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

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Trelane said:

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.

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

[Trelane]

Just now, papageorge1 said:

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

How is my summary of your contributions odd? It's most certainly not a defense mechanism at all. I've simply made observations based off of your various posts.

Nice try though.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

This 'Missing Letter Effect' is good information,

Yes it is, but since I found it in a matter of minutes and you give no indication of being aware of it, I wasn't, why doesn't this make you take a step back and say to yourself, 'ya know, I really don't know much at all about what psychology has to say about my missing letter experience I think was an ME'.  I took a look at one of the studies related to it and it quickly went over my head, why doesn't that indicate to you that maybe there is a satisfying answer to your experience within the realm of known psychology that you are just ignorant of as a layman? 

Again it's just a little arrogant, who cares what doctors of psychology studied for years and what they know, you've spent more hours than anyone you know on MEs after all and that's good enough.  You kinda remind me of Homer in Nuclear Physics class:

I'll go out on a pretty sturdy limb and say that I think I've spent more time looking into the 'in-the-box' explanations for MEs than you have by quite a margin.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

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.

I see your curiosity about explanations that are not what you'd like to be true apparently didn't extend to even reading a whole wikipedia article...

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

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.

Yes, because you were asking me in the present and most importantly if questioned, I had a copy of what you wrote on the post for everyone to verify against and to support my certainty.  You have nothing remotely comparable.

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

And this strange effect has been noted by an untold number of seemingly competent people.

Yes, as the article I quoted supports, 'a common phenomenon' that's so common it can be studied, and they are studying normal competent people.  And I emphasized this for a reason: "when people are asked to consciously detect target letters while reading text, they miss more letters".  They are specifically looking for letters, just like you and the vitamin-bottle whisperer did. 

Note most importantly what it does not say, it doesn't say when they consciously try to detect target letters that they miss letters and this result is unexplainable by psychology and a mystery; instead it implies that even when focusing your attention on looking for letters some still get missed.  Given this and all the other red flags we've gone over, I think we've adequately explained why an ME is not a good explanation for your experience given these far more likely in-the-box candidates.

[papageorge1]

23 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Yes it is, but since I found it in a matter of minutes and you give no indication of being aware of it, I wasn't, why doesn't this make you take a step back and say to yourself, 'ya know, I really don't know much at all about what psychology has to say about my missing letter experience I think was an ME'.  I took a look at one of the studies related to it and it quickly went over my head, why doesn't that indicate to you that maybe there is a satisfying answer to your experience within the realm of known psychology that you are just ignorant of as a layman? 

Again it's just a little arrogant, who cares what doctors of psychology studied for years and what they know, you've spent more hours than anyone you know on MEs after all and that's good enough.  You kinda remind me of Homer in Nuclear Physics class:

I'll go out on a pretty sturdy limb and say that I think I've spent more time looking into the 'in-the-box' explanations for MEs than you have by quite a margin.

I see your curiosity about explanations that are not what you'd like to be true apparently didn't extend to even reading a whole wikipedia article...

Yes, because you were asking me in the present and most importantly if questioned, I had a copy of what you wrote on the post for everyone to verify against and to support my certainty.  You have nothing remotely comparable.

Yes, as the article I quoted supports, 'a common phenomenon' that's so common it can be studied, and they are studying normal competent people.  And I emphasized this for a reason: "when people are asked to consciously detect target letters while reading text, they miss more letters".  They are specifically looking for letters, just like you and the vitamin-bottle whisperer did. 

Note most importantly what it does not say, it doesn't say when they consciously try to detect target letters that they miss letters and this result is unexplainable by psychology and a mystery; instead it implies that even when focusing your attention on looking for letters some still get missed.  Given this and all the other red flags we've gone over, I think we've adequately explained why an ME is not a good explanation for your experience given these far more likely in-the-box candidates.

Why did you say even you felt perfectly certain of the 't' or no 't' in my examples? (A point I brought up that you apparently chose to skip over in your reply)

I guess I do not feel there is even an iota of doubt for me to explore further. It seems to me an unworthy question to spend much time on. I will be on to more interesting questions.

Homer Simpson? Me?

Edited May 29, 2022 by papageorge1

[+Liquid Gardens]

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Why did you say even you felt perfectly certain of the 't' or no 't' in my examples? (A point I brought up that you apparently chose to skip over in your reply)

Uh no, look at the second to last quote in my post, my response to that is also included in what you quoted from me.  Although maybe that was an ME too...   Please go on about why your perception is very trustworthy...

