New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Get the Picture

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

You and I haven’t met, but I feel as if I already know you. You’re pretty smart. Above average, in fact. And when you have a goal in front of you—whether it’s completing a work project by the deadline, writing that term paper or getting all the dinner-party details just right—you’re sure you’ll rise to the occasion.

Me, too. Trouble is, we’re often so very wrong about our overconfident self-assessments—and we are blind to that ignorance because we can’t get a complete view of ourselves, as psychologists David Dunning, Chip Heath and Jerry M. Suls explain in their article “Picture Imperfect.” Our muddled thinking impairs thousands of our everyday decisions, affecting our health, education and interactions in the workplace. Hilariously (at least in hindsight), I became the embodiment of that principle when I promised to shape the authors’ original 35,000-word paper into a 3,500-word story for this issue in “just a few days.” A few weeks later an unsurprised but nonetheless amiable Dunning and company finally saw that edit. Turn to page 20 for the results.

Memories of such embarrassing failures are easy to laugh off. But what about harrowing, even traumatic, events that have been seared into our brains? They can haunt our waking hours and nightmares for years, if we ever make peace with them at all. What if we could simply delete these mental blemishes? In our cover story on “Erasing Memories,” beginning on page 28, neuroscientist R. Douglas Fields reports how research could create the “spotless mind.” Could the work be a balm for an anxiety-ridden culture—or put us on the numbing path of reflexively pill-popping our problems away, Brave New World-style?


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


By the way, I wasn’t completely teasing about getting to know you. In the past, we have invited readers to sign up as advisers (www.sciam.com/feedback/). Now, in response to feedback, we have added two new features: a Calendar of worthwhile events, on page 19, and Ask the Brains, in which experts answer your questions about psychology and neuroscience, on page 94. We have also expanded the popular Illusions column, by neuroscientists Vilayanur S. Ramachandran and Diane Rogers-Ramachandran, starting on page 16. Of course, we think you’ll like them—but we will try to understand it if you tell us we are being overconfident in that self-assessment.

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina
SA Mind Vol 16 Issue 4This article was published with the title “From the Editor” in SA Mind Vol. 16 No. 4 (), p. 1
doi:10.1038/scientificamericanmind1205-1

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe