[Orin Kerr, September 18, 2007 at 10:34am] Trackbacks
An Important Clarification About Whether You Owe Me A Beer:
My post yesterday on how the brain remembers facts seems to have created tremendous uncertainty over whether VC readers owe me a beer. Just to be clear, you do not owe me a beer. My apologies for the confusion.
The Shadow:
I'll gladly buy you one, anyway.
9.18.2007 11:43am
Rick Wilcox (www):
So from a contract standpoint, could one say that you've forgiven the debt even if I did owe you a beer? Or is my belief that I do not owe you a beer solely dependent on your insistence of such fact, and as such independent of whether or not I do, in fact, owe you a beer?
9.18.2007 11:47am
Casual Peruser:
You're a funny man, Professor Kerr.
9.18.2007 12:00pm
vukdog:
Your Jedi mind tricks won't work on me
9.18.2007 12:04pm
Tim Howland (mail) (www):
So now I owe you two beers?
9.18.2007 12:25pm
Litigator:
I'm pretty sure I do owe you a beer. I read that... somewhere.
9.18.2007 12:40pm
abb3w:
You don't like beer? Perhaps a nice bottle of wine instead? =)
9.18.2007 1:05pm
DavidAWW (mail):
Correct, Mr. Kerr.

You owe us a beer. Or beers.
9.18.2007 1:09pm
Tony Tutins (mail):
DavidAWW -- that's how I see it. Either a Sam Adams or Sierra Nevada will do.
9.18.2007 1:19pm
MacGuffin:

Just to be clear, you do not owe me a beer.

That's not how I remember it. I distinctly remember you claiming that the next round would not be on you.
9.18.2007 1:27pm
Bruce Hayden (mail) (www):
If Orin has forgiven a debt, does everyone who has had such a debt forgiven have to claim it as income on his taxes?
9.18.2007 1:27pm
Pyrrhus (mail) (www):
Oh... so it was a whole six-pack?
9.18.2007 1:32pm
nedu (mail):
Just to be clear [...]


If you're explaining, then you're losing.

Although, at the risk of losing a point myself: That study drew awfully sweeping conclusions from some very limited data.
9.18.2007 1:36pm
Zacharias (mail):
OK, here it is:

http://www.scaryideas.com/print/1029/
9.18.2007 1:53pm
Anderson (mail):
Prof. Kerr, meet Prof. Derrida.
9.18.2007 2:10pm
Crunchy Frog:
Rick Wilcox: When you receive a 1099 form from OK, making you liable for the tax liability of one beer, you'll wish you just gave him the one you owed him in first place.
9.18.2007 2:23pm
OrinKerr:
Anderson,

Having had an Ivy League education, I can assure you that he and I have met. We didn't get along well, though.
9.18.2007 2:48pm
Dan Simon (mail) (www):
In all seriousness, I speculate that all these studies are omitting a huge part of the story: that some ideas are simply inherently more memorable than their negations. The original statements may, for example, be more believable to most people, or more appealing as beliefs, or more emotionally or sensorily striking, or more conceptually simple. In the case of the CDC flier, for instance, people were read a list of "commonly held views"--that is, views that had already been pre-selected for their strong memorability--and quite unsurprisingly found them more memorable than their negations.

A proper study would expose subjects to either a statement or its negation, at random, and then measure how often the subjects negated the statement they were given in their memories over time. My strong suspicion is that the negation would be heavily biased in one direction.

(Sorry, Orin--I expect that "I owe Orin Kerr a beer" will turn out to be much less memorable than its negation.)
9.18.2007 3:15pm
Anon Y. Mous:
I don't get it. But, I still want my free beer.
9.18.2007 3:27pm
Thief (mail) (www):
Since Prof. Kerr does not want a beer, I will be glad to accept any beers you feel you owe him or wish to offer him on his behalf. Please leave them behind the recycling bins at the loading dock of the law school building.

If you're bringing light beer, don't bother.
9.18.2007 3:36pm
scote (mail):
There is only one person owed a beer. That person is "Scote."

However, I wonder how the study on memory affects jury trials. One of the main points of the article was that denials (such as the false claim "You do not owe Scote a beer) have to restate the original claim ("You owe scote a beer") and people tend to remember the re-enforced message ("You owe scote a beer") rather than negation ("You do not owe scote a beer").

So, what is a defense attorney to do? Are denials like "My client did not do this crime!" potentially harmful? And should they be replaced with assertions of innocence and alternate theories that do not reference the accusations?
9.18.2007 4:34pm
Anderson (mail):
Having had an Ivy League education, I can assure you that he and I have met. We didn't get along well, though.

Your intuition for deconstructive thought doubtless exceeded his own, besides being expressed so much more clearly.
9.18.2007 4:41pm
Realist Liberal:
Again I state, I may not owe you a beer but if you are in the Bay Area I would gladly buy you a few. (I'd buy you a few and food if you let me chat about Crim Pro in general and Cyber Criminal law.)
9.18.2007 10:58pm
Bud Wiser (mail):
No problem.

BEER
9.19.2007 12:29am
Alex650 (mail):
My wife talks in her sleep sometimes, and I once bet her a dollar that she wouldn't remember making the bet the next day. Then, when I won the bet, she wouldn't pay. WTF?
9.19.2007 1:21am