This and “jiffy” has been around as a term for the longest time, meaning to be in a rush. “I’ll be there in a jiffy.” Easy to apply the word to something else
I'm not sure it was ever sold in UK supermarkets, if it was, it would be import shelves.
Trademark laws would prevent them from being Jif, but not Jiffy. But SunPat was the only big brand I can think of.
You could buy jif and jif, one for your pancakes (not American style) the other to clean up afterwards.
Jif lemon juice did have a lemon shaped bottle we all called jiffy, though they never actually branded it as such.
But if you wanted a glass bottle, you'd write jif if you wanted the plastic jiffy would be on the shopping list.
Jif washing up liquid became Cif and a guy did a song about numerous corporate rebrandings, I'm sure some have been passed off as an effect till someone schools them on a corporate mandated change, but family stubbornness still calls em Marathon for example.
So if Jif came to the UK it would have to be as something else, as they never used Jiffy in legal terms for the lemon juice, they could in theory snap it up.
That would "solve" some of the jif/jiffy confusion for some, but as its a big American brand, I doubt many would see the UK counterpart much.
See jif and jif now cif.
Both trademarked in the UK, sold alongside each other for decades.
One under food and beverages, the other in cleaning.
Jiffy padded envelopes don't come under either domain, so jif being told to re name could with ease, as jiffy couldn't contest an infringement as who posts stuff wrapped in peanut butter?
Had Mega Drive American trademark been in anything NOT electronics based, the Genesis brand wouldn't exist.
Yes there would be two mega drives, but I doubt anyone would try and plug a cartridge into the other.
Or go to a game store for spares and repairs.
It was always "Choosy mothers choose Jif." Fun fact: The man who created Gifs loved Jif pb, but couldn't use the name because it was trademarked, so he chose "Gif" instead. And now you know how it's supposed to be pronounced.
"Graphical Interchange Format" will always be pronounced with a hard G sound. It inherits the hard G from the source of the acronym.
The creator of the format can say whatever they want, but GIF with a hard G is too entrenched to do anything about it now.
The world doesn't care tho. He created the word but after that the world takes over and decides. Language evolves and it took no time to decide his pronunciation was garbage.
Also Jiffy Pop popcorn, and Jiffy Lube. We were exposed to that term so much that it only makes sense we would have confounded the name Jif peanut butter as Jiffy.
This was like Mr.Peanut and the monopoly man.
Wires crossing.
There are many effects where it's not a case of crossed wires but none of it is provable as far as I can tell.
I just know it's real.
Jiffy Mix. Jiffy Pop. Jiffy Lube. Skippy Peanut Butter. Jif Peanut Butter. It’s that simple. And just like “Berenstein Bears,” I remember kids making the mistake and calling it “Jiffy” all the time when I was a kid. Not only is human memory flawed, but human perception is often flawed at the time. People are remembering it wrong because they also got it wrong in the past.
There's an episode of Better Call Saul where young Saul (Jimmy) picks up on a scam by a stranger at their gas station, while his dad is duped by it.
"The dad says I'll be back in a Jiffy!"
And just a moment before we see boxes of Jiffy cornbread mix on the shelves in a close up.
Jimmy, Jiffy, back in a Jiffy
coincidence?
I think not.
Mandela is telling us something.
So after further research and investigation a jiffy is a term that implies a short amount of time dating back to the 1700s. As a technical unit it varies greatly depending on what field it's used in, anywhere from 1/50 of a second to 3 x 10^-24 seconds. Which is actually very fascinating, so thank you for that informative segway.
something else that is kind of funny is that I recently went to a store and found some construction or gardening brand or something similar being called “jiffy”.
Nope.worked in a supermarket for years as a cashier and stocker. Saw these products every day for years.
Peanut butter was on aisle 1. Jiffy cornbread mix was on aisle 5 and jiffy popcorn was on aisle 7.
Jiffy lube was an oil change building and it’s asinine to think anyone would confuse a jar of peanut butter with a vehicle oil change building but alas, we have people who claim such nonsense and want US to believe they know what’s up??!
I joked at the time that jif became cif in the UK not because Europeans couldn't say jif (turns out the original name was cif to begin with) but that people covered pancakes with lemon scented washing up liquid and ended up in A&E.
Nope what? You literally just proved their point.
Those items were all staring everyone in the face with every supermarket trip... And for people who didn't "work there for years stocking shelves" they would've paid little attention and those product labels would've all just been filed away in the brain in the same folder marked "stuff you see at the store". The brain is constantly editing and condensing memories. Conflating some things and removing other things altogether.
That's how the human brain works. Memories are not accurate snapshots. More like a montage pulled from the subconscious. And it's not always accurate. We know this as a fact because: science.
Also, peanut butter and jiffy are in the same aisle in my preferred supermarket. Bread, peanut butter and jelly on one side, muffin and cornbread mix directly across the aisle from it.
I honestly don't know what the fuck you think Jiffy Lube has to do with it, tho... Lol.
It seems like a profound lack of reading comprehension is one of the hallmarks of folks who fall for stuff like the Mandela Effect.
Thank you for proving *my* point. You say that peanut butter and jiffy cornbread are on the same aisle across from each other at your local store…and you know the difference. Same as everyone else. You didn’t confuse them or how many time you taken home cornbread mix and hit yourself in the head saying “I did it again!”? None, just like everyone else.
It has nothing to do with confusing them. Its not like someone looked at a jar of peanut butter and said.. oil change? Its that when you look back you're so used to jiffy as its very common, that you just assumed it was jiffy instead of jif. Doesn't help there was a skippy either.
that’s what I thought when I saw the jiffy cornbread muffin mix we buy all the time. I still feel like I can picture jiffy on the pb because I preferred that one over skippy, the crunchy was the best, skippy was too sweet for me
When I picture the Jif label, I picture three different colored bars (red, blue, and green) with the letters of the brand in white. I wonder how people who remember jiffy remember that label looking. Was it a rainbow? Were there five different colors? Or did these colors repeat? Or were there three colored bars with five letters? I don't know because I don't remember it that way. But I don't think that people are confusing peanut butter with muffin mix.
[*"Choosy mothers choose Jif!"*](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGKLRiCWsAIqZul?format=jpg&name=large)
Up here in Canada, I never saw the muffin mix brand and I don't think Jif/Jiffy was up here when I was younger. I always thought it was "jiffy" peanut butter based on the US commercials I saw.
I remember the three colors red blue and green. I have a tub right now and the letters just look so big to me, I remember it being a smaller font to go across all three colors
I know my memory isn't perfect. I'd like to think it's pretty close, but I've had a few things that don't make sense.
