Talk:Unknown White Male

Note from original author of hoax section

I'm finished with my draft of the article and don't plan to update these pages again. I did one major revision, based on a note sent to me by Ward3001. I agree with many of Ward3001's points about my original draft being unnecessarily harsh and POV, as I had just seen the documentary and I was angry at the subject on behalf of his friends and family. I hope I've corrected these issues. It seems to me that the most relevant aspect of the fMRI is not the appropriateness of asking Bruce to prove his claims, but the fact that such a test exists, it would prove definitively if Bruce is telling the truth or otherwise, and the film makers are aware of the test but explicitly claim otherwise in the documentary.

I know that the page is likely to be heavily edited, and I hope that future edits retain the major apparent inconsistencies in Bruce's story:

• Bruce could take a test to prove he's telling the truth (or otherwise), but declines to do so. The documentary falsely claims there is no such test.
• Bruce's claimed amnesia is not standard retrograde amnesia as the documentary claims, but a new form "without medical precedent."
• Prior to Bruce's amnesia, his friend in Paris suffered a similar, though more plausible, form of amnesia. This is statistically improbable and the information is oddly excluded from the documentary.
• Bruce claimed, on record, to experience rain for the first time twice.

In addition, the film maker's response to the hoax raises some questions:

• The official website promises that in the DVD feature the hoax theory would be "tackled head on,"[1] but the feature itself doesn't even mention any of the major contradictions in Bruce's story, let alone refute them.
• Director Rupert Murray responds to the hoax theory by acting personally insulted. In the DVD feature he responds by asking, "Is my life a fake?" When asked about a hoax by the Washington Post, Murray, "[walked] out of this interview in a low-boil rage... with the cinematic exit line, "I am not a [freaking] sociopath."[2] While Murray's feelings at having his credibility questioned may be understandable, they do not address or refute any of the contradictions in Bruce's claims.
• Producer Beadie Finzi explains that she believes Bruce because "everyone who has ever known Douglas, [his] friends and family, is completely convinced that this traumatic event did indeed happen to him." However, in both the documentary and DVD extras, one of Bruce's sisters and several friends both express personal doubts and mention that many other people in Bruce's life disbelieve him entirely.
• Producer Beadie Finzi's other stated reason for believing Bruce is that "every physician that has treated him is also convinced that this has happened to him." If this is true, it is odd that the documentary does not include a single instance of a doctor making this diagnosis. The experts in the film talk about amnesia in the abstract, and several mention how unlikely and mysterious Bruce's symptoms are (as he has no physical trauma), but not one of them make a positive diagnosis on camera.

Michel Gondry POV debate

Ward3001 removed the section on Michel Gondry, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, who on record stated that he disbelieves Bruce's claims and even suspects Bruce may have borrowed ideas from his film. Ward3001 reasoned: "Gondry's opinion is POV. Similarities to films can easily be coincidental and does not support fakery theory. X similar to Y does not mean that X has any causation for Y. Illogical."

I'm not an expert on Wikipedia guidelines, but it seems to me that Gondry qualifies as an "expert witness" on the question of whether Bruce has created a hoax partially based on the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, since Gondry directed and co-wrote the film. However, I take it on faith that Ward3001 is correct in stating that this breaks Wikipedia's no-POV (Point Of View) rules, and so will leave it off the main page. Should future editors feel the section belongs, or wish to cannibalize it for future sections, here is the original entry:

Michel Gondry, the director of the film Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, met Bruce and told GQ magazine, “I didn’t believe him. But I don’t want to confront him, and I always avoid the subject. Maybe he takes the idea from Eternal Sunshine? Oops, I didn’t say that."[3] In Bruce's interview with GQ Magazine[4], he compares his story to both Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and the film Memento.

Gondry is not an expert on human behavior, and Bruce's behavior (not the film Eternal Sunshine) is the crux of the issue. Here's an analogy. I like burned toast, but if someone else likes burned toast it doesn't mean I'm an expert on that person's behavior. And it doesn't mean that someone who says he likes burned toast is pretending to be like me. It's very likely a simple coincidence. To say that Gondry is an expert on Bruce's behavior because he directed and co-wrote Eternal Sunshine flies in the face of elementary logic, regardless of Wikipedia guidelines. Ward3001 00:09, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

response to Ward3001 (by original 'hoax' section author, henceforth OHSA): Gondry is not presented as an expert on human behavior, but an expert on the film he co-wrote and directed. If you know someone enjoys eating toast, you don't need to be an expert in human behavior to logically conclude that he has eaten bread products. If Bruce indeed borrowed his plotline from Gondry's film, that would logically make Bruce's claim a hoax. If Gondry believes his film has been ripped off, that doesn't prove anything conclusively, but he's an expert witness and surely that's worth noting.

