[rayiner]

> While she might not have direct memory of the event, it would not be unheard of for older relatives to explain the picture to her when she was older. Just because she doesn't remember it directly does not automatically make the story of the picture untrue.

I have a memory of having a tantrum at the Taj Mahal which can't be a real memory because I would have been 3 at the time. But it definitely h appened. It's a reconstructed memory from having seen a photo my dad took from the trip and my dad telling me about it.

[conartist6]

Can't be a real memory? That's a bit of a stretch... We do often re-encode our memories: part of us remembers, and part remembers remembering. But certainly when you were 4 you could remember something from when you were 3, and when you are 6 you can probably remember plenty of important things from when you were 4. It's just a question of a particular memory surviving generations of recall, and a question of how each recall helps incrementally re-encode world-truth into our-truth

[devilbunny]

Possibly, but doesn’t have to be. I grew up in a home that was built as a duplex, one apartment per floor. So the stairs were 17 unpadded wooden steps that were straight down - no landing or turn.

I slipped and fell down them when I was 4. I clearly recall this. But that made me remember that I had done the same thing a year or even two before (which was worse, because at age 4 I was large enough to stop myself before I hit the bottom - not so much at 2-3).

I wouldn’t remember the first incident without the second, but because of it, I do.

The stairs got carpeting shortly after that.