Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -

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


papageorge1
 Share

Recommended Posts

37 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Why in all my time have I failed to see any significant discussion by the memory psychologists on this particular issue and address the arguments from the believers that current explanations are unsatisfactory to explain the full body of claims.

Perhaps because there is no reason for memory psychologists to think it is anything but a memory error, since again as I point out and you concede, the ME subjects all fit the conditions under which we would expect memory errors to occur.  Because the powers-that-be don't want to disrupt reality too much by having people who we would actually expect to remember the subject accurately have an ME.  

Of course your request is unreasonable, since the notable thing about MEs is that they affect many people and they are rare, the varieties of specific content of memory errors must be a huge number.  You go first, point out what memory you are referring to and what feature concerning it is not already explained by their existing explanations.  You'll need more than best judgment for that, you're not an expert so actual experts are not going to be surprised that it doesn't make sense to you, point out what is missing in the current explanations for memory errors that doesn't account for MEs also.

Let's clarify too, there are no 'arguments' that I've seen from believers that current explanations are unsatisfactory to explain the claims, there are instead 'claims' of this.  This is exactly the merry-go-round you and I have been stuck on for this topic; when I ask you for an argument, you appeal to your 'best judgment' which may as well be an appeal to faith.  Best judgment is not an argument.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I on the other hand am listening and waiting for even an addressing of the strongest evidence. 

Have you bothered to look?  Again, expecting every single instance of MEs to be specifically addressed is absurd and unnecessary.  This took literally seconds to find and it's actually pretty interesting what's really going on 'inside-the-box':

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-thinking/202001/critically-thinking-about-the-mandela-effect

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

40 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Perhaps because there is no reason for memory psychologists to think it is anything but a memory error, since again as I point out and you concede, the ME subjects all fit the conditions under which we would expect memory errors to occur.  Because the powers-that-be don't want to disrupt reality too much by having people who we would actually expect to remember the subject accurately have an ME.  

Of course your request is unreasonable, since the notable thing about MEs is that they affect many people and they are rare, the varieties of specific content of memory errors must be a huge number.  You go first, point out what memory you are referring to and what feature concerning it is not already explained by their existing explanations.  You'll need more than best judgment for that, you're not an expert so actual experts are not going to be surprised that it doesn't make sense to you, point out what is missing in the current explanations for memory errors that doesn't account for MEs also.

Let's clarify too, there are no 'arguments' that I've seen from believers that current explanations are unsatisfactory to explain the claims, there are instead 'claims' of this.  This is exactly the merry-go-round you and I have been stuck on for this topic; when I ask you for an argument, you appeal to your 'best judgment' which may as well be an appeal to faith.  Best judgment is not an argument.

 

We've already agreed that an inside-the-box explanation for my Flinstones direct perception experience can be created. But I find the explanation for that and many other things unsatisfactory to unbelievable. Where are the memory experts addressing the more challenging evidence. 

47 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

 

Have you bothered to look?  Again, expecting every single instance of MEs to be specifically addressed is absurd and unnecessary.  This took literally seconds to find and it's actually pretty interesting what's really going on 'inside-the-box':

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/thoughts-thinking/202001/critically-thinking-about-the-mandela-effect

Perfect example. This is the stuff I knew about in day #1 of my interest in this subject. And I actually believe  that I have read this very article. Where are the more challenging questions being addressed on these specific cases which is what we have to get into??  General memory error is a known thing but the mind is also a quite reliable thing too I've found. Walking away leaving the more challenging evidence unsettled is no easy out I am accepting as a skeptic of the skeptics. 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Where are the memory experts addressing the more challenging evidence. 

Where have you made the case that there even is more challenging evidence?  No expert need pay any attention to any non-expert's best judgment beyond an eye-roll.  It doesn't matter if you find it challenging, I find quantum mechanics challenging, that doesn't mean it actually is challenging.  We are literally ignorant.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
20 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Where have you made the case that there even is more challenging evidence?  No expert need pay any attention to any non-expert's best judgment beyond an eye-roll.  It doesn't matter if you find it challenging, I find quantum mechanics challenging, that doesn't mean it actually is challenging.  We are literally ignorant.

