For anyone wondering why Biden (or anyone else, of any age) can get details of a story wrong...

[highplainsdem]

check out this New Yorker article explaining how -- and WHY -- even college students scramble remembered details:


https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/idea-happened-memory-recollection

R. T. first heard about the Challenger explosion as she and her roommate sat watching television in their Emory University dorm room. A news flash came across the screen, shocking them both. R. T., visibly upset, raced upstairs to tell another friend the news. Then she called her parents. Two and a half years after the event, she remembered it as if it were yesterday: the TV, the terrible news, the call home. She could say with absolute certainty that that’s precisely how it happened. Except, it turns out, none of what she remembered was accurate.

R. T. was a student in a class taught by Ulric Neisser, a cognitive psychologist who had begun studying memory in the seventies. Early in his career, Neisser became fascinated by the concept of flashbulb memories—the times when a shocking, emotional event seems to leave a particularly vivid imprint on the mind. William James had described such impressions, in 1890, as “so exciting emotionally as almost to leave a scar upon the cerebral tissues.”

The day following the explosion of the Challenger, in January, 1986, Neisser, then a professor of cognitive psychology at Emory, and his assistant, Nicole Harsch, handed out a questionnaire about the event to the hundred and six students in their ten o’clock psychology 101 class, “Personality Development.” Where were the students when they heard the news? Whom were they with? What were they doing? The professor and his assistant carefully filed the responses away.

In the fall of 1988, two and a half years later, the questionnaire was given a second time to the same students. It was then that R. T. recalled, with absolute confidence, her dorm-room experience. But when Neisser and Harsch compared the two sets of answers, they found barely any similarities. According to R. T.’s first recounting, she’d been in her religion class when she heard some students begin to talk about an explosion. She didn’t know any details of what had happened, “except that it had exploded and the schoolteacher’s students had all been watching, which I thought was sad.” After class, she went to her room, where she watched the news on TV, by herself, and learned more about the tragedy.

R. T. was far from alone in her misplaced confidence. When the psychologists rated the accuracy of the students’ recollections for things like where they were and what they were doing, the average student scored less than three on a scale of seven. A quarter scored zero. But when the students were asked about their confidence levels, with five being the highest, they averaged 4.17. Their memories were vivid, clear—and wrong. There was no relationship at all between confidence and accuracy.

-snip-

What Dunsmoor, Phelps, and Davachi found came as a surprise: it wasn’t just the memory of the “emotional” images (those paired with shocks) that received a boost. It was also the memory of all similar images—even those that had been presented in the beginning. That is, if you were shocked when you saw animals, your memory of the earlier animals was also enhanced. And, more important, the effect only emerged after six or twenty-four hours: the memory needed time to consolidate. “It turns out that emotion retroactively enhances memory,” Davachi said. “Your mind selectively reaches back in time for other, similar things.” That would mean, for instance, that after the Challenger explosion people would have had better memory for all space-related news in the prior weeks.

-snip-

So, if memory for events is strengthened at emotional times, why does everyone forget what they were doing when the Challenger exploded? While the memory of the event itself is enhanced, Phelps explains, the vividness of the memory of the central event tends to come at the expense of the details. We experience a sort of tunnel vision, discarding all the details that seem incidental to the central event.

-snip-

What this boils down to is that when you're remembering something that had a great emotional impact, your mind will authomatically bring in similar events, and your mind will also automatically focus on the central emotional impact, the central event, and minimize the details.

And that happens even with college students at top universities.

It isn't due to age or cognitive problems.

It's simply how our minds work.

[LincolnRossiter]

1. I've done this with emotionally charged moments 5-10 years in the past--including incidents

during my military service.

And I'm 36.

Joe Biden has had an event-filled and oftentimes extremely tragic experience in life. Some past events will get jumbled. It doesn't portend an inability to function in the present and future.