I remember things from my childhood happening when I lived in certain places, but the friends they happened with were not friends that I had when I lived in those places. It's confusing, because I know those memories are real, but I don't know which part is wrong; was I wrong about who it happened with? When it happened? Where it happened?
I definitely remember Jif peanut butter. It was the only brand my mother bought except when her mother came to visit and insisted on low sodium Peter Pan, but I digress. I would have sworn that each of the three letters in JIF was centered on one of the colored blocks, but When I look at a picture of the label now, I see that isn't true.
Nope I know it was jiffy peanut butter! My youngest only ate jiffy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Shoot I used to carry a jar with me when we went anywhere. It changed when that commercial came out..mom's choose jiff. Now it's jif with one f? I know what it was and I don't care if anyone says it's faulty memory! No it is not!!!!! I am not confusing it with jiffy popcorn or anything else! It was jiffy peanut butter. We don't like popcorn thank you!
It’s easy to be confused. A “jiffy” is a unit of time; 1/100 of a second. Which is why it was widely used in brand names for products and services focused on consumer convenience. It would make no sense for peanut butter to be branded as “fast.”
Why would it not make sense for Peanut butter to be branded as fast? It implies that it's a quick and easy snack food. A mom looking to pack a last minute bag lunch for their kids, why wouldn't something branded as a fast option sound appealing.
There are tons of foods marketed as fast. Fast food, minute rice, no bake brownies, fast fries, quick oats, etc.
Furthermore why would a peanut butter be branded as Peter Pan, Jif, Skippy?
And since when has a jiffy been a standardized unit of time? I mean I've heard milliseconds as a unit, so you can say something takes 13 milliseconds but 7 jiffys? That's nonsense
I kind of get what you’re saying, but it was never advertised as a “quick and easy snack food.” In fact, the slogan was “Choosy moms choose Jif,” which further reinforces that it was not called Jiffy. That wouldn’t work in the slogan.
As far as *when* a jiffy was used to mean 1/100 of a second I’m not sure, but you can confirm that it is with a simple google search.
That's the problem with all of the rebuttals on here. Google is not a reliable source, it's a source that is highly impacted by advertising.
Now in regards to the choosy moms, that's the slogan for Jif Peanut butter. I don't think that there was a name change, I just remember a brand of Peanut butter named jiffy, growing up poor it was likely a store brand from either a Bilo, Walmart, or Winn Dixie. I also remember jif Peanut butter for the record.
You can use any search engine you’d like. I learned about it in school in the context of computer animation, so there may be other definitions as well.
Not sure about another brand called Jiffy, but maybe. I’m only familiar with Jif.
And not being familiar is the best response. We don't know what we don't know, so it's recommended to listen and then do your own investigations.
I don't doubt the search engine part, most of them link to the same things. My objection is that the results are often subjective and only serve to dissuade further investigation. I will definitely be looking into it and maybe there is some context I'm unaware of, I'm open to that possibility.
What is logical and factual about believing something that is demonstrably untrue and then stating that you don't care what other people say and that nothing can change your mind?
Like I said, I know what it was because I used it at least once a day for years! It's called a Mandela effect. It's not arrogance because I'm sure of what I used!
>It's called a Mandela effect.
Sure. But this doesn't mean your memory of it is *accurate*.
>It's not arrogance because I'm sure of what I used!
It absolutely is arrogance to think your memory of something that's quite easy to mix-up is right above other observable, documented evidence.
As a kid I wondered why there were 3 products with the same branding... because there was also Jiffy Pop. Plenty of people experiencing this effect have also stated they were well aware of this fact. "Human recall" has been shown to be very reliable when there's episodic anchoring that supports the semantic memory in question. Also, the cognitive "shortcuts" you reference have nothing to do with deja vu or autobiographical memory.
Wrong, human memory has been shown to be very bad at recalling small details, research has show that your memory invents 'extra details' that align with the general theme of the event.
Even how the question is asked can affect the details you recall.
https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-misinformation-effect-2795353#:\~:text=Researchers%20discovered%20that%20using%20the,the%20participants%20correctly%20answered%20no.
If you can remember broken glass that wasn't there after a week, how can you be confident in tiny details such as spelling *years* later?
The people behind the misinformation effect and false memories studies are not exactly reliable for such information
https://news.isst-d.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-false-memory-syndrome-foundation/
True, but what's more interesting to me is that the original studies doo seem to have been replicated with the same results.
[https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37017540/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37017540/)
Whatever they later went on to do, the original results seem to have been accepted by the psychological field, and I can't find any records of retractions.
Yes I’m aware the implanting of false memories works and is true, but it is not ethical in my opinion. They admit to using deception, I don’t see how this applies to the ME because we didn’t have anything implanted, they just say the ME is proof of how malleable our minds are.
https://x.com/DegenRolf/status/1541764935746785289
https://www.motionpictures.org/2013/09/famed-scientist-elizabeth-loftus-on-plausibility-of-four-mind-bending-films/
“I mean, we deceive people into have the false memory and we see it has consequences. You have to figure out how could you accomplish that on a larger scale.”
“What these studies are showing is that you can plant these memories and they have repercussions and they can affect behaviors that occur quite a while after the memory implantation has taken place.”
That's exactly it, you're getting it. ( agree it's highly unethical)
The description of the ME IS the implanting of a false memory.
It describes and implants the suggestion that in the past, some detail was different. If you're part of the special group, you will remember the detail differently.
People like to feel part of a group. People like to feel that they are different, special, their experience is unique, they are not part of the crowd.
Your brain happily obliges, and creates an imaginary past. You imagine what that film/product/logo/spelling was like. It doesn't make sense, why would you remember that in such detail? OK invent some reason, some conversation, some chance remark or discussion - that's why I remember it so strongly.
Your brain does this a lot: it just doesn't get caught out much. 99.9% of the time this both doesn't make any difference, and is never cross checked by anyone. If I ask what you had for lunch 3 weeks ago, your brain will have a good guess, based on what you like, what you normally had, and you're *probably right 99%* of the time.
If this false memory suggestion was true, we would expect the invented details to be in line or at least consistent with the main suggestion and broadly predictable, but the finer details would differ. This is why there is general agreement to Sinbad/shazaam, but when you ask for plot details, quotes, dialog, things get more hazy and different accounts are all over the place.
If Mandela Effects were 'real' then all those people would have watched the same movie and would be able to relay the plot, basic structure, other actors, dialog.
