August 13, 2025 • 29 mins
We're exploring the slippery nature of memory — how it shapes our identities, influences our beliefs, and sometimes leads us astray. Prompted by recent controversy over the memoir The Salt Path, we unpack the fine line between truth, embellishment, and outright fabrication in personal storytelling.
The Double A Chattery podcast is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute professional health care services, including the giving of medical advice. No doctor/patient relationship is formed and this podcast is no substitute for professional psychological or other medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. The use of information in this podcast is at the listener’s own risk. Listeners should seek the help of their health care professionals for any medical conditions.
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
This podcast is for general information only and should not
be taken as psychological advice. Listeners should consult with their
healthcare professionals for specific medical advice.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello. I'm Amanda Kella and.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I'm Anita McGregor, and welcome to.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Double a Chattering Welcome, Welcome. Yeah, we thought we'd do
an episode based around memory, and interestingly we keep forgetting
what it is we want to talk about every few
weeks ago. What was that other thing we wanted to
talk about? That's right, memory?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Well, and this was based on like a walk that
we had and it came up about you know, how
how do we have memory? Like what is our are
our memories composed of? And when does memory serve us well?
And when does it night service so well? And it
was a lot of this was about the thing that
(01:05):
was coming out. There was a whole bunch of news
articles that was coming out about the Salt Path.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Yeah. So the Salt Path, and you've probably heard this
story was a much loved book by a female author
called raynal Wynn and her husband she mothed this is
his name. I read it to you, no I did.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
It was a lovely book.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
And it's been made into a recent film with Gillian
Anderson in it, which is why it's back in the
news again. I think the Observer newspaper in England has
uncovered some falsehoods in the story. She says at the
beginning of the story that this is a true story
and it is the story of her I haven't even
read it, and you have, but I'll talk over you
and tell you what you read. Ye tell me and
(01:49):
it'd be quiet. I'd like to tell you about that
book you read.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
The story is of Raynal and her losing their home
in their middle years, and he's been diagnosed with a
degenerative disease, and they really decide to hit the road
and walk the paths of Southwest England. Is that right?
Speaker 1 (02:14):
That's right?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Well, I read the back so I know everything. You
know everything, however, and it's a beautiful story, and it
talks about the redemptive nature of walking, the health benefits
to her husband, whose condition kind of, if not reversed,
at least stabilized, and the value they found in each
other and their relationship in their.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Lives, and the kindness of strangers.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
The kindness of strangers. So that was said to be
a real story, true story of their lives. It has
been discovered by a few people who went to the
Observer newspaper to say that she claims through no fault
of their own, they found themselves homeless, that a bad
investment led to them losing their home. Apparently, the reality
(02:59):
of that is that she was embezzling from her place
of work, and in repaying that debt, they put their
house on the line and that house was taken, so
they lost it through her embezzlement. Another element of this
was a whole lot of neurologists who've come out to
say that his Parkinson's like disease. It's misinformation to say
(03:22):
that this can be reversed, stymiede.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Put back Intossi into.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Remission by this kind of.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Ragime, and it raises false hope, raises false hope.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
The Observer journalist said that she took some She got
a whole load of emails, some of which said that
they feel terrible now because they judge their own relatives
for not doing enough to make themselves better. And I
know that's like what that's like. When Harley was diagnosed
with Parkinson's, it's hey, can't you stand up straight? Can't
you be you know, it's so hard to see someone
(03:54):
fall apart. Can't you try harder? And this led into
that with people saying, look what he's doing and others
saying someone said they'd been diagnosed not long before they
read the book, they got great secure from it, and
now they go, well is this bullshit?
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Where do I go? And it's but I mean, I
was thinking about the Eat pre Love book. I mean,
this was a book about a memoir of going and
finding you know, what was the author's name, Elizabeth Gilber,
Elizabeth Gilbert, about her finding her own path. But it
does it was at a promise that if you went
(04:29):
and went and did these same things, that you would
find the same path.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
It's what's so interesting is it? Because it's sold as
a memoir and she said it. It doesn't say this
is based on real events. It says this is this
was the real deal. And so people felt they had
a relationship with her and her story. And I think
that's what felt betrayed, and that she misrepresented herself. It
wasn't even her real name. She misrepresented herself and her
(04:55):
own past behavior. And medically they've been asked by the observer,
you know, you don't want to delve in to disprove
someone's medical condition. But in light of this article, she
and her husband have given over medical information saying he
does have this. But was it overwritten to, as you say,
(05:17):
give false hope? Are they the only reasons that it
matters that she stretched the truth in a memoir. How
close to the bone does it have to be?
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Well, it reminds me of this William Frey who wrote
a book A Tiny Million, Tiny Pieces, which was on
Oprah's Book Club, that it was one of her first choices,
and that it turned out again that it was a
story of this William Frey of his drug abuse and
(05:47):
drug addiction and his redemption, his ability to go and
be rehabilitated. And it was found to be at least
partially falsified, and at first, you know, Oprah supported him,
saying it was a redemptive story. It was really helpful.
Made a call to Larry King, who was at the
time was a talk show host or a radio host
(06:10):
and saying it wasn't his fault, it was producer's faults.
People should have checked back checked him, all that kind
of stuff, And then she actually brought him on the
show and said hold on, this wasn't you know you
just kind of getting a couple of things wrong. You
actually created this, And he kept saying William Frey, the
author kept saying I was, I made mistakes and she
(06:36):
kept saying, you lied, and it was you know. And
to me this was such an interesting crux of is
that the way he remembered it. At what point do
memories become lies? How do we where do we pull
this apart?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
And I remember part of it was her ego in
saying that she'd been made to look bad, so she
wasn't going to take that line.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
We had an Australian story that was similar to this.
It was a book called The Hand that Signed the
Paper by an author called Helen Demdenko who was Ukrainian,
and it was a story about an Australian book, but
about her Ukrainian family that collaborates with the Nazi history
in the Holocaust. She said this had happened to her
family and so very nuanced piece of history, which is
(07:24):
how she was accused of sympathizing with the Nazi collaborators.
But she said, this is what happened, This has happened,
This happened to many families and here's the emotion around
it and how we all feel about it. Huge book.
