too-late corrective operation, light may refract perfectly and focus normally upon the retina; but the normal development of the visual pathways has not taken place. Amino acid autoradiography in experimental animals reveals that in such cases, Dowling's "ocular dominance columns" in the primary visual cortex (Brodmann area 17) never develop.
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:22 PM on August 21, 2005
Nature provides us with some analogous experiments. For example, infants born with congenital cataract will never be able to see properly if the cataract isn't corrected by age 3 or so (ambylopia ex anopsia). After a too-late corrective operation, light may refract perfectly and focus normally upon the retina; but the normal development of the visual pathways has not taken place. Amino acid autoradiography in experimental animals reveals that in such cases, Dowling's "ocular dominance columns" in the primary visual cortex (Brodmann area 17) never develop.
posted by ikkyu2 at 7:22 PM on August 21, 2005
I don't know anything about physical development of the brain. That being said, I'm inclined to the language-based idea of missing memories. Mostly because I do have some very early memories (age 3 or earlier). Easily identified, because we moved from that house when I was 3.
The memories are trivial and visual EXCEPT for one tiny aspect. My older sister and I used to stand on opposite ends of our swingset and call 'cock a doodle doo' through the pipe. (why, I've no idea). The memory of our little back yard there, and that swingset, are clear. Otherwise, just some images of the neighbors upstairs, their dog, and their cuckoo clock (which I loved as a little kid). Funny though, I've been told repeatedly how much I loved their dog, but have only one memory of seeing it.
posted by Goofyy at 6:03 AM on August 22, 2005
The memories are trivial and visual EXCEPT for one tiny aspect. My older sister and I used to stand on opposite ends of our swingset and call 'cock a doodle doo' through the pipe. (why, I've no idea). The memory of our little back yard there, and that swingset, are clear. Otherwise, just some images of the neighbors upstairs, their dog, and their cuckoo clock (which I loved as a little kid). Funny though, I've been told repeatedly how much I loved their dog, but have only one memory of seeing it.
posted by Goofyy at 6:03 AM on August 22, 2005
There's a great experiment, for instance, where they raised kittens in an environment without any vertical lines. As adults, those cats could not see vertical lines. The neural pathways to process them just weren't there. I don't know if there are similar experiments on human subjects — they'd be totally unethical and illegal
These 'experiments' are done automaticaly on everyone with astigmatism, and they bare the same results.
posted by delmoi at 11:03 AM on August 22, 2005
These 'experiments' are done automaticaly on everyone with astigmatism, and they bare the same results.
posted by delmoi at 11:03 AM on August 22, 2005
I have a handful of memories that I remember, basically, whenever I think about 'early memories'. One of them is me looking out of a window, seeing a schoolbus, and my mom saying 'you'll be going to school soon'. One of them is me walking into a bedroom and saying 'into the blam-blam' which was a word I used to describe things related to bouncing on the bed. I have a couple of my parents arguing.
I know that they're from before the time I was 3.5, because they happened while we lived in an apartment that my mother moved out of when I was that age.
I think the reason I remember these is, that I kept thinking about them as I grew up, and they got 'tagged' (perhaps linguistically) as 'early memories'.
I 'remember remembering' these things all throughout my life, as a child and as an adult (even today). So I think a big part of it is that these memories got 'transcribed' somehow into my more mature memory forming system. Perhaps babies form new memories using an older system on the brain-stem.
---
The strange thing is, I recently had another memory 'emerge' that must of been from that time. I'm laying in a bed lookup up at my mother, and peeing at her, as if she was in the process of changing a diaper! I realize that babies do this from time to time, so I must have been a baby.
Unlike the other memories, I don't 'remember remembering' this throughout my life, perhaps because it's rather embarrassing :P
posted by delmoi at 11:19 AM on August 22, 2005
I know that they're from before the time I was 3.5, because they happened while we lived in an apartment that my mother moved out of when I was that age.
I think the reason I remember these is, that I kept thinking about them as I grew up, and they got 'tagged' (perhaps linguistically) as 'early memories'.
I 'remember remembering' these things all throughout my life, as a child and as an adult (even today). So I think a big part of it is that these memories got 'transcribed' somehow into my more mature memory forming system. Perhaps babies form new memories using an older system on the brain-stem.
---
The strange thing is, I recently had another memory 'emerge' that must of been from that time. I'm laying in a bed lookup up at my mother, and peeing at her, as if she was in the process of changing a diaper! I realize that babies do this from time to time, so I must have been a baby.
Unlike the other memories, I don't 'remember remembering' this throughout my life, perhaps because it's rather embarrassing :P
posted by delmoi at 11:19 AM on August 22, 2005
This thread is closed to new comments.
Part of the problem is that the mechanism(s) that nifty gray matter uses to form, access, and forget memories aren't very well understood yet. It probably has something to do with neural pathways forming and changing about, sure, but that's about as exact as saying your car's engine has something to do with gasoline and combustion being translated into motion...er, somehow.
One of the things about this that really astonishes me is that actually trying to study it in any kind of sensible way seems to be only extremely recent. Freud, of course, just sort of made things up as he went along (we don't remember because we all violently repress the sexual trauma of early childhood!). But even supposed scientists following had their own baffling takes--we don't remember early childhood because memories aren't formed then. Which I suppose could seem believable if you've never actually spent any time whatsoever with small children, or know anyone who has. But apparently that was the mainstream theory for quite awhile.
My own guess is that it's because the brain has more important things to do in the early years, such as making sure there's a solid neural infrastructure for moving around, integrating all the senses, and only then learning language as the intermediate scaffold for building conscious memory on. Higher-order cognitive functions like declarative memory can wait awhile much more successfully (evolutionarily speaking) than the important basics. I look forward to cognitive science to come showing me how off-base my guesses are. :)
posted by Drastic at 2:27 AM on August 21, 2005