Let me go one step further with my reply and discuss the two OP cases; my experience and the experience of the person quoted in the OP.

Now there are only two possible solutions a psychologist could propose:

1) We are lying about the experiences

2) We worked ourselves up into such a fevered pitched that we could not correctly see if the 't' was there or not when that was the sole thing we were looking for. Or we confused what we were looking for and when.

 

What new explanation could any psychologist add? If there is any other 'you need a PhD explanation' I can say no one has ever presented one in my hours and hours on this stuff and yes searching for articles out there. 

Guessing you'll support #2 as your  best possibility but I think you can eastly see why I'm not about to believe it to be correct.

What is you level of surety about the controversial 't' in 'Flinstones' right there. Well nigh very certain the controversial 't' is missing?

Edited by papageorge1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Now there are only two possible solutions a psychologist could propose:

Thanks for so adequately demonstrating my point, you don't even mention the Misinformation Effect possible solution from the link I provided that you supposedly knew on day #1.

31 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What new explanation could any psychologist add? If there is any other 'you need a PhD explanation' I can say no one has ever presented one in my hours and hours on this stuff and yes searching for articles out there. 

Well I found this in one minute:

Quote

The Basis of Perceptual Constancy and Perceptual Illusion
R. H. DAY
Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science June 1972, Vol.11, 525-532. doi:
 
Abstract
A wide range of perceptual illusions, including many of size, orientation, and movement, can be explained in terms of the mechanisms which normally initiate and maintain perceptual constancy. Perceptual constancy is the relative stability of the apparent value of object properties (size, shape, orientation, movement, etc.) when the representation at the eye (retinal image) is variant with change in observer position, posture, and movement. These constancies are consequent on stimuli for object distance and observer posture and motion. When the retinal image is invariant and these stimuli are manipulated, perceptual illusions occur. That is, the mechanisms which normally preserve constancy can be invoked to cause illusions.

Do you understand well what that mere abstract is referring to?  Do you know it has no application to your experience, do you at a high level understand what a 'perceptual illusion' is?  Or is this going to be another, "I of course accept perceptual illusions and false memories exist, but those never apply to me if my uneducated best judgment says it doesn't".  There is just an arrogance about it, 'there are only two possible solutions a psychologist could propose', when a cursory review of these topics shows they are far more complicated than you can understand.  You have little clue how many possible solutions a psychologist could propose, you'd actually have to be one to know that, right?

39 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

What is you level of surety about the controversial 't' in 'Flinstones' right there. Well nigh very certain the controversial 't' is missing?

100% certain.  What do you think that has to do with your memory of being certain, or certain about your memory?  If you've spent hours and hours on this stuff including psychology then simply provide your evidence from psychology that the features of your situation, a memory of closely examining words and thinking they flipped back and forth (on a web page that confusingly had both spellings, in a thread specifically about MEs, by a person who wants to have an ME, etc), does not fit the characteristics of a false memory or perceptual error.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Thanks for so adequately demonstrating my point, you don't even mention the Misinformation Effect possible solution from the link I provided that you supposedly knew on day #1.

Well I found this in one minute:

Do you understand well what that mere abstract is referring to?  Do you know it has no application to your experience, do you at a high level understand what a 'perceptual illusion' is?  Or is this going to be another, "I of course accept perceptual illusions and false memories exist, but those never apply to me if my uneducated best judgment says it doesn't".  There is just an arrogance about it, 'there are only two possible solutions a psychologist could propose', when a cursory review of these topics shows they are far more complicated than you can understand.  You have little clue how many possible solutions a psychologist could propose, you'd actually have to be one to know that, right?

 

I read the article:

The Misinformation Effect refers to the creation of false memories as a result of interference from other/new information following the processing of information from the event in question.