I remember reading it. She was on talk shows in
her Ukrainian national costume. Almost she really lent into her
Ukrainian history. It was revealed that in fact, she's not
(07:46):
Ukraine and her name is Helen Darvill. She'd gone her
parents were English, I think, And yet she would yeah.
And yet supporters of this, she was stripped of everything.
Miles Franklin Award was taken away, except she would say,
it doesn't change that I told this a true story
about that part of history. But others were saying, this
(08:10):
personal connection to the Holocaust cannot be allowed. You haven't
her history. Wasn't her history. But once again, where do
you draw the line?
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Draw the line?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
So I used to.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I don't know if you've ever heard of this organization
called the MOB.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
I remember you you performed at the mod.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Ided I was in one of the Grand Slams. But
this is out of the States, and it's a little
storytelling thing. And in the introduction you tell a like
a ten minute story, and they have or a five
minute story. But there's like ten people that come up
and they tell their stories in an evening and then people,
you know, in a silly way, they kind of vote
(08:53):
for you about how they enjoyed your story. And the
introduction to the storytellers is that it's that has to
be true as remembered by the storyteller, which gives a
quite a.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Big bit of a disclaimer.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yeah, a bit of a disclaimer. But I thought it
was such an interesting thing because a lot of the
stories you can see that there is you know, truth
to their story. You know, like a policeman would tell
a story about something that happened to him or or
that kind of thing. And the stories that I told
were some of them. I told three or four stories
on the Moth when it was in Sydney, and you know,
(09:30):
one was about you know, some my work stuff, and
some was about mountain biking and that kind of stuff,
and it was I really enjoyed that, and there was
you know, these stories were true. And yet probably if
you had taken a video of some of the things
that happened, would it have been one hundred percent accurate?
Because you know, how was my memory through this? It's
(09:50):
such an interesting question.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Your memory will always be from your perspective, but now
with new AI and this is what I'd like to
ask you about the way this impacts our memory. There's
a woman socials who said that the footage and it's
obviously AI, of Donald Trump in a big gold suit
singing a song at the Oscars in front of Meryl Streep.
And this woman said, my mother swears that this is true.
(10:13):
See that's something you can say, Well, you're an idiot
if you think that's real. But AI is so sophisticated
even that stuff we've seen recently. Have you've seen the
night vision footage of little rabbits bouncing on a trampoline.
Now it's gone everywhere. That's AI. There's no danger in it,
there's no shock value. It's just a cute little thing.
That's AI. I remember when the movie JFK. This is
(10:36):
the Oliver Stone film came out and Harley and I
were talking about this after having seen it. There's footage
there that's made to look like grainy documentary footage of
the autopsy. And you think, because I feel like I'm
seeing it, will that now be my memory that I've
seen footage of the autopsy? Because isn't that how we
(10:58):
if we see things? Isn't how human brain works. It's
not our fault that we think it's real.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Oh god, no, I mean our memories are I mean, like,
I think that most of us learned about memory thinking
it's like a video camera or a hard drive, you know,
depending on what generation we're from. But the reality is
is that we tend to remember fragments of things because
(11:23):
if we remembered everything it, you know, our brains would
get clocked up. There's just not enough room in there.
But the you know, so if you and I attended
a party and I think about some of the you know,
the parties that we tell stories about, is that each
one of us have our own little bits of memory
about it. And what we do is that we create
a story from those little bits of memory that we have.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
We find a linear lot, we find something linear through it.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Yes, And so I mean, you know, we've we've been
with our friends where we said, oh do you remember
that night that you know that that this happened or
we all ended up in the pool and you know
that kind of thing. And the reality is is if
there was a videotape of that evening, it probably wouldn't
be as you know, it wouldn't be compatible with with
(12:10):
what our memories were.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
And because we've shared our memory, we all have read
fulse with each other. But that's what happened.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Yeah, And every time we remember something, we tend to
reconstruct it, and so our memories don't get clearer with time.
They tend to get less accurate with time because they
are there's you know, we have our own memory, but
there's also fragments of other memories that we may have
(12:37):
that get may get pulled into a memory of you know,
it could be I'm thinking about this party, but then
I think about, oh I was you know that also happened?
Was it at this party or was at the other party?
So that happened? And then it could be the influence
of somebody else saying oh I was there and this happened,
and may not remembering it and saying well, I'm sure
(12:58):
it did happen.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Well, you work in the forensic world that involves police, courts,
et cetera. So just us remembering a party, who cares?
Who's right? And we're probably all right to a fraction.
But what happens if you're trying to remember an incident
and you're in court.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Oh, eyewitness accounting, you know, accounts are are terrible, and
you know, the forensic evidence, I mean, it's it's actually
quite frightening how limited the inaccuracy they are. And there's
a worldwide organization called Project Innocence that looks at things
like eyewitness identification, DNA evidence, fingerprint which are not as
(13:49):
like one hundred percent accurate as you might think that
they are on you know, from from TV shows. And
what happens is that this Project Innocence looks at some
of the old evidence and when they actually find that
this evidence is enough that they could actually look for
a retrial, is that when they present the evidence that
(14:10):
the police, the judges, everybody who's involved are just kind
of saying no, no, no, that can't be. That cannot be.
Because when we have memory of something that we kind
of embed who we are, and that memory I think
that to me, when I think about it, memory serves
to kind of make us seem like good people. Like
when I have a memory of an argument with I
(14:31):
have that I might have with somebody, I'm remembering how
amazing I was and how logical and how right I was,
and how terrible and awful and incorrect the other person was.
We create these memories to go and kind of create
this cognitive sense of who we are as a good person.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
You've got a colleague, heaven you whose research is into
the role of memory in the witness box.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Absolutely, and really much of it cannot be you know,
it can be you know, is not very accurate that
things that that may affect memory or are things like age.
