Mandela Effect Flip/Flops: My Flintstones/Flinstones Story Experienced Similarly by Another

[papageorge1]

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That's a little vague, those are just facts or evidence.  What about these memories/residue indicates a false memory is not a good explanation?  Here:

• Claim: MEs can be explained as false memories.
• Argument:  MEs fit many of the exact conditions under which a false memory would be more likely to occur.
• Evidence: Psychology

Are you saying that just the number of these memories is a good reason to doubt false memories?  What is the evidence for that argument?

 

Well again I must back up and say that everyone knows there are memory errors including ME believers and the greatest psychologists. But what we ME believers are saying is that there is something more in these Mandela Effects than memory errors that is more in the field of theoretical physicists than psychology. The Mandela Effect down to all the specific residue and examples is not something I've ever seen studied in detail by psychologists. Let's hear these non-ME believing psychologists explain all this cornucopia and Ed McMahon stuff in detail. Contrary to your claim that I am not interested in mundane explanations I am in fact all ears, but I haven't heard anything interesting. The Mandela Effect is pretty much an unstudied field in psychology. I do know that there are theoretical physicists that are quite open to the idea of Mandela Effects which is the field I suspect in which the answers lie. 

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

And define 'residue', an obviously very biased, begging-the-question term.  All 'residue' looks like to me is a video of someone misremembering; that there is misremembering going on is not in question so having a video adds nothing.

 

Residue is basically currently available evidence further suggesting things were not always like they are now. I agree you can call it all misremembering too but at what point should we doubt that explanation? My threshold has been reached. 

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

That is not all you are saying, you are also referring to having argumentation, to the extent that you are actually acting like there should be videos or something counter to this 'argumentation'.  Whether you have an argument is something that can be discussed which is why I replied, but as usual you seem to be avoiding that subject with your one vague sentence of your 'argumentation'.

Well if one is suggesting this is all a misremembering between PCH and AFP then yes we should expect to see Ed doing what we remember for AFP. Such a thing not existing is very pertinent to the consideration.

13 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Of course that's how it seems to you, you are pretty incurious about looking into any kind of counter-arguments and the support for them.  Lots of fellow religious people think they're making dramatic statements too, billions of them...

On the contrary I am more than interested in hearing all sides to this argument. I have no desire to believe in the Mandela Effect. My life was just fine without it. But being as honest as I can with myself, I do believe something is going on that cannot be explained in our straightforward understanding of reality.

[+Liquid Gardens]

51 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Because that is the most memorable part of the iconic image that is remembered by me and so many others. And that seems the most challenging issue for the skeptics.

You have never mentioned anything on any ME that is challenging to skeptics.  You can't explain or even 'argue' why MEs are not false memories so 'there it sits'.  It'd be cool to have something challenging, where is it?  Not challenging to you, you can't even explain why something is challenging to you which is another point for skepticism.

56 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

To skip or to call 'misremembering' on that part is just a necessary step for a skeptic to complete an explain-away. So that's the step they take.

No one is skipping anything, state exactly what is being skipped but make sure you explain why it should be paid any attention to (i.e., not because of your judgment).  I call it misremembering because it's the easiest term to use, until you can explain what's really going on I'm not going to state 'remembering something that doesn't agree with this current reality' over and over.  MEs meet the definition of misremembering, the memory doesn't match the current reality.

[papageorge1]

13 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You have never mentioned anything on any ME that is challenging to skeptics.  You can't explain or even 'argue' why MEs are not false memories so 'there it sits'.  It'd be cool to have something challenging, where is it?  Not challenging to you, you can't even explain why something is challenging to you which is another point for skepticism.

No one is skipping anything, state exactly what is being skipped but make sure you explain why it should be paid any attention to (i.e., not because of your judgment).  I call it misremembering because it's the easiest term to use, until you can explain what's really going on I'm not going to state 'remembering something that doesn't agree with this current reality' over and over.  MEs meet the definition of misremembering, the memory doesn't match the current reality.

Well, we are back to our ending point in the past.

At what point do conventional explanations seem unsatisfactory? My threshold has been reached. Yours not apparently. And that's where it is going to sit for now.

[+Liquid Gardens]

28 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well again I must back up and say that everyone knows there are memory errors including ME believers and the greatest psychologists. But what we ME believers are saying is that there is something more in these Mandela Effects than memory errors that is more in the field of theoretical physicists than psychology.

Theoretical physicists are not who you consult on memory.  What do theoretical physicists identify as the part of an ME that is not explainable as a false memory?  Who cares if believers think there's something more, you just specifically mentioned the 'greatest psychologists' like you understand relevant expertise.

35 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Let's hear these non-ME believing psychologists explain all this cornucopia and Ed McMahon stuff in detail. Contrary to your claim that I am not interested in mundane explanations I am in fact all ears, but I haven't heard anything interesting.

But how would you know!  You shouldn't be looking for 'interesting' you should be looking for 'factual' or 'reasonable' of 'scientific'.

Let's have you study the relevant psychology and then point out in detail where it falls short with an ME example, investigating this is not on any psychologist.  They don't have to look 'in detail' at specific false memory content, that's absurd.  You can't point out why they should be paying any attention to it, because you don't know much about psychology at all.

38 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Residue is basically currently available evidence further suggesting things were not always like they are now.

None of the things you've identified as 'residue' furthers anything except 'here's somebody else who is misremembering'.  Having a video of someone saying that Ed was on PCH commercials is no different than that same person just posting that to a message board.  We already accept this misremembering as given, otherwise there'd be no ME to discuss, so your residue doesn't 'further' anything.  It's not additional evidence, it's repetitive evidence.

40 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well if one is suggesting this is all a misremembering between PCH and AFP then yes we should expect to see Ed doing what we remember for AFP. Such a thing not existing is very pertinent to the consideration.

You don't know what should be expected, you are barely a layman on the topic of false memories.  Why do you think the misremembering of the correct company is potentially an acceptable false memory but misremembering Ed on a porch handing out giant checks is not, what is the evidence that the latter crosses some threshold of being a less likely mere false memory?  I know, no reason, you just believe it. There's a picture of Ed with a giant check on a front lawn which you reject because he's not currently on a porch, how exactly have you arrived at what parts of the ME are essential and are assumed accurate and not prone to false memory (Ed, on a porch, handing out giant checks) and which ones aren't (PCH vs AFP).

[+Liquid Gardens]

10 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

At what point do conventional explanations seem unsatisfactory?

When there is something about the phenomenon that is outside of conventional explanations.  You are clearly unable to specify what that something is accompanied by an argument with support as to why it's outside conventional explanations.

11 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Well, we are back to our ending point in the past.

Yes, the same ending point that is devoid of argumentation for MEs, contrary to what you claimed.  "I don't believe they are satisfactorily explained" is still not an argument, it's just part of your claim.

[papageorge1]

@Liquid Gardens

I actually found a paper just now from  University of Chicago psychologists:

The Visual Mandela Effect as evidence for shared and specific false memories across people

 

 

Abstract

The Mandela Effect is an internet phenomenon describing shared and consistent false memories for specific icons in popular culture. The Visual Mandela Effect (VME) is a Mandela Effect specific to visual icons (e.g., the Monopoly Man is falsely remembered with a monocle) and has not yet been empirically quantified or tested. In Experiment 1 (N=100), we demonstrate that certain images from popular iconography elicit consistent, specific false memories. In Experiment 2 (N=60), using eye-tracking-like methods, we find no attentional or visual differences that drive this phenomenon. There is no clear difference in the natural visual experience of these images (Experiment 3), and these VME errors also occur spontaneously during recall (Experiment 4; N=50). These results demonstrate that there are certain images for which people consistently make the same false memory error, despite majority of visual experience being the canonical image.

 

Now this is not going to resolve our difference of opinion but is pertinent. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

9 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now this is not going to resolve our difference of opinion but is pertinent. 

That is interesting, thanks.  Sounds like there may be multiple things going on depending on the subject.  I've always thought a lot of these were false memories as a result of what the paper calls schema theory, and that "schemaconsistent details (i.e., aligning with expectations of the image) are more likely to be falsely remembered (Roediger & McDermott, 1995; Koutstaal & Schacter, 1997; Miller & Gazzaniga, 1998; Seamon et al., 2000). These schema-consistent errors even occur for highly familiar stimuli."  Sounds like there are some examples though that include other factors.