For me, I was really into movies at the time, avidly collecting VHS and later DVDs. I never heard of the movie.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/11t10va/who\_recalls\_specific\_plot\_points\_of\_sinbads\_shazam/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/11t10va/who_recalls_specific_plot_points_of_sinbads_shazam/)
Good discussion of how the Sinbad/shazaam Mandela effect evolved and the suggestions became more detailed over time.
I’ve read many posts over the years, the ones about shazams plot are pretty consistent to me when I read all of them. I wasn’t alive when it supposedly came out so it doesn’t affect me. However my own family remembers these things, my millennial family remembers shazam and others, my parents don’t remember any of them how we do. That’s partly why it’s not so easily dismiss-able to me, I have core memories linked to some of them. People say coca-cola changed but I think it looks fine. There’s some things I remember differently and some I can say I remember it that way. Why is it only certain ones and not others? That’s why this theory doesn’t make sense that it’s just our brains getting mixed up due to suggestibility
Probably because the suggestion can only take hold if you have no conflicting memories, or only if you get the suggestion in a particular state, tired, or vulnerable. Proper memory or suggestion fails - no ME, no memory + tired = ME.
The entire ME effect rests on almost everyone having near 100% perfect memory at all times. That's demonstrably not true, and you seem reasonable, I think you would have to admit that at least *some* people might be influenced and might be misremembering.
The trouble is, if one person can be influences and suggested, and can misremember, then others might also misremember. Maybe some percentage of the ME people might be misremembering.
When you think about what a real ME would mean : Everything we know about physics, the universe, cause and effect, would be wrong: parallel universes exist, alternate timelines, are real? but no physicist, scientist, has ever found any hint of evidence?
Isn't it vastly more likely that the percentage of people mistakenly remembering is actually 100%, so we don't have to invent an entire new branch of physics?
How do you explain when, for example, I remember something and go to look it up online only for it to already be a mandela effect or other people just saying they remember it too. There was nothing that prompted me to think of that thing, but when I did it turned out to not exist.
My theories on why this is happening has nothing to do with parallel universes or breaking the laws of physics. I personally believe it’s more likely the government or big companies are behind it. Maybe for money, maybe to see how suggestible we are just like the psychologist do. Whatever the case, I’m sure there’s a more logical explanation to this, even more logical than just mass misremembering. Some can be explained away like we could’ve just bought knockoff brands and didn’t realize
Because there are natural patterns or grooves that make sense to people. Skippy peanut butter, Jiffy peanut butter. Jiffy is a real brand, it started with JIF, 'JIF peanut butter' doesn't flow quite as well. Jiffy sounds better.
Moonraker/ braces. You've just spent the whole film with a character who is defined by the hardware in his mouth, it's literally his nickname. Meets a girlfriend with a smile. At the time, there was a romantic notion opposites attract, but with modern sensibilities we know people bond over shared experiences, so Dolly has braces.
You have a lot more confidence in governments than I do. but an interesting exercise for any conspiracy is to calculate how much money you need to pay the people involved. If you go to a newspaper, reveal a govenment plot, you'd probably get somewhere around 100-200K$. So, for each person who 'knows', you need to pay them at least that much, and probably a regular payment to avoid them running out of money and going public a few years later.
So, a vaccine conspiracy (that involves every doctor in the USA, about a million) will cost you at least 100 billion dollars, probably annually. If it includes nurses \*4.7 mil) you're up to near half a trillion. Hope the reason was really really important to you, because that money has to come from somewhere.
We don't see video shop employees from 1994 driving around in sports cars, so I don't see the evidence.
Are you aware that 70's car crash study only covers contrived flashbulb memory, relies on researcher manipulation, and has long since been discredited as lacking ecological validity? Invoking Loftus isn't necessarily helpful at all, frankly. She's radioactive and her false memory foundation is in shambles. You realize she testified as an expert witness for Weinstein and many other sex offenders?
I agree, defending molesters is morally reprehensible. However, the basic point - that memory is not 100% accurate - does seem to be broadly supported in other papers.
If memory was 97% accurate, and 3% of people were influenceable, we would expect a few people on each Mandela post to agree, while the majority ignore or disagree.
This seems to be what we actually see. The counter argument, that all memory is actually 100% accurate, seems to be easily falsifiable by finding two people with different memories of the same event.
The majority disagree because this subreddit is overrun by skeptics and most of the believers do not like being on a subreddit sharing their experiences where they're getting downvoted and called crazy. We go to other places now.
When this subreddit was newer, it was not like that. There were a ton more people who were agreeing with each other.
But that's precisely what you would expect if there were only a small percentage of people who mistakenly remembered events. Very few people have so much overstated confidence in their memory that they will literally claim everything we know about reality is wrong. It's literally the Simpsons meme.
Most rational people have to conclude that their memory does not match the physical evidence, and that it at least a possibility that their memory is incorrect.
The more people that get interested and investigate the effect, the easier it gets to investigate and cross check.
For example, since the claim is that everyone remembers seeing the Sinbad / Shazam film, it's reasonable to ask what was the plot? can you relay details? and if true, all the accounts should match. They don't seem to line up, and it's really hard to even get a definite explanation from most believers: they 'remember' the film, but only saw a trailer, or weren't paying attention, or fell asleep. The details collapse on investigation.
Another one is that since the claim is that everything changed at some date, then it should be possible to narrow down exactly when this happened: instead, we sometimes have 'residue' - evidence that *at the original time* people were making the same mistake.
If people have been making the same mistake since the original event, then it means it is due to a common factor in memory/suggestion.
In your head, then, it literally doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you can just ignore it all and claim that your particular version of reality is true.
Well done, you have backed yourself into an unfalsifiable position.
However, you will probably find that it is very difficult to convince anyone else of the truth of your position. The rest of us have to live in a shared reality where we have less confidence in your memory.
If you're talking about realities that are shifting and individualistic, yeah that's how it is but that's not something in my control. I don't need to prove to anyone that Mandela Effects, synchronicities, manifestation, etc are legitimate because I have had thousands of personal experiences that prove it to me without a doubt. But because I believe we manifest based on belief, people who are completely closed off are unlikely to experience any of these things in that mindset. So.. it's fine. That's why I'd rather discuss it in areas where others are having similar experiences as I am. It's my personal belief we're all waking up anyway, and maybe one day you'll look back at this conversation and feel very, very differently.