Of course, you know that if you're very young or
very old, that that your memory may not serve you
(15:18):
as well, but as well that there's emotion that can
be going on. And often if you're you know, witnessing
a crime scene, there's heightened emotion that you may actually
you kind of think sometimes people think, oh, I have
the perfect memory of this of this situation.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
I feel like you sense it's a shop.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, but it's but it's actually not true. And and
the other piece again is that as we memory gets
reconstructed that there's a lot of evidence. There was a
researcher named Elizabeth Loftus. She's still around, but she was
one of the seminal researchers in this area, and she
did some really cool experiments where she actually talked to
(15:58):
relatives of the research participants and said, tell us three
to true things that happened to this participant when they
were young. And then they so it would be it
might be we went to the state fair, we went
to this, you know, we did this, and you know
we did that, and that they actually talked to the
(16:19):
person about these and had the person write about these
three things, but also a fourth thing about when they
were five years old, that they got lost in them
all that they were and this elderly person helped them,
and that they were reunited with their family. And so
they had the person kind of reconstruct the memories that
were true and the one that was false, and they
(16:39):
kind of had them kind of rehearse it for a while.
And then when they followed up, about a quarter the
people actually believed that that had happened. That they had
actually embellished the facts a little bit more, had you know,
created more memories around that that memory of being lost,
and even when they were debriefed, there were people who
still believed that it had happened.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
So and these are memory of researchers.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
So they've done things where they know how inaccurate our
memories actually are. And it's you know, and it you know,
sometimes it's funny, maybe it's a you know, AI bunnies,
you know, jumping on a trampoline. But you know, there
are situations where people are unjustly incarcerated, and you know,
(17:24):
and and and what does that? What does that mean?
How does what does that mean for us as a society.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
It's just something interesting? Is that a huge offshoot to this?
But when I was filming the living room and I
had to duck out of the way because there was
a fishing rod on a roof that was going to
be mucking around as if we're unpacking a roof rack.
Fishing rod was coming at me. I ducked out of
the way. I tripped over a lighting stand and I
fractured my elbow and I would have sworn black and
(17:52):
blue that I landed on my elbow. And the doctor said, no,
you've landed on the palm of your hand and it's
pushed the bone back, which is why it frect your drill.
And I said, no, I remember going down and smashing
my elbow and he said, everyone thinks this. He said,
let's look at the palm of your hand. There's a
huge graze on it. And I was shocked because I
(18:14):
could see my elbow landing first, and he said, everyone
thinks that.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Isn't that amazing?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
So you think of my own reality. I was wrong about.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
That, So it's and and when you were confronted when
the doctor said no, so confronted, and but you know
you think about it that that often our first reaction
to that is I wasn't wrong. I remember, I absolutely remember.
So you can imagine that we stick to that memory,
(18:45):
that false memory, because it's something that you know, makes
us feel, you know that the world is a right place.
Like if that's what your memory is, what what does
it mean if it If it isn't that's right?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
And that's the thing. It's shocking to think that that's
that was your reality and you were wrong. What about
this story and let me know if you don't want
to go down these avenues, but where everyone suddenly had
memory of childhood satanic abuse? In our modern society, though
we want to believe, we want to believe victims all
the time, But what about that satanic abuse stuff?
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Oh that was in California in the eighties and nineties,
and you know it started and again, we tend to
make a lot of fear based decisions in our worlds
and You can imagine that if your child was in
daycare and that you heard that this stuff was happening,
and you you know, your kid was having a rough
(19:40):
evening or a rough night, wasn't sleeping, well, you know,
I can imagine that it would be just as easy
to say, well, maybe something happened at daycare, and then
you start hearing this, and then it just these kinds
of things explode, and it's this this whole conspiracy, like
you know, the Pizza Gate and all these kinds of things.
And what I find is that, you know, there are
(20:03):
these kinds of mass you know, situations where people start
believing these things. And I think that the proliferation of
social media has just accelerated the rates of these things,
and and so.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
We've gone from the satanic abuse into other forms of
it now. Yeah, but it's the pendulum has swung as
to who we're looking to blame outside somewhere, and in
the real time, there's horrible things happening really close to home.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Yeah. And I think the other thing that I think
is important about about memory is that we do fit
them to our current beliefs, our current situations. We want
to make sure that that our worlds kind of sit
in a in a way that makes again that makes
us feel good, that makes our world safe, and and
you know we want to have that that that world
(20:55):
view that everything is okay. And when we when we
have these memories, we create this self justification. Again, if
it's an argument, you know, how terrible was that person
that I had an argument with? And you know, we
tend to go and most of this is done so unconsciously.
That this is where when I have that thoughts about
(21:18):
the Salt Path and the million tiny pieces, I think,
if most of this process is done unconsciously, when do
we call it a memory? And when do we call
it or a false memory? And when do we call
it lying? When does it move from one to the other?
Because I would imagine that if you talk to this
(21:40):
author of the Salt Path, that she probably says that
it was the truth.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
She says, the story of our journey. She says, now, yeah,
the story of our journey was the truth. And she said,
you don't have all the information about how we lost
our house, but she's had to concede. I think, hmm,
But she said that was an integral to what happened
on our journey but the audience felt I made a
connection with you because I thought bad things had fallen you,
(22:08):
not that you'd perpetrated them.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
So the question is is that is it important? Like
is it important that she lied about that? And that's
the you know, and I think that everybody has to
kind of come to that recognition that, you know, how
do we want to proceed around this? Do we want
to go and walk around and say, well, that little
(22:31):
bit of that story is a lie and it was
there was some embellishment or there was some avoidance of fact,
or do we want to like, do we take the
story as a whole? And I don't have an answer
for this. I don't know where I sit with this
because at.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
The front of the story, as we said in front
of the book, she says, these are real events, which
makes it more powerful for a reader than if it
said this is based on a true story that takes
you a step away from the involvement. So it was
an active decision of hers and the editors and all
of that to say it's true. I was yea. And
(23:07):
people are saying, why didn't they look into it? Well,
they can't look into medical information. They said, they were
pleased with the information they've got from her. And I
heard an editor say from a different book company, say,
a whole lot of stuff crosses our desk constantly. This
is not how we work. We don't investigate every minute
of every book because how could we.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
Well, of course absolutely, and so again I don't know,
do you have like where do you sit on this?
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Maybe? Is this the thing for all of us as
individuals as to where it matters. If you've take something
profound from a story and you're happy with that, that's enough.
But then you know, I've got a husband who has
a disease, So I don't I don't appreciate the fact
there may have been some medical falsehoods.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah, And I don't know where I sit with it,
because there is this part of me that I don't
want to be so rigid as to say, you know,
she lied, and so therefore, like do we just kind
of say, do we discredit her? Do we discredit her story?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Do we like?
