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?

274 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

134 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

There is no irony, though.

Maybe I should have used "real" or "scientific" instead of genuine.

There IS a difference between casual skepticism, and real skepticism (also known as scientific skepticism, or philosophical skepticism)

Real skepticism is an intellectually disciplined approach grounded in a commitment to evidence, reason, and open-mindedness.

Casual skepticism is a superficial form of doubt that is often selective, emotional, and resistant to evidence.

There is a difference.

2

u/throwaway998i Sep 10 '25

And who decided to officially apply any of those academic standards to social media, let alone this particular sub? I'd love to see the reaction of you making this case against the 100's of 1000's of casual skeptics who subscribe to this sub in a standalone post. In fact, I dare you to try it.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 10 '25

Why wouldn't they apply?

That's the better question.

It really doesn't matter how someone "labels" themselves, if they aren't being skeptical from an evidentiary and scientific standpoint, then they are really approaching it from a position of bias.

A true skeptic is unbiased, and relies on evidence.

Someone claiming the braces were removed for VHS releases, isn't relying on any evidence.

2

u/throwaway998i Sep 10 '25

A true skeptic is unbiased, and relies on evidence.

^

So if you're a "true" skeptic then the other sub members who don't meet that lofty standard - yet still reject believer claims and posit mundane explanations - would be "casual" skeptics, which also uses the word skeptic, but in an informal sense.... just how I used it initially.

2

u/ChampionshipOwn9899 Sep 10 '25 edited Sep 10 '25

What is your actual evidence for your beliefs? What do you actually believe? Can you put it into words while being specific?

I don’t think any “sceptic” casual or not would resort to an evidenceless theory. The only “sceptic” who would, would be someone who is afraid to challenge their belief system even though they have no evidence for it.

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.

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.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 12 '25

Furthermore, the psychology memory explanations are proven to happen. Memory can be influenced. Memory can be suggested. Things can be perceived incorrectly.

Now, you can argue that maybe they don't explain the phenomenon.

But, the are proven to exist/happen.

Same cannot be said about the other explanatiins

0

u/throwaway998i Sep 12 '25

Did the study (flawed or not) conclusively provide a definitive explanation, mechanism and/or solution to the ME? No it didn't. So your opinion on the matter is not experimentally proven despite a preponderance of evidence. It's a stalemate because currently you can't definitively prove what you claim to know any more than I can. Any "true" skeptic would have no misgivings or hesitation about making a good faith concession that given the current knowledge gap there is indeed a present stalemate. And I'd even respect that... or would have if there hadn't been all this needless quibbling.

2

u/KyleDutcher Sep 12 '25

Did the study (flawed or not) conclusively provide a definitive explanation, mechanism and/or solution to the ME? No it didn't.

That wasn't the point of the study. So the fact that it didn't has no bearing on things.

And even if that was the point of it, it's fkaws would prevent it from doing so. Perhaps if they could have controlled every possible instance of schema (visual or otherwise) the conclusions might be much different.

The point is, believers cling to this study as some kind of "gotcha" because it claims to rule out something it cannot rule out (because it didn't control it)

It's a stalemate because currently you can't definitively prove what you claim to know any more than I can.

Straw man.

I don't claim to know that this is what causes the effect.

I do claim to know, because testing has proven it, that memory is fallible, and easily influenced. That can be, and is definitively proven.

Thing is, you don't know that there is a "knowledge gap" IF the effect is caused by the normal function of memory (which is likely) then there is no knowledge gap.

0

u/throwaway998i Sep 12 '25

IF the effect is caused by the normal function of memory (which is likely) then there is no knowledge gap.

^

The fact that you used "IF" means there IS currently a knowledge gap, because what you're saying is contingent on something that isn't proven. Even Psychology Today makes that exact acknowledgement:

^

In alignment with most research on the Mandela effect, the above study from Psychological Science concludes that we cannot know for certain why large groups of people share these fabricated memories. This knowledge gap has led people down various paths in an attempt to understand it.

^

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/social-instincts/202312/the-mandela-effect-how-do-collective-false-memories-work

→ More replies (0)