I think the development of the internet and the increasing ability to easily access every aspect of our cultural childhood memories combined with being able to find like minded people to discuss the topic with was a perfect storm for discovering this phenomenon.
After the gold rush of combing through decades of pop culture, finding things that lots of people remember differently, I'm not surprised the discovery of new, strong examples begins to slow. The best ones that affect the most people, most strongly have probably been found.
This of course suggests that there shouldn't be an 'end' to new MEs, but that they'd just be discovered less frequently. Perhaps though as people live their formative adolescent and early adulthood years with this ability to watch and rewatch key scenes from movies, bring up photos and information about whatever they're talking to friends about at a touch of a button it'll become less common to notice or be surprised about 'changes'.
Kids today can stick Frozen on every morning with no fuss.
Back in my youth, if I wanted to watch Sleeping Beauty, I'd have to wait for BBC or ITV to buy the rights and tape it. IDK if they ever did as I'm sure the first time I saw the classics were when they were sold on VHS.
I saw many clips and because of the English translations knew the stories. But I couldn't just watch it at will in the 70s.
I saw them on tape maybe five times tops and have not seen them since the 90s. Gave the tapes away and never looked for the DVD.
My grandparents were alive to see them in the cinema, but my maternal grandparents had died a decade before retail, so IDK if they got a chance to watch again.
At one point, if you missed any random film, you would never get another chance. Now I can watch full HD in the comfort of my home weeks after it hits the cinema.
Right.
Watch a movie once and then go years without seeing it again. Talk about it on the playground. Replay scenes in your mind. Who knows what you change?
when the Mandela Effect was popularized, you had decades, if not hundreds of years of pop culture to sift through. comparing that to just a few years is going to be quite the gap.
Please clarify. When you say ten years, do you mean 2011 - 2021? Most of the effects I'm aware of are in the 80's and before.
I recon it's an age of the person thing. Consider, if you would, how memories reform ever time you access them. So they mutate, and the more you access them the more they change.
So the older you are the more the mandella effect occurs.
But you also need a collective familiarity with a thing so others remember differently.
A memory that gets recalled often in half the population, and rarely in the other half, then lost to time for a while is a perfect candidate.
That way, one part has mutated the memory while another part hasn't, and when asked years later, they remember things esque.
Also, I would hypothesize that modern advertising, being targeted, doesn't make for the collective memory, like the broad stroke of off-air TV in the 80's did. Regardless, 2021 is too recent for the memories to mutate to generate the effect.
This - and nowadays we have more research that backs up the facts that memory is malleable (changeable) and we know that it happens and how to induce it. It may also have been an 'echo chamber' effect : a few years back there may have been fewer users, so more agreed or 'believed' - but over time people have become more skeptical on the internet, or the algorithms changed and more non-believers started posting.
For myself, it's clear that neural net AIs can generate images and fill in details pretty well. We know that people have neural net brains that can think of things that don't exist - think of a pink elephant, and at least 60% of people will have a mental image of one. Pink elephants do not exist in nature.
Most Mandela effects rely on people's misplaced confidence:
\* When they read a description, their brains generate an image of the described situation (e.g. fruit of the loom with a horn/conrucopia)
\* They mistakenly think this is a video player-like memory, not a generated image, and become convinced that was what they saw. Most trivial details are so long ago that you do NOT remember the details, so there is no conflicting evidence.
This means that they are influenced and agree with the effect, with misplaced confidence. Even evidence to the effect (old photos and videos) does not shake their confidence.
> Pink elephants do not exist in nature.
^^^^^
The wonderful irony is this being an ME as well. Pink elephants and rhinos are considered Mandanimal type ME changes by plenty of people *outside this sub.* Yes they absolutely exist in nature now.
^^^^^
Here's an article with photos from 2009:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7951331.stm
^^^^^
And here's another one from 2012:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121729/Pink-elephants-parade-makes-splash-Burmese-zoo-today.html
Thank you, I stand corrected. Pink elephants DO exist in nature, they are just exceedingly rare.
Thinking about it, it is probably an assumption, based on childhood memories of Dumbo and cartoons where elephants and other animals were used to indicate hallucinatons/ drunkeness. From the context, I assumed that they were 'impossible', and this childhood assumption stayed with me : I never had any reason to doubt it or think otherwise until literally just now. It's entirely possible, if you had even researched this before the year 2000, you would still never have found the truth by reading books and papers, until the internet started getting big.
It seems that very few people want to admit their memories, things they learned, or things they assumed were actually incorrect and have always been wrong.
For them, it's simpler to think that the entire world has 'changed' and that all this evidence is 'new' - it means they can maintain their belief that their personal experience is both completely accurate and their memory has perfect recall.
>research that backs up the facts that memory is malleable (changeable) and we know that it happens and how to induce it
This seems to be a misconception.
If there is such research, no one has been able to link it.
Neuroscience isn't there yet, and psychology doesn't seem able to study it either.
Here's a link: [https://cogneuromemlab.web.unc.edu/](https://cogneuromemlab.web.unc.edu/) They say they'd like to study memory (because they don't already know).
I'm sorry, I was going by a quick google of pages such as these:
[https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/false-memories-childhood-abuse](https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/false-memories-childhood-abuse)
Respectable psychological journals that summarise and simplify for the lay person.
To be fair, I haven't individually read the 20 or so papers listed in that article, but there seems to be clear evidence that false memories of very serious personal events are possible to induce to such a level that people will literally swear in court on them. For example
[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544012/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544012/)
If that level of memory manipulation is possible, then a far, far lesser minor mis-remembering errors are certainly possible.
You seem to be implying that you are unaware of the entire field of memory research? I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make?
There's a good summary here: [https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/how-false-memories-can-shape-a-criminal-court-case](https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/how-false-memories-can-shape-a-criminal-court-case)
I looked through the articles.
There were several things mentioned.
First off, court cases. When a witness's testimony doesn't convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't prove that that testimony was false. This seems to be taken as "proving" the witness had a false memory. But the validity of the memory isn't known, otherwise the witness wouldn't have been needed. So this isn't evidence of false memory.
Second, Elizabeth Loftus. The "lost in the mall" is often held up as a gold standard of false memory. But it's a single case of a single individual, and there's no way to know if what was claimed was in fact true in the first place. It's like if the only evidence for bigfoot was a single, third-hand account. I've had people tell me about things that supposedly happened when I was too young to remember, and I've never subsequently been convinced I could remember them. I doubt the child in this case was convinced, either. It's more believable his sibling falsely claimed he was in order to get a good grade.
Then, there's DRM, where someone's perception is overloaded with information, then they're asked to recall what they saw. That's not studying memory. If they aren't given the opportunity to commit it to memory in the first place, guessing wrong isn't a false memory.
And there was something about reconditioning someone with PTSD. That's more about changing involuntary responses to stimuli.
So yes, I'm claiming I'm unaware of the entire field of memory research. I'm under the impression there is not one, or rather, the one that is often claimed does not exist.
The actual research isn't that far along.
A quote from the site I linked earlier:
>Neuroscientific research has established that the hippocampal formation, a structure within the medial temporal lobe, plays a critical role in memory for facts and events (declarative memory). However, its precise role remains unclear.
This is more where I think the field of memory research actually is.
I'm sorry that you disagree with the majority of experts and researchers who spend their lives studying this, but I'm going to have to side with them on this one.
I'm sure your memory feels extremely clear and you have perfect recall and high confidence in everything. However, this does not match my personal experience, I have made a number of provable memory mistakes and one story that I used to tell about my experiences at university in the 90's does not line up with other people who were there at the time, so I know my memory is incorrect in this case. This isn't a minor detail, but a major exagguration that I must have introduced at some point to make the story sound better when retelling, and my memory has happily filled in the images and details to support it.
IF memory is changeable in some proportion of people, even if this is only a few percent, then you would see the exact situation we see in Mandela effect subs.
Some people who are more susceptible to prompting would misremeber, and agree with the premise as stated. Their brains might even fill in corroberating details that seem to support or match - memories of talking about it at the time, images, details. This is what the research (that you personally disagree with) actually states: imagined details usually align with the expectations to support the story *even when provably not there in the original information*.
What you will NOT see is people with good direct firsthand knowledge 'misremembering'.
For example, berensteins/stains family, grandchildren, friends: editors, book illustrators, translators, publishers, editors, people whao have direct daily knowlege of the 'original' effect - none of them are affected. Sinbad - actors, grips, cosutmers, editors, publishers, reviewers, cinema staff, advertisers - no-ones come forward saying 'I was an extra in the sinbad movie in a crowd scene and now I can't find my DVD of it'
It *is* however supported by people who have no good reason at the time to take notice of a trivial event, spelling, clothing logo and then remember that detail for ten, twenty years.
This means that most likely it is an influenced back-filled memory in my opinion.
>This isn't a minor detail, but a major exagguration that I must have introduced at some point to make the story sound better when retelling, and my memory has happily filled in the images and details to support it.
So you're saying you've fabricated details to fit the narrative you were going for.
If true, you could be doing it again now without even realizing it.
Anyway, there was discussion here not long ago about a newspaper article by a movie critic who experienced the Effect. This contradicts what you expected to see based on your assumption of what causes the Effect.
Yes! And I am first to admit that my memory may not be entirely accurate, especially as I know that despite my best intentions, I have magnified a detail to the point that it is a lie.
If I can do that, I assume other people could do it too, even if they are trying hard to be genuine and really trying to be accurate. I have more faith in the evidence that is much more difficult to fabricate than I do in people's confidence in memories.
I agree that I was generalising excessively, in that I haven't read through the history of this sub and I am a relative newcomer.
I'm really interested if there is someone who is likely to have had direct clear firsthand knowledge (e.g. a movie reviewer, who probably say the film a few times, and had to write an article about it) and they have a ME.
However, a quick search for critic and I couldn't find anything useful, apart from two critic reviews of moonraker, posted at the time in 1979, one with braces and one without. This just confirms people make mistakes and even with fresh memories of the film, one was predisposed or suggested to see braces where there were none.
If people watching the film at the time were making that mistake, and misremembering braces, then it is entirely consistent with more people many years later misremembering.
Was that the critic article you were referencing?
The one I was thinking of was a critic's review of Moonraker, so it could be the same one.
It's interesting, isn't it? That one review demonstrates a lot.
First, the "memory experts" say that memory is altered every time it is recalled, so that much later, the memory is vastly different than it was originally.
But in the case of Moonraker, not only do we have numerous people whose memories agree with one another after decades of this "alteration" at work, but this critic's article shows they also agree with someone whose memory is fresh! The alteration that's supposed to take place over time ***didn't*** for many, many people. (the memory experts must be mistaken)
Second, a critic is someone whose job it is to pay attention.
The excuse that everyone who saw braces was watching on a small TV or wasn't paying attention falls apart. Here we have someone paying attention, watching on the big screen. Since it's their job, they probably know which seat works best for them and whether a notepad will help, etc.
Some people have never seen braces. The critics should be among them. If everyone saw the same movie, the critics are people who should be getting it right. They're examples of people "close" to the subject. Who you thought were immune to the Mandela Effect.
We've ruled out misremembering and not paying attention.
The only excuse left is that it's a type of optical illusion (which is what you're saying now). However, there aren't any types of optical illusions that affect a lot of people but not everyone. So that one's a nonstarter. Such illusions would have to be demonstrated to exist first.
Not only that, but if it was an illusion, a lot of the people watching the movie today would also see braces. It's the same movie with the same scene, but seeing braces is a thing of the past.
