Let's Ask Science: Does Clinton's Bosnia Landing Tall Tale Prove That She's a Liar?

credit

The Tall Tale-- a story that mixes reality with fiction, in which it can become difficult to tell which parts are true and which are false-- are they always lies? In the case of "Fish Tales," the stories start out completely reflecting reality but they change over time to be more impressive, more grandiose. It may seem straightforward to say that when the story starts to deviate from reality that it becomes a lie, but that all depends on how you define truth and lie, and how much your definitions of truth and lie are based on your assumptions about the speaker's motivation.

First, the Tall Tale, Debunked

Via Politifact:

During an introduction to a foreign policy speech on Iraq on March 17, 2008, Sen. Hillary Clinton reminisced about her days as first lady and a trip to Tuzla, Bosnia, she made in March 1996. 

"I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of a greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base." 

But that's not what happened, as demonstrated by CBS News video that shows Clinton arriving on the tarmac under no visible duress, and greeting a child who offers her a copy of a poem. The Washington Post Factchecker also turned a skeptical eye on Clinton's comments, reporting that a review of more than 100 news stories from the time documented no security threats to the First Lady.... 

There's no doubt flying into Bosnia was dangerous back in 1996, but the threat of sniper fire is not the same as actual sniper fire, and hustling off the tarmac is not the same as running with your head down. Yes, Clinton later acknowledged that she was mistaken, but it's hard to understand how she could err on something so significant as whether she did or didn't dodge sniper bullets. Quite simply, this kind of hyperbole deserves our harshest assessment. We rule Pants on Fire.

I agree with the Pants on Fire assessment, but was it hyperbole or did she misremember? It may seem absurd to claim that she misremembered, but I've already mentioned science and asked a leading question, so perhaps I have reason to believe something so absurd. Actually, I have several. So, first was it or was it not "a lie?"

What Is a Lie?

To quote Dictionary.com:

a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.

Unpictured, me giving major side eye.

Man, that story is a whopper, isn't it? And she gave so many details that it was easy to identify the incident, which she was aware had been filmed.

The question here isn't "was she telling the truth" but "was she intentionally trying to deceive?" Why would she try to intentionally deceive while giving so much detail that she would have known that she could be so easily busted? That would be pretty fucking stupid.

Do you think that Hillary Clinton is stupid? Really? I mean, of all the things that you could think are true about Hillary Clinton that are also bad, you're going to go with the easily disprovable "stupid," which likely contradicts other bad things that you claim about her too, like that she's conniving? But if she's not stupid, if this was, as she later claimed, something that she "simply misspoke," how could that happen?

By memory not working the way that people think that it works.

The Fish Tale

The Fish Tale is the quintessential example of a bug feature that our brains take advantage of when storing memories and I've used it as an example before. Since I've already explained it in detail, I'll just give a quick summary and if you want to know more, you can go read this post about the difference between "Fish Tales" and "False Memory Syndrome" (TW: undetailed child molestation) (FMS is not what people think and the science links are in here). The section "The Fish Tale: Storytelling is Memory Enhancement" will walk you through the evolution of a memory and how it changes from something basically factual to something for which only the basics are factual, simply because we've repeatedly told it as a story.

The short version is that when we tell a story (or we remember something), we retrieve the memory but also write over the retrieved memory with the memory of the memory. If we tell a story, we remember the story not as we retrieved, but as we told it. So if we change any detail, the memory gets saved with that detail instead of what really happened. (This is an abbreviated version. Changed details aren't lost on the first save, see link above.) This happens to us all the time and you've probably had arguments with friends where you both completely believe that the events happened as each of you described, even though in his version, he was the hero and in your version, you were. We chalk that up to "he has a bad memory" or "he just can't admit it," but often, he's doing the same thing. Both of you honestly believe it to be the truth because that's actually how you recall the event.

If you don't believe me, call your college roommate and reminisce about that exciting party that you went to Junior year. Your memories will be different and may contradict each other.

Embellishing a Story for Effect

Apparently, I can't get a picture of a
doctor smiling with a speculum
unless I pay for it. Bugger.