[Thekaspervote]

41. This!!

[Hortensis]

85. Agree. Perfectly stated, especially in an event-filled life.

I'm remembering Hillary's story about once coming under attack while flying into an airport. She brought press with her in the plane, press and others were at the location, and above all every single word she had spoken for many years was mined for anything that could be twisted into a weapon. No way she deliberately lied.

Whatever was in her event-filled past, including no doubt diversions to avoid attacks during her many visits to 115 nations as SoS, and many others over the years before, as well as stories of others she knew who did get shot at, her memory played a trick on her.

[bluewater]

2. Does the article say why it happens more often for one individual than another?

[hlthe2b]

4. That would be hard to prove. Put the spotlight on whomever you believe never manifests this,

observe them under conditions of sleep deprivation, intense travel and work schedule, family crises, overwork, and most importantly DISTRACTION and your 20 yo friend (or yourself) is quite likely to manifest.

To claim it only affects a few people or a few people more commonly or only older people is a BS claim sans any evidence.

[Thekaspervote]

42. True

[highplainsdem]

6. There's no reason to believe it happens a lot more to some people. Some people are simply more

likely to have their memories of events challenged.

Like candidates being scrutinized by reporters eager to write stories about any mistakes they make.

As I mentioned to you earlier today, I've seen this sort of confusion/disagreement about details at family reunions.

Most of us simply are very rarely in situations where anyone could challenge our recollection of events.

When you consider everything Biden's done during his long career, all the people he's met, all the events he's witnessed or heard about while they were happening (and heard about from staffers or other people, as opposed to simply reading news stories, which can often help cement memories for some people; both reading and writing can help that way) it isn't at all surprising that he could mix up some details, especially if there was any similarity in the stories.

[bluewater]

11. "There's no reason to believe it happens a lot more to some people."

You don't think that some individuals have more memory lapses than others? That some individuals are more confused and can't recall past events as well as other people can?

Are you saying everyone's memory is as good as everyone else's?

Honestly, that makes no sense.

[hlthe2b]

12. see my post 7

[bluewater]

17. oops

[NYMinute]

20. Let me help you navigate

https://www.democraticunderground.com/1287259327#post7

[bluewater]

22. So you are saying you agree with me? Some individuals do have worse memories?

OK...

[hlthe2b]

25. What I said is that without long-term objective comparative study, such differences

would be hard to prove.
The factors I described may well induce forgetfulness and distraction in most anyone at any age. So is it differences within individuals, closer observation of one over the other, or a moment in time occurrence that makes one person APPEAR more forgetful and prone to the conflation of memories than another?

Proving differences in verbal acuity, intellect, and short term memory (standardized tests for example) is certainly doable as those can be objectively measured. Proving differences in people based on long term memory accuracy-- independent of anything else or any other factor-- is far more difficult, especially on a population basis.

Proving a loss of such functions over time within the same individual is certainly doable. One need only go to old video of Trump to document this phenomenon.

[bluewater]

29. Oh, absolutely, such differences would be hard to definitively prove.

But we all know that no politician would ever allow themselves to undergo an objective comparative study of their cognitive abilities.

So... since it's politics, it all comes down to public perception of those abilities.

Right now, the public's perception of Joe Biden's gaffes and memory lapses is throwing a wet blanket over his campaign and is probably the reason he is currently polling at 29% average support in the polls and not significantly higher.

[highplainsdem]

32. LOL! So you're suggesting that all the other 20 or so candidates are so weak that Biden would have

much higher poll numbers except for his gaffes?

And you're suggesting that the ideological divide in the party has nothing to do with the polling?

He has roughly as much support as his two closest rivals combined, and it's been that way for 10 months.

Despite all the predictions of his campaign's imminent demise by you and other Biden critics.

[bluewater]

33. Without his constant gaffes and memory lapses Biden WOULD be polling better.

Duh.

He's a popular well known Democrat, he was Obama's VP for 8 years.

Polling at 29% is just so under performing for him. If he could stop the constant gaffes and the memory lapses he COULD be polling significantly higher.

You are surprised by that?