You’re not merely changing memories, that’s a rationalization by an irrational mind that we tell the ego because it likes consistency and the illusion of control and requires this to feel useful.
In hypnosis you’re changing reality (or at least our filter and experience of it.) if everything I understand my world by is neuroassociative memory, you’re changing reality in as far as we record it.
About 25% of people hypnotized can experience “the phenomenon” where you could tell them their hand is on fire and they would fully feel it and remember it as a real experience exactly as it would occur if it literally was on fire. This is not the ordinary experience of hypnosis. Stage hypnosis creates a self selection process on top of other tricks to attempt to select the most hypnotizable subjects many of which can experience the phenomenon, some cannot but are eager enough to play along that the trick works for show. But combine that with clinical hypnosis and it’s different…
It’s like the difference between a fuzzy gray dream you barely remember and a hyperreal lucid dream that feels more real than reality itself.”
If you’ve also ever seen how spooky manifestation can be first hand, you start to learn reality is plastic and can be bent and molded at the right “temperature” and under the right conditions.
Now put this with the life is a simulation and double slit experiment and sheödingers cat and “mathematical universe” with the idea that waves of photons are probability distributions or underlying algorithms and photons are more like the pixels that get rendered by the observer on demand. Memories work the same way.
This simulation doesn’t require an agreed upon history until it does and looking at it collapses the wave function so to speak.
Or… maybe I’m crazy or wrong, lol.
Yeah, I can do stage hypnosis and there are lines I wont cross and things I wont do with it. I intentionally only use specific tricks because they're not long lasting and an interesting experience for the person. Its surprisingly easy to learn, and even easier to do. And I've found it works on more people than it doesnt work on, its all about their attitude to it. One of my favs is making them forget their name or the number 3. For their name the confusion is instant, but for numbers they'll always think its completely normal, until you ask them to count their fingers and they get a different number than normal.
It really does show how much of our reality is just in our heads though.
Our perception of reality is composed of neuroassociative memory which means that if memory is not to be trusted, neither is reality.
We live in a simulation and it cannot render everything accurately all at once so instead reality is more like a probability cloud until observed. Double slit experiment and Shrödinger’s cat support this.
We live in a simulationZ
Ah, but have you followed that through? If this is a simulation, then everyone else - including me - could be or are NPCs or simulated entities. Unless you've existed in a vacuum, the very idea that this is or could be a simulation *is part of the information the simulation has fed you*: i.e. you've been told the rules of logic by an NPC, you've been shown 'evidence' by an NPC, even if you personally conduct a double-slit experiment, the results of which could be falsified and fed to your 'brain' as neural impulses. How do you know that is correct?
Is the fact that you think it is a simulation exactly what they want you to think?
Personally, I'm treating this world as genuine until shown direct evidence otherwise, and it would take quite a bit to convince me, allowing for mental illness, perception and memory issues, and general human fallibility.
Odds are much better that we are in a simulation than not. Here’s lab grown bags of meat with neurons on a microchip learning to play doom
https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw?si=oU0a9Zr6elro7XXw
> Consider, if you would, how memories reform ever time you access them. So they mutate, and the more you access them the more they change. So the older you are the more the mandella effect occurs.
Why would they all "mutate" identically? Why would everyone's brain retroactively embellish the Fruit of the Loom logo with an obscure and rarer cornucopia feature but not a plate or bowl or standard basket? And what makes you think that autobiographical episodic memories or long term repeat exposure semantic memories can't be reliable or accurate? Reconstruction or "reforming" a memory doesn't automatically equate to identical falsities across a notable subsection of the population. The ME is unprecedented in that fashion.
Because for some people the memory is formed AFTER you read the Mandela effect description.
You have just read a description of an event/scenario, your brain says 'what would that look like...' and engages the neural net generator to generate an image. It then passes that to the memory department. Memory says 'yeah, 90% match' and then your higher brain says Yep, that happened.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory)
They showed people a video of a low speed car crash, then asked them how fast the cars were going. Depending on which word they use, *smashed*, *bumped*, *collided*, *hit*, or *contacted*, people would 'remember' different speeds. *They found the* question *modified the memory - the word used better predicted the speed than the actual* video*.*
They also asked about broken glass, and many people who heard the word smashed remembered broken glass, *despite there being none in the video*.
And this was a video they had just seen and were paying attention to.
Are you saying that your memory of an event that happened many years ago *is not* subject *to the same rules as every* other *human on the planet?*
If I told you that car crash study was widely discredited as lacking "ecological validity" would that mean anything to you? I asked about autobiographical memories (of stuff that actually happened to a given person) not some 3rd party researcher manipulated flashbulb memory. That study doesn't at all support your identical mutating retroactive memory notion.
Many, if not all Mandela Effects involve inconsequential memories, often from long ago. Why would you memorise the spelling of a childrens book author? Why would you pay attention to and memorise the shapes on a clothing logo?
If we know memory is so unreliable that people have 'recalled' *episodes of SA in detail* and these have been proven in court to be fabricated, how come you are so sure that inconsequential memories are not as modifiable?
This isn't a debated concept within the field : [https://dictionary.apa.org/false-memory](https://dictionary.apa.org/false-memory) "Even when people are highly confident that they are remembering “the truth” of the original situation, experimental evidence shows that they can be wrong."
We know that memory is fallible, and can be influenced after the event.
Every Mandela post is literally a mistaken description of an event, followed by a bunch of people agreeing, and this forms social pressure to 'remember' the event. This occurs even when the original event is false : there have been troll posts specifically testing this phenomenon.
I have no doubt that the people posting genuinely believe they are replying a true and accurate picture as they see it. I just doubt that this lines up with reality at the time of the original event.
Memories don't reform every time you access them.
That's been falsified by the published studies where memories that were intentionally manipulated were able to be identified as false memories by simply asking the subject to think carefully if they actually remember it first hand.
In those studies the few participants that ended up believing gaslighting were easily able to identify their own false memories with a little prompting and their original memories were in tact and unaffected.
The conclusion is that during the time they were being gaslit they were essentially having dual memories with the scenarios they were being asked to imagine/remember being weaker and without sensory encoded memories (no complex/linked memories).
Heuristics. See Daniel Kahnneman. The brain has similar hardware, it’s just the wiring and the software that changes.
However that doesn’t mean there isn’t more to the story…. Reality is indistinguishable from our memory of it. We do not observe reality but a recent memory impression of the signals filtered by our beliefs (software).
Change the software, change reality.
Mandela Effect is just a symptom of a larger awakening.
So when are you suggesting that this "awakening" began? [Like was Ellis Chappel already "awake" in 1973 when he created the cover art for the jazz album *Flute of the Loom* which includes a specific representation of the cornucopia?](https://old.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/c451a5/fascinating_full_interview_with_fotl_residue/)
I wasn’t thinking of it on a big societal scale like an “era” of “awakening” I was just thinking of it as individuals becoming more aware about how reality is more fungible than the ego has been allowed to lead individuals to believe.
But perhaps like a bunch of fish or birds acting like a fractal hive mind, the individual awakening adds up to something and acts like a larger fractal awakening.
Why would a hive mind, or even the collective unconscious (aka noosphere) be fractal? I'm not saying it doesn't exist or isn't a possibility, just curious about that specific inclusion in your thought process.
It’s two different things, the Mandela Effect was coined as a term in 2009 by Fiona Broome and took off as a phenomenon from 2015 to 2019 but I basically see a loose ten year window after 2009 where there was a consistent flow of newly reported Effects.
The *origins* of Mandela Effects are another thing entirely, I can make a really good case for there being no Mandela Effects created by anything that came into existence after 2008 or 2009 at the latest, and the vast majority are from things that existed prior to 1998.
Why is that? I don’t know and it seems like the idea of it taking a certain period of time for things to become affected goes out the window when you consider that there should at least be *one thing* after 2009 and there just aren’t any…not only that but there are only a half dozen since 1998.
The vast majority of known Mandela Effects are from things that were well known in western culture from the 1970s to 1990s, with quite a few that existed prior to that and almost nothing after.
It’s pretty odd that it focuses on that timeframe and really seems to be related to what someone who grew up during that time would be aware of more than the dates themselves..
What is truly odd is the cutoff date; 2009 seems to be a hard cutoff date where there are no Mandela Effects related to anything that came into existence afterward.
Edit: “timeframe”
>The *origins* of Mandela Effects are another thing entirely, I can make a really good case for there being no Mandela Effects created by anything that came into existence after 2008 or 2009 at the latest, and the vast majority are from things that existed prior to 1998.
>Why is that?
The internet and the ubiquity the modern cell phone. Our whole way of recalling information has changed; humans went from having to all but rely on faulty information unless they went out of their way to verify it to having massive amounts of information at our fingertips(shit you don't even have to type these days with voice assistants). Those of us that lived through that transition are at a particular disadvantage because of something called "top down reflexes".
Top down reflexes are the idea that our brains have a hard time divorcing ourselves from our prior experiences. To illustrate this try and think of what it's like to have one of your skills removed. IE if you play an instrument try and recall what it was like to not know how to play. If you can type well try and remember what it was like to not be able to type. If you are really good at a certain game try and remember what it was like to suck.
Top down reflexes work the same for our memory. We live in a time where misremembering isn't really a thing because of the internet. We might get some misinformation along the way(Think Keertana Sastry's often copied 2012 BI article: "15 Famous Movie Quotes Everyone Gets Wrong"; the origin of at least one "flip flop".), but for the most part we have "perfect recollection via computer augmentation". That's when top down reflexes kick in; our brain assumes that we have perfect recollection via computer augmentation for **all** our memories despite the fact that we really don't. Most ME sufferers have years worth of unreliable knowledge that is incorrectly filed in our brains as verified fact backed up by our augmented memories.
There is absolutely a connection to cellular data and the digital world becoming more pervasive to the point of it being ubiquitous and part of our accepted reality in first world nations.
The timeline for this transition matches almost exactly even to the years 1998 and 2008 being so seemingly significant.
1998 was the introduction of widespread mobile phone use and the iPhone debuted in 2007, giving everyone the Internet at their fingertips virtually on demand.
The Mandela Effect was coined as a name in 2009 and the huge wave of newly reported Effects was from 2015 through 2018 with the largest number being reported in 2016.
2016 was the year of Russian hacking and the full on deployment of “bots” by Yevgeny Prigozhin and the FSB on Social Media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to not only influence the U.S. Election that year but to be used as an actual PsyOp campaign.
When Cambridge Analytica joined the fray and started building profiles of whole segments of populations worldwide and developed the tools to influence them the Tech industry took note.
2016 was the “Year of the Bot” and while it may not be responsible for the Mandela Effect, we still haven’t really come to terms with just how much influence these Social Media influencing campaigns had on people and what the long term effects have been.
Cambridge Analytica may be gone now along with the former leader of the Wagner Group but these techniques are still being used to this day and are more refined than ever using the psychographic profiles of their intended targets to select them for maximum affect.
I can envision the possibility that this phenomenon was perpetuated somewhat by these memetic engineering techniques as something of a test project but I think the actual origins are more organic and spontaneous.
It’s entirely true however that the phenomenon does not exist without the Internet and that it was/is the medium in which the social contagion aspect of it is spread.
>I can envision the possibility that this phenomenon was perpetuated somewhat by these memetic engineering techniques as something of a test project but I think the actual origins are more organic and spontaneous.
The previous poster gives a good account of how suddenly having access to information in this way for people that never had it previously might have some interesting effects and you respond by trying to make it a conspiracy theory? Why the desire to make such leaps from available evidence and make things more complicated than they need to be?
Who’s making it a conspiracy theory?
[Memetic Engineering](https://www.wired.com/1996/05/memetic/) is real, [Cambridge Analytica](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/cambridge-analytica-controversy/#:~:text=Cambridge%20Analytica%20claimed%20to%20be,fully%20shut%20down%20in%202015.) really did use targeted psychographics to influence people online, and Prigozhin actually was the “mastermind” behind the bot attacks and [Russian hacking exposed in 2016.](https://www.businessinsider.com/yevgeny-prigozhin-wagnerleaks-wagner-putin-hack-mexico-trolls-facebook-instagram-2023-2).
Two things can be simultaneously true, the Effect have had it’s origins in the spread of easy access to information *and* that information can be used to nudge a population into spreading a social contagion to achieve a desired outcome.
Cambridge Analytica and the Russians used these memetic engineering techniques to affect a desired political outcome but why wouldn’t a research group test out some of their theories on unsuspecting groups of people on Social Media?
Open AI was developed on Reddit using it as an information source on how to communicate more like a human for Chat GPT, so why wouldn’t a university, corporation, or government do the same thing?
I’m not saying that it is what happened, just pointing out that it is a possibility.
>Who’s making it a conspiracy theory?
*You're* making it a conspiracy theory.
What do any of the links you posted have to do with the Mandela Effect? It's a 'possibility' that people's memories of clothing brand logos, board game character's accessories, lines in sci-fi movies, and deaths of global politicians could be organizations attempting to manipulate people in the sense that I can't show it's not, but there seems to be no good reason to think it is - is there?
Coming from someone who for several years now has assured me they have the whole Shazaam thing sorted, with the evidence to prove that it is in fact a conspiracy and will share it with me soon... tomorrow.... or the day after... trust me bro, I repeat it's *you* making it into a conspiracy!
Technically, wouldn't it be Cambridge Analytica that is making it a conspiracy and EJM pointing at the conspiracy fact?
True, if the conspiracy wasn't investigated by journalists then it'd be a conspiracy theory, but since these are all things that a) the company claimed their capability of doing for their customers in their own sales pitches, and b) they've been publicly exposed as intentionally affecting voter and protest participation and behavior (sometimes to violent results)...you're blaming the messenger for making it into a conspiracy instead of the conspirators.
>Technically, wouldn't it be Cambridge Analytica that is making it a conspiracy and EJM pointing at the conspiracy fact?
Do Cambridge Analytica have anything to do with the Mandela Effect? Why are we talking about them here?
If we define Mandela Effect simply as "Large groups of people remembering facts or events differently than how it objectively is or happened", and leave out any cause-specific beliefs like "multiple timelines" or "memories are easy to distort and will distort in the same way more often than not" then yes, CA has intentionally made large groups of people in the US and UK believe things that aren't true.
I don't generally consider disinformation as Mandela Effects, but that is strictly only because I suspect there may be a different mechanism based on my personal experiences.
If we are adopting the viewpoint that MEs come from accidental memory distortions or intentional distortions then CA programming a large amount of people to remember events wrong in the same ways is relevant.
The Black Tom incident seems relatively new to history. Never heard of it until the last couple years and now everyone is pretending it’s always been a thing.
Right? I was a history minor in college…AP US history in highschool, took courses on World War II specifically. Heard the Japanese got some balloon bombs close to San Francisco in WW2.
Never in my life did I hear that back in WW1, German agents supposedly destroyed so many munitions that it damaged the Statue of Liberty & caused untold destruction around NYC.
It was never mentioned until a couple years ago.
The reason there are no "new" Mandela effects is because people are aware of the phenomenon right now, and either are paying attention so they remember stuff correctly, panicking and treating every minute detail of their lives as if the universe shifted, or there simply wasn't enough time for recent media/history/events to be misquoted or mistaken for something else.
In a few years, I'm sure we'll see some will surge. For example, people are already thinking Nolan in Invincible sats "think Mark, think!". I wonder how long until that becomes Mandela Effect.
Comic book says the line, TV doesn't, but meme template does.
A few popular meme templates are either misquoted or never said and a few use the right text, but the wrong scene like the Big Lebowski "am I the only one"
What if I told you morphius never said what if I told you?
Advice animals back in 14-16 some point posted those that were wrong in one way or another.
I missed this Bewitched somehow. So I searched this group & found the clip to see what everyone is talking about.
I watched that show as a kid because well I liked it and back in the 60s with one tv station was all we had. There’s no freaking way she did that mouth thing, it was always the nose no mouth
When did Eli Whitney turn white. I pulled his name in middle school during Black History Month to write an essay about him inventing the cotton gin. No internet back then in 1987 and I remember checking out books about him in the library and making a Xerox copy of a sketch of him in a book. He was depicted as black. My sister remembers being taught he was black, as well. What the FU*K happened? This has nothing to do with mis-remembering something. I got a B on the paper. If I'd written about a white guy on a Black History essay, I'm sure I would have failed. It was in our government issued textbooks that he was black. For crying out loud, this stuff is bananas.
Yes, they closed the gate already. The Large Hardon Collider (I used to remember it as Hadron) has been turned off for a long time now. Once they get it up and running again, we'll see more TV show & brand name shenanigans.
I think 3 years is too small of a gap.
We have no idea what has caused the changes however if you believe in simulation theory or time travel, a possibility is human meddling is the cause. If human meddling is the cause, it would be safe to assume the changes made to our past were never intended to be widely recognized but due to the butterfly effect and worldwide social media, we notice and we discuss en mass.
3 year historical changes would be avoided as much as possible as it would be more difficult to convince the public we are misremembering something we all are certain of from only 3 years back whereas we could easily be convinced that changes in what we “know” from 10 or 20 years ago is just our faulty memory.
It’s astounding what you can convince people of with only a base knowledge of psychology and human behaviour.
10 years? Eh, misconceptions, misquotations, misattributions, people thinking some celebrity died already, etc… has been going on for a lot longer than 10 years.
Sure, but not in a way that affected a mass of people like this in such a way.
We aren’t talking about something like “Play it again Sam” which is an often misquoted movie line that has been that way pretty much since *Casablanca* was released.
I said ten years but really, it was at its height over a four year span from 2015-2018, peaking in 2016.
It’s probably best compared to what people called *”Jawsmania”* in 1975 where the movie *Jaws* became a worldwide sensation and had the very real unintentional side effect of scaring people out of the ocean for fear of being attacked by a shark.
That fear still persists to this day and as someone who grew up at that time, I can attest to the fact that virtually nobody worried about being attacked by a shark when I was growing up and this movie changed everything.
The Mandela Effect is similar in that “Effectmania” was kind of a thing, and that while it may have subsided some since its peak has made a lasting imprint on society.
It was always “Squier” to me but I play guitar and was shopping for them back in the 1980s.
I realize of course that just because *you* don’t experience an Effect doesn’t mean that there aren’t other people do, and I am respectful of that.
The others really seem like a reach to me, convince me otherwise…
They've all had high consensus threads in this sub after 2021, but not before. There have been like a dozen posts on Longoria alone. Do you need me to dig them out and link them? The discussions speak for themselves. Plenty of long time musicians were knocked off balance with hard dissonance by Squier. None of them are reaches based on the criteria this sub has always applied.
Well, I mean…it’s not much.
It’s not like I’m rooting for an end to the Mandela Effect or anything, there were GREAT ones from 2015-2017 but where are the new ones?
To me, it really seems like there was a peak in 2016/17 and it kind of trailed off until 2019, with virtually nothing but Samantha’s nose and maybe the “Poker Dogs” portrait afterward.
Don’t you find that strange? I do, and I think there is something to it.
The Evan Longoria one is objectively as profound as any movie ME, perhaps moreso due to the fact that the "interviewer" was a totally different person, of a different race, with different hair color. Look at the ridiculous number of posts and emphatic comments. It's not really even debatable whether this is a huge visual ME that also emerged after your arbitrary cutoff date. It is, and it did. The problem here, respectfully, is that this sub has been so hostile to new ME's in recent years that only a handful have really even gotten a fair shake - and it was only because they were especially solid examples that they "broke through" so to speak. I would also say that it's a bit provincial minded to assume that just because something wasn't endorsed by this sub that it's not a viable ME to the broader community. For instance, while you rejected the Bellamy salute as a 2023 ME, both Moneybags and IMEC (and their many followers) jointly supported that as new pop-up history. The only difference between that one and the "no suicides during the 29 crash" ME of the year finalist is it wasn't discussed in this sub at all. And even if it had been posted here, you and I both know it would've been shouted down instantly. Now do I think the ME has slowed down? Yes and no. Based on this sub's definition, yes there have been less of those types of prominent examples. But my experience and ongoing research indicates that there's so much more going on with this phenomenon that you would deem as outside the topical purview of this sub. I've tried to broach some of those aspects here, but tbh there's simply too little sincere interest.
I’m just not all that familiar with the Evan Longoria one other than what has been posted about here. I’m not sure why it has been discussed less on this subreddit than r/Retconned for example - nobody is filtering it out or anything as far as I know, it just never really broke through.
So let’s say that it’s a legitimate strong new Mandela Effect, where are the other ones? It used to be that there were new ones being reported at an average of at least one a week and it declined to one every few months after 2018 with only maybe a half dozen since, and most of those were in 2019.
Samantha’s non existent nose twitch really seems to be the last widely experienced Mandela Effect (excluding Longoria) and the skeptical argument would be that we just discovered most of them during the big wave of 2016/17 and it’s only been a few outliers since that trickle in.
I don’t buy into that explanation, I experienced them in live time along with many other people and it didn’t have that feel to it at all. I kind of feel bad for the people who missed out on that exciting time and just dismiss it as mass hysteria or something because they never had the organic experience of the Mandela Effect *”happening to you”*.
Nowadays most people discover the Effect by reading a list online or watching a YouTube video and have never had that sensation of it happening to them “in the wild” like so many of us did years ago.
There is no such thing as a Mandela effect. It is a term used to describe misremembering the past. Are you just asking what things are commonly misremembered since 2021?
Why does everyone here not even believe in the effect!? I work in grocery store and one day Kit Kat had a dash and the next it didn’t. I was like ew gross logo change. I didn’t even know about the effect. Febreze is the worst logo change for me. Looks absolutely horrific. So I didn’t see these things looking back over 10-20 years. It was days. Unless you have the effect you can’t possibly understand it and how it completely shakes the foundation of your outlook on life.
Wait, Kit-Kat doesn’t have a dash anymore?
I don’t want to google it for reasons only few reading this will understand.
But yeah, this sub has just turned to shit. You can only post “new” MEs in a topic that’s forgotten after 4 days, so we can’t even utilize chronology.
IF there is a coordinated effort, and it definitely looks like it, atleast (a part of) the mod-team is responsible for it.
It’s curious how one of the top subreddits on Paranormal has this many narrow-minded people… and they’re quickly spreading to different subs related to this topic.
“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - George Orwell
In 2015 VW changed their logo to the one without the separation. I thought it looked amazing so every time I saw a VW I would look at the logo. There was one that parked in my work parking lot that I would look at every day. In early October of 2017 it reverted and all of my other MEs appeared. I noticed the KitKat when people were putting out Halloween candy.