The problem is that when we tell a story, we have a natural inclination to embellish. We want to sound more impressive. We want the story to be more interesting. We're telling the story for a purpose and that same purpose drives us to tell it just a little bit better this time. You may be saying to yourself "well, I don't do that!" but you do. When I tell stories at parties and I don't embellish, I get complaints. For instance, a friend once said to me "that story would be better if you had done the thing at the end instead of the other person. You should tell it that way." Because I know about this memory error, I have a policy to never embellish, and to keep that policy, I frequently have to revise online posts to omit information because I only realize in proofreading that I don't exactly remember that bit. Failing to embellish is actually very hard! And that's only if you know to try to avoid it, which people don't.

For instance, that time that an anti-birth-control gynecologist refused to examine me because we both knew that what was wrong with me was treated with birth control pills, then he threatened to call my father (who he had just namedropped) to tell him that I'm a lying slut? Yeah, that actually happened. What exactly was my response to the threat to tell my father that I'm a slut? Did I say "I dare you" or say something pithier that was also a dare? I don't know, but there was a dare involved and what does the exact wording matter? [insert pithy dare here]

When I finally got to a different doctor and he threw the used speculum across the room, disgusted by the first doctor, was it a metal speculum or a plastic disposable one? Hell if I know, but I really hope someone cleaned up after that. Did someone clean up after that? I'll just go with yes, someone had to sterilize a wall, because otherwise, gross. Yes. I'm going to convince myself that that happened. Someone definitely sterilized that wall. I totally saw that. See?

It's a great story to tell to show why clinics like Planned Parenthood are so important, since I could have left that doctor after the first visit and gotten effective healthcare instead of threats to use a wrongly perceived power imbalance to ruin my life, after months of putting my life in jeopardy. This is an argument that I get into a lot on the internet and sometimes when I tell the story, I write in a pithy dare and then delete it and say that I dared him, because  I know that I'd just made up that pithy dare. I literally told this story today. I think I made it through safely.

Then people ask what my exact words were because they are interested in my story and they're positive it was pithy. If I say I don't remember, they offer suggestions.

OMFG I'M FIRST LADAAAAAAY!

Holy shit! It's me!

Now imagine that you are throwing a dinner party for visiting dignitaries that you need to make a good impression on-- like, as your brand new job-- and it just so happens that you recently landed in Bosnia under threat of gunfire and had to rush through the official greeting to get away from the danger of being on an open tarmac. Well, that's an interesting story and they probably haven't had such an experience... but your guests did just get off a plane so there's common ground to build on. You tell the story. And next week, you are a visiting dignitary but it's still your job to to make a good impression-- and that group last week loved the Bosnia landing story.... So you tell your story.

Every time that you tell the story, the rush to get off the tarmac will get a little more rushed, the threat of gunfire will get a little more threatening, and after you've told it 200 times, you're hearing bullets hit the tarmac and running for your life. That's not just how you're telling the story, though. You've told it that way so many times, changing it so gradually, that's how you remember the story now.

You think you're telling the truth.

Speaking of Dodging Bullets

Remember Brian Williams dodging bullets? How about Joe Biden?

Williams had claimed in numerous reports and appearances that he was riding in a helicopter that was hit by a grenade. But last week, when he was exposed, he admitted that another helicopter — not his — was struck.... 

Also in 2008, Vice President Joseph Biden said his helicopter was forced to land by al-Qaida in Afghanistan. In reality, the chopper made a speedy landing because of a snowstorm.

I remember Brian Williams because it made me mad that people were accusing him of lying when I was certain that he'd just embellished that story at too many parties. Actually, I don't remember Joe Biden doing this even though this was in the year that he was elected VP and that's because he sort of kind of maybe told the truth? Joe Biden implied that they were forced down by Al Qaeda and it was intentionally implied. Here are his exact words:

If you want to know where Al Qaeda lives, you want to know where Bin Laden is, come back to Afghanistan with me. Come back to the area where my helicopter was forced down, with a three-star general and three senators at 10,500 feet in the middle of those mountains. I can tell you where they are.

While it is true that the helicopter was forced down, the only way that the helicopter and its dignitary occupants are relevant to "where Al Qaeda lives" is if Al Qaeda forced them down. Without that implication, that anecdote is completely pointless and it is obvious from the first sentence that it's intended to make a point. It's as if whether or not you accept the technicality that it was implied and not stated is whether this was "a gaffe" or "a lie."