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

I guess I do not feel there is even an iota of doubt for me to explore further. It seems to me an unworthy question to spend much time on.

Of course you don't feel that, you purposely don't look at the details of other explanations.  The word for that is 'bias'.

34 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Homer Simpson? Me?

Seems to be pretty close to the attitude you have towards experts (and an excuse to post one of my fave Homer bits...).

I think you should look further into this Missing Letter phenomenon, it does seem applicable, I was kinda surprised to find something that so specifically addresses your experience.  I was curious what psychology knew about reading issues and specifically started with trying to find out what is going on with dyslexia and the issues that can cause for reading and supposed letter-switching (it's very complicated), and that led me to stumbling on the specific Missing Letter stuff.  Anyway who knows, maybe if you actually looked into it you might find something to support an out-of-box explanation for your experience, maybe studies have shown that it is extremely unusual for people focusing like you were to miss letters and you'd have some support for why your experience is unexplained.  If it exists it would be stronger than any evidence you've ever provided for any ME, it would be something that doesn't just rely on your judgment.

Edited May 29, 2022 by Liquid Gardens

[papageorge1]

11 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

Uh no, look at the second to last quote in my post, my response to that is also included in what you quoted from me.  Although maybe that was an ME too...   Please go on about why your perception is very trustworthy...

Of course you don't feel that, you purposely don't look at the details of other explanations.  The word for that is 'bias'.

Seems to be pretty close to the attitude you have towards experts (and an excuse to post one of my fave Homer bits...).

I think you should look further into this Missing Letter phenomenon, it does seem applicable, I was kinda surprised to find something that so specifically addresses your experience.  I was curious what psychology knew about reading issues and specifically started with trying to find out what is going on with dyslexia and the issues that can cause for reading and supposed letter-switching (it's very complicated), and that led me to stumbling on the specific Missing Letter stuff.  Anyway who knows, maybe if you actually looked into it you might find something to support an out-of-box explanation for your experience, maybe studies have shown that it is extremely unusual for people focusing like you were to miss letters and you'd have some support for why your experience is unexplained.  If it exists it would be stronger than any evidence you've ever provided for any ME, it would be something that doesn't just rely on your judgment.

I also had ‘Fruit’ change to ‘Froot’ on me just like many many people. Really hard to optical illusion that much change. And both times I was specifically checking for the Fruit/Froot Mandela Effect controversy.

Since there was a few months lapse for me in noticing the change you can invoke the memory error hypothesis although I honestly think the chance of that being the correct explanation is very very slim. 

[+Liquid Gardens]

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Really hard to optical illusion that much change.

You say that like you've looked into it.

2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

And both times I was specifically checking for the Fruit/Froot Mandela Effect controversy.

As I thought we already touched on this fact may not be an argument for your accuracy, and may actually be the opposite.

[papageorge1]

53 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You say that like you've looked into it.

As I thought we already touched on this fact may not be an argument for your accuracy, and may actually be the opposite.

To add to that the ‘OO’ is actually two cereal rings. I’ll give myself that much credit.

Also, as I also say the cumulative weight of all these cases is just overwhelming to me.

[Trelane]

5 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

To add to that the ‘OO’ is actually two cereal rings. I’ll give myself that much credit.

Also, as I also say the cumulative weight of all these cases is just overwhelming to me.

There is no "cumulative weight". You're assuming this. Like everything else you parrot.

[papageorge1]

1 hour ago, Trelane said:

There is no "cumulative weight". You're assuming this. Like everything else you parrot.

So, every case and every experience would have to be wrong to keep things inside the box. Every one of us. Really?

[stereologist]

16 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

I also had ‘Fruit’ change to ‘Froot’ on me just like many many people. Really hard to optical illusion that much change. And both times I was specifically checking for the Fruit/Froot Mandela Effect controversy.

Since there was a few months lapse for me in noticing the change you can invoke the memory error hypothesis although I honestly think the chance of that being the correct explanation is very very slim. 

Again with you revealing how poor our memory is. Don't worry all people have memory errors. It's a consequence of how our brains have evolved.

Your claim of "being the correct explanation is very very slim" is you trying to attached probability to an event. That is you using trust over evidence again.

The ME is indistinguishable from memory errors. Memory errors explain it all. Memory mistakes, or memory errors are common.

[stereologist]

13 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

To add to that the ‘OO’ is actually two cereal rings. I’ll give myself that much credit.

Also, as I also say the cumulative weight of all these cases is just overwhelming to me.

There is no evidence. All you have is your cumulative wishful thinking. All you have is your insistence that your memory is correct.

This is your trust game. It is not what science does. Science does not trust the individual including the researcher themselves. It's about the evidence.

[stereologist]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So, every case and every experience would have to be wrong to keep things inside the box. Every one of us. Really?

Not everyone of us! You like to pretend that there are lots of people pretending that their memory errors are the ME.

All you are revealing is that you are ripe with memory errors

[Trelane]

8 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

So, every case and every experience would have to be wrong to keep things inside the box. Every one of us. Really?

Every alleged case, yes.

Yes, every single person who thinks this nonsense is real. Every. Single. One.

[ThereWeAreThen]

On 5/29/2022 at 7:02 PM, papageorge1 said:

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

4.) Claims to use logic for his "papameter" but doesnt as he only uses his bias

5.) Cites "psychic sources" as reliable evidence, as well as stories/hear say

6.) When someone either needs help or attention, people making threads about voices in their head etc, he enables them by saying it could actually be demons. Enabling them is highly dangerous.

[papageorge1]

7 hours ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

4.) Claims to use logic for his "papameter" but doesnt as he only uses his bias

5.) Cites "psychic sources" as reliable evidence, as well as stories/hear say

6.) When someone either needs help or attention, people making threads about voices in their head etc, he enables them by saying it could actually be demons. Enabling them is highly dangerous.

I think all those false claims really still fall under

Quote

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

 

Edited May 31, 2022 by papageorge1

[ThereWeAreThen]

1 hour ago, papageorge1 said:

I think all those false claims really still fall under

 

All your false claims and the false claims you "believe" are certaintly insane.

[papageorge1]

22 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

All your false claims and the false claims you "believe" are certaintly insane.

Then challenge my beliefs and the OP stories for substance and not personal insults. The mods would appreciate that. 

[ThereWeAreThen]

3 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Then challenge my beliefs and the OP stories for substance and not personal insults. The mods would appreciate that. 

There is literally nothing to challenge. People have challenged you and proved you wrong but you stlll insist on "psychic sources" and stories as evidence.

[XenoFish]

6 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Then challenge my beliefs and the OP stories for substance and not personal insults. The mods would appreciate that. 

So that you can move the goal post? 

[papageorge1]

34 minutes ago, ThereWeAreThen said:

There is literally nothing to challenge. People have challenged you and proved you wrong but you stlll insist on "psychic sources" and stories as evidence.

Proved me wrong??? Please present substance for those vacant claims or you’re wasting space here.

[Trelane]

6 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Then challenge my beliefs and the OP stories for substance and not personal insults. The mods would appreciate that. 

You propose and support the absurd with absolutely nothing of substance to back your claims.. Posters comment on the ridiculousness of your content and what is commented by you, not you directly. There's nothing egregious with that as far as I'm tracking.

Anyway, several posters have presented logical and reasonable explanations and reasons why ME believers (yourself included) are categorically wrong. 6 pages in with these explanations and you refuse to consider them and remain convinced that there was change to a letter in a cartoon/children's vitamin.  

The feeble counters to what others present (both here and elsewhere) have me convinced of a few items. However, I am only commenting on your content not you specifically. 

[papageorge1]

30 minutes ago, Trelane said:

You propose and support the absurd with absolutely nothing of substance to back your claims.. Posters comment on the ridiculousness of your content and what is commented by you, not you directly. There's nothing egregious with that as far as I'm tracking.

Anyway, several posters have presented logical and reasonable explanations and reasons why ME believers (yourself included) are categorically wrong. 6 pages in with these explanations and you refuse to consider them and remain convinced that there was change to a letter in a cartoon/children's vitamin.  

The feeble counters to what others present (both here and elsewhere) have me convinced of a few items. However, I am only commenting on your content not you specifically. 

Well I judge the skeptical responses to the Mandela Effect examples to be unsatisfactory.

To each their own judgment and no need for mature people to be insulting.

[Trelane]

So, you do admit to not using logic and reason in your problem-solving set. Wonderful.

No one has been insulting. You just feel targeted for being unable to articulate a coherent, logical answer. At this point, one would start making more deliberate considerations to how they would present such fantastical claims.

[papageorge1]

1 minute ago, Trelane said:

So, you do admit to not using logic and reason in your problem-solving set. Wonderful.

No one has been insulting. You just feel targeted for being unable to articulate a coherent, logical answer. At this point, one would start making more deliberate considerations to how they would present such fantastical claims.

I use logic and reason.

Saying I don’t is immature and insulting.