But he can't stop, apparently, so the other candidates have a chance to sort out the remaining 70% of the voters and mount a challenge for the 2020 nomination.

Again...

[Thekaspervote]

44. Honey.. you must not have seen the new polls from yesterday

Or maybe it’s a memory lapse. The most current and accurate polls are. Biden 32% up 2 since last.
And latest HarrisX poll has him at 37%
Today’s RCP average is 11.8%

[LanternWaste]

73. Your conclusion is a logical fallacy.

Your conclusion (last graf) is a logical fallacy. It's merely a post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy illustrating zero causation.

Is that simply a gaffe on your part? And if so, should we allege concern for you?

[LanternWaste]

72. Do you have objective numbers of gaffes v gaffes within the field of Dem candidates?

Do you have numbers of gaffes v gaffes within the field of Dem candidates from which to compare and contrast objectively?

Or would those numbers be too inconvenient in regards to the unsupported but yet consistent narrative?

[virgogal]

3. It may not always be due to age or cognitive problems but

as an 85 year old,as I am, it DOES happen more often.Sorry,but that's the way it is.

[jcgoldie]

5. Say whhaaaaat?!?

Loss of memory has nothing to do with the aging process apparently...

[highplainsdem]

10. Well, since you're a Warren supporter you must be concerned that a woman her age is about twice as

likely as a man her age is to develop Alzheimer's.

So if that's among your concerns, there's about as much risk of that for Warren as for Biden and Sanders, even though they're several years older.

[bluewater]

14. So much for considering INDIVIDUALS and their cognitive abilities, hmmm?

[Thekaspervote]

47. you really think all your negativity is of service to your candidate of choice?

I would imagine if you asked her you wouldn’t get a positive response

[cwydro]

64. I don't understand this line of argument.

What difference does it make who someone’s candidate is? I understand why so many stay as undecided so they don’t have to deal with that kind of senseless argument.

I doubt Warren or any of the others could give a rat’s patootie what anyone says here. Smh.

[jcgoldie]

30. Two points

Watch Warren and watch Biden and see if you notice a difference in energy levels and or focus. Secondly... if Warren were to win she'd be a year and a half older than Joe is right now after she had served 2 terms in the presidency.

[highplainsdem]

35. I'm not that impressed by Warren's constant repetition of the same talking points.

Yes, she's a good debater. Having been on debate teams myself, I don't confuse debating with leadership.

I like Warren as a policy wonk. But as a leader and a candidate, I don't think she's as strong as HRC was, and we need someone at least as strong as HRC to defeat Trump.

And again, as far as the ages the candidates will be between 2020 and 2028 -- what I've read about Alzheimer's indicates Warren's risk during that time period would be comparable to any risk that Biden and Sanders have.

As I've said before, I'm not worried about ANY of them. They're in good health now, and they take care of themselves, so their risk is minimal.

I just don't understand people who complain about Biden's age thinking the issue is irrelevant where Warren is concerned.

[Thekaspervote]

48. Agree...she's smart but she doesn't begin to come close to HRC

With Warren’s current polling numbers there’s no way she could win the general. Especially considering her 2% polling with the AA voters

[virgogal]

34. The article posted was not about any

candidates,it was about memory lapses.They DO occur more as we age and Warren,Biden,and Sanders have nothing to do with my opinion on that topic.

[treestar]

82. but how much do they matter

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/make-your-brain-smarter/201508/the-potential-the-aging-mind

Forgetting where your keys are type of stuff - a President doesn't have to worry about any of that. He/she gets to deal in the big picture.

[cwydro]

57. I've not seen one single indicator that Warren is anything but sharp as a tack.

Everyone can misspeak, but Biden’s flubs are getting a little worrisome.

Did you read the Post article? He actually said that he had told the general, “We can lose a Vice President, but not anymore of these kids.” Come on now. That’s purely made up. He was a senator at the time.

And as he tells the story, he keeps saying, this is God’s truth, my word as a Biden. Eek.