Let me state that the writeup from my experience was within a few minutes of the event. Pretty darn reliable.

 

And then you presented the abstract on Perceptual illusions. Well I was not in any perceptually challenging conditions. Like your 100% sure claim below, that's about where I am at with my simple observation. And our OP guy from the store had a vitamin bottle in front of him. I bet he'd approach the 100% mark too.

As for the psychologist explanation for these more stronger cases, if there is something new to consider I am all ears. The meat of the issue is in the strong individual cases with supporting details and not the general concepts of human fallibility. Where has the cornucopia case with its supporting evidence been tackled by a psychologist? I've searched. 

You are trying to present the Mandela Effect as something picked up and slammed down already by the psychology experts. And then I look I don't find much more than the obvious. 

21 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

100% certain.  What do you think that has to do with your memory of being certain, or certain about your memory?  If you've spent hours and hours on this stuff including psychology then simply provide your evidence from psychology that the features of your situation, a memory of closely examining words and thinking they flipped back and forth (on a web page that confusingly had both spellings, in a thread specifically about MEs, by a person who wants to have an ME, etc), does not fit the characteristics of a false memory or perceptual error.

I can research and answer challenges forever I suppose and never satisfy some people. I'm good with 'beyond reasonable doubt' and moving into the how/what/why questions of the Mandela Effect. I will reconsider if new information is presented by psychology but it seems there is no revolutionary ideas yet presented.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Those things are all precedented and examples of already known human and nature behavior.

Aliens or reality not being a fixed thing would be fundamental new fundamental change that needs to be brought in slowly to avoid reality upheaval.

Underpants labels are a very minor thing. The fact that reality is not this fixed thing we assume it to be is of monumental philosophical paradigm changing importance. That needs to be handled delicately.

I typically here do not see other inside-the-box explanations 'make no sense'. I say they seem inadequate to explain the full range of events we are dealing with in these strong cases.

It has been decades now yet we only really see the more guillible people and laypeople (people who don't work with numbers) convinced that something reality-shifting is happening. Why are these forces only targeting this specific population? What's preventing the forces from laying down more empirical evidence to get the more mathematically-inclined people to start considering these reality shifts seriously?

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

As for the psychologist explanation for these more stronger cases, if there is something new to consider I am all ears. The meat of the issue is in the strong individual cases with supporting details and not the general concepts of human fallibility. Where has the cornucopia case with its supporting evidence been tackled by a psychologist? I've searched. 

You are trying to present the Mandela Effect as something picked up and slammed down already by the psychology experts. And then I look I don't find much more than the obvious. 

Induction of false beliefs and false memories in laboratory studies—A systematic review: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.2567?af=R

Socially induced false memories in the absence of misinformation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11749-w

We can show that false memories can be induced through controlled suggestion hence we know the origin of the false memory as it happened, but we can't go back in time to a past event to observe individual cases like yours as they happen. So there is nothing more here for a psychologist to tackle. Your experiences are effectively unfalsifiable. 

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I can research and answer challenges forever I suppose and never satisfy some people. I'm good with 'beyond reasonable doubt' and moving into the how/what/why questions of the Mandela Effect. I will reconsider if new information is presented by psychology but it seems there is no revolutionary ideas yet presented.

You haven't given us any revolutionary evidence to work with that shows something outside of mundane memory error is happening besides unreliable personal testimony. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Well I was not in any perceptually challenging conditions.

Ha, and when did you study the conditions under which perceptual illusions occur?  I just posted a mere abstract from a psychological study that, face it, flies over both of our heads.  Yet the point of it just bounces off you and now you act like you know all the conditions under which perceptual illusions occur.

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

And our OP guy from the store had a vitamin bottle in front of him.

You seem to just believe that the stories you read on the internet are true as stated; time to turn in your skeptic's badge, not like it's getting used anyway.  By the same token Roger Patterson had a Bigfoot in front of him too.

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

The meat of the issue is in the strong individual cases with supporting details and not the general concepts of human fallibility.

You know almost nothing about human psychological fallibility.  The above is a claim, and of course you always refer to them in the vaguest terms possible, 'strong cases', instead of actually showing that any of the cases is strong.

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

You are trying to present the Mandela Effect as something picked up and slammed down already by the psychology experts.

No I'm not, I'm presenting it like the situation where someone goes up to a biologist and says 'if evolution says man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'.  It's not the best analogy because the creationism-evolution wars have provided multiple sites on the internet that will answer the above question, but no biologist needs to waste their time answering such a stupid question, they aren't responsible for educating people.  And it doesn't matter if this person goes off and says, "I asked a biologist why there are still monkeys and he wouldn't answer me, so I guess it's a challenging statement to them".

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I can research and answer challenges forever I suppose and never satisfy some people.

It'd be good if you did this once.  This just isn't close to honest, I have engaged with you on this repeatedly and you know where you go every single time we start talking about the basis for your beliefs about the ME and it's not to any 'evidence', it's to your judgment.  Why does your judgment carry any weight?  None that I can see, except that you've read a ton of ME claims, certainly nothing beyond a layman understanding of the relevant scientific disciplines.  You don't answer challenges, you provide an empty response to them; 'I think something is going outside-the-box is going on and there is must sit' does not 'answer' any challenge.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We're all in a perceptually challenged condition. As we all perceive the world through our own lens. A slight thought can change an entire experience.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, csspwns said:

It has been decades now yet we only really see the more guillible people and laypeople (people who don't work with numbers) convinced that something reality-shifting is happening. Why are these forces only targeting this specific population? What's preventing the forces from laying down more empirical evidence to get the more mathematically-inclined people to start considering these reality shifts seriously?

 

I consider myself pretty good with numbers but I don't see what that issue has to do with this subject. I am sure there are people beyond you or I that are just as baffled by this phenomena as me. As to the who/what/why I can only present my thoughts and can claim no certainty. I can claim though certainty beyond reasonable doubt that something is occurring that cannot be understood in our straightforward understanding of reality.

14 hours ago, csspwns said:

 

Induction of false beliefs and false memories in laboratory studies—A systematic review: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cpp.2567?af=R

Socially induced false memories in the absence of misinformation: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-11749-w

We can show that false memories can be induced through controlled suggestion hence we know the origin of the false memory as it happened, but we can't go back in time to a past event to observe individual cases like yours as they happen. So there is nothing more here for a psychologist to tackle. Your experiences are effectively unfalsifiable. 

 

That's all interesting stuff I fully consider, but I do not see it explaining the two OP stories here and other Mandela Effects. 

14 hours ago, csspwns said:

 

You haven't given us any revolutionary evidence to work with that shows something outside of mundane memory error is happening besides unreliable personal testimony. 

And I feel strongly that the cumulative weight of the Mandela Effect evidence requires a revolutionary explanation.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Ha, and when did you study the conditions under which perceptual illusions occur?  I just posted a mere abstract from a psychological study that, face it, flies over both of our heads.  Yet the point of it just bounces off you and now you act like you know all the conditions under which perceptual illusions occur.

You seem to just believe that the stories you read on the internet are true as stated; time to turn in your skeptic's badge, not like it's getting used anyway.  By the same token Roger Patterson had a Bigfoot in front of him too.

You know almost nothing about human psychological fallibility.  The above is a claim, and of course you always refer to them in the vaguest terms possible, 'strong cases', instead of actually showing that any of the cases is strong.

No I'm not, I'm presenting it like the situation where someone goes up to a biologist and says 'if evolution says man came from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?'.  It's not the best analogy because the creationism-evolution wars have provided multiple sites on the internet that will answer the above question, but no biologist needs to waste their time answering such a stupid question, they aren't responsible for educating people.  And it doesn't matter if this person goes off and says, "I asked a biologist why there are still monkeys and he wouldn't answer me, so I guess it's a challenging statement to them".

It'd be good if you did this once.  This just isn't close to honest, I have engaged with you on this repeatedly and you know where you go every single time we start talking about the basis for your beliefs about the ME and it's not to any 'evidence', it's to your judgment.  Why does your judgment carry any weight?  None that I can see, except that you've read a ton of ME claims, certainly nothing beyond a layman understanding of the relevant scientific disciplines.  You don't answer challenges, you provide an empty response to them; 'I think something is going outside-the-box is going on and there is must sit' does not 'answer' any challenge.

If you want to make the standard of evidence that I must study all the known perceptual errors possible before I can believe what I clearly saw, then I am not going to meet your standards.  I am interested in a lot of subjects and those are standards you can apply to many studies of my interests that I am not going to live long enough to ever meet.

If experts want to tackle the details of the Mandela Effect arguments and examples, I'm all ears, but general information about human fallibility is not sufficient for the stronger cases in my opinion. I believe, beyond reasonable doubt, that the Mandela Effect cannot be satisfactorily explained in our straightforward understanding of reality. That is my judgment as you may have your own. 

If you want to claim I am insufficiently knowledgeable to have an informed opinion then ignore me. 

 

By the way, I also believe it 'highly likely' that Roger Patterson had a Bigfoot in front of him, too.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I read the article:

The Misinformation Effect refers to the creation of false memories as a result of interference from other/new information following the processing of information from the event in question.

Let me state that the writeup from my experience was within a few minutes of the event. Pretty darn reliable.

 

And then you presented the abstract on Perceptual illusions. Well I was not in any perceptually challenging conditions. Like your 100% sure claim below, that's about where I am at with my simple observation. And our OP guy from the store had a vitamin bottle in front of him. I bet he'd approach the 100% mark too.

As for the psychologist explanation for these more stronger cases, if there is something new to consider I am all ears. The meat of the issue is in the strong individual cases with supporting details and not the general concepts of human fallibility. Where has the cornucopia case with its supporting evidence been tackled by a psychologist? I've searched. 

You are trying to present the Mandela Effect as something picked up and slammed down already by the psychology experts. And then I look I don't find much more than the obvious. 

I can research and answer challenges forever I suppose and never satisfy some people. I'm good with 'beyond reasonable doubt' and moving into the how/what/why questions of the Mandela Effect. I will reconsider if new information is presented by psychology but it seems there is no revolutionary ideas yet presented.

You appear to be constantly in a perceptually challenging condition. You are a fantasy prone individual.

You also are extremely close minded. You refuse to accept simple explanations because they deny your bizarre irrational beliefs.

There is nothing at all supporting the ME. It is a made up story for those that think their memories are always correct. All of the evidence tells us that the ME story is without memory. There is nothing at all supporting the idiotic ME story. It's just a story for the feeble minded to cling to.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

False memories are common. It is possible to create even strong false memories in which someone believes they have committed a violent felony. It is possible for a person to create false memories all by themselves - no need for input from another person. All of this is well established.

So far the evidence is clear - the ME is a joke.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As we see papageorge1 continues to beg the question. They assume that odd things are happening with reality.

Is there a single scientific experiment that shows this can happen? NO. All of the experiments in all of the disciplines show nothing like this is happening.

So why do those that have no understanding of the world and how it works think they have stumbled onto something which no experiment has ever detected? I believe the answer is simple. All they do is irrational. Being illogical is how they do everything.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Papgeorge1 is still out of touch with reality as they contact a channeler to get information about crop circles.

Instead of looking for and evaluating evidence papgeorge1 is playing the trust game in which they trust some con artist claiming to channel and is disregarding the evidence determine by real scientists. That's the way a close minded person operates - trusts a source and accepts without considering the content. Unlike all of the rest of the posters in this thread.

Edited by stereologist
Change the word to disregarding
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 8:40 AM, papageorge1 said:

I consider myself pretty good with numbers but I don't see what that issue has to do with this subject. I am sure there are people beyond you or I that are just as baffled by this phenomena as me.

I wouldn't consider you to be good with numbers as seen in previous threads but that's a whole different discussion. The point is that people who aren't knowledgable or scientifically-inclined are having reality changing experiences while people who have a good understanding of science and reality aren't having the same experiences or making the same extraordinary claims. Our understanding of the world is constantly being pushed by those who show their evidence through numbers and demonstration rather than those who have no knowledge or evidence but continue making revolutionary claims and insisting their extraordinary experiences are reality. There is a reason why the world operates on and listens to the opinions of those who can back up their claims with empirical evidence vs those who state claims as fact but can't back it up without resorting to equally ridiculous explanations or more recently gross misuses of concepts in quantum physics. 

I am sure that no one beyond us is baffled, they would more likely to be interested but from a psychological or theoretical merging universes/realities standpoint, hence why we see no research on ME outside of psychological studies. ME hasn't passed any of the tests that would warrant serious scientific investigation on reality-shifting. 

On 5/27/2022 at 8:40 AM, papageorge1 said:

 And I feel strongly that the cumulative weight of the Mandela Effect evidence requires a revolutionary explanation.

Has anything that you and fellow believers in the extraordinary believe to be true actually turn out to be the case or is your truth still limited to personal anecdotes and not worldwide acceptance? I'm talking about modern time stories such as in cryptozoology (species that biologically and ecologically can't exist like Bigfoot and Nessie) and the paranormal. As it stands, believers have to cater to the expectations and standards of science, not science has to find additional explanations for extraordinary claims by believers. The problem is that believers fail to reliably demonstrate their claims under scrutiny and believers also don't have the interest or capacity in becoming scientists or scientifically literate. We have scientists and parapsychologists who do research in the extraordinary but they usually come up with nothing significant or their best positive results have glaring problems in either the methodology, replication, or conclusions. With all things considered, how are we ever going to see eye to eye until you can prove your claims true or someone knowledgable about science and has extraordinary paranormal abilities (or evidence of such) can bring the two opposing sides together with empirical evidence?

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 9:16 PM, stereologist said:

Papgeorge1 is still out of touch with reality as they contact a channeler to get information about crop circles.

Instead of looking for and evaluating evidence papgeorge1 is playing the trust game in which they trust some con artist claiming to channel and is disregarding the evidence determine by real scientists. That's the way a close minded person operates - trusts a source and accepts without considering the content. Unlike all of the rest of the posters in this thread.

To be honest, I think its either 2 things.

1.) He makes stuff up to support his beliefs

2.) He doesn't actually believe the stuff he claims to believe

Just look at his posts, they're absolutely absurd! You'd expect a flat earther to come up with posts that he does. Bigfoot being inter dimensional is one!

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Worth talking about.

Fruit of the Loom, Flintstones, ..., but I'd already looked there? Less so.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 hours ago, csspwns said:

I wouldn't consider you to be good with numbers as seen in previous threads but that's a whole different discussion. The point is that people who aren't knowledgable or scientifically-inclined are having reality changing experiences while people who have a good understanding of science and reality aren't having the same experiences or making the same extraordinary claims.

I have spent more hours on the Mandela Effect than almost anyone I know and as far as I can tell there is no single type of person anymore affected than others. The above may just be the way you prefer to view things.

16 hours ago, csspwns said:

 Our understanding of the world is constantly being pushed by those who show their evidence through numbers and demonstration rather than those who have no knowledge or evidence but continue making revolutionary claims and insisting their extraordinary experiences are reality. There is a reason why the world operates on and listens to the opinions of those who can back up their claims with empirical evidence vs those who state claims as fact but can't back it up without resorting to equally ridiculous explanations or more recently gross misuses of concepts in quantum physics. 

