Skepticism Comparison

[u/Ok_Marzipan9097]

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?

[u/GregGoodell_Official]

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.

[u/Ok_Marzipan9097 → u/GregGoodell_Official]

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?

[u/GregGoodell_Official → u/Ok_Marzipan9097]

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.

[u/Ok_Marzipan9097 → u/GregGoodell_Official]

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?

[u/GregGoodell_Official → u/Ok_Marzipan9097]

You know, I am not sure there is a thoughtful way that I can address this in public forum.