[treestar]

83. once you are over 50

Last edited Fri Aug 30, 2019, 12:48 PM - Edit history (1)

you can remember a lot of things but not exactly when they were.

And it can be surprisingly long ago if something comes out that precisely dates it.

That is not a big deal. It felt closer in time to him so he felt he was Veep then. How would anyone remember exact dates from that many years ago without it being extreme, like 911?

I know the Challenger was in the late 80s. If I said it was in 86 and it turned out it was in 84 why would it undervalue my story about it? Sometimes the fine details are not necessary and no one remembers them anyway. Outside of 11/22/63 and 911, who remembers exact dates of many other things they know happened?

[cwydro]

84. It's not the dates so much, but saying "we can lose a vice-president?"

First of all, I doubt a vice-president would be allowed at a FOB.

At any rate, he never said that.

[pnwmom]

39. And the incidence of Alzheimers, just one example, DOUBLES every 5 years after

the age of 65. So the incidence at 80 is much higher than at 70.

[hlthe2b]

7. Sorry, that is your experience. Projecting its effects on an entire population cohort is ridiculous.

We all age differently. We all have different capacities for memory, health, endurance, stress coping, and verbal acuity at ANY age. Your blanket claim is scarcely different than saying life expectancy is the same for all of us, regardless of genetics, general health, and lifestyle behaviors. As if ones own high blood pressure acquired at a certain age means EVERYONE of that age will have high blood pressure.

Ridiculous.

In those who are already experiencing memory problems, one can generally expect it to get worse, but that does not mean everyone will experience them similarly.

[Bradical79]

8. Yeah, it's normal esp. for someone his age

A big mistake would be doubling down on the accuracy of the story, and maybe someone on his team should be paying more attention to the details in speeches.

[highplainsdem]

15. I think campaign staffs for all candidates should check for accuracy of details, statistics, etc.

Writers need editors and copy editors. Politicians need the equivalent, especially if they're doing a lot of talking.

Although you can still end up with gaffes like Warren saying there are two coequal branches of government (apparently forgetting the judciary), as she did earlier this year.

Or Obama saying there are 57 states, while he was campaigning.

It happens.

[Bradical79]

24. Yep

And especially with emotional anecdotes. The longer you've lived, the more stories there are to get mixed up and embelished.

[treestar]

81. That is not a horrible thing when it comes to stories

Which is why older people tell more interesting stories. My grandfather had zillions of stories, all of doubtful 100% accuracy. But very interesting.

[Thekaspervote]

49. Agree!!

[George II]

9. I grew up in a family of four boys (and two sisters), all four boys were three years apart....

My mother constantly got our names mixed up. We used to tease her about it.

[highplainsdem]

23. Sounds like my mother...and most mothers who have more than one child.

[treestar]

77. LOL my mother did that too

My sister and I each had a name that started with the first syllable of the other's name attached to our own names.

[treestar]

13. And also, getting this story exactly right

though impossible, has nothing to do with being able to be President. I think everyone is assuming that. These kinds of stories are not the same as day to day work. It's not as if Biden as President is going to forget to sign a bill, or sign a bill that is something the conservatives want, because he doesn't recall his position on an issue. It doesn't mean he will tell the WH staff to do stupid things.

[highplainsdem]

71. Very good point!

[NYMinute]

16. Actually, he has attended so many of those events and heard so many stories

they can easily get jumbled up.

I have attended some 120 weddings ... and I always think something happened in wedding X when it actually happened in wedding Y. (And I am no where near as old as Joe Biden.)

Some are just creating an issue out of nothing.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

18. This is exactly why eyewitness testimony is actually *less* reliable

than most other forms of evidence. People tend to think they saw and heard what they expected to see and hear; or when trying to remember the details they mix them up with other experiences, incidents, recollections or descriptions they might have heard from someone else. They're not lying, but human memory isn't like a video recording.

[highplainsdem]

21. Exacttly. That article refers to how unreliable eyewitness testimony can be, even when the witness

is POSITIVE their memory is correct.

[JI7]

26. i have a business where i see a lot of different people

and i don't always remember everyone. i will sometimes recognize faces but could not remember how i knew them until they mention some details.

so i can understand Biden getting things wrong or confused. especially since he has been in public office for pretty much his entire adult life. he has had many interactions with people and many public events for decades.

[Thekaspervote]

51. This!! The last of professional years in the medical field I had a private counseling practice

Names, conditions, faces sometimes didn’t come together. it has nothing to do with loss of memory or pathological conditions of the brain

[DrFunkenstein]

27. Like The Time I Forgot Anita Hill Wasn't On Trial

Or the time I said that I "owe her an apology" but years later called her to express "regret" without actually apologizing.

Or the time I said "I wish I could have done something," but forgot that I was actually the chairman of the hearing.

Memory is such a funny thing. Especially for powerful white men.

[True Dough]

56. Ow!

This post stings!

[treestar]

76. Biden wasn't on trial either

that tends to be forgotten. Why does the real perpetrator get out of it?

[DrFunkenstein]

86. No Biden Wasn't On Trial - He Was The Chairman of The Hearings

And proceeded to set the stage for Brett Kavanaugh's ability to become a Supreme Court Justice in the face of very compelling accusations of sexual harassment.

Here's how the WaPo recently characterized the proceedings:

"Ms. Hill was the reluctant witness, a young African-American law professor who had worked with Justice Thomas and was grilled in excruciatingly graphic detail by an all-white, all-male Judiciary Committee led by Mr. Biden, then a senator from Delaware.

...

&quot Hill) added, she cannot support Mr. Biden for president until he takes full responsibility for his conduct, including his failure to call as corroborating witnesses other women who were willing to testify before the Judiciary Committee. By leaving them out, she said, he created a “he said, she said” situation that did not have to exist.

“The focus on an apology, to me, is one thing,” Ms. Hill said. “But there needs to be an apology to the other witnesses and there needs to be an apology to the American public because we know now how deeply disappointed Americans around the country were about what they saw. And not just women. There are women and men now who have just really lost confidence in our government to respond to the problem of gender violence.”

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/25/us/politics/joe-biden-anita-hill.html

Biden "regrets" his role, but forgot actually apologize.

[treestar]

90. Well it's a stretch to blame him for Kavanaugh

I wish Anita Hill would demand Clarence Thomas to apologize first.

[elleng]

28. Because we're human!

[Bradshaw3]

31. This is wrongly conflating two separate cognitive processes

One, misrembering, is in fact something common to people of all ages. Here is a good description from two prominent psychology researchers:
https://youarenotsosmart.com/2015/02/11/yanss-043-the-science-of-misremembering-with-daniel-simons-and-julia-shaw/

The research of Simons and others in that area focuses on the limits of our cognitive abilities, and can explain things such as Hillary "remembering" that her plane was shot at when it was in fact not, leading to accusations of lying.

The potential issue with Biden is not that, but rather something called age-related cognitive decline. Some on here try to dismiss it but it is in fact a very real thing. Unfortunately, the OP is trying to use the former to excuse what may be the latter. Saying everyone does it, or others make mistakes too is using whataboutism when it doesn't apply and does not answer questions about Biden's cognitive abilities.

The problem here if Biden is the nominee is that drumpf's cognitive ability is one area where voters are going to be looking at, and for good reason. Some will jump on and say I'm comparing the two, which is ludicrous. Biden is not rump in any way, but if there are questions about his cognitive ability it could hurt in one key area where rump is vulnerable.

[Thekaspervote]

38. You are entitled to your opinion...and that's all it is...an opinion

[Bradshaw3]

43. No, scientific research is more than an opinion

It's peer-reviewed, tested, and goes on - for some researchers - over decades. That's why I included a link and discussed the differences between the two things.

And all you can add is, "hey man, that's just like your opinion, man."

[Thekaspervote]

52. Yup!, the last paragraph is pure conjecture, people comparing the dotard to Biden and jumping

Ship... yes that is just your opinion.. not fact

[Bradshaw3]

59. Uh, ok

Sorry can't respond to incoherent posts.