But that's not how lies work. To lie, Biden had to have the intent to deceive. Did he? I don't think so and maybe you've caught on to something eeeeeeerie about these "infamous" anecdote "lies."

Besides the Freaking Sniper Fire?

Every one of them is a more exciting version of the landing of an aircraft.

Now look to your own life. How many times have you said that you "got to the gate at the airport just as it was about to close?" And how many of those times was that literally true? Maybe boarding was almost completed and there were five people in front of you; you probably said you got there just as the door was about to close. I had the gate door reopened for me once and held for me once, both on a layover. But realistically, I've probably said that I got to the gate just as it was closing about at least 5 trips and who knows how many times I've told each story.

"How was your trip?" 

And the line at security took like an hour and a half. Oh my fucking god I need a taco. We're stopping for tacos on the way home.

When you go on a trip, you typically meet up with someone at the airport, in a car, at the hotel, in a home, or at a quickly upcoming event like a dinner party for dignitaries. (You do those too, right? That's a totally normal thing.) And when you meet up with them, either their first or second sentence will be "How was your trip?"

So you tell them a story about how long the security line was and how much time you had at the gate and whether you got your sandwich in time at your layover and holy crap that flight attendant was bannnnnngin. And then you meet up with a second person and their first or second sentence is "How was your trip?" And the line was longer, your sandwich was in greater peril, and the flight attendant gets more bangin'. And then there's Fred, who says "Hey Buddy, long time no see! How was your trip?"

Now, you might be starting to think that I'm treating you a bit imbecilic at the point but that's because in my opinion, this is fucking imbecilic. If you have a party and people at that party have just gotten off an airplane, those people will be asked about their trip by nearly everyone in the room and tell a story about it every time. And every time, the storyteller will slightly adjust the exciting parts according to feedback from the last telling, to make it more interesting. It gets more and more interesting over the course of the night.

Two hours, four drinks, and 20 tellings later, when you got your sandwich it was on fire and you seriously just saved "my sandwich was on fire" as a memory in your brain as though that is what happened. Because you saved the story that you told, not the one that you retrieved. Your trip has become a "fish tale."

And I am not just talking about Clinton. I am talking about me. I am talking about you. I am talking about every person at that party. I am talking about literally every human being. This is just the way that memory works.

This Seems Kinda Messed Up. What the Fuck?

citation

As I said, this is kind of a feature. You see, your brain has to figure out which memories are important so that it knows which ones it should hold onto and which ones it can maybe let go. It doesn't do this by running trash collection. It's pretty low tech, actually. It does it by resaving that memory.

When you resave and resave and resave that memory, you are "reinforcing" it. You are making it stronger, more permanent. It's the same way that we remember the useful things at work. We retrieve it; we resave it with new, better information. It's the same reason that homework is supposedly effective. It's why we practice the Pythagorean Theorem. It's why people with PTSD can't get those images out of their heads. They're strong so they're important and they're important so you're more likely to remember.

It's also one of the reasons that eyewitness testimony is notoriously unreliable; the eyewitness has to tell the story over and over again, and every time, the story changes slightly. You add details; you remove details. The detective gave you a funny look so you questioned the number of bullets.... Police apparently use those slight changes as proof that the story is true, as opposed to rehearsed. If you've rehearsed it, the details are always the same. That the story changes is proof that you're not lying.

But then someone showed you a picture of a suspect and you wanted that to be him so you told yourself it was over and over again and now some black guy is doing some white guy's time. This is the problem with older rape convictions based on eyewitness (especially victim) testimony. The police would present a suspect and the victim, who is motivated to make herself feel safe, wonders and imagines and eventually convinces herself that that's him, because if that's him, he's caught and she's safe. She tells herself over and over again that that's him, which changes her memory to it actually being him. Now that we know this, the identification procedure is different to eliminate that kind of bias.

To sum up: memory is an iterative process.

So Why Don't You Get Busted on That?

Well, you do, but you usually chalk it up to your bad memory or your friend's. Call your college roommate. Oo or call an ex that you had an slightly unpleasant breakup with. 