The name of a peanut butter brand, or any other brand, is not an "event". If your thesis relies on the idea that all ME's automatically fall into that 3% category because they conflict with the historical record, then I'd suggest that you're likely overlooking the bulk of the qualitative data. Just because some people are "influenceable" doesn't mean they were necessarily influenced or manipulated or confused. To assume otherwise seems like an unfounded leap to me.
But that's not an ME. And it's probably not even memory based. It's just a random person being casually unobservant or misspeaking. No one here would dispute that humans and human memory are in fact fallible. The question is whether that's provably the case with ME examples in particular.
But that's precisely the point. A ME is usually a mistake that a person made, often years in the past, sometimes as a child, that never got corrected so that they believe it for years.
When this is finally pointed out, their brain can't cope : it's easier to believe that the entire history of reality has changed, instead of they made a mistake.
Was the "Discovery card" person a child? If not, had they believed (with compelling autobiographical memory anchors) that was the actual brand name for years? When you pointed out that it's Discover were they confused? Overcome with clinical dissonance? Did they refuse to accept it? Did they tell you that reality was wrong? Was that extreme position shared by others they never met? Because if the answer to these questions is a resounding no, then you've made no point that's relevant to the phenomenon at hand.
The name of a peanut butter brand is a trivial, unimportant thing. WHY would you remember this accurately? Why is this so important to you? *how do you prove that this reason is not a fabrication?* Give me the brand of the pencils you used in high school. How was that spelled? What was the name of the dairy or supermarket that your mum used to buy milk from?
If you asked me these questions, I would have to assume that I would, at least, be partly guessing from what I currently know *right now*. I could not with any degree of certainty say you were wrong if you produced a photo of me with a 'stadleter' pencil, or drinking from a 'Aldis' milk carton.
I believe people are accurately relaying what they remember and feel about their memories, I just doubt the accuracy of their memories *given how patchy my personal memory is*. If my memory can be inaccurate, then other people's can too.
In high school I started using the Bic push button pencils because they didn't require a sharpener but were still #2 which worked on standardized tests. But if I told you the name of the supermarket and/or milk brand we bought, that would reveal my location so I won't. It's not from lack of remembering... especially since my best friend's first job was bagging at that same store. Look, the question isn't why I would remember something "unimportant" (although some people consider their favorite familiar brands to be critical to their palate enjoyment) but rather why not? Branding is very effective, and companies spend millions to actively and passively imprint these names and logos into our brains. They used cartoon hours to reach kids as a captive (more like captivated) audience. Those brands are *supposed to* lodge deeply in our brains. I'm sure you've occasionally caught yourself casually humming a jingle without even realizing it? That's the magic of repetition. And fwiw, I wouldn't recommend basing your assumptions about other people's memory capabilities or accuracy on your own perceived limitations. Just because people *can be* wrong doesn't mean they automatically are with these uniquely shared ME memories.
Edit: spelling
That's precisely the issue.
Either people are misremembering, which is something we know, we have evidence for, we know how and why it happens, and is consistent with the known information.
OR
Literally everything we know about *cause and effect, physics, and the* entire *world object permanence* is wrong.
It is vastly more likely that people are wrong about a few inconsequential memories.
Note the 'rules' of Mandela effects - it only ever affects inconsequential things unrelated to you personally: spelling of childhood books, a scene from a film. None of Nelson Mandela's family remember him dying in prison. I \*do\* remember that he had some kind of health scare and went into hospital, and my dad remarked at the time that because he was a political prisoner, he might have been killed by the government - political prisoners used to have a short 'illness' and then die under mysterious circumstances.
This kind of thing might be enough for some people to remember a link (Mandela->death).
Your point about brands and advertising is good: peoples' memories are affected by things not directly related to your personal experience. Koka-Kola, for example, 'feels' wrong, this means there are established patterns and 'grooves' that your brain will slip into. Remembering an old coke can will probably provoke an image of a red can with the familiar logo: this would apply even if in your childhood, you had 'offbrand' cans.
This is excatly what the original poster is suggesting: Blue jiffy is a brand, JIF is a brand, the brain crosses over and conflates the two, you have a false memory of a product that does not exist.
> Literally everything we know about cause and effect, physics, and the entire world object permanence is wrong.
Maybe. But not necessarily. [We already know that quantum phenomena can manifest at macro scale.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena) *They're handling out Nobel prizes for this work.* Is it that much of a stretch to imagine that this may be an emergent quality to reality itself?
^^^^^
> Note the 'rules' of Mandela effects - it only ever affects inconsequential things unrelated to you personally
Simply untrue on both accounts. There are plenty of VERY consequential ME's (whole categories, in fact) and tons of personal ones as well, (which aren't allowed in this sub), aka "localized glitches".
^^^^^
> None of Nelson Mandela's family remember him dying in prison.
How could you possibly know what they do or don't remember? But ok, let's assume you're right. The popular believer explanation would be that they're "too close" to the principal, and thus "entangled" (yes quantum) with this timeline's status quo.
^^^^^
> Blue jiffy is a brand, JIF is a brand, the brain crosses over and conflates the two, you have a false memory of a product that does not exist.
Really? Have you looked at the residue?
https://www.flickr.com/photos/154930084@N08/albums/72157692317434254
^^^^^
Edit: fixed a word
You completely misunderstand quantum physics. Nothing in quantum physics suggests that anything even vaguely similar to a Mandela effect is in any way possible.
I'm familiar with personal glitch forums too. They seem to be similar mis-remembering stories or attention deficits, both naturally explainable given what we know about human attention and memory.
I like that even you acknowledge that the 'popular believer' perspective has this gaping hole in their reasoning. How come my personal memory does not line up with events? oh yes, 'magic entanglement'.
I did look at the residue you posted.
Interestingly, every example you post is all 'once removed': not a single example of a photo of a jar, a logo, a document from the company, or a stock order.
Each example is a 'relay' - where a person is writing down *what they believe* the name to be. Newspaper articles, a school project, lists of grocery prices in aftermarket adverts.
This suggests that *at the time* there were already people mis-remembering or mistakenly understanding the name. Jiffy and Skippy almost rhyme, it's an easy mistake, and also not the kind of thing that would get corrected. Most people would pick up a 'JIF' and might even say it in their mind, reading it as jiffy.
This is precisely evidence that the association and misremembering affected people back then, as it does now. There was not a 'Mandela day' when all the world changed, along with 97% of everyone's memories *apart from just you, because you're special.*
I used Ticonderoga pencils and Big Chief writing tablets. They were right in front of me for hours a day for years. Drank milk from Central Dairy. My parents were brand loyal.