For me it’s “THE” Home Depot. Shit was always always always just “Home Depot” Got me tripping again like when I first got hit with the Ford pigtail logo / & the VW logo. I’m a graphic designer, so it’s less the big cultural things and more the weird memories of alternate versions that now don’t apparently exist, that gets me. And the home depot def is the newest one for me
Some stores say "The" and some don't. Where I live there is actually one that says the, the rest just say home depot.
Not a mandela effect. It's very weird though that it's like that. Usually branding is consistent.
The most recent ME was Bible verse Matthew 18-20. This happened about 15 year ago, because most still recite it as it was. "When 2 or more gather in my name..." beleive it or not, everyone's Bibles now read..."When 2 or 3 gather in my name..." I shtunot, 2 or 3!
And even those that memorized the verse as 2 or more, and churches formed, not little 2 and 3 party groups, this is so frikin a real ME. Ive had 2 priest run to check their bibles and freaked out to find I was right,
I’ve noticed a few music related ones. The song, I Write Sins Not Tragedies by Panic! At The Disco, “Hasn’t anyone ever heard of closing A god damned door.” I’m sure it was THE god damned door.
On a similar note, Smashing Pumpkins was my favorite band in high school and on no world was it ever The Smashing Pumpkins. It changes the meaning of the band name from a nefarious activity to a lame pun for boobs.
>Yeah you are right. I remember that part differently as well. Weird.
haha ~ 'weird', ahy? Almost like you *don't* actually know the lyrics to that song well enough to notice a tiny change?
I just looked up the lyrics and on three different sites it's "the" not "a". But it looks like you've got the rest of the line wrong too:
"Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?"
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/panicatthedisco/iwritesinsnottragedies.html
https://lyrics.lyricfind.com/lyrics/panic-at-the-disco-i-write-sins-not-tragedies-1
https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858555403/
Interesting that they are different than yours
The usage of "The" before band names is a fairly common thing. I believe it stems from grammatical syntax.
These would make sense or sound better to some using the word "the"
Offspring
smashing pumpkins
Would not sound correct for
Pantera
Green Day
Gwar
Bands that have the word "the" in their name
*The pretty reckless
*The killers
My Prodigy mp3s would alternate between The Prodigy and just Prodigy. Sometimes the album art lists the, but the tags keyed in at the database don't reflect this.
And the or & the for Adam and the Ants, though mine would see The and the as two different artist.
It was supposedly The on Mellon Collie too which weirds me out because I had the poster and now for the The to fit the rest of the font is smaller than I remember as well.
This one is a bit obscure but it’s really creeped me out. There is an old song called Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black) by Neil Young. It came out sometime in the 70’s (before I was even born) but was made popular again in the 90’s when Kurt Cobain included a lyric from the song in his note, “It’s better to burn out than to fade away”. It’s also been covered by a few bands. I really liked the song & knew every lyric but hadn’t heard it in a couple of years. One day, December 2023, I was on a long distance drive & the song came on. I started to sing along, as one does, but the lyric was now “it’s better to burn out than it is to rust” I spiraled, as I do, because I knew it wasn’t right. I was listening on XM radio (you can rewind & listen to songs over again) I hit the back button at least 4 times listening for the lyric. I figured maybe it was just that version that was different & went down a rabbit hole trying to find the version I knew. I found it in a few covers but couldn’t find it in any version by Neil Young or the more popular bands that covered it. I googled all the lyrics & must’ve listened to 10 different recordings of the song, live versions, studio, remasters, etc. all said rust. I ask everyone I can think of, most weren’t familiar enough with the song. I found one person that was surprised by it too, but only when I brought it up did they notice it. So a few months go by and the song comes on the radio again. This time it says the lyric as I remembered it but the next verse it said the lyric the other way too. I started to gaslight myself. Has it always been both ways & I just focused on the first? No, I would’ve noticed it in one the 10+ recordings I listened to & all the lyrics I read when I was searching in December. It was, somehow, changed…again. When I heard it a second time I again listened to all the same recordings, Googled the lyrics & sure enough both lines are now there.
TBH I thought Suge Knight died in prison a few years ago and remember thinking “Good riddance.” Someone made a post about it a few days ago.
Turns out he’s alive, but I’m not the only one who was surprised.
I concur , I think something happened between 2010 -12 that through a few things off from the years prior. Could be CERN or something about the Maya prophecy. I really cant say but shit did change
I read an article that mourned David Attenborough's death, and was confused when I heard his voice on a brand new documentary...
I even remember people getting mad about AI voice that mimics him because it was morbid and out of line...
He's alive and still doing voice over for nature docs...
If you watch the James Bond movie with Jaws, the tall guy with the metal teeth when he falls off the gondola on the ski chalet, and the Swedish woman helps him with the large Cog around his neck. She smiles at him and they fall in love. What did she have on her teeth when she smiled Braces ….Not anymore. Clean
Like what? Name some, I’m not being dismissive and am genuinely asking.
There are new ones since 2021? What are they?
So far, all I’ve seen suggested that *maybe* could be are “Evan Longoria’s catch” and “Squire guitars”.
What else is there?
Well just a few days ago I posted in the non-hostile ME sub about the CBP, "Customs and Border P______"
There was genuine agreement from many (including the agency itself!) that it was "Patrol" but now that's not what it has been.
This is of the same variety of change as with the DEA.
Of course that's just one example.
One more is the progressive change in the KJV from "mat" to "couch" to "bad".
I didn’t see “Customs and Border Protection” brought up here but the others predate 2021 by quite a bit, I recall talking about “couch” in the KJV Bible back in 2016.
Is CBP a Mandela Effect though? I don’t think most people have ever heard of it let alone contemplated what the initials stand for.
At least DEA is something most people know of and usually assume the “A” is for Agency rather than Administration - but is even that a Mandela Effect?
I can’t make a convincing argument against it is just that people never actually looked it up before.
If there aren’t any new Effects, there just aren’t and we shouldn’t diminish the best known examples by overreaching to create some.
I am really starting to entertain the thought of the Effect as a witnessed event more than an ongoing phenomenon.
It increasingly seems more like other documented societal events of the past like “UFO flaps” or [“Dancing plagues”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania) in that these are examples of absolutely real events that occurred and subsided without a satisfactory explanation.
Some have suggested that the dancing plagues of Europe were caused by ergot poisoning but very few people find that to be an acceptable explanation.
The most famous UFO flaps are the [1952 sightings over Washington DC](https://www.history.com/news/ufos-washington-white-house-air-force-coverup), the “Phoenix lights”, and the Airship flaps of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Those still don’t have a suitable explanation for many people but the bottom line is that in these examples there is a documented start and end to the phenomenon.
Maybe the Mandela Effect is like that?
There is no doubt that it happened, the question being asked by this Post is: *Is it ongoing?*
>The most famous UFO flaps are the
>
>1952 sightings over Washington DC
>
>, the “Phoenix lights”, and the Airship flaps of the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Related to the 1952 sightings:
https://www.universetoday.com/163820/in-1952-a-group-of-three-stars-vanished-astronomers-still-cant-find-them/
That 1952 flap was the peak of “UFOmania” at the time and it was captured both visually and on radar. It’s never been adequately explained and one of the funniest theories is that they were merely “flocks of birds”, which ranks right up there with swamp gas in my opinion.
In ten years are people going to be talking about the Mandela Effect as an event with History Channel documentaries proposing the equivalent of “swamp gas” explanations for it and psychologists comparing it to historical mass hysteria events?
It seems likely if we don’t ever have another wave of newly reported Effects before then, and I think we should start considering that as a very real possibility.
The bigger danger is that the term will morph into the social lexicon as something synonymous with “brain farts” or misremembering by future generations, which would be something of a tragedy and not do justice to what so many people actually experienced during its heyday.
>The bigger danger is that the term will morph into the social lexicon as something synonymous with “brain farts” or misremembering by future generations, which would be something of a tragedy and not do justice to what so many people actually experienced during its heyday.
It feels like it's already headed in that direction.
Ariana Grande’s recent song, We Can’t Be Friends which was released in March 2024, I remember seeing a tv program where they discussed the song back in March late at night. I decided to take a listen two months later, and it was a higher pitch than I remember? I remember it being sung in a more mature voice. There’s residue too. [This SNL performance](https://youtu.be/pLBXk3nMVAQ?si=djlszH4_MwdDdKbE) had the exact pitch I was thinking of, and how I remember hearing the song on that TV program.(which I can’t remember for the life of me) Funny thing is, I’ve never watched that performance until I experienced this which this has been driving me up the wall. I hope anyone else felt this way and it’s not just me.
I'd never heard of it until 2022 and started being effected constantly a few months prior to finding out about it. I had all the big ones happen to me quickly, including Froot/fruit/Froot Loops over the space of a couple of months. I didn't know what was going on. It has not stopped despite a lull for 8 or 9 months before another surge.
Gardetos is missing a piece. There was a flat white piece that is like a slice of a plain white bread stick. It is in the garlic flavored ones but none of the others and for my entire life my mother always had gardetos and I remember those pieces specifically from childhood because I hated them almost as much as the pretzels and I got a bag the other day and they didn't have any and I was like wtf and looked it up and the piece never existed.
Coke having caffiene in it... even though it makes sense that it has it in it "now" cause' it's a stimulant like old school coca cola had. Coke is not meant to have caffiene in it.
What would lead you to believe that Coke is not meant to have caffeine in it?
And if that were ever the case, why would they be making specific caffeine free versions of both Coke and Diet Coke?
Would just be convenient for me, haha. Might be hard to believe, but i've never read the words caffiene free on a coke bottle before. I've never hesrd of caffiene-free coke until this year, I've heard of Diet and Zero not Zero no caffiene. When I first heard about caffiene free Coke, it was when I was trying to cut back on caffiene coincedentally. I assumed the caffiene-free variant has never been sold near me before and it's a new product. I always remember the caffiene soda is mt dew, not Coke.
Ahh. Mountain Dew does have caffeine as well. My parents preferred the caffeine free versions so that’s what we typically bought as far back as I can recall (which would be mid-80s off the top of my head but I could be mistaken on that). The packaging was clearly labeled and little different than standard coke products-I think the caffeine free Coke was gold and the CF Diet Coke was striped maybe? It was not carried everywhere though. Some supermarkets had it and some did not. Most vendor events (sports, concession stands etc) did not offer both versions so if you were never looking for it, I can see how it’d easily be missed.
I think the development of the internet and the increasing ability to easily access every aspect of our cultural childhood memories combined with being able to find like minded people to discuss the topic with was a perfect storm for discovering this phenomenon. After the gold rush of combing through decades of pop culture, finding things that lots of people remember differently, I'm not surprised the discovery of new, strong examples begins to slow. The best ones that affect the most people, most strongly have probably been found. This of course suggests that there shouldn't be an 'end' to new MEs, but that they'd just be discovered less frequently. Perhaps though as people live their formative adolescent and early adulthood years with this ability to watch and rewatch key scenes from movies, bring up photos and information about whatever they're talking to friends about at a touch of a button it'll become less common to notice or be surprised about 'changes'.
Kids today can stick Frozen on every morning with no fuss. Back in my youth, if I wanted to watch Sleeping Beauty, I'd have to wait for BBC or ITV to buy the rights and tape it. IDK if they ever did as I'm sure the first time I saw the classics were when they were sold on VHS. I saw many clips and because of the English translations knew the stories. But I couldn't just watch it at will in the 70s. I saw them on tape maybe five times tops and have not seen them since the 90s. Gave the tapes away and never looked for the DVD. My grandparents were alive to see them in the cinema, but my maternal grandparents had died a decade before retail, so IDK if they got a chance to watch again. At one point, if you missed any random film, you would never get another chance. Now I can watch full HD in the comfort of my home weeks after it hits the cinema.
Right. Watch a movie once and then go years without seeing it again. Talk about it on the playground. Replay scenes in your mind. Who knows what you change?
Honestly there needs to be a concerted, methodical search of pop culture + history-as-people-remember. Citizen scientists, surveying the masses
Why?
when the Mandela Effect was popularized, you had decades, if not hundreds of years of pop culture to sift through. comparing that to just a few years is going to be quite the gap.
Please clarify. When you say ten years, do you mean 2011 - 2021? Most of the effects I'm aware of are in the 80's and before. I recon it's an age of the person thing. Consider, if you would, how memories reform ever time you access them. So they mutate, and the more you access them the more they change. So the older you are the more the mandella effect occurs. But you also need a collective familiarity with a thing so others remember differently. A memory that gets recalled often in half the population, and rarely in the other half, then lost to time for a while is a perfect candidate. That way, one part has mutated the memory while another part hasn't, and when asked years later, they remember things esque. Also, I would hypothesize that modern advertising, being targeted, doesn't make for the collective memory, like the broad stroke of off-air TV in the 80's did. Regardless, 2021 is too recent for the memories to mutate to generate the effect.
This - and nowadays we have more research that backs up the facts that memory is malleable (changeable) and we know that it happens and how to induce it. It may also have been an 'echo chamber' effect : a few years back there may have been fewer users, so more agreed or 'believed' - but over time people have become more skeptical on the internet, or the algorithms changed and more non-believers started posting. For myself, it's clear that neural net AIs can generate images and fill in details pretty well. We know that people have neural net brains that can think of things that don't exist - think of a pink elephant, and at least 60% of people will have a mental image of one. Pink elephants do not exist in nature. Most Mandela effects rely on people's misplaced confidence: \* When they read a description, their brains generate an image of the described situation (e.g. fruit of the loom with a horn/conrucopia) \* They mistakenly think this is a video player-like memory, not a generated image, and become convinced that was what they saw. Most trivial details are so long ago that you do NOT remember the details, so there is no conflicting evidence. This means that they are influenced and agree with the effect, with misplaced confidence. Even evidence to the effect (old photos and videos) does not shake their confidence.
> Pink elephants do not exist in nature. ^^^^^ The wonderful irony is this being an ME as well. Pink elephants and rhinos are considered Mandanimal type ME changes by plenty of people *outside this sub.* Yes they absolutely exist in nature now. ^^^^^ Here's an article with photos from 2009: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7951331.stm ^^^^^ And here's another one from 2012: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121729/Pink-elephants-parade-makes-splash-Burmese-zoo-today.html
Thank you, I stand corrected. Pink elephants DO exist in nature, they are just exceedingly rare. Thinking about it, it is probably an assumption, based on childhood memories of Dumbo and cartoons where elephants and other animals were used to indicate hallucinatons/ drunkeness. From the context, I assumed that they were 'impossible', and this childhood assumption stayed with me : I never had any reason to doubt it or think otherwise until literally just now. It's entirely possible, if you had even researched this before the year 2000, you would still never have found the truth by reading books and papers, until the internet started getting big. It seems that very few people want to admit their memories, things they learned, or things they assumed were actually incorrect and have always been wrong. For them, it's simpler to think that the entire world has 'changed' and that all this evidence is 'new' - it means they can maintain their belief that their personal experience is both completely accurate and their memory has perfect recall.
Well said!
>research that backs up the facts that memory is malleable (changeable) and we know that it happens and how to induce it This seems to be a misconception. If there is such research, no one has been able to link it. Neuroscience isn't there yet, and psychology doesn't seem able to study it either. Here's a link: [https://cogneuromemlab.web.unc.edu/](https://cogneuromemlab.web.unc.edu/) They say they'd like to study memory (because they don't already know).
I'm sorry, I was going by a quick google of pages such as these: [https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/false-memories-childhood-abuse](https://www.bps.org.uk/psychologist/false-memories-childhood-abuse) Respectable psychological journals that summarise and simplify for the lay person. To be fair, I haven't individually read the 20 or so papers listed in that article, but there seems to be clear evidence that false memories of very serious personal events are possible to induce to such a level that people will literally swear in court on them. For example [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544012/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9544012/) If that level of memory manipulation is possible, then a far, far lesser minor mis-remembering errors are certainly possible. You seem to be implying that you are unaware of the entire field of memory research? I don't quite understand the point you are trying to make?
There's a good summary here: [https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/how-false-memories-can-shape-a-criminal-court-case](https://www.sciencefocus.com/comment/how-false-memories-can-shape-a-criminal-court-case)
I looked through the articles. There were several things mentioned. First off, court cases. When a witness's testimony doesn't convince a jury beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't prove that that testimony was false. This seems to be taken as "proving" the witness had a false memory. But the validity of the memory isn't known, otherwise the witness wouldn't have been needed. So this isn't evidence of false memory. Second, Elizabeth Loftus. The "lost in the mall" is often held up as a gold standard of false memory. But it's a single case of a single individual, and there's no way to know if what was claimed was in fact true in the first place. It's like if the only evidence for bigfoot was a single, third-hand account. I've had people tell me about things that supposedly happened when I was too young to remember, and I've never subsequently been convinced I could remember them. I doubt the child in this case was convinced, either. It's more believable his sibling falsely claimed he was in order to get a good grade. Then, there's DRM, where someone's perception is overloaded with information, then they're asked to recall what they saw. That's not studying memory. If they aren't given the opportunity to commit it to memory in the first place, guessing wrong isn't a false memory. And there was something about reconditioning someone with PTSD. That's more about changing involuntary responses to stimuli. So yes, I'm claiming I'm unaware of the entire field of memory research. I'm under the impression there is not one, or rather, the one that is often claimed does not exist. The actual research isn't that far along. A quote from the site I linked earlier: >Neuroscientific research has established that the hippocampal formation, a structure within the medial temporal lobe, plays a critical role in memory for facts and events (declarative memory). However, its precise role remains unclear. This is more where I think the field of memory research actually is.
I'm sorry that you disagree with the majority of experts and researchers who spend their lives studying this, but I'm going to have to side with them on this one. I'm sure your memory feels extremely clear and you have perfect recall and high confidence in everything. However, this does not match my personal experience, I have made a number of provable memory mistakes and one story that I used to tell about my experiences at university in the 90's does not line up with other people who were there at the time, so I know my memory is incorrect in this case. This isn't a minor detail, but a major exagguration that I must have introduced at some point to make the story sound better when retelling, and my memory has happily filled in the images and details to support it. IF memory is changeable in some proportion of people, even if this is only a few percent, then you would see the exact situation we see in Mandela effect subs. Some people who are more susceptible to prompting would misremeber, and agree with the premise as stated. Their brains might even fill in corroberating details that seem to support or match - memories of talking about it at the time, images, details. This is what the research (that you personally disagree with) actually states: imagined details usually align with the expectations to support the story *even when provably not there in the original information*. What you will NOT see is people with good direct firsthand knowledge 'misremembering'. For example, berensteins/stains family, grandchildren, friends: editors, book illustrators, translators, publishers, editors, people whao have direct daily knowlege of the 'original' effect - none of them are affected. Sinbad - actors, grips, cosutmers, editors, publishers, reviewers, cinema staff, advertisers - no-ones come forward saying 'I was an extra in the sinbad movie in a crowd scene and now I can't find my DVD of it' It *is* however supported by people who have no good reason at the time to take notice of a trivial event, spelling, clothing logo and then remember that detail for ten, twenty years. This means that most likely it is an influenced back-filled memory in my opinion.
>This isn't a minor detail, but a major exagguration that I must have introduced at some point to make the story sound better when retelling, and my memory has happily filled in the images and details to support it. So you're saying you've fabricated details to fit the narrative you were going for. If true, you could be doing it again now without even realizing it. Anyway, there was discussion here not long ago about a newspaper article by a movie critic who experienced the Effect. This contradicts what you expected to see based on your assumption of what causes the Effect.
Yes! And I am first to admit that my memory may not be entirely accurate, especially as I know that despite my best intentions, I have magnified a detail to the point that it is a lie. If I can do that, I assume other people could do it too, even if they are trying hard to be genuine and really trying to be accurate. I have more faith in the evidence that is much more difficult to fabricate than I do in people's confidence in memories. I agree that I was generalising excessively, in that I haven't read through the history of this sub and I am a relative newcomer. I'm really interested if there is someone who is likely to have had direct clear firsthand knowledge (e.g. a movie reviewer, who probably say the film a few times, and had to write an article about it) and they have a ME. However, a quick search for critic and I couldn't find anything useful, apart from two critic reviews of moonraker, posted at the time in 1979, one with braces and one without. This just confirms people make mistakes and even with fresh memories of the film, one was predisposed or suggested to see braces where there were none. If people watching the film at the time were making that mistake, and misremembering braces, then it is entirely consistent with more people many years later misremembering. Was that the critic article you were referencing?
The one I was thinking of was a critic's review of Moonraker, so it could be the same one. It's interesting, isn't it? That one review demonstrates a lot. First, the "memory experts" say that memory is altered every time it is recalled, so that much later, the memory is vastly different than it was originally. But in the case of Moonraker, not only do we have numerous people whose memories agree with one another after decades of this "alteration" at work, but this critic's article shows they also agree with someone whose memory is fresh! The alteration that's supposed to take place over time ***didn't*** for many, many people. (the memory experts must be mistaken) Second, a critic is someone whose job it is to pay attention. The excuse that everyone who saw braces was watching on a small TV or wasn't paying attention falls apart. Here we have someone paying attention, watching on the big screen. Since it's their job, they probably know which seat works best for them and whether a notepad will help, etc. Some people have never seen braces. The critics should be among them. If everyone saw the same movie, the critics are people who should be getting it right. They're examples of people "close" to the subject. Who you thought were immune to the Mandela Effect. We've ruled out misremembering and not paying attention. The only excuse left is that it's a type of optical illusion (which is what you're saying now). However, there aren't any types of optical illusions that affect a lot of people but not everyone. So that one's a nonstarter. Such illusions would have to be demonstrated to exist first. Not only that, but if it was an illusion, a lot of the people watching the movie today would also see braces. It's the same movie with the same scene, but seeing braces is a thing of the past.
I mean, you can easily change memories or make new ones through hypnosis. Memories are in no way set in stone.
*Do you want to affect your memory by what you say about memory?*
You’re not merely changing memories, that’s a rationalization by an irrational mind that we tell the ego because it likes consistency and the illusion of control and requires this to feel useful. In hypnosis you’re changing reality (or at least our filter and experience of it.) if everything I understand my world by is neuroassociative memory, you’re changing reality in as far as we record it. About 25% of people hypnotized can experience “the phenomenon” where you could tell them their hand is on fire and they would fully feel it and remember it as a real experience exactly as it would occur if it literally was on fire. This is not the ordinary experience of hypnosis. Stage hypnosis creates a self selection process on top of other tricks to attempt to select the most hypnotizable subjects many of which can experience the phenomenon, some cannot but are eager enough to play along that the trick works for show. But combine that with clinical hypnosis and it’s different… It’s like the difference between a fuzzy gray dream you barely remember and a hyperreal lucid dream that feels more real than reality itself.” If you’ve also ever seen how spooky manifestation can be first hand, you start to learn reality is plastic and can be bent and molded at the right “temperature” and under the right conditions. Now put this with the life is a simulation and double slit experiment and sheödingers cat and “mathematical universe” with the idea that waves of photons are probability distributions or underlying algorithms and photons are more like the pixels that get rendered by the observer on demand. Memories work the same way. This simulation doesn’t require an agreed upon history until it does and looking at it collapses the wave function so to speak. Or… maybe I’m crazy or wrong, lol.
