The Mandela effect , alternative timelines
Discussion
Bit of a fun / not too serious topic hence, in the Lounge and not the science forum.
I usually doom scroll YouTube on my lunch break and by chance came across this video about CERN somehow altering our timelines which intrigued & amused me slightly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYZ_UrHfNGo
I've been saying to others how something definitely feels different the last few years that I just cant put my finger on. It just feels like the world is not a normal place anymore, Moreso since COVID, especially so since even more of the Epstein files were released and nobody is sitting in a prison cell (yet??)
at 13:00 minutes, have a look at the Mandela effect section and tell me with all honesty that you would have scored 100% correctly on this!
How can so many remember the same "errors"? Are we being gaslit by a huge Psyop, or am I really nuts for remembering the monopoly man had a Monocle!!
I usually doom scroll YouTube on my lunch break and by chance came across this video about CERN somehow altering our timelines which intrigued & amused me slightly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IYZ_UrHfNGo
I've been saying to others how something definitely feels different the last few years that I just cant put my finger on. It just feels like the world is not a normal place anymore, Moreso since COVID, especially so since even more of the Epstein files were released and nobody is sitting in a prison cell (yet??)
at 13:00 minutes, have a look at the Mandela effect section and tell me with all honesty that you would have scored 100% correctly on this!
How can so many remember the same "errors"? Are we being gaslit by a huge Psyop, or am I really nuts for remembering the monopoly man had a Monocle!!
STe_rsv4 said:
Lefty said:
try reading Recursion by Blake Crouch 
Looks right up my street that does! thanks!I think it was being made into a series on Netflix (which I dont have)
languagetimothy said:
STe_rsv4 said:
Lefty said:
try reading Recursion by Blake Crouch
Looks right up my street that does! thanks!I think it was being made into a series on Netflix (which I dont have)
zb said:
Dolly had braces in Moonraker, I'll die on that hill.
Literally just asked 5 of my colleagues in the office about this haha!To avoid confirmation Bias, I just asked them to describe Dolly, didn't mention the braces.
4 of them said braces and 1 wasn't sure. 2 of them said this is why Jaws found Dolly appealing, due to their shared "disability "I suppose.
On the subject of Recursion, since a few people here have read it (sorry to go off topic OP!) I always pictured Idris Elba playing Barry in a film or tv version. Jessica Chastain would be good as Helena. Marcus…hmmm, he’s obviously modelled in an Elon Musk type character but I figure somebody little, wiry and intense. Scoot McNairy maybe.
MikeM6 said:
zb said:
Dolly had braces in Moonraker, I'll die on that hill.
I'm sorry to hear of your upcoming demise, as it turns out that she did not, in fact, have braces.My own personal experience is the ending to Big, the film starring Forrest Gump. The first time I saw it, on video around 89/90, the ending was completely different to the versions I've seen subsequently. Others have also posted online about the 'proper' ending but apparently, it never ended that way,
If that's the case, how come myself and a few other scattered randoms around the globe can describe the same ending?
username_checksout said:
MikeM6 said:
zb said:
Dolly had braces in Moonraker, I'll die on that hill.
I'm sorry to hear of your upcoming demise, as it turns out that she did not, in fact, have braces.My own personal experience is the ending to Big, the film starring Forrest Gump. The first time I saw it, on video around 89/90, the ending was completely different to the versions I've seen subsequently. Others have also posted online about the 'proper' ending but apparently, it never ended that way,
If that's the case, how come myself and a few other scattered randoms around the globe can describe the same ending?
I've read about the Mandela effect and have always put it down to a product of mental schemata - the idea that we organize memory and knowledge by category and then use that material as reference for thought and imagination.
At a basic level, the schemata are like a bank of filing cabinets and an individual schema will fill a single drawer. One's mental drawer labelled 'coffee' will contain the various things one knows and remembers about coffee, but will also, at the front, contain an index card of sorts, on which will be written a couple of basic things. Referring to that allows one to quickly retrieve enough information about coffee for the purpose of forming a thought about coffee.
Try it: close your eyes and imagine coffee. An image of a cup and saucer might form in the mind's eye; you could think of a jar of granules or you might conjure a busy coffee shop or someone running for a train clasping a cardboard vessel full of the stuff.
What you think will be individual, but only up to a point. It'll be based on your own schema. Other people have different schemata, naturally, but there's limited room for variation - too far and the schema ceases to be related to coffee and becomes something else. Following that logic, if one were to ask a group of people to imagine coffee and then describe the experience, one would expect to hear the variations on the theme described in the preceding paragraph.
Where it gets interesting is with the narrowing of the schema. Coffee is a broad one, but we also have much narrower examples. Most people will have a schema for a ten pence piece or Darth Vader or a Mark Two Ford Fiesta and, if they do, there will be greater alignment between the imaginary images such schemata produce. There might be variations in the age of the coin, the cut of the costume or colour of the car, but, by and large, the primary elements will be the same.
Thus the Mandela effect. I think that certain things produce certain impressions or cause particular things to be associated with other things when it comes to the creation of a schema - think of it as mental shorthand. One might associate a lion with a ten pence piece, the colour black with Darth Vader and the hatchback body style with the Ford Fiesta. Doing so makes sense.
It's also possible that, in the process of schema creation, that one contrives false associations between the various memory 'dots' the schema itself joins together, as the dots themselves will draw from existing schemata.
To take Dolly, the character from Moonraker, as an example:
Memory 'dots' to be joined: female, young, spectacles, bookish (appearance), childish (hairstyle), large teeth.
Associated, existing schema: 1980s social reject (female). Somewhere within that: braces.
Braces then make their way, by association, to the 'Dolly' schema. When that is recalled, Dolly turns up wearing braces.
It's the same with Uncle Pennybags's monocle and the rest. It never was there, but stereotype causes people to form schemata in which it is there. Those feed 'genuine' memories in which the missing item is present.
At a basic level, the schemata are like a bank of filing cabinets and an individual schema will fill a single drawer. One's mental drawer labelled 'coffee' will contain the various things one knows and remembers about coffee, but will also, at the front, contain an index card of sorts, on which will be written a couple of basic things. Referring to that allows one to quickly retrieve enough information about coffee for the purpose of forming a thought about coffee.
Try it: close your eyes and imagine coffee. An image of a cup and saucer might form in the mind's eye; you could think of a jar of granules or you might conjure a busy coffee shop or someone running for a train clasping a cardboard vessel full of the stuff.
What you think will be individual, but only up to a point. It'll be based on your own schema. Other people have different schemata, naturally, but there's limited room for variation - too far and the schema ceases to be related to coffee and becomes something else. Following that logic, if one were to ask a group of people to imagine coffee and then describe the experience, one would expect to hear the variations on the theme described in the preceding paragraph.
Where it gets interesting is with the narrowing of the schema. Coffee is a broad one, but we also have much narrower examples. Most people will have a schema for a ten pence piece or Darth Vader or a Mark Two Ford Fiesta and, if they do, there will be greater alignment between the imaginary images such schemata produce. There might be variations in the age of the coin, the cut of the costume or colour of the car, but, by and large, the primary elements will be the same.
Thus the Mandela effect. I think that certain things produce certain impressions or cause particular things to be associated with other things when it comes to the creation of a schema - think of it as mental shorthand. One might associate a lion with a ten pence piece, the colour black with Darth Vader and the hatchback body style with the Ford Fiesta. Doing so makes sense.
It's also possible that, in the process of schema creation, that one contrives false associations between the various memory 'dots' the schema itself joins together, as the dots themselves will draw from existing schemata.
To take Dolly, the character from Moonraker, as an example:
Memory 'dots' to be joined: female, young, spectacles, bookish (appearance), childish (hairstyle), large teeth.
Associated, existing schema: 1980s social reject (female). Somewhere within that: braces.
Braces then make their way, by association, to the 'Dolly' schema. When that is recalled, Dolly turns up wearing braces.
It's the same with Uncle Pennybags's monocle and the rest. It never was there, but stereotype causes people to form schemata in which it is there. Those feed 'genuine' memories in which the missing item is present.
Glitzy Mitzy said:
I've read about the Mandela effect and have always put it down to a product of mental schemata - the idea that we organize memory and knowledge by category and then use that material as reference for thought and imagination.
At a basic level, the schemata are like a bank of filing cabinets and an individual schema will fill a single drawer. One's mental drawer labelled 'coffee' will contain the various things one knows and remembers about coffee, but will also, at the front, contain an index card of sorts, on which will be written a couple of basic things. Referring to that allows one to quickly retrieve enough information about coffee for the purpose of forming a thought about coffee.
Try it: close your eyes and imagine coffee. An image of a cup and saucer might form in the mind's eye; you could think of a jar of granules or you might conjure a busy coffee shop or someone running for a train clasping a cardboard vessel full of the stuff.
What you think will be individual, but only up to a point. It'll be based on your own schema. Other people have different schemata, naturally, but there's limited room for variation - too far and the schema ceases to be related to coffee and becomes something else. Following that logic, if one were to ask a group of people to imagine coffee and then describe the experience, one would expect to hear the variations on the theme described in the preceding paragraph.