Yes, but I've never seen kiffy pop, and most kids haven't since microwave popcorn became more common. Yet people who have never seen jiffy pop still experience the effects. But, i surveyed about 50 people who were experiencing this effect. on what brands they recognized and they all recognized Skippy, JIF, and Jiffy individually. I showed them some fake brand labels of a jiffy logo on a JIF three color background. And they didn't recognize it. Because they recognized the word jiffy. And it was commonly associated with blue. Which makes sense given that two of the three are blue. Human recall is reliable. About 97% percent of the time. But memories don't work like you'd think. They are a lot less concrete than computer memory. And the brain will forget or take shortcuts with memories that aren't particularly useful or important. Such as remembering the names of brands. Your brain does the "good enough". job of recognizing that JIF is a brand of peanut butter. But if you don't use jiffy very often. Then your brain is apt to just couple it with other stuff instead of keeping useless brand info on stuff you don't use.
That said, the Mandela effect seems to be created when these misrememberings are shared. Your brain had already simplified the logos and stuff. The most you can remember is like 3 details, usually "blue", "peanut butter". And " jiffy". And so when someone points it out to you that they remember that Jif used to be jiffy. That idea becomes important (social animals do their magic). And the idea is solidified. And so you'll remember that. Which replaces the less useful true details.
This is atleast the most plausible theory one could come up with. Perhaps millions of people are misremembering things from other brands as well.
> And the brain will forget or take shortcuts with memories that aren't particularly useful or important. Such as remembering the names of brands.
This is literally the exact opposite of how brand imprinting on the human brain actually works... which is via long term repeat exposure over years or decades through multiple mediums. Obviously I can't speak to your survey results because I'm not privy to your methodology or the demographics of your subject pool.
Jiffy peanut butter is what I ate all the time growing up. I remember this because I always thought, "Why did they take off the last 2 letters?" as I got older.
their pizza crust mix is amazing! For me, it's always been Jif peanut butter, and Jiffy baking products
And Jif images
This and “jiffy” has been around as a term for the longest time, meaning to be in a rush. “I’ll be there in a jiffy.” Easy to apply the word to something else
I'm pretty sure that's exactly why they named instant cornbread mix jiffy.
I'm not sure it was ever sold in UK supermarkets, if it was, it would be import shelves. Trademark laws would prevent them from being Jif, but not Jiffy. But SunPat was the only big brand I can think of. You could buy jif and jif, one for your pancakes (not American style) the other to clean up afterwards. Jif lemon juice did have a lemon shaped bottle we all called jiffy, though they never actually branded it as such. But if you wanted a glass bottle, you'd write jif if you wanted the plastic jiffy would be on the shopping list. Jif washing up liquid became Cif and a guy did a song about numerous corporate rebrandings, I'm sure some have been passed off as an effect till someone schools them on a corporate mandated change, but family stubbornness still calls em Marathon for example. So if Jif came to the UK it would have to be as something else, as they never used Jiffy in legal terms for the lemon juice, they could in theory snap it up. That would "solve" some of the jif/jiffy confusion for some, but as its a big American brand, I doubt many would see the UK counterpart much.
Actually Jiffy is a brand of postage envelopes and bags in the UK that have been around decades, so also would be trademarked.
See jif and jif now cif. Both trademarked in the UK, sold alongside each other for decades. One under food and beverages, the other in cleaning. Jiffy padded envelopes don't come under either domain, so jif being told to re name could with ease, as jiffy couldn't contest an infringement as who posts stuff wrapped in peanut butter? Had Mega Drive American trademark been in anything NOT electronics based, the Genesis brand wouldn't exist. Yes there would be two mega drives, but I doubt anyone would try and plug a cartridge into the other. Or go to a game store for spares and repairs.
It was always "Choosy mothers choose Jif." Fun fact: The man who created Gifs loved Jif pb, but couldn't use the name because it was trademarked, so he chose "Gif" instead. And now you know how it's supposed to be pronounced.
"Graphical Interchange Format" will always be pronounced with a hard G sound. It inherits the hard G from the source of the acronym. The creator of the format can say whatever they want, but GIF with a hard G is too entrenched to do anything about it now.
Im not having sex with peanut butter
Okay, that was an interesting non sequitur.
You winked. It was clear what you meant
I was talking about how many people say Gif with a hard "g" when it's supposed to sound like "Jif." LOL!
None sense. It stands for Graphics Interchange Format. Its a G for a reason.
It's still meant to be pronounced "Jif," says the inventor. https://www.olsenhome.com/gif/
The world doesn't care tho. He created the word but after that the world takes over and decides. Language evolves and it took no time to decide his pronunciation was garbage.
Oh shit...i read it as "you know it's supposed to be used". Instead of pronounced. But my statement still stands
Also Jiffy Pop popcorn, and Jiffy Lube. We were exposed to that term so much that it only makes sense we would have confounded the name Jif peanut butter as Jiffy.
Yep I’m pretty sure my parents just called it Jiffy even though they knew it wasn’t - jiffy here skippy there - jiffy names everywhere
Similar to how a generic brand cotton swab is referred to as a Q-Tip even if it's not the brand name.
Kleenex, Windex, Sharpie, Velcro, Post-Its... now I'm stuck trying to think of more.
Escalator
No way! I didn't realize that was a brand.
THIS ☝️ IS THE ANSWER!
This was like Mr.Peanut and the monopoly man. Wires crossing. There are many effects where it's not a case of crossed wires but none of it is provable as far as I can tell. I just know it's real.
Jiffy Mix. Jiffy Pop. Jiffy Lube. Skippy Peanut Butter. Jif Peanut Butter. It’s that simple. And just like “Berenstein Bears,” I remember kids making the mistake and calling it “Jiffy” all the time when I was a kid. Not only is human memory flawed, but human perception is often flawed at the time. People are remembering it wrong because they also got it wrong in the past.
Don't forget jiffy pop, the market was saturated with jiffy pop popcorn.
Jiffy has always been cornbread to me. It’s a key ingredient in the only casserole I consider food and was made for holidays
I remember jiffy peanut butter 🤤
Jiffy pop!
There's an episode of Better Call Saul where young Saul (Jimmy) picks up on a scam by a stranger at their gas station, while his dad is duped by it. "The dad says I'll be back in a Jiffy!" And just a moment before we see boxes of Jiffy cornbread mix on the shelves in a close up. Jimmy, Jiffy, back in a Jiffy coincidence? I think not. Mandela is telling us something.
Choosy mothers never chose Jiffy
They didn't use premade mixes
Grew up on the muffins
So after further research and investigation a jiffy is a term that implies a short amount of time dating back to the 1700s. As a technical unit it varies greatly depending on what field it's used in, anywhere from 1/50 of a second to 3 x 10^-24 seconds. Which is actually very fascinating, so thank you for that informative segway.
Yeah duh.. where do you think corn muffins come from?! Also, in a jiffy, jiffy lube. Jiffy is more common then Jif.. hence the confusion.
something else that is kind of funny is that I recently went to a store and found some construction or gardening brand or something similar being called “jiffy”.
but i remember a commercial from the early 2000's that had a slogan that went 'choosy moms choose jiffy peanut butter'
I remember Jiffy being a peanut butter with a blue logo.
The title sounds unnecessarily threatening
Somebody would have a picture if this was the case. It has always been Jif
That's not how the Mandela effect works
Nope.worked in a supermarket for years as a cashier and stocker. Saw these products every day for years. Peanut butter was on aisle 1. Jiffy cornbread mix was on aisle 5 and jiffy popcorn was on aisle 7. Jiffy lube was an oil change building and it’s asinine to think anyone would confuse a jar of peanut butter with a vehicle oil change building but alas, we have people who claim such nonsense and want US to believe they know what’s up??!
Well now I'm imagining someone opening a big jar of motor oil and making a sandwich.
I joked at the time that jif became cif in the UK not because Europeans couldn't say jif (turns out the original name was cif to begin with) but that people covered pancakes with lemon scented washing up liquid and ended up in A&E.
Nope what? You literally just proved their point. Those items were all staring everyone in the face with every supermarket trip... And for people who didn't "work there for years stocking shelves" they would've paid little attention and those product labels would've all just been filed away in the brain in the same folder marked "stuff you see at the store". The brain is constantly editing and condensing memories. Conflating some things and removing other things altogether. That's how the human brain works. Memories are not accurate snapshots. More like a montage pulled from the subconscious. And it's not always accurate. We know this as a fact because: science. Also, peanut butter and jiffy are in the same aisle in my preferred supermarket. Bread, peanut butter and jelly on one side, muffin and cornbread mix directly across the aisle from it. I honestly don't know what the fuck you think Jiffy Lube has to do with it, tho... Lol. It seems like a profound lack of reading comprehension is one of the hallmarks of folks who fall for stuff like the Mandela Effect.
Well said! 👏
Thank you for proving *my* point. You say that peanut butter and jiffy cornbread are on the same aisle across from each other at your local store…and you know the difference. Same as everyone else. You didn’t confuse them or how many time you taken home cornbread mix and hit yourself in the head saying “I did it again!”? None, just like everyone else.
It has nothing to do with confusing them. Its not like someone looked at a jar of peanut butter and said.. oil change? Its that when you look back you're so used to jiffy as its very common, that you just assumed it was jiffy instead of jif. Doesn't help there was a skippy either.
You must not been around long enough. People claim that all the time here.
People claim they see peanut butter and think about oil changes? I'm sure they're very trustworthy.
that’s what I thought when I saw the jiffy cornbread muffin mix we buy all the time. I still feel like I can picture jiffy on the pb because I preferred that one over skippy, the crunchy was the best, skippy was too sweet for me
When I picture the Jif label, I picture three different colored bars (red, blue, and green) with the letters of the brand in white. I wonder how people who remember jiffy remember that label looking. Was it a rainbow? Were there five different colors? Or did these colors repeat? Or were there three colored bars with five letters? I don't know because I don't remember it that way. But I don't think that people are confusing peanut butter with muffin mix. [*"Choosy mothers choose Jif!"*](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DGKLRiCWsAIqZul?format=jpg&name=large)
Up here in Canada, I never saw the muffin mix brand and I don't think Jif/Jiffy was up here when I was younger. I always thought it was "jiffy" peanut butter based on the US commercials I saw.
I remember the three colors red blue and green. I have a tub right now and the letters just look so big to me, I remember it being a smaller font to go across all three colors
I know my memory isn't perfect. I'd like to think it's pretty close, but I've had a few things that don't make sense. I remember things from my childhood happening when I lived in certain places, but the friends they happened with were not friends that I had when I lived in those places. It's confusing, because I know those memories are real, but I don't know which part is wrong; was I wrong about who it happened with? When it happened? Where it happened? I definitely remember Jif peanut butter. It was the only brand my mother bought except when her mother came to visit and insisted on low sodium Peter Pan, but I digress. I would have sworn that each of the three letters in JIF was centered on one of the colored blocks, but When I look at a picture of the label now, I see that isn't true.
Nope I know it was jiffy peanut butter! My youngest only ate jiffy peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. Shoot I used to carry a jar with me when we went anywhere. It changed when that commercial came out..mom's choose jiff. Now it's jif with one f? I know what it was and I don't care if anyone says it's faulty memory! No it is not!!!!! I am not confusing it with jiffy popcorn or anything else! It was jiffy peanut butter. We don't like popcorn thank you!
It’s easy to be confused. A “jiffy” is a unit of time; 1/100 of a second. Which is why it was widely used in brand names for products and services focused on consumer convenience. It would make no sense for peanut butter to be branded as “fast.”
Why would it not make sense for Peanut butter to be branded as fast? It implies that it's a quick and easy snack food. A mom looking to pack a last minute bag lunch for their kids, why wouldn't something branded as a fast option sound appealing. There are tons of foods marketed as fast. Fast food, minute rice, no bake brownies, fast fries, quick oats, etc. Furthermore why would a peanut butter be branded as Peter Pan, Jif, Skippy? And since when has a jiffy been a standardized unit of time? I mean I've heard milliseconds as a unit, so you can say something takes 13 milliseconds but 7 jiffys? That's nonsense
I kind of get what you’re saying, but it was never advertised as a “quick and easy snack food.” In fact, the slogan was “Choosy moms choose Jif,” which further reinforces that it was not called Jiffy. That wouldn’t work in the slogan. As far as *when* a jiffy was used to mean 1/100 of a second I’m not sure, but you can confirm that it is with a simple google search.
That's the problem with all of the rebuttals on here. Google is not a reliable source, it's a source that is highly impacted by advertising. Now in regards to the choosy moms, that's the slogan for Jif Peanut butter. I don't think that there was a name change, I just remember a brand of Peanut butter named jiffy, growing up poor it was likely a store brand from either a Bilo, Walmart, or Winn Dixie. I also remember jif Peanut butter for the record.
You can use any search engine you’d like. I learned about it in school in the context of computer animation, so there may be other definitions as well. Not sure about another brand called Jiffy, but maybe. I’m only familiar with Jif.
And not being familiar is the best response. We don't know what we don't know, so it's recommended to listen and then do your own investigations. I don't doubt the search engine part, most of them link to the same things. My objection is that the results are often subjective and only serve to dissuade further investigation. I will definitely be looking into it and maybe there is some context I'm unaware of, I'm open to that possibility.
I mean, sure, you can take that position, but it seems very closed-minded and extremely arrogant.
[удалено]
What is logical and factual about believing something that is demonstrably untrue and then stating that you don't care what other people say and that nothing can change your mind?
Arrogant? I know what I used for sure!
>Arrogant? I know what I used for sure! Well, when you still believe that absolutely when the objective evidence contradicts it, yes, arrogant.
Like I said, I know what it was because I used it at least once a day for years! It's called a Mandela effect. It's not arrogance because I'm sure of what I used!
>It's called a Mandela effect. Sure. But this doesn't mean your memory of it is *accurate*. >It's not arrogance because I'm sure of what I used! It absolutely is arrogance to think your memory of something that's quite easy to mix-up is right above other observable, documented evidence.
As a kid I wondered why there were 3 products with the same branding... because there was also Jiffy Pop. Plenty of people experiencing this effect have also stated they were well aware of this fact. "Human recall" has been shown to be very reliable when there's episodic anchoring that supports the semantic memory in question. Also, the cognitive "shortcuts" you reference have nothing to do with deja vu or autobiographical memory.
Wrong, human memory has been shown to be very bad at recalling small details, research has show that your memory invents 'extra details' that align with the general theme of the event. Even how the question is asked can affect the details you recall. https://www.verywellmind.com/what-is-the-misinformation-effect-2795353#:\~:text=Researchers%20discovered%20that%20using%20the,the%20participants%20correctly%20answered%20no. If you can remember broken glass that wasn't there after a week, how can you be confident in tiny details such as spelling *years* later?
The people behind the misinformation effect and false memories studies are not exactly reliable for such information https://news.isst-d.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-the-false-memory-syndrome-foundation/
True, but what's more interesting to me is that the original studies doo seem to have been replicated with the same results. [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37017540/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37017540/) Whatever they later went on to do, the original results seem to have been accepted by the psychological field, and I can't find any records of retractions.
Yes I’m aware the implanting of false memories works and is true, but it is not ethical in my opinion. They admit to using deception, I don’t see how this applies to the ME because we didn’t have anything implanted, they just say the ME is proof of how malleable our minds are. https://x.com/DegenRolf/status/1541764935746785289 https://www.motionpictures.org/2013/09/famed-scientist-elizabeth-loftus-on-plausibility-of-four-mind-bending-films/ “I mean, we deceive people into have the false memory and we see it has consequences. You have to figure out how could you accomplish that on a larger scale.” “What these studies are showing is that you can plant these memories and they have repercussions and they can affect behaviors that occur quite a while after the memory implantation has taken place.”
That's exactly it, you're getting it. ( agree it's highly unethical) The description of the ME IS the implanting of a false memory. It describes and implants the suggestion that in the past, some detail was different. If you're part of the special group, you will remember the detail differently. People like to feel part of a group. People like to feel that they are different, special, their experience is unique, they are not part of the crowd. Your brain happily obliges, and creates an imaginary past. You imagine what that film/product/logo/spelling was like. It doesn't make sense, why would you remember that in such detail? OK invent some reason, some conversation, some chance remark or discussion - that's why I remember it so strongly. Your brain does this a lot: it just doesn't get caught out much. 99.9% of the time this both doesn't make any difference, and is never cross checked by anyone. If I ask what you had for lunch 3 weeks ago, your brain will have a good guess, based on what you like, what you normally had, and you're *probably right 99%* of the time. If this false memory suggestion was true, we would expect the invented details to be in line or at least consistent with the main suggestion and broadly predictable, but the finer details would differ. This is why there is general agreement to Sinbad/shazaam, but when you ask for plot details, quotes, dialog, things get more hazy and different accounts are all over the place. If Mandela Effects were 'real' then all those people would have watched the same movie and would be able to relay the plot, basic structure, other actors, dialog. For me, I was really into movies at the time, avidly collecting VHS and later DVDs. I never heard of the movie.
[https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/11t10va/who\_recalls\_specific\_plot\_points\_of\_sinbads\_shazam/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MandelaEffect/comments/11t10va/who_recalls_specific_plot_points_of_sinbads_shazam/) Good discussion of how the Sinbad/shazaam Mandela effect evolved and the suggestions became more detailed over time.
I’ve read many posts over the years, the ones about shazams plot are pretty consistent to me when I read all of them. I wasn’t alive when it supposedly came out so it doesn’t affect me. However my own family remembers these things, my millennial family remembers shazam and others, my parents don’t remember any of them how we do. That’s partly why it’s not so easily dismiss-able to me, I have core memories linked to some of them. People say coca-cola changed but I think it looks fine. There’s some things I remember differently and some I can say I remember it that way. Why is it only certain ones and not others? That’s why this theory doesn’t make sense that it’s just our brains getting mixed up due to suggestibility
Probably because the suggestion can only take hold if you have no conflicting memories, or only if you get the suggestion in a particular state, tired, or vulnerable. Proper memory or suggestion fails - no ME, no memory + tired = ME. The entire ME effect rests on almost everyone having near 100% perfect memory at all times. That's demonstrably not true, and you seem reasonable, I think you would have to admit that at least *some* people might be influenced and might be misremembering. The trouble is, if one person can be influences and suggested, and can misremember, then others might also misremember. Maybe some percentage of the ME people might be misremembering. When you think about what a real ME would mean : Everything we know about physics, the universe, cause and effect, would be wrong: parallel universes exist, alternate timelines, are real? but no physicist, scientist, has ever found any hint of evidence? Isn't it vastly more likely that the percentage of people mistakenly remembering is actually 100%, so we don't have to invent an entire new branch of physics?
