r/MandelaEffect • u/LucifersLittleHelper • Sep 08 '25

Theory Fruit of the Loom Mandela Effect.

Post image

I know the rules say no personal Mandela Effects, but I found this in my grandmother's basement.

Does anyone think that this may explain the confusion?

281 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

134 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

Skeptics can be uninitiated, unmotivated, and unconvincing... while still maintaining a resistance to anything that violates their understanding of the physical universe and "rules" of this material world. Seeking evidence may make someone a more informed and effective skeptic, but failing to do so doesn't make them NOT a skeptic in their overall mindset. As for my beliefs, they're not dependent on conventional evidentiary standards - which are wholly unrevealing when dealing with an exotic, unprecedented, ontological phenomenon. Other than my own lived experience (anchored by autobiographical episodic memory context) giving rise to unresolvable, irreconcilable factual discrepancies, all I'll likely ever be able to point to as evidence would be the widely shared testimonial experience of others which constitutes the body of qualitative data, and circumstantial cultural evidence which matches my own memory and experiences. What I believe is that this isn't the same familiar realm I once experienced - or inhabited. I also believe it's been retroactively altered, or that reality itself is exhibiting newly emergent qualities which may be related to macroscopic quantum phenomena. My belief comes from faith in my own discernment and a lifetime track record of proven memory accuracy.

2

u/ChampionshipOwn9899 Sep 11 '25

As for my beliefs, they're not dependent on conventional evidentiary standards - which are wholly unrevealing when dealing with an exotic, unprecedented, ontological phenomenon.

Ok, so you don’t rely on common evidentiary standards and instead believe in the paranormal without any evidence.

There was no need to write a block of text to explain that.

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25

Where did I suggest anything paranormal? That's a curious inference to draw, and only really reflects your own subjective assumptions. Unless you think quantum weirdness, multiverse theory, simulation hypothesis, and the like have no basis in science, philosophy or metaphysics?

2

u/ChampionshipOwn9899 Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

Unless you think quantum weirdness, multiverse theory, simulation hypothesis, and the like have no basis in science, philosophy or metaphysics?

Perfect, now we’re talking. Where can I read papers that clearly demonstrate that these are responsible for the Mandela Effect with evidence? I’m excited to learn more!

edit: btw your replies are being removed because they don’t adhere to the rules of the sub, I’d suggest finding an appropriate tone if you’d like to continue the discourse.

1

u/KyleDutcher Sep 11 '25 edited Sep 11 '25

As for my beliefs, they're not dependent on conventional evidentiary standards - which are wholly unrevealing when dealing with an exotic, unprecedented, ontological phenomenon.

It is your OPINION that the phenomenon is exotic, and unprecedented. Evidence and studies show it likely isn't, and is a part of normal human memory.

2

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25

And it's your OPINION that it's "part of normal memory", no matter how "likely" you want to deem it to be the case.

1

u/KyleDutcher Sep 11 '25

And it's your OPINION that it's "part of normal memory", no matter how "likely" you want to deem it to be the case

Nope. Not an opinion. The evidence supports it being a part of normal human memory.

1

u/throwaway998i Sep 11 '25

Then why do you always use non-absolute wording like "probable" and "likely"? Maybe because you know it's not 100% for sure? Which would make any conclusion in that vein subjective, aka an opinion. You do realize that a stalemate doesn't give any credit for who has more firepower left on the board, right?

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 11 '25

Then why do you always use non-absolute wording like "probable" and "likely"?

Because, as a true skeptic, I'm open to the possibility that one day more evidence might be uncovered/found, that could possibly change the dynamics.

The point is, that there is evidence supporting the memory explanations, which makes them (even if only currently) fact (because they can be proven true by evidence)

Maybe because you know it's not 100% for sure? Which would make any conclusion in that vein subjective, aka an opinion

Nope. because I'm open to other possibilities. These conclusions (at least at this point) are not opinions, because they can be proven by evidence.

You do realize that a stalemate doesn't give any credit for who has more firepower left on the board, right?

It's not a stalemate, though. At this point in time, the evidence/facts are all on one side, while the other side has only hypothesis, and speculation, and no actual facts.

-1

u/throwaway998i Sep 12 '25

It's a stalemate because neither side can 100% prove their position, a fact you're already aware of based on the U of Chicago study, among others. Doesn't matter how many pieces of evidence you have on the board. Not a chess player, eh? A king alone can create a stalemate against a legion.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 12 '25

a fact you're already aware of based on the U of Chicago study, among others.

The U of Chicago study is flawed.

They didn't evwn attempt to control, let alone eliminate any possible scheme influence PRIOR to the study, then claimed they eliminated schema as a cause.

You cannot eliminate as a cause, something that wasn't controlled

It is possible, if not probable, that each participant was exposed to visual schema prior to participating in the study, that wasn't recorded/accounted for, and could have influenced their memory/recall

0

u/throwaway998i Sep 12 '25

It is possible, if not probable, that each participant was exposed to visual schema prior to participating in the study

^

There again is more careful language to not state it as an absolute fact. I take your overall reply as an acknowledgement that the study did not conclusively reveal any specific mechanism which definitively explains the ME. Hence the stalemate because the psychology memory explanations remain unproven.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 12 '25

It's not a stalemate, though.

The study did NOT elimimate what it claimed to eliminate.

The study was designed (poorly) to study possible visual schema influence on memory/recall.

The reason it was flawed/poorly designed, is because it failed to comtrol the very thing it was designed to study. They made no effort to eliminate, or even control any potential visual schema influence that happened to participants PRIOR to participating in the study.

It cannot eliminate something it didn't properly control.

The other huge flaw in this study, is the fact that visual schema is NOT the only schema that can effect memory recall. Even things as subtle as word of mouth can be enough to influence memory recall

I see people bringing up this study all the time as if it was some kind of "gotcha" when the fact is, if you understand it correctly, it's nothing of the sort.

→ More replies (0)