• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Merged The MANDELA Effect.

Chanakya said:
Haven''t read beyond the very short OP, not even the link TBH. Will later, I'd heard of this actually, and find this interesting. This obvious point may have been raised already, and indeed that might have been the whole point of OP's tongue in cheek wording (or not, I don't know, basis just the OP), but: That scientists "can't" explain this, might that itself be an example of the Mandela effect?

It could be they already have. It could be they haven't even tried, so far, not rigorously, to explain it. "Can't" implies this is a problem they've grappled with, but haven't managed to nail it yet. Is that actually true?

Also, isn't this the same as urban legends?
Click to expand...

Sort of, except that you don't have legions of people insisting that the urban legend is actually true because they personally experienced it, and that reality changed to make it false, and THAT's why they can't prove it. Something something CERN HAARP I know I can't be wrong because my memory of it is really strong and emotional!
 
gnome said:
Sort of, except that you don't have legions of people insisting that the urban legend is actually true because they personally experienced it, and that reality changed to make it false, and THAT's why they can't prove it. Something something CERN HAARP I know I can't be wrong because my memory of it is really strong and emotional!
Click to expand...


Right, the personal memory part. Agreed, that's distinct from your generic urban legend, thanks for spelling it out!

Read the link in that article just now, the one linked in William Parcher's post that I'd quoted earlier. Interesting. Doesn't seem particularly "can't explain", though. But interesting, the whats and wherefores of it.

(As for Mandela specifically, I'd say someone subject to that specific "effect", as far as Mandela himself I mean to say, has to be an ignoramus living under a rock. Who the eff who knows the least bit about anything at all isn't aware of Mandela's Nobel, and his having become the Prez of SA?)


-----

Heh, a personal (and very teensy) Mandela effect right here. I was interested in the thing, but was in a rush, so quickly read the first post on this page. Somehow I was sure this was a recent (and short) one-pager thread, with that post the OP. I see now it is a much older, longer thread.

And also, while I still haven't had time to read much of this thread, now as I type this comment, I get this feeling that I've already commented here. But that's unlikely, because in that case this thread would have been in my Subscriptions. Which it wasn't. (On the other hand, I may have pressed "Unsubscribe" by mistake, just maybe. Or I may actually have commented on this Mandela thing in some other thread here. Or, of course, maybe I just misremembered.)

...Where I'm going with this recounting of my personal (teensy) Mandela thing, is it doesn't seem to be that much of a big deal. Just people misremembering is all, false memories are not that uncommon. And the commonality part could simply be a matter of echoing what one's heard said. Like I said, I don't really see much of a "can't explain" there.

...But of course, that's just my off-the-cuff take, and based off of reading just this one article. Happy to correct my view, if that off-the-cuff view turns out mistaken after all, and if it turns out that this thing is actually something standout that's defying explanation despite lots of research being aimed at it.
 
Seeing the thread (again) and having just read the linked recent article, I came back into it thinking I may have started the thread a day ago and forgotten I'd done it. It's happened before...
 
I go to thinking about the Berenstain/Berenstein Bears one, one of if not THE Ur Example outside of the Trope Namer itself and an idea occured to me.

Names that end in "Stein" are pretty common. Names that end in "Stain" much less so.

So if you're gonna misremember Berenstain, you're gonna misremember it AS Berenstein. You're not gonna read a Berenstain book and years later remember if as the Berenstoine Bears or something like that.

I think that is what, sometimes, causes the Mandela Effect; a commonly misremembered thing that for some reason we misremember THE SAME WAY.
 
JoeMorgue said:
I go to thinking about the Berenstain/Berenstein Bears one, one of if not THE Ur Example outside of the Trope Namer itself and an idea occured to me.

Names that end in "Stein" are pretty common. Names that end in "Stain" much less so.

So if you're gonna misremember Berenstain, you're gonna misremember it AS Berenstein. You're not gonna read a Berenstain book and years later remember if as the Berenstoine Bears or something like that.

I think that is what, sometimes, causes the Mandela Effect; a commonly misremembered thing that for some reason we misremember THE SAME WAY.
Click to expand...
That's exactly it, its not a mystery. Folks just remember things in ways that make sense not in ways that don't.
 
ahhell said:
That's exactly it, its not a mystery. Folks just remember things in ways that make sense not in ways that don't.
Click to expand...

Huh! totally implausible. In fact, we all keep jumping timelines and ending up in parallel universes where the only things that are different are inconsequential details... Obviously, we swap places with our identical clones so there's not two of us cluttering up one universe, and then they experience the same insignificant differences back in our old universe.