I am sure that no one beyond us is baffled, they would more likely to be interested but from a psychological or theoretical merging universes/realities standpoint, hence why we see no research on ME outside of psychological studies. ME hasn't passed any of the tests that would warrant serious scientific investigation on reality-shifting. 

What scientific tools could even be used to prove the Mandela Effect? I believe it is happening but beyond the scope of today's science. Science is great but I have interest too in things that seem to be beyond current science's reach like the Mandela Effect. If it tells us more about this reality, then I am interested. It's your prerogative to hold to scientism, but I find that to be an impoverishing approach in the face of so much that seems to beyond current explanation.

16 hours ago, csspwns said:

Has anything that you and fellow believers in the extraordinary believe to be true actually turn out to be the case or is your truth still limited to personal anecdotes and not worldwide acceptance? I'm talking about modern time stories such as in cryptozoology (species that biologically and ecologically can't exist like Bigfoot and Nessie) and the paranormal.

I think most of those things are beyond current science's ability to prove or disprove. But as I said I have interests beyond science. Each of those subjects is its own lengthy discussion.

16 hours ago, csspwns said:

As it stands, believers have to cater to the expectations and standards of science, not science has to find additional explanations for extraordinary claims by believers. The problem is that believers fail to reliably demonstrate their claims under scrutiny and believers also don't have the interest or capacity in becoming scientists or scientifically literate. We have scientists and parapsychologists who do research in the extraordinary but they usually come up with nothing significant or their best positive results have glaring problems in either the methodology, replication, or conclusions. With all things considered, how are we ever going to see eye to eye until you can prove your claims true or someone knowledgable about science and has extraordinary paranormal abilities (or evidence of such) can bring the two opposing sides together with empirical evidence?

Each one of those things you want to lump in one basket are again each a worthwhile discussion. To repeat my main point is that I believe the evidence has shown some very interesting things beyond the current knowledge of science and it would impoverish us not to take note and begin conjecturing. In science, observation can precede understanding. To not accept that statement would make one unscientific in my eyes.

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

To be honest, I think its either 2 things.

1.) He makes stuff up to support his beliefs

2.) He doesn't actually believe the stuff he claims to believe

 

I think it's

3.) He believes as he posts and sometimes receives odd reactions (defense mechanisms protecting a simple worldview)

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/27/2022 at 2:32 PM, papageorge1 said:

If you want to make the standard of evidence that I must study all the known perceptual errors possible before I can believe what I clearly saw, then I am not going to meet your standards. 

I of course never requested 'all' because it's absurd, seems like you should at least look into relevant ones though.  You were the one after all who claimed to have spent hours and hours looking into this, supposedly including related psychological topics. 

Here, to your story and that of the vitamin-bottle scrutinizer, I'll admit this took over a minute to find but way less than hours and hours:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_letter_effect

Quote

In cognitive psychology, the missing letter effect refers to the finding that, when people are asked to consciously detect target letters while reading text, they miss more letters in frequent function words (e.g. the letter "h" in "the") than in less frequent, content words.[1][2] Understanding how, why and where this effect arises becomes useful in explaining the range of cognitive processes that are associated with reading text.[2] The missing letter effect has also been referred to as the reverse word superiority effect, since it describes a phenomenon where letters in more frequent words fail to be identified, instead of letter identification benefitting from increased word frequency.

...

Despite the missing letter effect being a common phenomenon

And to something I was hypothesizing/pulling-out-of-my-bowels earlier, it looks like there is a connection between these kind of reading errors and the position of the letter in the text:

Quote

The position of letters in words and the position of suffix morphemes have an influence on word identification, letter detection, and the missing letter effect in texts.[20][21][22] The letters at the start and end of words, or the first and last letter of a word, contribute to how people read and recognize words.[21] When readers take part in the letter detection task and are given a connected text to read, there are less letter detection errors of a target letter (for example ‘t’) when it is situated as the initial letter of a word (e.g. tree) compared to when it is embedded into words (e.g. path).