[Thekaspervote]

87. Look at the last paragraph of your comment..post #31

You give some good data above, but you then mix it up with your opinion.

Not biting on your “can’t respond to incoherent posts.” Deflection on your part

[treestar]

74. rump's cognation is clearly inferior to Biden's even if you want too question

Biden's. And then rump has the black heart that results in these actions and he is an outsider and thinks he is King. Biden understands the presidency's powers and how the government works, which rump does not know and ignores.

[SCVDem]

36. What's the problem?

Joe has probably never forgotten a face or event. There have been so many for so long that the less important details get fuzzed. The gist of the story is true.

He gets involved. Think of his past when he rode the train every day. Thousands of people and stories.

I couldn't do it. Could anyone here?

[Thekaspervote]

53. Correct!

[loyalsister]

37. Still

Bungling the anecdotes from his stump speech is like a rock star forgetting the words to songs they've been singing for decades.
I don't understand why someone would want to spend the next campaign season plus 4-8 yrs defending and explaining Biden's gaffes and lapses. It sucks up a lot of oxygen that should be used to fuel a candidates or POTUS agenda.

[Thekaspervote]

40. Give it a rest

If you took apart all the writings and records of all our current candidates you would find narratives that were questionable

[ChubbyStar]

45. Really? You are going to tell another poster to give it a rest?

Meanwhile you go on and on about your candidate. That is NOT cool.

[Thekaspervote]

55. I would ask you, go thru the posts here and look at the number of Biden supporters that are blasting

Away, calling names, making all kinds of claims against the other candidates. Slim to none. So, yes when I start blasting away at other candidates in such a negative fashion then your arguement might have merit

[ChubbyStar]

58. Sorry, my argument has merit even if you disagree

There is no e in argument BTW. Just thought you should know!

[Thekaspervote]

60. Your right there is no e.

[ChubbyStar]

61. that would be you're

Thanks for letting me know I was right.

[cwydro]

62. The other candidates aren't making these continuous mistakes.

Biden was originally my first choice, but long before all these recent gaffes, I just saw enough to make me think he’s just not up for it.

I still don’t get Jill telling people to “swallow a bit and vote for Joe/“ That’s not exactly inspiring.

[Lordquinton]

70. "Slim to none"

[treestar]

80. It is cool to go on about your candidate

the uncool part is going on about an opposing candidate in a negative way.

[Thekaspervote]

88. This!!

[Bradshaw3]

46. No you wouldn't

Biden supporters here have tried - and failed - to find comparable examples. So they use false parallels, like one or two slip-ups by one candidate equals many such gaffes or questionable comments by Biden. If Biden is so far above the other candidates one thinks his supports wouldn't find it necessary to use such tactics.

But, hey, that's "just my opinion, man."

[Thekaspervote]

54. Yes, your opinion and your definitely entitled to it

[treestar]

78. Biden is older than the others

and has a lot more experience to draw on. The details matter less than the big picture. Younger people can recall more details but don't know which ones are important.

I remember young attorneys in depositions taking hours and asking questions of detail that in the end were just not necessary. But they prided themselves on how long their depositions were. It showed they worked harder. But older attorneys knew to get to the point.

I sat through 3 hours once as a plaintiff in an auto accident case after testifying that his injury prevented him from his hobby of surfing for a time got grilled on details of his surfboards, locations, tides, everything under the sun (the questioner likely was a surfer too) none of which really mattered and which no jury would sit through without falling asleep and no judge would allow to go on so long.

Or like the High schooler who thinks his paper is the greatest because it is the longest. Or if you get a good score because you memorized enough. None of that means you know what is important or what information to use.

Sounds like Biden knew what to put together, off the cuff, to make a good story, a moving story. Inspirational. Not long winded word salads by someone who has to tell us how smart he is everyday.

[cwydro]

65. What is it with posters telling others what to post or not lately?

This is a DISCUSSION board. If you don’t like what a poster has to say, put them on ignore or just plain ignore them.

I have no one on ignore, but there are plenty to whom I pay no attention at all.

[treestar]

79. it shows emphatic opposition

I you say "I disagree. . . and then explain, you have a discussion.

Going "wow, just wow," "i have no words" or "you ought to delete this" is an attempt to show the world how the other poster is not just wrong, but shockingly so, and likely to be seen as wrong by society.

No one can stop anyone from posting. But plenty of shock is expressed. It may not really be all that shocking or it could be a good point, but some people prefer the argument from shame or guilt or whatever fallacy this is.

We have to admit we all do this at a point - if a Deplorable comes to DU and says something racist, we would do it too.

[pnwmom]

66. That's pretending all of our candidates are the same, and they're not. n/t

[JI7]

50. he doesn't have the same stump speech he gives all the time and he spends

a lot of time having conversations with people.

[emmaverybo]

63. Didn't stop him from being a great VP, one of the most powerful and active in decades. NT

[pnwmom]

67. No more powerful or active than Al Gore, who -- like Hillary --

won the popular vote when he ran for President (but lost because of one state's defective ballots tossing its electoral votes to Bush.)

[emmaverybo]

68. Biden worked more closely with Obama than Gore with Clinton. This went along with Biden

reshaping the role of VP. In any case, my point is that apparently Biden’s so-called gaffes did not hinder him from handling all the important assignments Obama gave him. One-upping on VP’s has
no relation whatsoever to my point.

[pnwmom]

69. That's the idea Biden wants to promote. I haven't seen any evidence of that.

And Gore reshaped the role of VP before Biden came along. And Cheney was known as a very powerful V.P.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/01/20/remaking-the-role-of-vice-president/37e2046f-f95a-4239-825d-c5b91a9dd836/

Cheney's predecessor, Al Gore, set a new standard for vice presidents. Even more than Walter F. Mondale, President Jimmy Carter's vice president and the first to have an office in the coveted West Wing of the White House, Gore was a close partner and influential adviser to President Clinton on a broad range of issues.

[emmaverybo]

89. Not just Biden promoting.

This article is a bit more recent:

Joe Biden The Most Influential Vice President in History?

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/joe-biden-the-most-influential-vice-president-in-history/266729/


The jury is still out and will be for all of history, so let’s not try to solve this one among ourselves especially given that I am obviously a Biden supporter and you have an animus against Biden
as your frequent posts and thread topics suggest.

We are both certainly entitled to express our bias from both of those sides.

[treestar]

75. good article here about aging brains

This research suggests your brain may be able to compensate for its diminishing speed of processing and ability to remember facts by improvements in other functions. One of the greatest assets of the aging brain is its deep repository of learned information and experiences, and the ability to derive and remember abstracted big ideas more efficiently than details. This is one of the reasons CEOs of companies tend to be in their 50s, 60s or even older, rather than in their 20s. A 25 year-old worker might be able to take in and remember more details, but be less adept at appreciating which information is important and which is less relevant to the decision at hand.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/make-your-brain-smarter/201508/the-potential-the-aging-mind

There is a trade-off. The more details you know, the less likely you are to remember them all. But your ability to appreciate them is greater.

[highplainsdem]

91. +1,000,000. Thanks for posting that!

[Gothmog]

92. Biden got the important part of the story correct according to the person who recieved the medal

BTW, the opinion of the person who was the subject of the last so-called gaffe carries a great deal of weight with me

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[elocs]

94. Yeah, I got details of at story wrong decades ago

as well as forgetting things, but to be honest, it happens a hell of a lot more at age 67 than if ever did when I was younger.

[milestogo]

95. This is why they interview victims and witnesses to a crime immediately.

And even then, video is much more reliable.

[Gothmog]

96. And they worry about Biden's verbal gaffes? The president is a category 5 disaster

Link to tweet

[Gothmog]

97. "Voters just don't care... they think that he's an honorable man..."

Link to tweet