See? it all works out...

Wait, didn't this used to be the International Sceptics Forums?
 
I'm sorry that I can't attribute the source to this one, but when I was reading about the way human memory works, I came across a story by a physiologist (I think) who had a personal experience that demonstrates the problem.

He was on holiday with his wife, a bit of a second honeymoon, in a country where there was a serious volcanic eruption.

He can prove that they were there at the same time, he has their receipts etc.

He clearly remembers how he found out that the volcano was erupting.

He and his wife were in a hot-tub, on a balcony, with a clear view of the volcano, and it suddenly erupted.

Unfortunately, his wife also remembers how they found out.

She was shopping with her husband in a shopping mall, and they suddenly realised that all the TV sets were showing a volcano erupting, and people were starting to run around in the mall. The found someone who spoke excellent English, who explained that the local volcano was erupting and that they needed to get to safety.

The only thing they can agree on, is that they were there, and that they were together when they found out.

Something as significant as a volcanic eruption and having to leave a country, you'd think that you could rely on the memories of two people that were there...

... but apparently not.

Part of his explanation, is that memories are not fixed, every time we recall something, the brain makes changes, the more often we repeat a story, the more likely it is that the details will be wrong.

I know from my own experience, of looking at old diaries (particularly work diaries) that I've written, I find myself thinking: "Who is this guy? And how did he know all this stuff?"

Some entries may as well be written in code for all the sense I'd been able to glean from them 20 years later. (Loads of technical jargon about forgotten technologies).

If you didn't write it down at the time, or record it in some other way at the time, chances are, your recollection is wrong. Note that every person in the world (who hasn't studied this stuff) believes that their own memory is correct and everything else is wrong.
 
dlorde said:
Huh! totally implausible. In fact, we all keep jumping timelines and ending up in parallel universes where the only things that are different are inconsequential details... Obviously, we swap places with our identical clones so there's not two of us cluttering up one universe, and then they experience the same insignificant differences back in our old universe.



See? it all works out...



Wait, didn't this used to be the International Sceptics Forums?
Click to expand...
You call New Zealand not being a real place an "inconsequential detail"? You monster. [emoji35]

[emoji12]
 
novaphile said:
I'm sorry that I can't attribute the source to this one, but when I was reading about the way human memory works, I came across a story by a physiologist (I think) who had a personal experience that demonstrates the problem.

He was on holiday with his wife, a bit of a second honeymoon, in a country where there was a serious volcanic eruption.

He can prove that they were there at the same time, he has their receipts etc.

He clearly remembers how he found out that the volcano was erupting.

He and his wife were in a hot-tub, on a balcony, with a clear view of the volcano, and it suddenly erupted.

Unfortunately, his wife also remembers how they found out.

She was shopping with her husband in a shopping mall, and they suddenly realised that all the TV sets were showing a volcano erupting, and people were starting to run around in the mall. The found someone who spoke excellent English, who explained that the local volcano was erupting and that they needed to get to safety.

The only thing they can agree on, is that they were there, and that they were together when they found out.

Something as significant as a volcanic eruption and having to leave a country, you'd think that you could rely on the memories of two people that were there...

... but apparently not.

Part of his explanation, is that memories are not fixed, every time we recall something, the brain makes changes, the more often we repeat a story, the more likely it is that the details will be wrong.

I know from my own experience, of looking at old diaries (particularly work diaries) that I've written, I find myself thinking: "Who is this guy? And how did he know all this stuff?"

Some entries may as well be written in code for all the sense I'd been able to glean from them 20 years later. (Loads of technical jargon about forgotten technologies).

If you didn't write it down at the time, or record it in some other way at the time, chances are, your recollection is wrong. Note that every person in the world (who hasn't studied this stuff) believes that their own memory is correct and everything else is wrong.
Click to expand...

Definitely. It's scary how malleable memory is. It can fade if you don't reinforce it by talking about it... and if you talk about it wrong, you can remember it wrong.
 
gnome said:
Definitely. It's scary how malleable memory is. It can fade if you don't reinforce it by talking about it... and if you talk about it wrong, you can remember it wrong.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure this is the origin of most legends. Something occurs - a story is told about it, based on the flawed memory of someone who witnessed it. Then someone who didn't witness it, but only heard the story, retells it. They add their own spin on the story. After generations of Telephone the legend bears little relationship to what actually happened.
 
arthwollipot said:
I'm pretty sure this is the origin of most legends. Something occurs - a story is told about it, based on the flawed memory of someone who witnessed it. Then someone who didn't witness it, but only heard the story, retells it. They add their own spin on the story. After generations of Telephone the legend bears little relationship to what actually happened.
Click to expand...