I dated this guy who married the next woman that he dated and she hated me with a passion. Our breakup was fine and we were friends for years after that but his wife hated that he was friends with me. Then I moved away. Ten years later I sent him an email to try to be his friend again and discovered that I was an evil bitch and we were never friends after that breakup and yes, he kind of does remember that birthday party in that city that we both moved to after the breakup but he doesn't know why he was there because he hated me by that point. He doesn't know how he managed to have a good time. Must have been the saki.

Or rather, his wife hated me, so for ten years, every time that I came up, she made me a little bit more evil and he remembered me a little bit more evil. Oh well. Shit happens.

But the more important reason that you don't get busted is that you don't actually have a news crew following you through the airport to the sandwich shop and filming in a way that can be timed and verified for sandwich fire status. How long you stood in a security line is not actually a public record. You're not a visiting dignitary whose flight it is a newsworthy event that gets recorded and saved for stock footage.

The first scary trip away for a new First Lady gets recorded. That forced landing for the Vice President gets recorded. That news crew that is recording the flight records which helicopter got a grenade in it. You're not subject to a level of scrutiny that exposes your fish tales.

So These False Memories that Literally Everyone Has, Are They Lies?

Finally, to the point.

As I already said, in order for something to be a lie, it has to be told deliberately to deceive. Well, if you tell it as you actually remember it, you aren't being deliberately deceptive. But we don't actually have a view into other people's brains to know if that's how they remember it so that we can accurately assess intent. Therefore, we think of what we "know" about the person in question, where "know" is actually defined as "opine." We overlay our opinion of that person onto the misinformation and evaluate whether we think that the intention was to deceive or not based on that opinion.

So we go completely subjective and say "I distrust Hillary Clinton, therefore it was a lie!" or "I trust Hillary Clinton, therefore she simply misspoke!" Or, if you know that memory works this way, you say "so fucking what? That's how memory works, you morons! Congratulations on proving that Hillary Clinton's brain is made of human parts or she's fucking fantastic at the Turing Test, because you literally just faulted her for the way that human memory works."

Imagine how many times Biden has told the story of that forced landing. Imagine how many times Brian Williams is asked to tell that story about the grenade again, that's such an exciting story! Imagine how many times GW Bush has been asked to tell the story of his 9/11 Air Force One flight. I bet it's a real whopper. He probably got buzzed by a terrorist and there were at least 50 Secret Service men rushing him to that plane across 411 miles of emptied Florida asphalt. That story has to have been told thousands of times. So if that wasn't the number of Service men, it was more like 30 miles, and the terrorist was actually two states over, I honestly don't give a shit. And I fucking hate GW Bush.

It's just a fish tale.

Imagine how many times Hillary Clinton has told the story of her first "scary" trip as First Lady. She didn't misspeak; she misremembered. And I'm not saying that because I like Hillary Clinton, which I do. I'm saying that because this particular example-- a historic, slightly dangerous first flight by a dignitary on the way to an event where she will be repeatedly asked to tell the story of her flight-- is precisely the kind of story that gets told hundreds of times. It's like the airport story that you tell when you go home for Christmas, only every Christmas, you're asked to tell that great story that you told last year with the flaming sandwich, even though that was 15 years ago-- and for 3 days, 12 people per day ask for the story.

I'm saying this because your other option here, remember, is that Hillary Clinton would deliberately deceive people about an incident that she knows was caught on camera, describing it in enough detail for them to identify the incident and the footage, and she was too fucking stupid to realize that she'd get busted.

So, Occam's Razor: an Ivy League valedictorian, Ivy League lawyer, former First Lady, former Senator, former Secretary of State, 30+ year political activist who hasn't been taken down despite harassment by her opposition party for the entire time? Does she have a brain made of human parts that works like a human brain? Or is she fucking stupid?

If you don't know that was rhetorical, you're fucking stupid, just like this "controversy."

Verdict: the speaker's motivation was to tell an interesting story, not to deceive.

Did I ever tell you about that time that I insulted the intelligence of a seated US Supreme Court Justice from the back seat of their car? Yeah, I don't tell that story.