The temporal lobe is known for its role in storing factual information—dates, names, places, and language processing, particularly in the left hemisphere. Think of it as an archive of everything we know and remember about the world. Meanwhile, the frontal lobe, especially the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (LDPFC), plays a key role in understanding meaning, interpreting language, and applying logic to the facts we encounter. The temporal lobe holds the facts, but it’s the prefrontal cortex that makes them matter.

But here’s something I’ve noticed: some statements, particularly those related to impactful events, seem to lose their weight over time. Their “meaning” or “urgency” dissipates, leaving behind only cold, lifeless facts.

Consider January 6, 2021. When the Capitol was stormed, the world watched in shock. The notion that American democracy—perceived as inveterately stable—could be shaken so violently felt jarring, almost surreal. For me, it shattered a deeply ingrained conception of how the world operates.

Yet, over time, the emotional and cognitive weight of that event has faded. The statement, “On January 6, 2021, an attempt to delay the certification of votes was instigated by the president,” now feels more like a historical bullet point—relegated to the same dusty shelf as facts like “The Young Turk Revolution of 1908.” The neurons storing this fact in my temporal lobe feel inert, lacking the urgency that once made the event a subject of serious contemplation.

Why does this happen? The LDPFC is not meant to bear the weight of long-term memory. Its time is valuable and primarily devoted to analyzing ongoing, imminent concerns. Our brains, constantly bombarded with information, offload much of it to specialized storage in the temporal lobes. The result is salience decay—the natural process of diminishing cognitive priority over time.

The Concerningness of Jan 6 and the Limits of Cognitive Weight

To me, January 6 remains a major concern—not because of the fact itself, but because of its implications. This concern arises from my LDPFC actively working with the hippocampus to interpret the event’s broader meaning. Its weight doesn’t live in the event’s factual description, but in the connections my brain makes between that fact and the present. However, this applied cognition is effortful, and without deliberate engagement, it’s easy for this “concerningness” to dissipate.

This presents an issue: if our LDPFC doesn’t continuously process and reflect on critical information, it risks being dismissed or archived. Worse, if this cognitive reflection leads to inconvenient or ideologically challenging conclusions, the brain may find it easier to simply ignore the facts entirely. When the LDPFC abandons its duty to critically evaluate the implications of past events, any meaningful concern one ought to have can vanish.

Ramachandran’s Theory: Narrative and Cognitive Dismissal

Here’s where Dr. Vilayanur Ramachandran’s theory offers an intriguing explanation. According to his work, the left hemisphere is responsible for fitting incoming information into a fixed narrative. It creates coherent, conceptual explanations of why things are the way they are, weaving facts into a structured worldview.

The right hemisphere, on the other hand, has a broader perspective. It processes spatial, relational, and contextual information, and it can act as a narrative editor—reviewing the story constructed by the left hemisphere and rejecting anything that seems nonsensical or inconsistent. If the right hemisphere deems the left’s narrative deviant, it can send feedback, suggesting revisions or even rejection.

However, if the right hemisphere sees no reason to challenge the left’s story, the LDPFC may simply rationalize and dismiss even critical knowledge. This means that consciously held facts—like the events of January 6—can be explained away or deprioritized, fading into irrelevance unless actively re-engaged.

Final Thoughts

Our brains are designed to prioritize the immediate over the abstract, and this makes sense from an evolutionary perspective. But in a world where the implications of past events often shape the present, this cognitive bias toward salience decay can be dangerous. Without conscious effort—whether through personal reflection or societal reminders—important events risk becoming nothing more than “just another thing.” And when that happens, we risk ignoring the very lessons we need to act on.