And "(e.g., Flintstones)". 

I know I know, "I learned all about that on day 1 of my investigations and in my best judgment doesn't apply to me and the stories I've read on the internet from people I've never met", etc.

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

52 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I have spent more hours on the Mandela Effect than almost anyone I know and as far as I can tell there is no single type of person anymore affected than others. The above may just be the way you prefer to view things.

What scientific tools could even be used to prove the Mandela Effect? I believe it is happening but beyond the scope of today's science. Science is great but I have interest too in things that seem to be beyond current science's reach like the Mandela Effect. If it tells us more about this reality, then I am interested. It's your prerogative to hold to scientism, but I find that to be an impoverishing approach in the face of so much that seems to beyond current explanation.

I think most of those things are beyond current science's ability to prove or disprove. But as I said I have interests beyond science. Each of those subjects is its own lengthy discussion.

Each one of those things you want to lump in one basket are again each a worthwhile discussion. To repeat my main point is that I believe the evidence has shown some very interesting things beyond the current knowledge of science and it would impoverish us not to take note and begin conjecturing. In science, observation can precede understanding. To not accept that statement would make one unscientific in my eyes.

Someone that has no understanding go science often pretends something is "beyond the scope of today's science". That's just an excuse as to the failure of their position.

Science has actually observed, recorded, and studied in depth the causes of the ME. These are memory errors. They explain everything and very well.

The problem is that believers refuse to let go of their failed positions regardless of the mountains of evidence presented, The believer is a close minded fool. They can't admit to themselves that their belief is idiotic.

Just because you want to believve in some irrational notion has no bearing on whether it is true or  not. Take this bit of sophistry: "In science, observation can precede understanding. To not accept that statement would make one unscientific in my eyes."  What an inane comment. It is irrelevant since there are no observations.

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I think it's

3.) He believes as he posts and sometimes receives odd reactions (defense mechanisms protecting a simple worldview)

I believe it's

4) A gullible person relying on con artists and pretending from the start that the idea they want to discuss is 100% proven.

It's nothing but close mindedness, no logic, no understanding of science, etc.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I of course never requested 'all' because it's absurd, seems like you should at least look into relevant ones though.  You were the one after all who claimed to have spent hours and hours looking into this, supposedly including related psychological topics. 

Here, to your story and that of the vitamin-bottle scrutinizer, I'll admit this took over a minute to find but way less than hours and hours:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_letter_effect

And to something I was hypothesizing/pulling-out-of-my-bowels earlier, it looks like there is a connection between these kind of reading errors and the position of the letter in the text:

And "(e.g., Flintstones)". 

I know I know, "I learned all about that on day 1 of my investigations and in my best judgment doesn't apply to me and the stories I've read on the internet from people I've never met", etc.

This 'Missing Letter Effect' is good information, but I do not see how it applies to a case where someone is extremely interested in determining if there is a letter in a particular position and there is only one word in their whole consideration, and it is not a flash-by but a still check that can be double-checked as many times as you feel necessary. This is not one letter in a text block people are asked to read and pick out letters. We are not even reading but looking for a letter.

Even you, when I gave the 'Flintstones' and 'Flinstones' examples claimed to be essentially 100% positive if the controversial 't' was there in the two words. I think even you would say 'beyond reasonable doubt' which is as far as I go.

And this strange effect has been noted by an untold number of seemingly competent people. I think it is reasonable for me to believe something mysterious is happening 'beyond reasonable doubt' even giving tremendous home-field advantage to the normal functioning universe.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
21 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

This 'Missing Letter Effect' is good information, but I do not see how it applies...

 

 

That just about sums up every bit of absurdity that is supported/proposed by you.

When logical, contrasting ideas are presented you summarily dismiss them.

I personally believe the OP is trolling and doesn't actually believe the nonsense they post. They are looking to be contrarian for the sake of internet interaction.

Edited by Trelane
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.