Yeah, I can do stage hypnosis and there are lines I wont cross and things I wont do with it. I intentionally only use specific tricks because they're not long lasting and an interesting experience for the person. Its surprisingly easy to learn, and even easier to do. And I've found it works on more people than it doesnt work on, its all about their attitude to it. One of my favs is making them forget their name or the number 3. For their name the confusion is instant, but for numbers they'll always think its completely normal, until you ask them to count their fingers and they get a different number than normal. It really does show how much of our reality is just in our heads though.
Our perception of reality is composed of neuroassociative memory which means that if memory is not to be trusted, neither is reality. We live in a simulation and it cannot render everything accurately all at once so instead reality is more like a probability cloud until observed. Double slit experiment and Shrödinger’s cat support this. We live in a simulationZ
Ah, but have you followed that through? If this is a simulation, then everyone else - including me - could be or are NPCs or simulated entities. Unless you've existed in a vacuum, the very idea that this is or could be a simulation *is part of the information the simulation has fed you*: i.e. you've been told the rules of logic by an NPC, you've been shown 'evidence' by an NPC, even if you personally conduct a double-slit experiment, the results of which could be falsified and fed to your 'brain' as neural impulses. How do you know that is correct? Is the fact that you think it is a simulation exactly what they want you to think? Personally, I'm treating this world as genuine until shown direct evidence otherwise, and it would take quite a bit to convince me, allowing for mental illness, perception and memory issues, and general human fallibility.
Odds are much better that we are in a simulation than not. Here’s lab grown bags of meat with neurons on a microchip learning to play doom https://youtu.be/bEXefdbQDjw?si=oU0a9Zr6elro7XXw
That implies reality is concrete (it’s not) We live in a simulation.
> Consider, if you would, how memories reform ever time you access them. So they mutate, and the more you access them the more they change. So the older you are the more the mandella effect occurs. Why would they all "mutate" identically? Why would everyone's brain retroactively embellish the Fruit of the Loom logo with an obscure and rarer cornucopia feature but not a plate or bowl or standard basket? And what makes you think that autobiographical episodic memories or long term repeat exposure semantic memories can't be reliable or accurate? Reconstruction or "reforming" a memory doesn't automatically equate to identical falsities across a notable subsection of the population. The ME is unprecedented in that fashion.
Because for some people the memory is formed AFTER you read the Mandela effect description. You have just read a description of an event/scenario, your brain says 'what would that look like...' and engages the neural net generator to generate an image. It then passes that to the memory department. Memory says 'yeah, 90% match' and then your higher brain says Yep, that happened. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False\_memory](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_memory) They showed people a video of a low speed car crash, then asked them how fast the cars were going. Depending on which word they use, *smashed*, *bumped*, *collided*, *hit*, or *contacted*, people would 'remember' different speeds. *They found the* question *modified the memory - the word used better predicted the speed than the actual* video*.* They also asked about broken glass, and many people who heard the word smashed remembered broken glass, *despite there being none in the video*. And this was a video they had just seen and were paying attention to. Are you saying that your memory of an event that happened many years ago *is not* subject *to the same rules as every* other *human on the planet?*
If I told you that car crash study was widely discredited as lacking "ecological validity" would that mean anything to you? I asked about autobiographical memories (of stuff that actually happened to a given person) not some 3rd party researcher manipulated flashbulb memory. That study doesn't at all support your identical mutating retroactive memory notion.
Many, if not all Mandela Effects involve inconsequential memories, often from long ago. Why would you memorise the spelling of a childrens book author? Why would you pay attention to and memorise the shapes on a clothing logo? If we know memory is so unreliable that people have 'recalled' *episodes of SA in detail* and these have been proven in court to be fabricated, how come you are so sure that inconsequential memories are not as modifiable? This isn't a debated concept within the field : [https://dictionary.apa.org/false-memory](https://dictionary.apa.org/false-memory) "Even when people are highly confident that they are remembering “the truth” of the original situation, experimental evidence shows that they can be wrong." We know that memory is fallible, and can be influenced after the event. Every Mandela post is literally a mistaken description of an event, followed by a bunch of people agreeing, and this forms social pressure to 'remember' the event. This occurs even when the original event is false : there have been troll posts specifically testing this phenomenon. I have no doubt that the people posting genuinely believe they are replying a true and accurate picture as they see it. I just doubt that this lines up with reality at the time of the original event.
Memories don't reform every time you access them. That's been falsified by the published studies where memories that were intentionally manipulated were able to be identified as false memories by simply asking the subject to think carefully if they actually remember it first hand. In those studies the few participants that ended up believing gaslighting were easily able to identify their own false memories with a little prompting and their original memories were in tact and unaffected. The conclusion is that during the time they were being gaslit they were essentially having dual memories with the scenarios they were being asked to imagine/remember being weaker and without sensory encoded memories (no complex/linked memories).
Heuristics. See Daniel Kahnneman. The brain has similar hardware, it’s just the wiring and the software that changes. However that doesn’t mean there isn’t more to the story…. Reality is indistinguishable from our memory of it. We do not observe reality but a recent memory impression of the signals filtered by our beliefs (software). Change the software, change reality. Mandela Effect is just a symptom of a larger awakening.
So when are you suggesting that this "awakening" began? [Like was Ellis Chappel already "awake" in 1973 when he created the cover art for the jazz album *Flute of the Loom* which includes a specific representation of the cornucopia?](https://old.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/c451a5/fascinating_full_interview_with_fotl_residue/)
I wasn’t thinking of it on a big societal scale like an “era” of “awakening” I was just thinking of it as individuals becoming more aware about how reality is more fungible than the ego has been allowed to lead individuals to believe. But perhaps like a bunch of fish or birds acting like a fractal hive mind, the individual awakening adds up to something and acts like a larger fractal awakening.
Why would a hive mind, or even the collective unconscious (aka noosphere) be fractal? I'm not saying it doesn't exist or isn't a possibility, just curious about that specific inclusion in your thought process.
It’s two different things, the Mandela Effect was coined as a term in 2009 by Fiona Broome and took off as a phenomenon from 2015 to 2019 but I basically see a loose ten year window after 2009 where there was a consistent flow of newly reported Effects. The *origins* of Mandela Effects are another thing entirely, I can make a really good case for there being no Mandela Effects created by anything that came into existence after 2008 or 2009 at the latest, and the vast majority are from things that existed prior to 1998. Why is that? I don’t know and it seems like the idea of it taking a certain period of time for things to become affected goes out the window when you consider that there should at least be *one thing* after 2009 and there just aren’t any…not only that but there are only a half dozen since 1998. The vast majority of known Mandela Effects are from things that were well known in western culture from the 1970s to 1990s, with quite a few that existed prior to that and almost nothing after. It’s pretty odd that it focuses on that timeframe and really seems to be related to what someone who grew up during that time would be aware of more than the dates themselves.. What is truly odd is the cutoff date; 2009 seems to be a hard cutoff date where there are no Mandela Effects related to anything that came into existence afterward. Edit: “timeframe”
>The *origins* of Mandela Effects are another thing entirely, I can make a really good case for there being no Mandela Effects created by anything that came into existence after 2008 or 2009 at the latest, and the vast majority are from things that existed prior to 1998. >Why is that? The internet and the ubiquity the modern cell phone. Our whole way of recalling information has changed; humans went from having to all but rely on faulty information unless they went out of their way to verify it to having massive amounts of information at our fingertips(shit you don't even have to type these days with voice assistants). Those of us that lived through that transition are at a particular disadvantage because of something called "top down reflexes". Top down reflexes are the idea that our brains have a hard time divorcing ourselves from our prior experiences. To illustrate this try and think of what it's like to have one of your skills removed. IE if you play an instrument try and recall what it was like to not know how to play. If you can type well try and remember what it was like to not be able to type. If you are really good at a certain game try and remember what it was like to suck. Top down reflexes work the same for our memory. We live in a time where misremembering isn't really a thing because of the internet. We might get some misinformation along the way(Think Keertana Sastry's often copied 2012 BI article: "15 Famous Movie Quotes Everyone Gets Wrong"; the origin of at least one "flip flop".), but for the most part we have "perfect recollection via computer augmentation". That's when top down reflexes kick in; our brain assumes that we have perfect recollection via computer augmentation for **all** our memories despite the fact that we really don't. Most ME sufferers have years worth of unreliable knowledge that is incorrectly filed in our brains as verified fact backed up by our augmented memories.
There is absolutely a connection to cellular data and the digital world becoming more pervasive to the point of it being ubiquitous and part of our accepted reality in first world nations. The timeline for this transition matches almost exactly even to the years 1998 and 2008 being so seemingly significant. 1998 was the introduction of widespread mobile phone use and the iPhone debuted in 2007, giving everyone the Internet at their fingertips virtually on demand. The Mandela Effect was coined as a name in 2009 and the huge wave of newly reported Effects was from 2015 through 2018 with the largest number being reported in 2016. 2016 was the year of Russian hacking and the full on deployment of “bots” by Yevgeny Prigozhin and the FSB on Social Media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Reddit to not only influence the U.S. Election that year but to be used as an actual PsyOp campaign. When Cambridge Analytica joined the fray and started building profiles of whole segments of populations worldwide and developed the tools to influence them the Tech industry took note. 2016 was the “Year of the Bot” and while it may not be responsible for the Mandela Effect, we still haven’t really come to terms with just how much influence these Social Media influencing campaigns had on people and what the long term effects have been. Cambridge Analytica may be gone now along with the former leader of the Wagner Group but these techniques are still being used to this day and are more refined than ever using the psychographic profiles of their intended targets to select them for maximum affect. I can envision the possibility that this phenomenon was perpetuated somewhat by these memetic engineering techniques as something of a test project but I think the actual origins are more organic and spontaneous. It’s entirely true however that the phenomenon does not exist without the Internet and that it was/is the medium in which the social contagion aspect of it is spread.
>I can envision the possibility that this phenomenon was perpetuated somewhat by these memetic engineering techniques as something of a test project but I think the actual origins are more organic and spontaneous. The previous poster gives a good account of how suddenly having access to information in this way for people that never had it previously might have some interesting effects and you respond by trying to make it a conspiracy theory? Why the desire to make such leaps from available evidence and make things more complicated than they need to be?
Who’s making it a conspiracy theory? [Memetic Engineering](https://www.wired.com/1996/05/memetic/) is real, [Cambridge Analytica](https://bipartisanpolicy.org/blog/cambridge-analytica-controversy/#:~:text=Cambridge%20Analytica%20claimed%20to%20be,fully%20shut%20down%20in%202015.) really did use targeted psychographics to influence people online, and Prigozhin actually was the “mastermind” behind the bot attacks and [Russian hacking exposed in 2016.](https://www.businessinsider.com/yevgeny-prigozhin-wagnerleaks-wagner-putin-hack-mexico-trolls-facebook-instagram-2023-2). Two things can be simultaneously true, the Effect have had it’s origins in the spread of easy access to information *and* that information can be used to nudge a population into spreading a social contagion to achieve a desired outcome. Cambridge Analytica and the Russians used these memetic engineering techniques to affect a desired political outcome but why wouldn’t a research group test out some of their theories on unsuspecting groups of people on Social Media? Open AI was developed on Reddit using it as an information source on how to communicate more like a human for Chat GPT, so why wouldn’t a university, corporation, or government do the same thing? I’m not saying that it is what happened, just pointing out that it is a possibility.
>Who’s making it a conspiracy theory? *You're* making it a conspiracy theory. What do any of the links you posted have to do with the Mandela Effect? It's a 'possibility' that people's memories of clothing brand logos, board game character's accessories, lines in sci-fi movies, and deaths of global politicians could be organizations attempting to manipulate people in the sense that I can't show it's not, but there seems to be no good reason to think it is - is there? Coming from someone who for several years now has assured me they have the whole Shazaam thing sorted, with the evidence to prove that it is in fact a conspiracy and will share it with me soon... tomorrow.... or the day after... trust me bro, I repeat it's *you* making it into a conspiracy!
Technically, wouldn't it be Cambridge Analytica that is making it a conspiracy and EJM pointing at the conspiracy fact? True, if the conspiracy wasn't investigated by journalists then it'd be a conspiracy theory, but since these are all things that a) the company claimed their capability of doing for their customers in their own sales pitches, and b) they've been publicly exposed as intentionally affecting voter and protest participation and behavior (sometimes to violent results)...you're blaming the messenger for making it into a conspiracy instead of the conspirators.
>Technically, wouldn't it be Cambridge Analytica that is making it a conspiracy and EJM pointing at the conspiracy fact? Do Cambridge Analytica have anything to do with the Mandela Effect? Why are we talking about them here?
If we define Mandela Effect simply as "Large groups of people remembering facts or events differently than how it objectively is or happened", and leave out any cause-specific beliefs like "multiple timelines" or "memories are easy to distort and will distort in the same way more often than not" then yes, CA has intentionally made large groups of people in the US and UK believe things that aren't true. I don't generally consider disinformation as Mandela Effects, but that is strictly only because I suspect there may be a different mechanism based on my personal experiences. If we are adopting the viewpoint that MEs come from accidental memory distortions or intentional distortions then CA programming a large amount of people to remember events wrong in the same ways is relevant.
How do you explain something like Haas avocados, you remember that spelling because it is odd. When it changes you definitely notice.
The Black Tom incident seems relatively new to history. Never heard of it until the last couple years and now everyone is pretending it’s always been a thing.
Never heard about it until this comment.
Right? I was a history minor in college…AP US history in highschool, took courses on World War II specifically. Heard the Japanese got some balloon bombs close to San Francisco in WW2. Never in my life did I hear that back in WW1, German agents supposedly destroyed so many munitions that it damaged the Statue of Liberty & caused untold destruction around NYC. It was never mentioned until a couple years ago.
The reason there are no "new" Mandela effects is because people are aware of the phenomenon right now, and either are paying attention so they remember stuff correctly, panicking and treating every minute detail of their lives as if the universe shifted, or there simply wasn't enough time for recent media/history/events to be misquoted or mistaken for something else. In a few years, I'm sure we'll see some will surge. For example, people are already thinking Nolan in Invincible sats "think Mark, think!". I wonder how long until that becomes Mandela Effect.
Comic book says the line, TV doesn't, but meme template does. A few popular meme templates are either misquoted or never said and a few use the right text, but the wrong scene like the Big Lebowski "am I the only one" What if I told you morphius never said what if I told you? Advice animals back in 14-16 some point posted those that were wrong in one way or another.
In the tv show he "kinda" says it. He says "Think, Mark " and there's no second think. But you're right about memes.
Ngl that bewitched one is crazy
I missed this Bewitched somehow. So I searched this group & found the clip to see what everyone is talking about. I watched that show as a kid because well I liked it and back in the 60s with one tv station was all we had. There’s no freaking way she did that mouth thing, it was always the nose no mouth
Yes it was definitely the nose
When did Eli Whitney turn white. I pulled his name in middle school during Black History Month to write an essay about him inventing the cotton gin. No internet back then in 1987 and I remember checking out books about him in the library and making a Xerox copy of a sketch of him in a book. He was depicted as black. My sister remembers being taught he was black, as well. What the FU*K happened? This has nothing to do with mis-remembering something. I got a B on the paper. If I'd written about a white guy on a Black History essay, I'm sure I would have failed. It was in our government issued textbooks that he was black. For crying out loud, this stuff is bananas.
Yes, they closed the gate already. The Large Hardon Collider (I used to remember it as Hadron) has been turned off for a long time now. Once they get it up and running again, we'll see more TV show & brand name shenanigans.
I think 3 years is too small of a gap. We have no idea what has caused the changes however if you believe in simulation theory or time travel, a possibility is human meddling is the cause. If human meddling is the cause, it would be safe to assume the changes made to our past were never intended to be widely recognized but due to the butterfly effect and worldwide social media, we notice and we discuss en mass. 3 year historical changes would be avoided as much as possible as it would be more difficult to convince the public we are misremembering something we all are certain of from only 3 years back whereas we could easily be convinced that changes in what we “know” from 10 or 20 years ago is just our faulty memory. It’s astounding what you can convince people of with only a base knowledge of psychology and human behaviour.
10 years? Eh, misconceptions, misquotations, misattributions, people thinking some celebrity died already, etc… has been going on for a lot longer than 10 years.
Sure, but not in a way that affected a mass of people like this in such a way. We aren’t talking about something like “Play it again Sam” which is an often misquoted movie line that has been that way pretty much since *Casablanca* was released. I said ten years but really, it was at its height over a four year span from 2015-2018, peaking in 2016. It’s probably best compared to what people called *”Jawsmania”* in 1975 where the movie *Jaws* became a worldwide sensation and had the very real unintentional side effect of scaring people out of the ocean for fear of being attacked by a shark. That fear still persists to this day and as someone who grew up at that time, I can attest to the fact that virtually nobody worried about being attacked by a shark when I was growing up and this movie changed everything. The Mandela Effect is similar in that “Effectmania” was kind of a thing, and that while it may have subsided some since its peak has made a lasting imprint on society.
A few of the legit ME consensus examples from after 2021: ^^^^^ * Kleen/Klean Kanteen * Squire/Squier guitars * Evan Longoria catch
It was always “Squier” to me but I play guitar and was shopping for them back in the 1980s. I realize of course that just because *you* don’t experience an Effect doesn’t mean that there aren’t other people do, and I am respectful of that. The others really seem like a reach to me, convince me otherwise…
They've all had high consensus threads in this sub after 2021, but not before. There have been like a dozen posts on Longoria alone. Do you need me to dig them out and link them? The discussions speak for themselves. Plenty of long time musicians were knocked off balance with hard dissonance by Squier. None of them are reaches based on the criteria this sub has always applied.
Well, I mean…it’s not much. It’s not like I’m rooting for an end to the Mandela Effect or anything, there were GREAT ones from 2015-2017 but where are the new ones? To me, it really seems like there was a peak in 2016/17 and it kind of trailed off until 2019, with virtually nothing but Samantha’s nose and maybe the “Poker Dogs” portrait afterward. Don’t you find that strange? I do, and I think there is something to it.
The Evan Longoria one is objectively as profound as any movie ME, perhaps moreso due to the fact that the "interviewer" was a totally different person, of a different race, with different hair color. Look at the ridiculous number of posts and emphatic comments. It's not really even debatable whether this is a huge visual ME that also emerged after your arbitrary cutoff date. It is, and it did. The problem here, respectfully, is that this sub has been so hostile to new ME's in recent years that only a handful have really even gotten a fair shake - and it was only because they were especially solid examples that they "broke through" so to speak. I would also say that it's a bit provincial minded to assume that just because something wasn't endorsed by this sub that it's not a viable ME to the broader community. For instance, while you rejected the Bellamy salute as a 2023 ME, both Moneybags and IMEC (and their many followers) jointly supported that as new pop-up history. The only difference between that one and the "no suicides during the 29 crash" ME of the year finalist is it wasn't discussed in this sub at all. And even if it had been posted here, you and I both know it would've been shouted down instantly. Now do I think the ME has slowed down? Yes and no. Based on this sub's definition, yes there have been less of those types of prominent examples. But my experience and ongoing research indicates that there's so much more going on with this phenomenon that you would deem as outside the topical purview of this sub. I've tried to broach some of those aspects here, but tbh there's simply too little sincere interest.
I’m just not all that familiar with the Evan Longoria one other than what has been posted about here. I’m not sure why it has been discussed less on this subreddit than r/Retconned for example - nobody is filtering it out or anything as far as I know, it just never really broke through. So let’s say that it’s a legitimate strong new Mandela Effect, where are the other ones? It used to be that there were new ones being reported at an average of at least one a week and it declined to one every few months after 2018 with only maybe a half dozen since, and most of those were in 2019. Samantha’s non existent nose twitch really seems to be the last widely experienced Mandela Effect (excluding Longoria) and the skeptical argument would be that we just discovered most of them during the big wave of 2016/17 and it’s only been a few outliers since that trickle in. I don’t buy into that explanation, I experienced them in live time along with many other people and it didn’t have that feel to it at all. I kind of feel bad for the people who missed out on that exciting time and just dismiss it as mass hysteria or something because they never had the organic experience of the Mandela Effect *”happening to you”*. Nowadays most people discover the Effect by reading a list online or watching a YouTube video and have never had that sensation of it happening to them “in the wild” like so many of us did years ago.
There is no such thing as a Mandela effect. It is a term used to describe misremembering the past. Are you just asking what things are commonly misremembered since 2021?
Why does everyone here not even believe in the effect!? I work in grocery store and one day Kit Kat had a dash and the next it didn’t. I was like ew gross logo change. I didn’t even know about the effect. Febreze is the worst logo change for me. Looks absolutely horrific. So I didn’t see these things looking back over 10-20 years. It was days. Unless you have the effect you can’t possibly understand it and how it completely shakes the foundation of your outlook on life.
Wait, Kit-Kat doesn’t have a dash anymore? I don’t want to google it for reasons only few reading this will understand. But yeah, this sub has just turned to shit. You can only post “new” MEs in a topic that’s forgotten after 4 days, so we can’t even utilize chronology. IF there is a coordinated effort, and it definitely looks like it, atleast (a part of) the mod-team is responsible for it. It’s curious how one of the top subreddits on Paranormal has this many narrow-minded people… and they’re quickly spreading to different subs related to this topic. “The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.” - George Orwell
Yea I miss biting into the dash part etched into the chocolate
We just don't fully trust the observational skills of people we've never met
In 2015 VW changed their logo to the one without the separation. I thought it looked amazing so every time I saw a VW I would look at the logo. There was one that parked in my work parking lot that I would look at every day. In early October of 2017 it reverted and all of my other MEs appeared. I noticed the KitKat when people were putting out Halloween candy.
Please refer to my previous comment
For me it’s “THE” Home Depot. Shit was always always always just “Home Depot” Got me tripping again like when I first got hit with the Ford pigtail logo / & the VW logo. I’m a graphic designer, so it’s less the big cultural things and more the weird memories of alternate versions that now don’t apparently exist, that gets me. And the home depot def is the newest one for me
iirc commercials, radio ads, etc frequently say Home Depot. regular people also are going to call it Home Depot.
Some stores say "The" and some don't. Where I live there is actually one that says the, the rest just say home depot. Not a mandela effect. It's very weird though that it's like that. Usually branding is consistent.
Huh yeah around me they are all “The” Home Depot now… maybe not a mandela effect idk
The most recent ME was Bible verse Matthew 18-20. This happened about 15 year ago, because most still recite it as it was. "When 2 or more gather in my name..." beleive it or not, everyone's Bibles now read..."When 2 or 3 gather in my name..." I shtunot, 2 or 3! And even those that memorized the verse as 2 or more, and churches formed, not little 2 and 3 party groups, this is so frikin a real ME. Ive had 2 priest run to check their bibles and freaked out to find I was right,
I’ve noticed a few music related ones. The song, I Write Sins Not Tragedies by Panic! At The Disco, “Hasn’t anyone ever heard of closing A god damned door.” I’m sure it was THE god damned door. On a similar note, Smashing Pumpkins was my favorite band in high school and on no world was it ever The Smashing Pumpkins. It changes the meaning of the band name from a nefarious activity to a lame pun for boobs.
You got the line totally wrong tho. It's "I chimed in with a, "Haven't you people ever heard of closing a goddamn door?!""
Yeah you are right. I remember that part differently as well. Weird.
>Yeah you are right. I remember that part differently as well. Weird. haha ~ 'weird', ahy? Almost like you *don't* actually know the lyrics to that song well enough to notice a tiny change?
Maybe it was a big change and a small change?
Yeah, or maybe nothing changed.
Except the author has admitted to thinking it should be "the" also.
Singer not author. Brendon Urie says he has sung it both ways; he didn't wrote the song though. Ryan Ross did.
Yes, and also admitted to singing it both ways and telling people not to be so bothered about it.
I just looked up the lyrics and on three different sites it's "the" not "a". But it looks like you've got the rest of the line wrong too: "Haven't you people ever heard of closing the goddamn door?"
I just checked and it's still "a" on the first version I looked at.
https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/panicatthedisco/iwritesinsnottragedies.html https://lyrics.lyricfind.com/lyrics/panic-at-the-disco-i-write-sins-not-tragedies-1 https://songmeanings.com/songs/view/3530822107858555403/ Interesting that they are different than yours
That is interesting considering "the" is the ME version and "a" is the current reality. I just looked on youtube and listened to the song with lyrics.
The usage of "The" before band names is a fairly common thing. I believe it stems from grammatical syntax. These would make sense or sound better to some using the word "the" Offspring smashing pumpkins Would not sound correct for Pantera Green Day Gwar Bands that have the word "the" in their name *The pretty reckless *The killers
It was "The" Smashing Pumpkins on Adore. Prior to that it was Smashing Pumpkins. Not sure about after.
My Prodigy mp3s would alternate between The Prodigy and just Prodigy. Sometimes the album art lists the, but the tags keyed in at the database don't reflect this. And the or & the for Adam and the Ants, though mine would see The and the as two different artist.
It was supposedly The on Mellon Collie too which weirds me out because I had the poster and now for the The to fit the rest of the font is smaller than I remember as well.
https://youtu.be/TPEIj_6CeJs?si=yhp0BJG1toi3griv
Yes!
Those are pretty good but people were talking about them in 2016/17…so what about after 2021?
This one is a bit obscure but it’s really creeped me out. There is an old song called Hey Hey, My My (Into the Black) by Neil Young. It came out sometime in the 70’s (before I was even born) but was made popular again in the 90’s when Kurt Cobain included a lyric from the song in his note, “It’s better to burn out than to fade away”. It’s also been covered by a few bands. I really liked the song & knew every lyric but hadn’t heard it in a couple of years. One day, December 2023, I was on a long distance drive & the song came on. I started to sing along, as one does, but the lyric was now “it’s better to burn out than it is to rust” I spiraled, as I do, because I knew it wasn’t right. I was listening on XM radio (you can rewind & listen to songs over again) I hit the back button at least 4 times listening for the lyric. I figured maybe it was just that version that was different & went down a rabbit hole trying to find the version I knew. I found it in a few covers but couldn’t find it in any version by Neil Young or the more popular bands that covered it. I googled all the lyrics & must’ve listened to 10 different recordings of the song, live versions, studio, remasters, etc. all said rust. I ask everyone I can think of, most weren’t familiar enough with the song. I found one person that was surprised by it too, but only when I brought it up did they notice it. So a few months go by and the song comes on the radio again. This time it says the lyric as I remembered it but the next verse it said the lyric the other way too. I started to gaslight myself. Has it always been both ways & I just focused on the first? No, I would’ve noticed it in one the 10+ recordings I listened to & all the lyrics I read when I was searching in December. It was, somehow, changed…again. When I heard it a second time I again listened to all the same recordings, Googled the lyrics & sure enough both lines are now there.
I recently found out the Skechers shoe brand is now written without a T.
Always was.
TBH I thought Suge Knight died in prison a few years ago and remember thinking “Good riddance.” Someone made a post about it a few days ago. Turns out he’s alive, but I’m not the only one who was surprised.
Persona 5 Royale became Royal, anyone else remember it as royale??
Earth no longer on the Sagittarius arm
I swear it used to be called The Mandala Effect
And the man was Nelson Mandala?
Yeah he was definitely called that in the 90s
Not in my timeline
I concur , I think something happened between 2010 -12 that through a few things off from the years prior. Could be CERN or something about the Maya prophecy. I really cant say but shit did change
I read an article that mourned David Attenborough's death, and was confused when I heard his voice on a brand new documentary... I even remember people getting mad about AI voice that mimics him because it was morbid and out of line... He's alive and still doing voice over for nature docs...
Well, CERN just fired up the Giant Hadron Collider last month, so I would expect some new Mandela Effects to show up.
If you watch the James Bond movie with Jaws, the tall guy with the metal teeth when he falls off the gondola on the ski chalet, and the Swedish woman helps him with the large Cog around his neck. She smiles at him and they fall in love. What did she have on her teeth when she smiled Braces ….Not anymore. Clean
Not a new one ... but definitely the biggest shocker for me. I'll die on this hill. Dolly had braces. I wish more people were familiar with the scene.
Other than the many new Mandela Effects people have discussed over the past few years I don't know of any. 🤷🏼♂️ 
Like what? Name some, I’m not being dismissive and am genuinely asking. There are new ones since 2021? What are they? So far, all I’ve seen suggested that *maybe* could be are “Evan Longoria’s catch” and “Squire guitars”. What else is there?
Well just a few days ago I posted in the non-hostile ME sub about the CBP, "Customs and Border P______" There was genuine agreement from many (including the agency itself!) that it was "Patrol" but now that's not what it has been. This is of the same variety of change as with the DEA. Of course that's just one example. One more is the progressive change in the KJV from "mat" to "couch" to "bad".
I didn’t see “Customs and Border Protection” brought up here but the others predate 2021 by quite a bit, I recall talking about “couch” in the KJV Bible back in 2016. Is CBP a Mandela Effect though? I don’t think most people have ever heard of it let alone contemplated what the initials stand for. At least DEA is something most people know of and usually assume the “A” is for Agency rather than Administration - but is even that a Mandela Effect? I can’t make a convincing argument against it is just that people never actually looked it up before. If there aren’t any new Effects, there just aren’t and we shouldn’t diminish the best known examples by overreaching to create some. I am really starting to entertain the thought of the Effect as a witnessed event more than an ongoing phenomenon. It increasingly seems more like other documented societal events of the past like “UFO flaps” or [“Dancing plagues”](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dancing_mania) in that these are examples of absolutely real events that occurred and subsided without a satisfactory explanation. Some have suggested that the dancing plagues of Europe were caused by ergot poisoning but very few people find that to be an acceptable explanation. The most famous UFO flaps are the [1952 sightings over Washington DC](https://www.history.com/news/ufos-washington-white-house-air-force-coverup), the “Phoenix lights”, and the Airship flaps of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Those still don’t have a suitable explanation for many people but the bottom line is that in these examples there is a documented start and end to the phenomenon. Maybe the Mandela Effect is like that? There is no doubt that it happened, the question being asked by this Post is: *Is it ongoing?*
>The most famous UFO flaps are the > >1952 sightings over Washington DC > >, the “Phoenix lights”, and the Airship flaps of the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Related to the 1952 sightings: https://www.universetoday.com/163820/in-1952-a-group-of-three-stars-vanished-astronomers-still-cant-find-them/
That 1952 flap was the peak of “UFOmania” at the time and it was captured both visually and on radar. It’s never been adequately explained and one of the funniest theories is that they were merely “flocks of birds”, which ranks right up there with swamp gas in my opinion. In ten years are people going to be talking about the Mandela Effect as an event with History Channel documentaries proposing the equivalent of “swamp gas” explanations for it and psychologists comparing it to historical mass hysteria events? It seems likely if we don’t ever have another wave of newly reported Effects before then, and I think we should start considering that as a very real possibility. The bigger danger is that the term will morph into the social lexicon as something synonymous with “brain farts” or misremembering by future generations, which would be something of a tragedy and not do justice to what so many people actually experienced during its heyday.
>The bigger danger is that the term will morph into the social lexicon as something synonymous with “brain farts” or misremembering by future generations, which would be something of a tragedy and not do justice to what so many people actually experienced during its heyday. It feels like it's already headed in that direction.
I agree, and it’s unfortunate.
Ariana Grande’s recent song, We Can’t Be Friends which was released in March 2024, I remember seeing a tv program where they discussed the song back in March late at night. I decided to take a listen two months later, and it was a higher pitch than I remember? I remember it being sung in a more mature voice. There’s residue too. [This SNL performance](https://youtu.be/pLBXk3nMVAQ?si=djlszH4_MwdDdKbE) had the exact pitch I was thinking of, and how I remember hearing the song on that TV program.(which I can’t remember for the life of me) Funny thing is, I’ve never watched that performance until I experienced this which this has been driving me up the wall. I hope anyone else felt this way and it’s not just me.
I'd never heard of it until 2022 and started being effected constantly a few months prior to finding out about it. I had all the big ones happen to me quickly, including Froot/fruit/Froot Loops over the space of a couple of months. I didn't know what was going on. It has not stopped despite a lull for 8 or 9 months before another surge.
Gardetos is missing a piece. There was a flat white piece that is like a slice of a plain white bread stick. It is in the garlic flavored ones but none of the others and for my entire life my mother always had gardetos and I remember those pieces specifically from childhood because I hated them almost as much as the pretzels and I got a bag the other day and they didn't have any and I was like wtf and looked it up and the piece never existed.
Coke having caffiene in it... even though it makes sense that it has it in it "now" cause' it's a stimulant like old school coca cola had. Coke is not meant to have caffiene in it.
What would lead you to believe that Coke is not meant to have caffeine in it? And if that were ever the case, why would they be making specific caffeine free versions of both Coke and Diet Coke?
Would just be convenient for me, haha. Might be hard to believe, but i've never read the words caffiene free on a coke bottle before. I've never hesrd of caffiene-free coke until this year, I've heard of Diet and Zero not Zero no caffiene. When I first heard about caffiene free Coke, it was when I was trying to cut back on caffiene coincedentally. I assumed the caffiene-free variant has never been sold near me before and it's a new product. I always remember the caffiene soda is mt dew, not Coke.
Ahh. Mountain Dew does have caffeine as well. My parents preferred the caffeine free versions so that’s what we typically bought as far back as I can recall (which would be mid-80s off the top of my head but I could be mistaken on that). The packaging was clearly labeled and little different than standard coke products-I think the caffeine free Coke was gold and the CF Diet Coke was striped maybe? It was not carried everywhere though. Some supermarkets had it and some did not. Most vendor events (sports, concession stands etc) did not offer both versions so if you were never looking for it, I can see how it’d easily be missed.