[stereologist]

On 7/18/2022 at 11:17 AM, papageorge1 said:

Because that is the most memorable part of the iconic image that is remembered by me and so many others. And that seems the most challenging issue for the skeptics. To skip or to call 'misremembering' on that part is just a necessary step for a skeptic to complete an explain-away. So that's the step they take.

Not seeing how that would at all explain why we have this iconic memory of Ed McMahon delivering giant checks to the door for a publishing company's sweepstakes. It might explain why we confused the two similar companies, but I am not even buying that part.

 

 

There is no challenging issue for skeptics. This is a just laughing at those so fearful that their memories are just wrong. It's about the fear of those that can't accept that their memories are a failure.

It's okay. That just means you are human. 

Those that want to pretend that their memories are infallible are just a laughingstock. Get over being a laughingstock and accept being human.

[darkmoonlady]

Anyone post this video yet? I make absolutely no claim it or ME is real it's just funny to me.

https://youtu.be/OomxA3C_jnE

[papageorge1]

Just came across this article:

Study Finds The Mandela Effect Is Real, And Incredibly Difficult To Explain

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Just came across this article:

Study Finds The Mandela Effect Is Real, And Incredibly Difficult To Explain

Rubbish. It doesn't say it's real anywhere but in the title to that puff piece. I would actually like to see the study itself.

Good job linking more uselessness.

[papageorge1]

5 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Rubbish. It doesn't say it's real anywhere but in the title to that puff piece. I would actually like to see the study itself.

Good job linking more uselessness.

There was a link to the real paper inside what I provided.

[Trelane]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

There was a link to the real paper inside what I provided.

Fair enough, it did. My mistake.

I just finished reading the abstract. It merely expands on what a lot of people have already said here regarding ME as false memories. Nothing about some strange dimension warping rubbish that many people affix to the so-called ME.

[papageorge1]

31 minutes ago, Trelane said:

Nothing about some strange dimension warping rubbish that many people affix to the so-called ME.

Of course, that would be outside the scope of psychology and into theoretical physics. The most psychology could say is that they don't have a fully satisfying explanation yet for these specific memory errors. (And that seems to be all they are suggesting)

[zep73]

@papageorge1

Let's say, for arguments sake, you are right. Reality does change, and only our memories survive the changes.

What is your theory of how and why it happens?

[Opus Magnus]

In that study it doesn't say it's paranormal, just that there is an unusually high percentage of giving the wrong memory for these images. I think the Monopoly Man might be getting confused with Mr. Peanut. Some of the others I think might be because of the surrounding stumuli directing it that way. The original name or image may be less normal than something else you are supposed to think of it as. I also wonder if some other source in the media said it was the mandela effect that is remembered, and not the actual image.

[stereologist]

The article is still a pre-print. 

Still all it discusses is that people have memory issues. The notion that these errors are due to some other universe or what ever is not considered. Claims that it is due to being " outside the scope of psychology and into theoretical physics" is the sort of nonsense that only the foolish would consider.

The fact that people have memory errors is well established. The article makes it clear that the research tells us about basic characteristics of human memory shaping these mistakes.

PsyArXiv Preprints | The Visual Mandela Effect as evidence for shared and specific false memories across people

Quote

These results demonstrate that there are certain images for which people consistently make the same false memory error, despite majority of visual experience being the canonical image.

Quote

If such specific shared false memory exists, it suggests commonalities across our experiences of these images, or a role of properties intrinsic to these images on false memory.

[stereologist]

More from the article:

Quote

However, examining the Mandela Effect as a psychological phenomenon could shed light on the nature of memory representations and how false memories form.

Quote

While memorability work has mainly focused on successful recognition of images, some work also suggests high consistency in false recognition (Bainbridge et al., 2013). Applying this to the VME, perhaps something about the images themselves is what drives the effect.

This i real science at work, not some lame idea about people wanting not to be wrong when they are clearly wrong.

[papageorge1]

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

@papageorge1

Let's say, for arguments sake, you are right. Reality does change, and only our memories survive the changes.

What is your theory of how and why it happens?

Well one theory mentioned is the merging of timelines to promote some greater good that we aren't directly aware of. Small collateral changes in the timelines are allowed and can be noticed as long as they aren't very upsetting to our overall reality.

