In interference, information learned earlier disrupts the recall of information learned more recently; in interference, recently learned information disrupts the recall of information learned earlier.

PROACTIVE, RETROACTIVE

Explanation:

Proactive interference is the way in which things learnt earlier interfer with the one learnt recently, when it is impossible to recall or retrieve them, although this can happen due to some certain reason.

An example of proactive interference is when a person find it hard in remembering the name of the of new phone he just bought after previously learned the name of his old phone. WHILE

Retroactive interference is the reverse of proactive interference, this happen when recently learnt information or things gets in the way of trying to recall older information. An example would be calling your ex- dog name with the name of the new dog making the new name retroactively interferes with the old name.

proactive; retroactive

Explanation:

In proactiive interference, information learned earlier disrupts the recall of information learned more recently;

Proactive intrrference is set to occurs when you difficult to learn a new task because of an old task that had been learnt. When what we already know interferes with what we are currently learning – where old memories disrupt new memories. A good example is a friend old phone number and then a new number emerges and you are comfortable with the old one.

in retroactive interference, recently learned information disrupts the recall of information learned earlier.

Retroactive interference happens when you forget a previously learnt task due to the learning of a new task. In other words, later learning interferes with earlier learning - where new memories disrupt old memories. A good example is you learnt german in school and then recently you are trying to learn french then you tryto recall german to communicate with someone and only french is coming out of you.

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.