Yes. The post is clearly fake. Even if the author hadn't messed up with any facts, the style of the writing gave it way. You'll notice that there are tons and tons of details. Everything is as specific as possible in an effort to adhere to "Show Not Tell". Even if we believed someone could have a memory this crystal clear after 40 years, many of the details are completely meaningless to the premise that is presented (a man thanking a woman for human interaction when he needed it most).
Even if we believed someone could have a memory this crystal clear after 40 years, many of the details are completely meaningless to the premise that is presented
I'm not claiming the story is real, but just presenting a counter view to the above. You seem to be assuming that:
A: This is real memories, given the story he's obviously thought about that encounter a lot. So, it's hardly been 40 years, it's been constantly repeated in his mind - also evolving. Some of the details might be wrong, some only carry the sentiment of what he believed he would have felt at that time. If, 40 years ago, he heard the same story he told now he might barely recognize it. Given that he contemplated suicide and add to that that he believes this be the turning point for getting past that (whether that is true nor not is irrelevant). It is no surprise that he has strong feelings and vivid memories from it.
B: Since when is memory organized by meaningfulness? Also, what is meaningful?
I'm not even 40 years old but, as an example, I could tell you in ridiculous detail of a presentation I did in school with two friends of mine when I was 11 years old. (~20 years ago), I could tell you about memories of the notes that we had for the presentation (handwritten notes written on the printed document we had produced) - I remember some of the images we used (and how they were completely irrelevant to the topic). Is that in any sense meaningful? God no. Is my memory crystal clear? Not at all, for one there are huge gaping holes that I either won't mention or that I must interpolate to get at (I do remember the overall context and sentiment, from that I could just assume (and believe) everything else was ordinary), but as an observer you'll mostly forgive that because I can tell you the color and the shape I used to circle a specific note on that document - and how I messed it up and rather than circling the note a lot of it ended up on the outside of it. Or how we messed up the order of the overhead sheets etc.
And that is about a boring presentation that I've not given much thought on, not a life-changing event that had a very sudden and thought-provoking ending.
Memory is a wonderful thing. If you still have papers from your time at school, I suggest to go through them and press yourself to remember details.
I learned Latin for 3 or 4 years, and from the top of my head could come up with maybe 100 latin words. But when I look at a latin text we translated back than, it comes back bit by bit. I might remember the ending of a meaningless story I translated 10 years ago in a rush before class started. Maybe I will remember specific mistakes I made in translating the text, or I will remember the picture that was next to the text in the course book. It is remarkable that memory is able to do. Granted, we know that a good part part of these memories are in fact incorrect. But as long as I don't have to talk to a court or write a memoir, it does not bother me.
A is not true. There have been many studies on eye witness testimony that disprove everything your saying. The reality is that our brain fills in many, many gaps.
B, you completely missed the point. Just completely missed the point to read that sentence the way you wanted to, "many of the details are completely meaningless to the premise that is presented" has nothing to do with memory. That's why it starts with "Even if we believed someone could have a memory this crystal clear...." So why are you even bothering to argue about memory with me when I gave the memory the benefit of the doubt in my argument?
A: Which was my point... Just because memory isn't reliable doesn't mean telling something in detail from memory is a tell-sign that it is fake. It just means that those memories could be wrong or, subconsciously, made up.
As I said, I just wanted to comment on that. And that because of the way you gave the memory the benefit of doubt, considering the circumstances anything else could have been equally suspicious.
Also, it's not hard to imagine he doesn't really believe he'll find her and typing it up serves a purpose of its own. It could also be something he just wanted to share.
Again, I'm not saying it's real, just that I didn't think the arguments I commented on was particularly convincing. Sorry?