Read your own statement: "Gondry qualifies as an "expert witness" on the question of whether Bruce has created a hoax partially based on the film." An expert on whether Bruce has created a hoax; that puts Gondry inside Bruce's head and understanding Bruce's innermost thoughts and motives. That's quite amazing; more amazing than total retrograde amnesia! Gondry is a mindreader! Rubbish! We're not talking about whether Bruce committed a copyright violation of Gondry's film. We're talking about Bruce's thoughts and motives. Ward3001 01:44, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

If Bruce indeed borrowed his plotline from Sunshine, that would logically prove that Bruce's claim was a hoax, without any additional insight into his thoughts and motives - true or false? If this speculation somehow proved to be correct, argument A (Bruce inspired by Sunshine) would logically also prove argument B (Bruce is faking or otherwise innaccurate about his claim of amnesia) without any additional insight into Bruce's thoughts and motives - true or false? Agreed Gondry is speculating, but concerning his own material. Although the concept of ripoff is subjective, courts have still made rulings that a "sample" of music was made illegally, chiefly by drawing on "expert witnesses." If it's the ambiguity of Gondry's proposed expert-ness in the original statement that bothers you, please go ahead and replace it with the more precise statement I've already offered: "Gondry is not presented as an expert on human behavior, but an expert on the film he co-wrote and directed." - OHSA

Gondry is an expert on his film. Gondry has no knowledge of Bruce's thoughts and motives. He does not know any more than you or I about whether any similarities between Bruce's behavior and the film are coincidential or not. And the example of courts and music sampling again relates to copyright, not to the thoughts of the alleged copyright violator. The court ruled against George Harrison because of similarties between one of his songs and another copyrighted song, but the same court acknowledged that it did not know whether Harrison intended to copy the melody or even whether he was conscious of the similarities. Gondry's opinion is not necessary to draw parallels (if they exist) between Bruce's behavior and the film Eternal Sunshine; many people can do that. So my suggestion is to leave Gondry completely out of the argument, especially the quotes by him. If you feel that it's important, briefly point out any similarities and acknowledge that it is mere speculation that Bruce may have been influenced by the film. Of course another editor may delete it because it's speculative. Ward3001 02:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

OHSA: Okay, you're right. Gondry's observations are POV and don't belong on the page.

Note regarding Hoax Theory points

The following text was removed from the main page:

• Director Rupert Murray states in the documentary that no amount of testing or consultations can solve the mystery of Bruce's condition. In fact there is a standard test called an fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging) which would definitively prove if Bruce is telling the truth. To date Bruce has declined to take the test. However, the filmmaker points out that asking someone to take a medical test before consenting to the film would have been rude and probably would have ruined any chance of creating the documentary. Additionally, Bruce may have felt no need to consent to further tests because he is convinced that he is telling the truth.[5]

I removed this from the main page because, despite the claims of the Washington Post article, it is simply not true. While fMRI is a powerful and important scientific tool, it is not (yet, at any rate) a lie detector. While there are commercial interests working on developing fMRI applications for truth detection, there is absolutely no scientific evidence that it works for these purposes.

The Washington Post article implies that right frontal activation in response to questions about his past would demonstrate that Bruce was remembering personal events, and thus faking his amnesia. However, while it is true that regions of right prefrontal cortex are typically activated during episodic remembering, these same regions are active in situations not related to memory and, furthermore, there are other nearby regions of right prefrontal cortex that are activated in an enormous array of other situations.

In short, the claim that fMRI could definitively prove if Bruce is telling the truth has suffers from the following problems:

• To date, there is no scientific evidence that fMRI can be used for truth detection

• There is no known region of right prefrontal cortex that is selectively active during episodic memory for personal life events

• Given the considerable variability in the size and location of prefrontal cortex regions in the human population, fMRI data indicating right prefrontal activation in a single individual could be presumed to indicate activation within a region involved in episodic remembering with any reasonable degree of confidence (short of a post-mortem cytoarchitectonic study of the individual's brain) —Preceding unsigned comment added by TriBeCa99 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The 3 points above are red herrings. The only issue that needs to be tested is whether or not his amnesia is authentic. That specific question can be answered to a reasonable degree of certainty from a fMRI test. Tests on true amnesiacs have shown repeatable fMRI differences between them trying to remember a true event from the amnesia period versus a true event from the post-amnesia period. It would be impossible for someone to pass this test by pretending to not-remember an event. Owen Ward (talk) 20:13, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

A few solid citations from reputable sources that state specifically and unequivocally that the fMRI is fool-proof (and don't state it in such a way that the reader must infer that it's fool-proof) in such cases would make your argument more credible. Otherwise, it's your opinion, and that's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. I've seen countless polygraph operators swear that they know when someone is lying, but they never manage to provide scientific data to support their claim. Ward3001 (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I would think that Bruce would be willing to take an fMRI test, if only for his own curiosity about his alleged extremely rare type of amnesia (so rare that it's medically unprecedented.) It may not be fool-proof, but then again, no test is. oward (talk) 21:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

This speculation is OK for the Talk page, but if you put anything in the article it needs the sources. Ward3001 (talk) 21:55, 10 December 2007 (UTC)