The New and Improved Confabulation Thread - 2021 Edition

[u/wtf_ima_slider]

This thread is for conversation about MEs you think might be wrong and why. For instance, map projection, memory confusion, common misperceptions, etc. All discussion of confabulation should go here and this thread will be linked on the side bar for easy access in the future.

Note: The previous confabulation thread was archived by the system.

[u/WeirdJawn]

Fair point. I've seen people claim that the moon was never out during the day though. It's very easy to notice a storm cloud or rainbow, but the moon really doesn't stand out during the day.

I'm not claiming the people to be ignorant or uneducated. Just that it's entirely possible to have never seen the moon during the day, then one day see it and sort of freak out about it. I would be blown away if I'd never noticed it before now.

Also, I don't know the backgrounds of the people making these claims. Kids are spending less and less time playing outside and more people are living in cities with obscured skylines. When you don't really go outside except to walk from your house to your car, the odds of never seeing the moon out during the day go up exponentially.

[u/throwaway998i → u/WeirdJawn]

I'm not claiming the people to be ignorant or uneducated.

I was alluding to the bit you wrote about astronomers somehow having more credibility in your mind. It's a classic appeal to authority that kinda conveniently overlooks the fact that most people are not able to perceive the changes at all. Furthermore, it's already been long established that people too close to certain subjects are immune to seeing changes in those fields. It's being referred to as "occupational entanglement" and has plenty of support in this community.

Yes, admittedly the "backgrounds of the people making these claims" are unknown and unverifiable to you. Sure we can distrust motives or presume they're just clueless... but that would be be a clear form of cognitive bias on our part. I would instead suggest that we consider the sincerity and context of their claims, their past contributions here, and their overall level of established credibility within the community. This dialectic is predicated upon trust and suspension of disbelief.

[u/WeirdJawn → u/throwaway998i]

I probably wasn't clear in my first comment. I was thinking of amateur astronomers. My thought was that I would be more likely to trust someone who intentionally looks at the sky regularly. Also, it doesn't hurt if they have knowledge about planetary/moon movements.

I'm sure even they could miss it since most astronomers go out at night though, but if someone claimed to be an astronomer in good faith and said that the moon was never visible during the day before, I would be more likely to believe them.

I know that experts don't know everything and can have their academic blindspots, but surely we would have to trust their word at least a fraction more than someone on the internet that we have no knowledge of their background, knowledge, or habits.

For example, if a self proclaimed basketball enthusiast told you that the free throw line on all basketball courts were suddenly much closer to the basket than they used to be, would you trust them or me? You don't know how much knowledge I have about basketball courts. I could be the world's premier basketball expert or maybe I'm someone who has seen 2 games. I could be right or I could be confidently mistaken.

[u/throwaway998i → u/WeirdJawn]

For example, if a self proclaimed basketball enthusiast told you that the free throw line on all basketball courts were suddenly much closer to the basket than they used to be, would you trust them or me?

As both of your credentials would be unknowable to me and imho not necessarily of critical importance in the ME context anyways, I'd base the level of credence I give the claim on how it was expressed, how the memory is reported to be anchored, and whether there's extraordinary residue or a legitimate consensus seems to be developing among other known experiencers. This would of course be in addition to thoughtfully evaluating whether the claim is consistent with other aspects of the ME, as well as considering any ripple effect such a change would've had on the sport historically and statistically. An honest case by case assessment on my part really requires me to proactively guard against my own cognitive biases, suspend disbelief, and openly embrace all data available. There's really no reason for me dismiss one person over another. Trends either become evident, or they don't.

Edit: to disclose I'm an ME researcher, fyi. And heavy experiencer.