Where it gets interesting is with the narrowing of the schema. Coffee is a broad one, but we also have much narrower examples. Most people will have a schema for a ten pence piece or Darth Vader or a Mark Two Ford Fiesta and, if they do, there will be greater alignment between the imaginary images such schemata produce. There might be variations in the age of the coin, the cut of the costume or colour of the car, but, by and large, the primary elements will be the same.
Thus the Mandela effect. I think that certain things produce certain impressions or cause particular things to be associated with other things when it comes to the creation of a schema - think of it as mental shorthand. One might associate a lion with a ten pence piece, the colour black with Darth Vader and the hatchback body style with the Ford Fiesta. Doing so makes sense.
It's also possible that, in the process of schema creation, that one contrives false associations between the various memory 'dots' the schema itself joins together, as the dots themselves will draw from existing schemata.
To take Dolly, the character from Moonraker, as an example:
Memory 'dots' to be joined: female, young, spectacles, bookish (appearance), childish (hairstyle), large teeth.
Associated, existing schema: 1980s social reject (female). Somewhere within that: braces.
Braces then make their way, by association, to the 'Dolly' schema. When that is recalled, Dolly turns up wearing braces.
It's the same with Uncle Pennybags's monocle and the rest. It never was there, but stereotype causes people to form schemata in which it is there. Those feed 'genuine' memories in which the missing item is present.
Interesting Theory, but I don't believe when I first saw Moonraker as a 7/8 year old, my brain will have been as developed enough as you describe in order to "fill in the blanks" for that scene. For whatever reason, I distinctly remember seeing braces when she smiled and this is why Jaws smiles back at her, as he recognises that she has "metal teeth" the same as him, and why he falls in love with her. Her smiling with no braces just wouldn't have the same effect on him.At a basic level, the schemata are like a bank of filing cabinets and an individual schema will fill a single drawer. One's mental drawer labelled 'coffee' will contain the various things one knows and remembers about coffee, but will also, at the front, contain an index card of sorts, on which will be written a couple of basic things. Referring to that allows one to quickly retrieve enough information about coffee for the purpose of forming a thought about coffee.
Try it: close your eyes and imagine coffee. An image of a cup and saucer might form in the mind's eye; you could think of a jar of granules or you might conjure a busy coffee shop or someone running for a train clasping a cardboard vessel full of the stuff.
What you think will be individual, but only up to a point. It'll be based on your own schema. Other people have different schemata, naturally, but there's limited room for variation - too far and the schema ceases to be related to coffee and becomes something else. Following that logic, if one were to ask a group of people to imagine coffee and then describe the experience, one would expect to hear the variations on the theme described in the preceding paragraph.
Where it gets interesting is with the narrowing of the schema. Coffee is a broad one, but we also have much narrower examples. Most people will have a schema for a ten pence piece or Darth Vader or a Mark Two Ford Fiesta and, if they do, there will be greater alignment between the imaginary images such schemata produce. There might be variations in the age of the coin, the cut of the costume or colour of the car, but, by and large, the primary elements will be the same.
Thus the Mandela effect. I think that certain things produce certain impressions or cause particular things to be associated with other things when it comes to the creation of a schema - think of it as mental shorthand. One might associate a lion with a ten pence piece, the colour black with Darth Vader and the hatchback body style with the Ford Fiesta. Doing so makes sense.
It's also possible that, in the process of schema creation, that one contrives false associations between the various memory 'dots' the schema itself joins together, as the dots themselves will draw from existing schemata.
To take Dolly, the character from Moonraker, as an example:
Memory 'dots' to be joined: female, young, spectacles, bookish (appearance), childish (hairstyle), large teeth.
Associated, existing schema: 1980s social reject (female). Somewhere within that: braces.
Braces then make their way, by association, to the 'Dolly' schema. When that is recalled, Dolly turns up wearing braces.
It's the same with Uncle Pennybags's monocle and the rest. It never was there, but stereotype causes people to form schemata in which it is there. Those feed 'genuine' memories in which the missing item is present.
As for the monocle on the monopoly man, cast your mind back to Ace venture pet detective. Jim Carrey sees the well dressed man at the base of the stairs and immediately calls him out as the "monopoly guy" - he wasn't wearing a bowler hat, he merely had a moustache and was holding a monocle.
Surely the monocle being present is an immediate recognition to a certain character? No monocle, and hes just dressed like any other "aristocrat"?
Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff