Although confabulations are technically false statements, the speaker will regard these statements as fact.Īccording to Lisa Bortolotti, a philosophy professor from the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom, people do not intentionally confabulate. ConfabulationĬonfabulation is another potential mechanism underlying false memories and the Mandela effect.Ĭonfabulations are false statements or retellings of events that lack relevant evidence or factual support. Usually, the participants will recognize the lure word and recall reading it, even though it was never on the list.Īccording to the authors of one 2017 study, people remember false memories induced via the DRM task paradigm for as long as 60 days. A lure word in the above example might be “lion.” Although the term is semantically related to the other words in the list, it is not present. During the DRM task paradigm, participants read a list of semantically related words, such as:Īfter reading the list, researchers will ask the participants whether or not they recall a “lure word,” which is another related word not included on the list. Researchers have even discovered a simple method of inducing false memories, called the Deese-Roediger-McDermott (DRM) task paradigm.
Emotions and personal bias can both influence memories. Memory does not work like a camera, objectively cataloging images, events, and statements in their purest forms. However, others are entirely false.Īlthough the idea of false memories causes discomfort for some people, memory mistakes are quite common. Some false memories contain elements of fact, closely resembling the actual event in question. The concept of false memories provides one potential explanation for the Mandela effect.įalse memories are untrue or distorted recollections of an event.
The sections below will look at these in more detail. I spent a whole hour last night making sure that this has yet to be spoken of and to be sure I heard each song correctly.There are several potential causes of the Mandela effect. The original Queen song only has 235 million views on YouTube, while the Crazy Frog version has 407 million views. This all makes sense, who can just remember Crazy Frog off the top of their heads and remember that he had his own version of We are the Champions while in the moment of shock knowing that "Of the world" isn't there. That's correct, Crazy Frog.Ĭrazy Frog posted his own rendition of We are the Champions called Crazy Frog - we are the champions that ends with the infamous words. You know the classic Queen song, We Are the Champions and the ever mind shocking fact that it doesn't end with the words, "Of the world." like everyone swears it ends with? Well, the reason why we believe it ends with that is because of a 2009 internet famous phenomenon named, Crazy Frog. I then realized at the very end of the song, might possibly solve this Mandela effect. It was late at night and randomly asked my Google to play a certain old funny song for jokes.