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Where do we go with it? Like, do we like
does she have to give money back from the like?
Where does it go? Like?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
I think it goes into the fact she doesn't get
another book because she's had a few books. I think
that's that's the thing. I think this is. This is
the public life. Now, this is your backlash now of.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
The William Frey the million tiny Pieces. He's come up
with another book and this is quite a few years later,
but maybe he's kind of anticipating that public memory has
has dimmed.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Well, he should hear double a chattery and very close
to the surfaces, ting that story alive. Aren't we around them?
We ah, don't upset oprah, I know that much. Tell
that but nothing.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Thanks for the advice, and that's true.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
Let's do it our glimmers, shall we. It's a sad
glimmer in the fact that my dog is aging and
she's now thirteen, and I have to help her sometimes
into the car and to jump up onto the bed.
And I saw little hips and I'm feeling the same.
And so the glimmer part of this is there's a
certain dignity in an older dog. And she's just so
(25:23):
beautiful and she needs slightly less exercise. That's my glimmer
is that she's a border Collie. But it's enough for
her to walk around the block. If I go to
the park and I take a cup of tea and
a keep cup and I just wander around with her.
I don't really throw the ball much anymore because she
wants me to. But a joints or gets sore, and
that's kind of enough for both of us. These days.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
She sometimes she just doesn't want to see me because
she associates me with walking. Yeah, that's right, she tells me.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Yeah, I don't want to see you because you don't
have forced me to go for walk oh moleing sideway
and make me do that. But I did take her
on the most bogan walk of all on Friday. It
was pouring with rain. She'd been stuck inside all day.
I put her in the car and we drove to
the drive through bottle shop and then drove home. Is
there a more bogan walk than that?
Speaker 1 (26:12):
She got to go walk?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Now the walk she got to be in the car.
She didn't even look out the window because she sits
low on the seat. So but she felt she'd had
an adventure, as did I when I bought those bottles
of wine. You get your glimmers where you can and
eat it, and where you can get and where you
can what's your what's yours?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Oh Amanda?
Speaker 2 (26:33):
This is so sweet, so mus it involve alcohol. I
make myself sound like such a booze hound, which I'm not.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
By the way, I could just say, while I was drinking,
if you'd like, let's try although no, no, no, we're
not with this. Well no, no, So this is the
I am so delighted. So my grandsome Logan just recently
turned to and you know, he's his words are coming
at just such a piece. But he could not would
(27:03):
not say grandma.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Could not or would not.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Well, this is this is interesting, man, because it was
like there was Gampa, Gampa was you know, it was mama, dada,
and then gampa which is grandpa, papa, and and and
and then for a while there I was Mama, but
mostly Gampa. So he would call me everything and then
but he just wouldn't call me anything and just not gamma.
(27:27):
That not.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
And when we went away for the weekend and with
my dog Minnie, and he said Minnie, and he said,
oh great, he's naming the dog.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
He can say many, he cannot say gamma. So we
went through a whole list and and and I was
trying not to do the oh yes, look he can
say turnip, but he cannot say grandma. And he just
was came back from a trip just the other day.
They were just on his own, just on his own. Yeah,
he's he's that. Yeah, he's too now.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Really apposable, thumb, very independent.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
He know. He went with his parents, they went to
Egypt for a couple of weeks to go and see
the grandpa, the other grandpa, And he came back and
it's it's now Gamma, Gamma, Gamma, gamma hour. So it
just makes you feels my heart.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Are you not correcting him by saying there's an R
in there somewhere.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
I've got to say, I'm just so delighted he can
he you know, as long as he was calling me something,
it was it was just for you, It was just
for me. So yeah, I'm very delighted. Lovely definitely a glimmer.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Lovely will that who you'll be now you'll be Gamma, I.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Think so, I mean, we'll see. I mean, it's it's.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I remember before he was born and you're wondering what
you should be called, and I think it was them
and who suggested Granita, Yes, which I thought was good grandma.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
And Grandma Anita, But you know, I think it's I mean,
kids will choose their own things. You know that their
own names for grandfa.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
It's weird. You get a grandparent that'll be called pooky
in one that'll bit called moose face or something.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Yeah, Like it's like, how does that happen?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
How does it happen? And after a number of years
people forget how it happen and that's just how it is.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
And it's just always.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
The my counter approach mother, mother in law, grandma is
her name is just bee because her name is Bella,
and so she is just b to all the grandkids.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Oh okay, that's easy. See she's sick, easy one.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
She's picked me, so you want it's lovely.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
Well, Gamma, I'm glad you finally got what you needed.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
Thanks, that's all.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
Thanks, weird see you
Speaker 1 (29:29):
M
This podcast is for general information only and should not
be taken as psychological advice. Listeners should consult with their
healthcare professionals for specific medical advice.
Speaker 2 (00:26):
Hello. I'm Amanda Kella and.
Speaker 1 (00:28):
I'm Anita McGregor, and welcome to.
Speaker 2 (00:30):
Double a Chattering Welcome, Welcome. Yeah, we thought we'd do
an episode based around memory, and interestingly we keep forgetting
what it is we want to talk about every few
weeks ago. What was that other thing we wanted to
talk about? That's right, memory?
Speaker 1 (00:44):
Well, and this was based on like a walk that
we had and it came up about you know, how
how do we have memory? Like what is our are
our memories composed of? And when does memory serve us well?
And when does it night service so well? And it
was a lot of this was about the thing that
(01:05):
was coming out. There was a whole bunch of news
articles that was coming out about the Salt Path.
Speaker 2 (01:10):
Yeah. So the Salt Path, and you've probably heard this
story was a much loved book by a female author
called raynal Wynn and her husband she mothed this is
his name. I read it to you, no I did.
Speaker 1 (01:25):
It was a lovely book.
Speaker 2 (01:26):
And it's been made into a recent film with Gillian
Anderson in it, which is why it's back in the
news again. I think the Observer newspaper in England has
uncovered some falsehoods in the story. She says at the
beginning of the story that this is a true story
and it is the story of her I haven't even
read it, and you have, but I'll talk over you
and tell you what you read. Ye tell me and
(01:49):
it'd be quiet. I'd like to tell you about that
book you read.