It makes me wonder how many premonition stories are really just misremembering the order of events associated with a traumatic experience.

"I suddenly sensed something was wrong with my mother. Then the phone rang and it was my brother telling me she'd died."

"The phone rang and it was my brother telling me my mother had died. I suddenly sensed something was wrong with her."

The second is quite a bit less eerie.


ETA: Yeah, this really could explain quite a few of these kinds of "experience," even for non-traumatic events.

"I was wondering what my old friend Joe, who I hadn't thought about or talked to in years, had been up to recently. Then I opened up a magazine I'd bought, and saw a picture of Joe in an article!"

"I was opening up a magazine I'd bought, and saw a picture of Joe, old friend who I hadn't thought about or talked to in years, in an article. Then I wondered what he'd been up to recently."
 
Last edited:
novaphile said:
I'm sorry that I can't attribute the source to this one, but when I was reading about the way human memory works, I came across a story by a physiologist (I think) who had a personal experience that demonstrates the problem.

[ couple's volcanic experience ]

The only thing they can agree on, is that they were there, and that they were together when they found out.

Something as significant as a volcanic eruption and having to leave a country, you'd think that you could rely on the memories of two people that were there...

... but apparently not.

Part of his explanation, is that memories are not fixed, every time we recall something, the brain makes changes, the more often we repeat a story, the more likely it is that the details will be wrong.

I know from my own experience, of looking at old diaries (particularly work diaries) that I've written, I find myself thinking: "Who is this guy? And how did he know all this stuff?"

Some entries may as well be written in code for all the sense I'd been able to glean from them 20 years later. (Loads of technical jargon about forgotten technologies).

If you didn't write it down at the time, or record it in some other way at the time, chances are, your recollection is wrong. Note that every person in the world (who hasn't studied this stuff) believes that their own memory is correct and everything else is wrong.
Click to expand...
Yes, there was a 'National Study of 9/11 Memories' conducted (sadly, the original link seems to be dead) that showed just how memories distort over time. Fortunately, several popular science journals & websites covered it, e.g. Scientific American: 911 Memory accuracy.

I've reconsidered many of my early memories and suspect that a number of them are not plausible as I remember them - some may be combinations of actual events, some distortions, and some dream recollections.

I've collected a few links about memory reliability that may be of interest:

Why I’m Skeptical of Eyewitnesses
The ‘Mandela Effect’ and How Your Mind is Playing Tricks on You
How Much of Your Memory is True?
Memory Distortion & Invention
False Autobiographical Memories
Seven Sins of Memory
The Memory Doctor*
How accurate are Memories of 9/11?
Memory is Unreliable - and it could be worse
List of Memory Biases
 
Last edited:
"Why can't scientists explain it?" I'm pretty sure they can. The fact that human memory can be bad isn't exactly poorly documented.
 
I only recently had a taste of just how fallible human memories really are- my mother was most insistant that my old room when I was a kid, then a teenager, had a stand alone wardrobe, when it actually had builtins...
To the point she got quite upset that we were 'lying to her'
But yes, it did indeed have builtin wardrobes...
(the roof hatch into the roof space was inside the top of one of them, and as a young teenager, I used to climb up the shelves like a ladder to get to that hatch- it was my 'hidey hole' for those unsavoury magazines all teenage boys used to get when they could LOL)
:D
My BROTHER had a standalone wardrobe in his room, but mine had builtins... (indeed the doors on mine were sliding glass mirrors on all three doors... lol)
Yet her memory is that we both had standalone ones....
 
This is one I've mentioned in different contexts before and I get this this is going to sound insane to anyone, I dunno 35 or younger give or take, but watching a movie over and over used to be hard.

VCRs used to be super-expensive (For like a year we didn't own a VCR and actually RENTED the VCR whenever we wanted to watch movies at home), movies used to be a lot more scattershot as to what got released on home media, when movies got shown on TV they were nearly always edited and often used alternative takes/deleted scenes.

I wonder how much of movie related "Mandela Effects" are from people seeing a movie once and then "rewatching it" not by watching the movie but by reading a novelization or one of those "Watch and Read" books/tapes that used to be popular with children and the memories getting confused?
 
None of this matters though until someone figures out where "I wanted Pretty in Pink Molly Ringwald, not 16 Candles Molly Ringwald!" came from.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom