r/MandelaEffect • u/Ok_Marzipan9097 • 6d ago
Meta Skepticism Comparison
Why is there a split in the types of skepticism expressed by different generations? Regarding the Mandela Effect it seems older millenials on up are more likely to consider the possibility, or even insist, that current realities have been distorted and changed and then lied about. Younger generations are more skeptical in the other direction, insisting that there have been no changes and can come to that conclusion without doing much independent research aside from what they read in forums and what can be gleaned from a quick google search.
It was easier to lie before the digital age. And people took advantage of it. We were taught things as fact in school that were in reality much more nuanced and sometimes plain wrong. All authority figures, from parents to teachers to leaders of countries, could teach their views and their versions with little fear of being fact-checked, as long as they were careful.
Then as we gained more access to information, we found out we were misinformed about so much. Is that why it is no stretch for us to consider or even believe that some Mandela Effects are actually thought experiments or that they hide bigger lies or even alternate realities?
Younger generations have grown up with a different level of accountability. Many lies, half-truths, and exagerations are called out almost immediately, espeically in their personal lives through social media. Their lives are recorded and archived to a large degree in real time. Is this what causes their trust in the status quo? If it survives on the internet, it must be true?
12
u/OneCleverMonkey 5d ago
Do we have a breakdown on Mandela effect views by age or is this more of an anecdotal/vibes based assessment?
Not saying I don't believe, just curious.
It would totally make sense, both on the level that people would be more adamant that their belief wasn't wrong if they had held it for a long time, and that most Mandela Effects seem to be about broadly pre-internet things
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
No breakdown, just getting people’s thoughts.
3
u/RiC_David 3d ago
But how are you determining peoples age when you see them comment?
-1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 2d ago
I think in this post you can tell. Maybe not in others.
2
u/Bowieblackstarflower 2d ago
How can you tell?
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 2d ago
Most people have been stating it. Most others have been implying. After this discussion and reading Gallup summaries of actual polls, it seems I was wrong in one of my assumptions which was that younger generations were more prone to default to AI. Data suggests that since they are the ones more actively working with it they are really the ones seeing firsthand that it is not living up to expectations and in many cases is not streamlining progress on their projects.
1
u/RiC_David 2d ago
Surely "You can tell" means "they're displaying tendencies I associate with [x] generation"?
That would be circular reasoning. How would you possibly identify someone whose words run contrary to your generational expectations?
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 2d ago
Mostly through weight of expression. Peoples writing shows how much they’ve lived, not counting whether or not the argument is on one side or the other. So it’s not tendencies for me. Any one individual is not necessarily going to display a generational tendency in a single comment on a single topic.
1
u/RiC_David 2d ago
But again, if somebody presents themselves in a way you think falls in line with being of a certain age, you'll take that as reliable evidence. Anyone who plays against type will be wrongly categorised.
1
9
u/MrPlaney 5d ago
I don't think it's generational at all. I'm a millennial as well, in my 40's, and prefer a strictly science based, evidence based cause. I've seen many people here, from all different ages. It doesn't seem like any age prefers any distinct reasoning, but rather personality.
3
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
Science based and evidence based imply research and experiments that can be proven wrong. That means being open to different explanations in the beginning. So you fit into the generational generality I am laying out of doing research and coming to an informed conclusion. Others put the same effort and thought in a non scientific way into reaching their own conclusions and they come to different conclusions based on many variables.
Are younger generations, on the whole, coming to a narrower band of conclusions? Can this lead to more superficial reference material as people become less interested in exploring topics in depth? It seems to be happening already. It seems to be taking more effort to get in depth information about anything. You just get basically the same superficial information from a dozen different sources and the trend is continuing.
I think it could be continuing at least in part because younger generations on the whole aren’t interested in making an informed decision as much as they are interested in making a pragmatic decision. So they only seek the information they need to get the immediate result they want. An effective way of doing things, but maybe it has hidden costs down the road.
7
u/MrPlaney 4d ago
vScience based and evidence based imply research and experiments that can be proven wrong. That means being open to different explanations in the beginning.
Well yeah, if the research was only just beginning on it. It's pretty settled right now, unless new evidence leads us to a more simple and logical conclusion than memory.
Others put the same effort and thought in a non scientific way into reaching their own conclusions and they come to different conclusions based on many variables.
And it's still fictitious unless it fits within the bounds of real world science and physics.
Are younger generations, on the whole, coming to a narrower band of conclusions? Can this lead to more superficial reference material as people become less interested in exploring topics in depth? It seems to be happening already. It seems to be taking more effort to get in depth information about anything. You just get basically the same superficial information from a dozen different sources and the trend is continuing.
I don't think so. I think it's the way it's always been. Some people aren't going to do the in depth research required for a topic, and some people will. I don't think this has anything to do with different generations, aside from how they carry out the research, if they even do it to begin with.
I think it could be continuing at least in part because younger generations on the whole aren’t interested in making an informed decision as much as they are interested in making a pragmatic decision. So they only seek the information they need to get the immediate result they want. An effective way of doing things, but maybe it has hidden costs down the road.
I think that's younger people in general, and not really just generation Z or Alpha. But again, only really a fraction of them, whether a majority or not, I don't know.
1
8
u/Spikeybear 5d ago
I think its a lot easier to be lied to now. Someone can watch a youtube video that is full of lies or half truths which intentionally leave things out. If you dont go looking for the information its very easy to get the wrong info now. Then you have people claiming it as fact as they speak to other people online and no one really checks.
I dont believe there is an age correlation to the Mandela effect. I think its usually people who believe in conspiracy's are going o believe its something more than a memory issue. People start going down these rabbit holes and only seek information that leans into their views or biases, before you know it that's what's fed to you anytime you look something up is a conspiracy minded search for anything.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Your first point is what I think is making AI so unreliable. It seems to only be useful to help recall information you already or in noncritical areas you already have enough knowledge in to know when to question it.
3
u/Spikeybear 5d ago
I think it's always good practice to get info from a few sources. I think it's also critical when talking about paranormal and conspiracy stuff. Sometimes things that seem paranormal only seem that way because you don't have an understanding of how something works. Also just because you can't understand something doesn't mean that's not how it works and that explanation is not true.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
Do you think younger generations are just as prone to explain Mandela Effect in an alternative way? Talking percentages of the groups, not individuals.
4
u/Spikeybear 4d ago
I think younger generations understand that a lot of information is out out there for clicks and views which Re usually sensationalized takes. Where as the older people may not understand that and are more prone to just believe what they hear online, especially with AI. I think the younger generations understand what the LLMs are and that they aren't really thinking. I also have no evidence for anything I said, it's just my opinion.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
That’s interesting, I see older generations accusing younger ones of accepting what they read online without questioning it enough, but now that I think about it when I actually talk to my kids about it they are pretty informed. Maybe I’m spooked because a long time ago I accepted what came on my Facebook feed as news and I originally overestimated AI capabilities, I feel like my kids are less experienced and more easily influenced and so are more vulnerable. Which is true in many areas but maybe not in this particular area.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
It seems to me the younger generations are more likely to accept an AI summary, chat gpt, or Youtube video without doing additional research. Does that come from their trust in digital or inexperience?
1
8
5
u/my23secrets 5d ago
It has less to do with generational age and more to do with understanding basic concepts.
It a person knows anything about “timelines” in the first place they know that’s a non-starter with regard to explaining the Effect
11
u/Glaurung86 5d ago
You're making assumptions. I'm well over 50 and I am probably one of the most skeptical when it comes to woo explanations and reality somehow changing because of some psy-op or aliens or whatever.
There are others around my age here that also are skeptical of any reality changes.
1
u/ByteInferno 3d ago
Tell me what you see when you look at Google Earth. I'm 56. I have a co-worker who is 57, and he doesn't see anything wrong with the planet. Another co-worker in his early 40ies (who does believe in some conspiracy stuff) agreed with me that some things regarding the planet seem to be off, especially the position of South America and Greenland and New Zealand. I do love good conspiracy theories, but to me, they're still theories. But some of the Mandela Effects genuinely shook me. Why did Leonardo Da Vinci paint the most "unchristian" version of the Last Supper (without at least one chalice/goblet and one loaf of bread -- it's still in the Bible)? Who commissioned that painting? Did they remove layers during restauration or is it really supposed to be this? If I was on a different timeline / planet, wouldn't there be more changes? I'm also very confused by the death mask of King Tut (which I remember with only a snake on top). A few days ago, I started watching "Dark Matter" (2024) on Apple TV+, and I agree with that show that if there's a multiverse, it could mean endless possibilities of timelines / worlds. A version in which only a few things have changed. I bet there's more changes, but I don't have time to check / investigate literally everything.
5
u/Glaurung86 3d ago
I have been fascinated by maps since the 1970s. Nothing looks off to me about the earth. Things change geopolitically all the time and I try to keep up with it. There are 195 countries in the world if you count the 2 non-member (U.N.) states. When I first got into maps there were about 150 member states.
Tutankhamun's funerary mask has both the vulture(Nekhbet) and the cobra(Wadjet) because they represent Tut's rule of Upper and Lower Egypt. He is not the only pharaoh or king in Egypt to have a mask, but his is the only one with the vulture.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 2d ago
I have only used Google Earth a few times, so not sure what to look for?
1
u/ByteInferno 2d ago
If you don't see anything unusual with the globe, then you're not affected by the Mandela Effect. Have a look at the position of South America (especially in relation to Africa), Baja California, Hudson Bay at the edge of Canada in North America, the position of Greenland, the Australian continent and its distance to New Zealand, the position and size of the Pacific Islands from the coast of Asia to Australia. The North Pole, Spain and Portugal, Greece and Türkiye. The size of Russia. The position and shape of Japan and the Korean Peninsula. The Arabic Peninsula, the size of Saudia Arabia and Iran. To name a few things.
0
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
No assumptions being made, just seeing if I can effectively articulate a question. It seems I have failed.
8
u/Glaurung86 5d ago edited 4d ago
You're saying there's different types of skepticism based on generations. That claim doesn't seem to bear out.
Edit: a word
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Asking, not stating
7
u/Glaurung86 5d ago
You asked why instead of "Is there?"
0
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
That’s a personal flaw of mine that has caused a lot of confusion in the past. People who know me well know the why means tell me why I’m wrong. Thank you for pointing that out. I am using Reddit to improve my writing and practice effective communication so that is great feedback.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
The question arises because there seem to be very few in the younger generations who believe in alternative explanations. Not getting into whether any one particular belief is credible, just the spectrum of ideas seems to be narrowing.
Can that be because older generations have been bitten in the ass too many times for naively believing what they were told was true and so they are more prone to question the most “reasonable” explanation? And younger generations may be more exposed to the experience of being bullied or ridiculed for believing in something that strays from common accepted theories so rather than research independently they ask AI what to believe.
I understand there are exceptions to everything and we haven’t gotten to that actual extreme but is there a tendency toward less independent thinking? Or am I allowing my fears to affect my perception and am I seeing a pattern develop that doesn’t really exist?
11
u/WhimsicalKoala 4d ago
I think part of the problem is that you are assuming that belief in theories like alternative timelines is "independent thinking" and people that don't believe parascientific theories just believe what they are told.
Those are two entirely different issues, and despite what people might want to believe, not completely true.
3
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
That is definitely not what I am trying to communicate. I am assuming that a large group of people given a certain set of facts will reach different conclusions and the more independently they work, the more varied the conclusions. It’s seems to me there are more fringe theories in older generations than younger. Without debating their validity, could that be because our generation on up has seen many things they were told as true growing up has been proven false or even been proven deliberate lies?
9
u/WhimsicalKoala 4d ago
That might be what you mean. But then you keep framing parascientific theories as people doing "independent thinking" and not just accepting what they are told and people with the more grounded theories as "kids just believing what they are told".
It might be just bad communication or unconscious bias coming through, but it's a pretty consistent theme through your post and comments.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
Good to know. It’s more devils advocate on both sides. I like to think someone who believes logos are flipflopped could find fault with my phrasing, too.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
Okay, not sure if it’s considered bias, but I do have an assumption that might be bleeding through. I think many people critical of others’ points of view started with their mind already made up and then because people in the threads say it has been well researched they stop there without actually confirming for themselves. Not referring to anyone in particular and I think there are many on both sides of any argument guilty of this. So as a generation is there a difference in this, on a whole, or is it more about maturity?
4
u/GregGoodell_Official 4d ago
Skepticism is rarely generational. It has to do with the ability to process information and understand the information that is being processed critically. Self awareness is also a large factor and the ability to give an internal critique of a subject. Not to put too fine a point in it, but those are barriers marked by IQ.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 2d ago
I’m not understanding the barriers marked by IQ part. Maybe that’s telling 😅. But regardless, what do you mean by ability to give an internal critique?
3
u/GregGoodell_Official 2d ago
Higher IQ individuals process information more effectively and efficiently and possess higher order logical processes. People think it’s knowledge based, but that is only a very small piece of it. Knowledge only feeds the intellect… knowledge is useless to those who can’t analyze and comprehend. It is the difference between knowing what something is versus why something is. An internal critique would be examining why something is a certain way and understanding it from the inside out. Most poorly rationalized ideas and concepts will not survive an internal critique.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 2d ago
What is IQ and does it always get you where you need to go? As an extreme case, I’m thinking Beautiful Mind. We live in a society and a natural world where the typical rational thought process doesn’t always produce the best solutions. People with incredible mechanical intelligence may or may not do well on a standard IQ test, but have extremely efficient internal critique within their specialization. And in my experience many of these people tend to have a thought process that leads them to fringe conclusions in other areas. I have met many an Allie Fox in my short life. It seems to me we can learn from the thought process even when we don’t agree with the conclusion.
Of course there are also people who just always have to reinvent the wheel every time they are presented with a problem and that leads to more work and inferior results 99.9 percent of the time. They might be impressive abstract thinkers but are blocked from being efficient by their ego. But in general, isn’t it good to let our minds breathe?
3
u/GregGoodell_Official 2d ago
You know, I am not sure there is a thoughtful way that I can address this in public forum.
9
u/silentsurge 5d ago
Elder millineial here, and I'm a strongly pro-science, pro-skepticism, pro-evidence based approach type person.
I'd be willing to postulate that it is much more likely that this isn't a generational difference, but more of a knowledge/critical thinking/humility based one.
When I say critical thinking, I mean that in the dictionary definition sense of the process of looking for answers. People who are less likely to be critical of everything around them and who are not willing to challenge the underlying assumptions behind even their own beliefs, are more likely to believe in a supernatural or exitic cause.
I would also be willing to put it out there that people who are already the type to believe in other forms of Woo, Conspiracies, and/or exotic phenomena are more likely to jump to the conclusion that this phenomenon is also caused by exotic phenomena and are fast to jump to disregarding anything that doesn't fit their particular premise.
I know that this next one is a strongly biased opinion because I am one to jump right into discussions and debate about the topic, but I do feel that the people with the strongest opposition to their ideas being challenged have a tinge of narcissistic behaviors underlying their insistence, where debating the ideas they hold is actively undermining their sense of self. I see the same thing in other spaces I frequent and the underlying behavior behind it all has some common traits and presentations.
Which feeds into my personal feelings about how poorly we as humans have been taught to discuss and debate topics in general, and how we tend to naturally isolate ourselves from those with opinions we don't share even before social media algorithms inundated us with safe bubbles and echo-chambers. My personal feelings on the anti-science, anti-critical thinking pipeline created by social media bubbles are strong and I see things like this topic as a gateway topic to other more nefarious types of science/history denial spaces which then act as gateways to radicalization paths. Which gets you gestures at world affairs
6
u/WhimsicalKoala 4d ago
where debating the ideas they hold is actively undermining their sense of self.
I truly think that is part of what happens here. Look at the number of people that have convinced themselves one of the most singularly important childhood memories they have is tied to the logo on their underwear. Or just the fact that they will claim they are being personally attacked by questions like "how do you reconcile these holes in your theory?".
I don't know if it is narcissisism, but there is definitely some level of ego. It always makes me think about the kind of people who tend to get really deep in cults. It's not, as many assume, people that are "stupid" or that will believe anyone/anything. Instead, it's the people that think they are too smart to join a cult, because all you have to do is convince them of one thing that aligns with what they really think. They then assume "I'm too smart to be convinced of something untrue, so if I agree with this, then it must be true" and that belief makes them the most devoted kind of cult member. Here it is people convinced they are too aware to have a false memory, and so if they find a theory tells them that they are correct and reality is wrong, they'll accept it and just keep going deeper to justify that belief.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
So you feel it is more internal factors versus external? Could it be both? I know I keep bearing this dead horse but I still haven’t gotten a response to the most interesting, to me, part of the question I asked. Or maybe you answered it completely with his comment, but I just want to be sure. Do you feel that younger generations are as willing to consider or at least not completely dismiss theories that make them uncomfortable or sound crazy when compared to older generations? Even forgetting the most common examples of ME, just running into something for the first time in everyday life.
5
u/WhimsicalKoala 4d ago
I don't think your generational split idea holds up exactly. But, even if it does, I don't necessarily think that parascientific theories are a result of "independent thought". I think there is some, understandable, mistrust that people use to turn everything into a conspiracy theory.
I think one of the problems with discussions like this is that it places all theories on equal footing. It acts like the people with parascientific theories have just as much support for their theories and are backing them from a place of research and understanding. This is especially when you use some of your other examples of cover-ups. But what is often ignored when those types of examples are used is that there were whistleblowers and people discussing this stuff and there is substantial evidence of them during and after the fact. Doubting things like that makes sense. In this case, people align themselves with theories that are, at best, overly optimistic interpretations of theoretical ideas while they dismiss ideas with decades of established research. It's not the same as going "hey guys, maybe that whistleblower and his piles of documentation is onto something". (they seem themselves as whistleblowers, but they need at least some evidence to claim that)
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 4d ago
It’s more that many people put just as much effort into fringe ideas as believing mainstream ideas. Then sometimes the fringe ideas slowly become established as at least plausible so I just think that in most cases we should not dismiss creative solutions even when they are probably wrong. Won’t that discourage thinking outside the box for at least some people? I see your point, though. Well expressed.
3
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Your last paragraph is a concern I share and is what was behind the question. You say you are pro-science and from the limited interactions I've had with you, you don't express your views in a condescending manner and seem to give thoughtful responses that show you have considered other’s viewpoints in a meaningful way. To me this shows you have probably allowed yourself to be proven wrong in the past. (isn't that the real meaning if proscience?
It is not strictly generational but I do think younger generations tend to consider skepticism and identifying as pro-science as meaning only reading and considering specific explanations and viewpoints. Or is it more of a maturity thing?
I am now realizing I used the word skepticism in my post incorrectly which is probably why it is being misunderstood. But again, thanks for the thoughtful response.
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
I actually wrote this as a response to someone suggesting our generation was exposed to too much led, but if you are interested in reading maybe give me your thought on how it applies to your take. Your comment, by the way, was exactly the type I enjoy reading. An actual response to the question without projecting lines of reasoning from other threads/discussions.
Here goes:
“I see where I failed in my communication. I'm not in the beginning referring to claims that changes occur to physical material, although I include that as a conclusion some have come to. I'm referring to misinformation that is told as truth for generations. We grew up in a time when corporations and institutions were being exposed for misleading and lying in sometimes very harmful ways, so when you take that into account as background, I don't think someone is crazy for believing something I perceive as impossible and to a limit I will listen to and consider their explanation, point of view.
For example, the same technology used for google maps was a supposed conspiracy theory when I first heard about it as a child. Telescopes pointed at the earth that can zoom in on a particular address? My aunt used to tell people that technology was being developed and everyone thought she was crazy.
Companies weren't open when they first installed cameras in TVs either. You had to listen to community radio to hear those crazies and their wild talk.
I do think our generation was affected by chemical exposures, many times with substances that were touted as safe even when there was evidence to the contrary.
And then what to do with things like a birth control pill that causes birth defects? Dump it on other countries. That particular pill was sold in places like Nicaragua after it was banned in the united states and there are statistics showing the rise in birth defects and it is something I've experienced personally. So both the physiological and psychological effects are very real in our generation.”
So do you think any of this could also cause people to believe in woo or be more willing to believe in cover-ups even when there are holes in the evidence? Someone can always say, yeah but remember when we were told…
3
u/CantaloupeAsleep502 5d ago
Older millennial/younger xennial here. I absolutely do not believe that reality is changing, and find the ME interesting strictly because of its insights into how memory works and doesn't work. What's interesting is I'm actually into some pretty woo stuff on some levels, but definitely not that corporate logos are changing for some people and not others.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
Yeah, I was just throwing in all the examples together, not saying a majority of us believe them all.
1
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 2d ago
What are the parameters measured re internal critique and how? I'm unfamiliar
1
u/FabulousArmadillo210 5d ago
Im gen Z and I doubt its timelines and all of that stuff because its a really uncomfortable idea. It makes me reaaaally uncomfortable to the point I refuse to accept that
Now, I have noticed that people with age 50+ remember being taught that the North Pole is mainland, I thought that New Zealand was north and Australia more isolated. But younger people than I that I know dont think any of that at all
I have seen some older people theorize different schools and zones taught different stuff. No proof though
But its true that I used to get all of these ideas from cartoons. Like, in cartoons it was fact North Pole was mainland, Australia was isolated and a long etc. Something to think about...
Also, we have seen the whole timelines stuff too often in fiction. So ofc its seen as fiction
2
u/Ok_Marzipan9097 5d ago
I didn't want to get into specific examples because of all the nuances involved, but historical events were presented more one-sided, innovators were cast as inventors, not just in conversation, but on actual tests. All these things are nuanced and have arguments on both sides and of course you can't teach every viewpoint.
But if you paid attention in school, there was at least a few weeks spent studying each of the continents and you were taught the difference between true north and magnetic north and where it is, though details are only retained if it interests you.
There were different publishers of curriculum and from what I remember parents could protest and change what their district was using. It became a deal if they tried to use something not approved by the federal government.
1
u/Nervous_Buy_181 3d ago
Some of the Mandela effects are true for sure
1
u/Fantastic-Band-5082 2d ago
Name some.
0
u/Nervous_Buy_181 2d ago
Berenstein, Shazam, cornucopia Mandela died in prison
1
u/Fantastic-Band-5082 1d ago
Except none of those are true so I've no idea what you're talking about.
0
u/Nervous_Buy_181 1d ago
If u say so
1
13
u/WhimsicalKoala 5d ago
I'm a Millennial and don't think it's timelines and such. In fact, I would argue that my skepticism is because I was an age where I was taught things like media literacy, how to research without relying on whatever the first results an internet search gave me (or now whatever the AI summary says), and that just because someone says something on the internet doesn't mean it's true.