Speaker 1 (01:53):
Go ahead.
Speaker 2 (01:57):
The story is of Raynal and her losing their home
in their middle years, and he's been diagnosed with a
degenerative disease, and they really decide to hit the road
and walk the paths of Southwest England. Is that right?
Speaker 1 (02:14):
That's right?
Speaker 2 (02:15):
Well, I read the back so I know everything. You
know everything, however, and it's a beautiful story, and it
talks about the redemptive nature of walking, the health benefits
to her husband, whose condition kind of, if not reversed,
at least stabilized, and the value they found in each
other and their relationship in their.
Speaker 1 (02:35):
Lives, and the kindness of strangers.
Speaker 2 (02:37):
The kindness of strangers. So that was said to be
a real story, true story of their lives. It has
been discovered by a few people who went to the
Observer newspaper to say that she claims through no fault
of their own, they found themselves homeless, that a bad
investment led to them losing their home. Apparently, the reality
(02:59):
of that is that she was embezzling from her place
of work, and in repaying that debt, they put their
house on the line and that house was taken, so
they lost it through her embezzlement. Another element of this
was a whole lot of neurologists who've come out to
say that his Parkinson's like disease. It's misinformation to say
(03:22):
that this can be reversed, stymiede.
Speaker 1 (03:24):
Put back Intossi into.
Speaker 2 (03:26):
Remission by this kind of.
Speaker 1 (03:29):
Ragime, and it raises false hope, raises false hope.
Speaker 2 (03:33):
The Observer journalist said that she took some She got
a whole load of emails, some of which said that
they feel terrible now because they judge their own relatives
for not doing enough to make themselves better. And I
know that's like what that's like. When Harley was diagnosed
with Parkinson's, it's hey, can't you stand up straight? Can't
you be you know, it's so hard to see someone
(03:54):
fall apart. Can't you try harder? And this led into
that with people saying, look what he's doing and others
saying someone said they'd been diagnosed not long before they
read the book, they got great secure from it, and
now they go, well is this bullshit?
Speaker 1 (04:08):
Where do I go? And it's but I mean, I
was thinking about the Eat pre Love book. I mean,
this was a book about a memoir of going and
finding you know, what was the author's name, Elizabeth Gilber,
Elizabeth Gilbert, about her finding her own path. But it
does it was at a promise that if you went
(04:29):
and went and did these same things, that you would
find the same path.
Speaker 2 (04:34):
It's what's so interesting is it? Because it's sold as
a memoir and she said it. It doesn't say this
is based on real events. It says this is this
was the real deal. And so people felt they had
a relationship with her and her story. And I think
that's what felt betrayed, and that she misrepresented herself. It
wasn't even her real name. She misrepresented herself and her
(04:55):
own past behavior. And medically they've been asked by the observer,
you know, you don't want to delve in to disprove
someone's medical condition. But in light of this article, she
and her husband have given over medical information saying he
does have this. But was it overwritten to, as you say,
(05:17):
give false hope? Are they the only reasons that it
matters that she stretched the truth in a memoir. How
close to the bone does it have to be?
Speaker 1 (05:27):
Well, it reminds me of this William Frey who wrote
a book A Tiny Million, Tiny Pieces, which was on
Oprah's Book Club, that it was one of her first choices,
and that it turned out again that it was a
story of this William Frey of his drug abuse and
(05:47):
drug addiction and his redemption, his ability to go and
be rehabilitated. And it was found to be at least
partially falsified, and at first, you know, Oprah supported him,
saying it was a redemptive story. It was really helpful.
Made a call to Larry King, who was at the
time was a talk show host or a radio host
(06:10):
and saying it wasn't his fault, it was producer's faults.
People should have checked back checked him, all that kind
of stuff, And then she actually brought him on the
show and said hold on, this wasn't you know you
just kind of getting a couple of things wrong. You
actually created this, And he kept saying William Frey, the
author kept saying I was, I made mistakes and she
(06:36):
kept saying, you lied, and it was you know. And
to me this was such an interesting crux of is
that the way he remembered it. At what point do
memories become lies? How do we where do we pull
this apart?
Speaker 2 (06:54):
And I remember part of it was her ego in
saying that she'd been made to look bad, so she
wasn't going to take that line.
Speaker 1 (07:00):
That's right.
Speaker 2 (07:01):
We had an Australian story that was similar to this.
It was a book called The Hand that Signed the
Paper by an author called Helen Demdenko who was Ukrainian,
and it was a story about an Australian book, but
about her Ukrainian family that collaborates with the Nazi history
in the Holocaust. She said this had happened to her
family and so very nuanced piece of history, which is
(07:24):
how she was accused of sympathizing with the Nazi collaborators.
But she said, this is what happened, This has happened,
This happened to many families and here's the emotion around
it and how we all feel about it. Huge book.
I remember reading it. She was on talk shows in
her Ukrainian national costume. Almost she really lent into her
Ukrainian history. It was revealed that in fact, she's not
(07:46):
Ukraine and her name is Helen Darvill. She'd gone her
parents were English, I think, And yet she would yeah.
And yet supporters of this, she was stripped of everything.
Miles Franklin Award was taken away, except she would say,
it doesn't change that I told this a true story
about that part of history. But others were saying, this
(08:10):
personal connection to the Holocaust cannot be allowed. You haven't
her history. Wasn't her history. But once again, where do
you draw the line?
Speaker 1 (08:22):
Draw the line?
Speaker 2 (08:22):
So I used to.
Speaker 1 (08:24):
I don't know if you've ever heard of this organization
called the MOB.
Speaker 2 (08:28):
I remember you you performed at the mod.
Speaker 1 (08:31):
Ided I was in one of the Grand Slams. But
this is out of the States, and it's a little
storytelling thing. And in the introduction you tell a like
a ten minute story, and they have or a five
minute story. But there's like ten people that come up
and they tell their stories in an evening and then people,
you know, in a silly way, they kind of vote
(08:53):
for you about how they enjoyed your story. And the
introduction to the storytellers is that it's that has to
be true as remembered by the storyteller, which gives a
quite a.
Speaker 2 (09:06):
Big bit of a disclaimer.