Another theory is some higher intelligence experimenting to see what can be accomplished without upsetting reality.

I believe the Mandela Effect is a real phenomenon that can't be explained inside our straightforward understanding of reality. All of our thinking logic is predicated on the assumption of a single fixed reality, so our thinking is out of its league here.

Here is something from the channeled source I linked earlier:

The Mandela Effect is caused by the merging of timelines. Under normal circumstances, our time is not linear as we think but it is still a continuous flow. In Dr. Strange movie, when Dr. Strange played with time, he was rebuked that he wasn’t controlling time but breaking and fragmenting it. Such fragmentation of the timeline is what creates anomalies. As described in The History of the Universe, there has been a time travels war during the psychic war that has fragmented the timeline into many trillions of timelines. It has been predicted that such timeline fragmentation will cause strange Mandela Effects as the timelines collapse back together. It is hard to predict what will happen, but we’re starting to see certain effects for sure.

 

Now that food for thought is over my head for sure. But then anything that can explain this effect must be over my head.

[stereologist]

10 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Well one theory mentioned is the merging of timelines to promote some greater good that we aren't directly aware of. Small collateral changes in the timelines are allowed and can be noticed as long as they aren't very upsetting to our overall reality.

Another theory is some higher intelligence experimenting to see what can be accomplished without upsetting reality.

I believe the Mandela Effect is a real phenomenon that can't be explained inside our straightforward understanding of reality. All of our thinking logic is predicated on the assumption of a single fixed reality, so our thinking is out of its league here.

Here is something from the channeled source I linked earlier:

The Mandela Effect is caused by the merging of timelines. Under normal circumstances, our time is not linear as we think but it is still a continuous flow. In Dr. Strange movie, when Dr. Strange played with time, he was rebuked that he wasn’t controlling time but breaking and fragmenting it. Such fragmentation of the timeline is what creates anomalies. As described in The History of the Universe, there has been a time travels war during the psychic war that has fragmented the timeline into many trillions of timelines. It has been predicted that such timeline fragmentation will cause strange Mandela Effects as the timelines collapse back together. It is hard to predict what will happen, but we’re starting to see certain effects for sure.

 

Now that food for thought is over my head for sure. But then anything that can explain this effect must be over my head.

What hilarious malarkey.

First off there is no evidence for timelines. Then you claim merging timelines when there is no evidence for timelines. You extend this nonsensical claim to state that small changes are allowed.

It's a string of nonsense, one bit of horse pucky after another. Why? To avoid the simple explanation that human memories are fallible.

Then on to the next bizarre idea - someone is playing games with people. How droll. In a universe as big as ours we must be the only sentient life forms because some so-called higher intelligence is playing childish games with us.

The ME is real in the sense that people have fallible memories. What is likely to be learned here is how the brain works. Just as optical illusions tell us about the workings of the brain so will these memory mistakes. All of this irrational blustering about timelines and whatever will be forgotten when real science figures out why certain memory errors are more likely than others.

Then the channeler hoaxer is brought in as if their laughable story telling is of value. The story posted here is a made for children's plot for a Saturday morning cartoon.

[papageorge1]

New Residue for the Ed McMahon one. Between 00:08 and 00:24

 

 

[qxcontinuum]

So apparently the torch name is no longer benzomatic from benzene, but something else which doesn't make sense: BernZomatic ....

Edited July 29, 2022 by qxcontinuum

[ThereWeAreThen]

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

New Residue for the Ed McMahon one. Between 00:08 and 00:24

 

 

Just seen an old guy talking.

[Nnicolette]

Idk about flinstones... But I definitely used to read the berenstein bears and watch looney toons. Like i was learning to read and thought the stein was peculiar and asked how to pronounce that and got a lesson about stein being common in Jewish names. Was definitely the spelling. Pulled the same old books out of the attic to check and sure enough they now read BerenStain. Blew my mind. 

I agree with the boy that claimed cern is responsible. Look at this looney toon fanpage from 2011. Name changed on them. They are still linked to looneytoons.com, which now redirects to warner brothers.

Edited July 29, 2022 by Nnicolette

[papageorge1]

9 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

Just seen an old guy talking.

That is all it would be to a Welshman. I think this particular Mandela Effect is for Americans only that remember into last century.