Return Home

Radiolab and Selected Shorts

Friday, November 09, 2012

Book in the spotlight (Book remixed from CC BY 2.0 image by ~Brenda Starr~/flickr/CC-BY-2.0)

We're teaming up with Selected Shorts on December 12th for a night of stories curated by Radiolab and read live on stage in NYC by Liev Schreiber, Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer) and Jane Curtin. Get your tickets now.

Hope to see you there!

Wednesday, December 12th at 7:30 pm
Peter Jay Sharp Theatre at Symphony Space
Tickets on sale now.


Jane Curtin, Liev Schreiber and Kyra Sedgwick


More in:

Comments [3]

Suzie Baer from New York City

9x9=81 is a non emotional memory. Your first kiss on the other hand is, and possibly recreated with each recall. Just my idea.

Dec. 01 2012 12:42 PM
Evan Rose from NYC

I don't know why this is as I subscribe to at least two radiolab rss feeds, but I did not read anything about this event or the in the dark event in my feeds. Also note, the blog items on the front of the site are different from those from the blog. What is the canonical feed to get news for all things radiolab (especially the events, which I hate missing!)?

Nov. 25 2012 12:45 PM
Chris Sipe from Yonkers

I was confused by a point made on the Memory show. It seems that the claim is that memories are created and then recreated when recalled. I get that. So, a person rebuilds the memory each time and, the logical next step brought up in the show was that there would be an accumulation of flaws that would slowly taint the memory. Okay, it all makes sense and in some ways seems likely.

However, a problem arise for me. What about memorization? Clearly practice makes the memory more 'solid' and doesn't taint its quality. I mean, we don't slowly drift from the fact that 9x9 = 81. It just becomes an understood fact. The notion above (mentioned in the show) would seem to counter the idea that this is possible. Same for practice, or muscle memory. Don't we slowly hone skills that have an end result in mind? How, if every time we pull up the memory, it is 'new'? Or, how about this - if it is 'new' every time - then what are we recalling?! Are we 'uploading' the former memory, swishing it around with our current context and then putting it back in place anew? That might explain a lot - because then a mathematical fact would not be tainted by the context / personality issues present at the time of recall - you would recall it, mix it around in your current context and, since you perceive math as a constant - put it back unscathed. But how do we explain the fact that this practice makes it easier to recall these things accurately? do we store them in a more convenient place or do we simply become comfortable navigating the avenues that lead us to the storage location...

Crazy stuff...

Nov. 11 2012 11:30 PM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.

Supported by