Speaker 1 (09:08):
Yeah, a bit of a disclaimer. But I thought it
was such an interesting thing because a lot of the
stories you can see that there is you know, truth
to their story. You know, like a policeman would tell
a story about something that happened to him or or
that kind of thing. And the stories that I told
were some of them. I told three or four stories
on the Moth when it was in Sydney, and you know,
(09:30):
one was about you know, some my work stuff, and
some was about mountain biking and that kind of stuff,
and it was I really enjoyed that, and there was
you know, these stories were true. And yet probably if
you had taken a video of some of the things
that happened, would it have been one hundred percent accurate?
Because you know, how was my memory through this? It's
(09:50):
such an interesting question.
Speaker 2 (09:52):
Your memory will always be from your perspective, but now
with new AI and this is what I'd like to
ask you about the way this impacts our memory. There's
a woman socials who said that the footage and it's
obviously AI, of Donald Trump in a big gold suit
singing a song at the Oscars in front of Meryl Streep.
And this woman said, my mother swears that this is true.
(10:13):
See that's something you can say, Well, you're an idiot
if you think that's real. But AI is so sophisticated
even that stuff we've seen recently. Have you've seen the
night vision footage of little rabbits bouncing on a trampoline.
Now it's gone everywhere. That's AI. There's no danger in it,
there's no shock value. It's just a cute little thing.
That's AI. I remember when the movie JFK. This is
(10:36):
the Oliver Stone film came out and Harley and I
were talking about this after having seen it. There's footage
there that's made to look like grainy documentary footage of
the autopsy. And you think, because I feel like I'm
seeing it, will that now be my memory that I've
seen footage of the autopsy? Because isn't that how we
(10:58):
if we see things? Isn't how human brain works. It's
not our fault that we think it's real.
Speaker 1 (11:02):
Oh god, no, I mean our memories are I mean, like,
I think that most of us learned about memory thinking
it's like a video camera or a hard drive, you know,
depending on what generation we're from. But the reality is
is that we tend to remember fragments of things because
(11:23):
if we remembered everything it, you know, our brains would
get clocked up. There's just not enough room in there.
But the you know, so if you and I attended
a party and I think about some of the you know,
the parties that we tell stories about, is that each
one of us have our own little bits of memory
about it. And what we do is that we create
a story from those little bits of memory that we have.
Speaker 2 (11:44):
We find a linear lot, we find something linear through it.
Speaker 1 (11:48):
Yes, And so I mean, you know, we've we've been
with our friends where we said, oh do you remember
that night that you know that that this happened or
we all ended up in the pool and you know
that kind of thing. And the reality is is if
there was a videotape of that evening, it probably wouldn't
be as you know, it wouldn't be compatible with with
(12:10):
what our memories were.
Speaker 2 (12:11):
And because we've shared our memory, we all have read
fulse with each other. But that's what happened.
Speaker 1 (12:16):
Yeah, And every time we remember something, we tend to
reconstruct it, and so our memories don't get clearer with time.
They tend to get less accurate with time because they
are there's you know, we have our own memory, but
there's also fragments of other memories that we may have
(12:37):
that get may get pulled into a memory of you know,
it could be I'm thinking about this party, but then
I think about, oh I was you know that also happened?
Was it at this party or was at the other party?
So that happened? And then it could be the influence
of somebody else saying oh I was there and this happened,
and may not remembering it and saying well, I'm sure
(12:58):
it did happen.
Speaker 2 (13:11):
Well, you work in the forensic world that involves police, courts,
et cetera. So just us remembering a party, who cares?
Who's right? And we're probably all right to a fraction.
But what happens if you're trying to remember an incident
and you're in court.
Speaker 1 (13:25):
Oh, eyewitness accounting, you know, accounts are are terrible, and
you know, the forensic evidence, I mean, it's it's actually
quite frightening how limited the inaccuracy they are. And there's
a worldwide organization called Project Innocence that looks at things
like eyewitness identification, DNA evidence, fingerprint which are not as
(13:49):
like one hundred percent accurate as you might think that
they are on you know, from from TV shows. And
what happens is that this Project Innocence looks at some
of the old evidence and when they actually find that
this evidence is enough that they could actually look for
a retrial, is that when they present the evidence that
(14:10):
the police, the judges, everybody who's involved are just kind
of saying no, no, no, that can't be. That cannot be.
Because when we have memory of something that we kind
of embed who we are, and that memory I think
that to me, when I think about it, memory serves
to kind of make us seem like good people. Like
when I have a memory of an argument with I
(14:31):
have that I might have with somebody, I'm remembering how
amazing I was and how logical and how right I was,
and how terrible and awful and incorrect the other person was.
We create these memories to go and kind of create
this cognitive sense of who we are as a good person.
Speaker 2 (14:52):
You've got a colleague, heaven you whose research is into
the role of memory in the witness box.
Speaker 1 (14:58):
Absolutely, and really much of it cannot be you know,
it can be you know, is not very accurate that
things that that may affect memory or are things like age.
Of course, you know that if you're very young or
very old, that that your memory may not serve you
(15:18):
as well, but as well that there's emotion that can
be going on. And often if you're you know, witnessing
a crime scene, there's heightened emotion that you may actually
you kind of think sometimes people think, oh, I have
the perfect memory of this of this situation.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
I feel like you sense it's a shop.
Speaker 1 (15:35):
Yeah, but it's but it's actually not true. And and
the other piece again is that as we memory gets
reconstructed that there's a lot of evidence. There was a
researcher named Elizabeth Loftus. She's still around, but she was
one of the seminal researchers in this area, and she
did some really cool experiments where she actually talked to
(15:58):
relatives of the research participants and said, tell us three
to true things that happened to this participant when they
were young. And then they so it would be it
might be we went to the state fair, we went
to this, you know, we did this, and you know
we did that, and that they actually talked to the
(16:19):
person about these and had the person write about these
three things, but also a fourth thing about when they
were five years old, that they got lost in them
all that they were and this elderly person helped them,
and that they were reunited with their family. And so
they had the person kind of reconstruct the memories that
were true and the one that was false, and they
(16:39):
kind of had them kind of rehearse it for a while.
And then when they followed up, about a quarter the
people actually believed that that had happened. That they had
actually embellished the facts a little bit more, had you know,
created more memories around that that memory of being lost,
and even when they were debriefed, there were people who
still believed that it had happened.
Speaker 2 (16:59):
So and these are memory of researchers.
Speaker 1 (17:02):
So they've done things where they know how inaccurate our
memories actually are. And it's you know, and it you know,
sometimes it's funny, maybe it's a you know, AI bunnies,
you know, jumping on a trampoline. But you know, there
are situations where people are unjustly incarcerated, and you know,
(17:24):
and and and what does that? What does that mean?
How does what does that mean for us as a society.
Speaker 2 (17:29):
It's just something interesting? Is that a huge offshoot to this?
But when I was filming the living room and I
had to duck out of the way because there was
a fishing rod on a roof that was going to
be mucking around as if we're unpacking a roof rack.
Fishing rod was coming at me. I ducked out of
the way. I tripped over a lighting stand and I
fractured my elbow and I would have sworn black and
(17:52):
blue that I landed on my elbow. And the doctor said, no,
you've landed on the palm of your hand and it's
pushed the bone back, which is why it frect your drill.
And I said, no, I remember going down and smashing
my elbow and he said, everyone thinks this. He said,
let's look at the palm of your hand. There's a
huge graze on it. And I was shocked because I
(18:14):
could see my elbow landing first, and he said, everyone
thinks that.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
Isn't that amazing?
Speaker 2 (18:20):
So you think of my own reality. I was wrong about.
Speaker 1 (18:23):
That, So it's and and when you were confronted when
the doctor said no, so confronted, and but you know
you think about it that that often our first reaction
to that is I wasn't wrong. I remember, I absolutely remember.
So you can imagine that we stick to that memory,
(18:45):
that false memory, because it's something that you know, makes
us feel, you know that the world is a right place.
Like if that's what your memory is, what what does
it mean if it If it isn't that's right?
Speaker 2 (18:58):
And that's the thing. It's shocking to think that that's
that was your reality and you were wrong. What about
this story and let me know if you don't want
to go down these avenues, but where everyone suddenly had
memory of childhood satanic abuse? In our modern society, though
we want to believe, we want to believe victims all
the time, But what about that satanic abuse stuff?
Speaker 1 (19:19):
Oh that was in California in the eighties and nineties,
and you know it started and again, we tend to
make a lot of fear based decisions in our worlds
and You can imagine that if your child was in
daycare and that you heard that this stuff was happening,
and you you know, your kid was having a rough
(19:40):
evening or a rough night, wasn't sleeping, well, you know,
I can imagine that it would be just as easy
to say, well, maybe something happened at daycare, and then
you start hearing this, and then it just these kinds
of things explode, and it's this this whole conspiracy, like
you know, the Pizza Gate and all these kinds of things.
And what I find is that, you know, there are
(20:03):
these kinds of mass you know, situations where people start
believing these things. And I think that the proliferation of
social media has just accelerated the rates of these things,
and and so.
Speaker 2 (20:18):
We've gone from the satanic abuse into other forms of
it now. Yeah, but it's the pendulum has swung as
to who we're looking to blame outside somewhere, and in
the real time, there's horrible things happening really close to home.
Speaker 1 (20:32):
Yeah. And I think the other thing that I think
is important about about memory is that we do fit
them to our current beliefs, our current situations. We want
to make sure that that our worlds kind of sit
in a in a way that makes again that makes
us feel good, that makes our world safe, and and
you know we want to have that that that world
(20:55):
view that everything is okay. And when we when we
have these memories, we create this self justification. Again, if
it's an argument, you know, how terrible was that person
that I had an argument with? And you know, we
tend to go and most of this is done so unconsciously.
That this is where when I have that thoughts about
(21:18):
the Salt Path and the million tiny pieces, I think,
if most of this process is done unconsciously, when do
we call it a memory? And when do we call
it or a false memory? And when do we call
it lying? When does it move from one to the other?
Because I would imagine that if you talk to this
(21:40):
author of the Salt Path, that she probably says that
it was the truth.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
She says, the story of our journey. She says, now, yeah,
the story of our journey was the truth. And she said,
you don't have all the information about how we lost
our house, but she's had to concede. I think, hmm,
But she said that was an integral to what happened
on our journey but the audience felt I made a
connection with you because I thought bad things had fallen you,
(22:08):
not that you'd perpetrated them.
Speaker 1 (22:10):
So the question is is that is it important? Like
is it important that she lied about that? And that's
the you know, and I think that everybody has to
kind of come to that recognition that, you know, how
do we want to proceed around this? Do we want
to go and walk around and say, well, that little
(22:31):
bit of that story is a lie and it was
there was some embellishment or there was some avoidance of fact,
or do we want to like, do we take the
story as a whole? And I don't have an answer
for this. I don't know where I sit with this
because at.
Speaker 2 (22:46):
The front of the story, as we said in front
of the book, she says, these are real events, which
makes it more powerful for a reader than if it
said this is based on a true story that takes
you a step away from the involvement. So it was
an active decision of hers and the editors and all
of that to say it's true. I was yea. And
(23:07):
people are saying, why didn't they look into it? Well,
they can't look into medical information. They said, they were
pleased with the information they've got from her. And I
heard an editor say from a different book company, say,
a whole lot of stuff crosses our desk constantly. This
is not how we work. We don't investigate every minute
of every book because how could we.
Speaker 1 (23:25):
Well, of course absolutely, and so again I don't know,
do you have like where do you sit on this?
Speaker 2 (23:31):
Maybe? Is this the thing for all of us as
individuals as to where it matters. If you've take something
profound from a story and you're happy with that, that's enough.
But then you know, I've got a husband who has
a disease, So I don't I don't appreciate the fact
there may have been some medical falsehoods.
Speaker 1 (23:49):
Yeah, And I don't know where I sit with it,
because there is this part of me that I don't
want to be so rigid as to say, you know,
she lied, and so therefore, like do we just kind
of say, do we discredit her? Do we discredit her story?
Speaker 2 (24:07):
Do we like?
Speaker 1 (24:08):
Where do we go with it? Like, do we like
does she have to give money back from the like?
Where does it go? Like?
Speaker 2 (24:14):
I think it goes into the fact she doesn't get
another book because she's had a few books. I think
that's that's the thing. I think this is. This is
the public life. Now, this is your backlash now of.
Speaker 1 (24:24):
The William Frey the million tiny Pieces. He's come up
with another book and this is quite a few years later,
but maybe he's kind of anticipating that public memory has
has dimmed.
Speaker 2 (24:34):
Well, he should hear double a chattery and very close
to the surfaces, ting that story alive. Aren't we around them?
We ah, don't upset oprah, I know that much. Tell
that but nothing.
Speaker 1 (24:45):
Thanks for the advice, and that's true.
Speaker 2 (24:59):
Let's do it our glimmers, shall we. It's a sad
glimmer in the fact that my dog is aging and
she's now thirteen, and I have to help her sometimes
into the car and to jump up onto the bed.
And I saw little hips and I'm feeling the same.
And so the glimmer part of this is there's a
certain dignity in an older dog. And she's just so
(25:23):
beautiful and she needs slightly less exercise. That's my glimmer
is that she's a border Collie. But it's enough for
her to walk around the block. If I go to
the park and I take a cup of tea and
a keep cup and I just wander around with her.
I don't really throw the ball much anymore because she
wants me to. But a joints or gets sore, and
that's kind of enough for both of us. These days.
Speaker 1 (25:42):
She sometimes she just doesn't want to see me because
she associates me with walking. Yeah, that's right, she tells me.
Speaker 2 (25:49):
Yeah, I don't want to see you because you don't
have forced me to go for walk oh moleing sideway
and make me do that. But I did take her
on the most bogan walk of all on Friday. It
was pouring with rain. She'd been stuck inside all day.
I put her in the car and we drove to
the drive through bottle shop and then drove home. Is
there a more bogan walk than that?
Speaker 1 (26:12):
She got to go walk?
Speaker 2 (26:13):
Now the walk she got to be in the car.
She didn't even look out the window because she sits
low on the seat. So but she felt she'd had
an adventure, as did I when I bought those bottles
of wine. You get your glimmers where you can and
eat it, and where you can get and where you
can what's your what's yours?
Speaker 1 (26:32):
Oh Amanda?
Speaker 2 (26:33):
This is so sweet, so mus it involve alcohol. I
make myself sound like such a booze hound, which I'm not.
Speaker 1 (26:40):
By the way, I could just say, while I was drinking,
if you'd like, let's try although no, no, no, we're
not with this. Well no, no, So this is the
I am so delighted. So my grandsome Logan just recently
turned to and you know, he's his words are coming
at just such a piece. But he could not would
(27:03):
not say grandma.
Speaker 2 (27:04):
Could not or would not.
Speaker 1 (27:06):
Well, this is this is interesting, man, because it was
like there was Gampa, Gampa was you know, it was mama, dada,
and then gampa which is grandpa, papa, and and and
and then for a while there I was Mama, but
mostly Gampa. So he would call me everything and then
but he just wouldn't call me anything and just not gamma.
(27:27):
That not.
Speaker 2 (27:28):
And when we went away for the weekend and with
my dog Minnie, and he said Minnie, and he said,
oh great, he's naming the dog.
Speaker 1 (27:36):
He can say many, he cannot say gamma. So we
went through a whole list and and and I was
trying not to do the oh yes, look he can
say turnip, but he cannot say grandma. And he just
was came back from a trip just the other day.
They were just on his own, just on his own. Yeah,
he's he's that. Yeah, he's too now.
Speaker 2 (27:57):
Really apposable, thumb, very independent.
Speaker 1 (28:00):
He know. He went with his parents, they went to
Egypt for a couple of weeks to go and see
the grandpa, the other grandpa, And he came back and
it's it's now Gamma, Gamma, Gamma, gamma hour. So it
just makes you feels my heart.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
Are you not correcting him by saying there's an R
in there somewhere.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
I've got to say, I'm just so delighted he can
he you know, as long as he was calling me something,
it was it was just for you, It was just
for me. So yeah, I'm very delighted. Lovely definitely a glimmer.
Speaker 2 (28:30):
Lovely will that who you'll be now you'll be Gamma, I.
Speaker 1 (28:34):
Think so, I mean, we'll see. I mean, it's it's.
Speaker 2 (28:37):
I remember before he was born and you're wondering what
you should be called, and I think it was them
and who suggested Granita, Yes, which I thought was good grandma.
Speaker 1 (28:45):
And Grandma Anita, But you know, I think it's I mean,
kids will choose their own things. You know that their
own names for grandfa.
Speaker 2 (28:51):
It's weird. You get a grandparent that'll be called pooky
in one that'll bit called moose face or something.
Speaker 1 (28:55):
Yeah, Like it's like, how does that happen?
Speaker 2 (28:57):
How does it happen? And after a number of years
people forget how it happen and that's just how it is.
Speaker 1 (29:01):
And it's just always.
Speaker 2 (29:01):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (29:02):
The my counter approach mother, mother in law, grandma is
her name is just bee because her name is Bella,
and so she is just b to all the grandkids.
Speaker 2 (29:12):
Oh okay, that's easy. See she's sick, easy one.
Speaker 1 (29:15):
She's picked me, so you want it's lovely.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
Well, Gamma, I'm glad you finally got what you needed.
Speaker 1 (29:20):
Thanks, that's all.
Speaker 2 (29:21):
Thanks, weird see you
Speaker 1 (29:29):
M
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Cardiac Cowboys
The heart was always off-limits to surgeons. Cutting into it spelled instant death for the patient. That is, until a ragtag group of doctors scattered across the Midwest and Texas decided to throw out the rule book. Working in makeshift laboratories and home garages, using medical devices made from scavenged machine parts and beer tubes, these men and women invented the field of open heart surgery. Odds are, someone you know is alive because of them. So why has history left them behind? Presented by Chris Pine, CARDIAC COWBOYS tells the gripping true story behind the birth of heart surgery, and the young, Greatest Generation doctors who made it happen. For years, they competed and feuded, racing to be the first, the best, and the most prolific. Some appeared on the cover of Time Magazine, operated on kings and advised presidents. Others ended up disgraced, penniless, and convicted of felonies. Together, they ignited a revolution in medicine, and changed the world.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.