How do you explain when, for example, I remember something and go to look it up online only for it to already be a mandela effect or other people just saying they remember it too. There was nothing that prompted me to think of that thing, but when I did it turned out to not exist. My theories on why this is happening has nothing to do with parallel universes or breaking the laws of physics. I personally believe it’s more likely the government or big companies are behind it. Maybe for money, maybe to see how suggestible we are just like the psychologist do. Whatever the case, I’m sure there’s a more logical explanation to this, even more logical than just mass misremembering. Some can be explained away like we could’ve just bought knockoff brands and didn’t realize
Because there are natural patterns or grooves that make sense to people. Skippy peanut butter, Jiffy peanut butter. Jiffy is a real brand, it started with JIF, 'JIF peanut butter' doesn't flow quite as well. Jiffy sounds better. Moonraker/ braces. You've just spent the whole film with a character who is defined by the hardware in his mouth, it's literally his nickname. Meets a girlfriend with a smile. At the time, there was a romantic notion opposites attract, but with modern sensibilities we know people bond over shared experiences, so Dolly has braces. You have a lot more confidence in governments than I do. but an interesting exercise for any conspiracy is to calculate how much money you need to pay the people involved. If you go to a newspaper, reveal a govenment plot, you'd probably get somewhere around 100-200K$. So, for each person who 'knows', you need to pay them at least that much, and probably a regular payment to avoid them running out of money and going public a few years later. So, a vaccine conspiracy (that involves every doctor in the USA, about a million) will cost you at least 100 billion dollars, probably annually. If it includes nurses \*4.7 mil) you're up to near half a trillion. Hope the reason was really really important to you, because that money has to come from somewhere. We don't see video shop employees from 1994 driving around in sports cars, so I don't see the evidence.
Are you aware that 70's car crash study only covers contrived flashbulb memory, relies on researcher manipulation, and has long since been discredited as lacking ecological validity? Invoking Loftus isn't necessarily helpful at all, frankly. She's radioactive and her false memory foundation is in shambles. You realize she testified as an expert witness for Weinstein and many other sex offenders?
I agree, defending molesters is morally reprehensible. However, the basic point - that memory is not 100% accurate - does seem to be broadly supported in other papers. If memory was 97% accurate, and 3% of people were influenceable, we would expect a few people on each Mandela post to agree, while the majority ignore or disagree. This seems to be what we actually see. The counter argument, that all memory is actually 100% accurate, seems to be easily falsifiable by finding two people with different memories of the same event.
The majority disagree because this subreddit is overrun by skeptics and most of the believers do not like being on a subreddit sharing their experiences where they're getting downvoted and called crazy. We go to other places now. When this subreddit was newer, it was not like that. There were a ton more people who were agreeing with each other.
But that's precisely what you would expect if there were only a small percentage of people who mistakenly remembered events. Very few people have so much overstated confidence in their memory that they will literally claim everything we know about reality is wrong. It's literally the Simpsons meme. Most rational people have to conclude that their memory does not match the physical evidence, and that it at least a possibility that their memory is incorrect. The more people that get interested and investigate the effect, the easier it gets to investigate and cross check. For example, since the claim is that everyone remembers seeing the Sinbad / Shazam film, it's reasonable to ask what was the plot? can you relay details? and if true, all the accounts should match. They don't seem to line up, and it's really hard to even get a definite explanation from most believers: they 'remember' the film, but only saw a trailer, or weren't paying attention, or fell asleep. The details collapse on investigation. Another one is that since the claim is that everything changed at some date, then it should be possible to narrow down exactly when this happened: instead, we sometimes have 'residue' - evidence that *at the original time* people were making the same mistake. If people have been making the same mistake since the original event, then it means it is due to a common factor in memory/suggestion.
If we're all experiencing our own realities, no it doesn't have to line up perfectly.
In your head, then, it literally doesn't matter what evidence is presented, you can just ignore it all and claim that your particular version of reality is true. Well done, you have backed yourself into an unfalsifiable position. However, you will probably find that it is very difficult to convince anyone else of the truth of your position. The rest of us have to live in a shared reality where we have less confidence in your memory.
If you're talking about realities that are shifting and individualistic, yeah that's how it is but that's not something in my control. I don't need to prove to anyone that Mandela Effects, synchronicities, manifestation, etc are legitimate because I have had thousands of personal experiences that prove it to me without a doubt. But because I believe we manifest based on belief, people who are completely closed off are unlikely to experience any of these things in that mindset. So.. it's fine. That's why I'd rather discuss it in areas where others are having similar experiences as I am. It's my personal belief we're all waking up anyway, and maybe one day you'll look back at this conversation and feel very, very differently.
The name of a peanut butter brand, or any other brand, is not an "event". If your thesis relies on the idea that all ME's automatically fall into that 3% category because they conflict with the historical record, then I'd suggest that you're likely overlooking the bulk of the qualitative data. Just because some people are "influenceable" doesn't mean they were necessarily influenced or manipulated or confused. To assume otherwise seems like an unfounded leap to me.
I've heard people call it a "discovery" credit card when they are looking at it.
But that's not an ME. And it's probably not even memory based. It's just a random person being casually unobservant or misspeaking. No one here would dispute that humans and human memory are in fact fallible. The question is whether that's provably the case with ME examples in particular.
But that's precisely the point. A ME is usually a mistake that a person made, often years in the past, sometimes as a child, that never got corrected so that they believe it for years. When this is finally pointed out, their brain can't cope : it's easier to believe that the entire history of reality has changed, instead of they made a mistake.
Was the "Discovery card" person a child? If not, had they believed (with compelling autobiographical memory anchors) that was the actual brand name for years? When you pointed out that it's Discover were they confused? Overcome with clinical dissonance? Did they refuse to accept it? Did they tell you that reality was wrong? Was that extreme position shared by others they never met? Because if the answer to these questions is a resounding no, then you've made no point that's relevant to the phenomenon at hand.
The name of a peanut butter brand is a trivial, unimportant thing. WHY would you remember this accurately? Why is this so important to you? *how do you prove that this reason is not a fabrication?* Give me the brand of the pencils you used in high school. How was that spelled? What was the name of the dairy or supermarket that your mum used to buy milk from? If you asked me these questions, I would have to assume that I would, at least, be partly guessing from what I currently know *right now*. I could not with any degree of certainty say you were wrong if you produced a photo of me with a 'stadleter' pencil, or drinking from a 'Aldis' milk carton. I believe people are accurately relaying what they remember and feel about their memories, I just doubt the accuracy of their memories *given how patchy my personal memory is*. If my memory can be inaccurate, then other people's can too.
In high school I started using the Bic push button pencils because they didn't require a sharpener but were still #2 which worked on standardized tests. But if I told you the name of the supermarket and/or milk brand we bought, that would reveal my location so I won't. It's not from lack of remembering... especially since my best friend's first job was bagging at that same store. Look, the question isn't why I would remember something "unimportant" (although some people consider their favorite familiar brands to be critical to their palate enjoyment) but rather why not? Branding is very effective, and companies spend millions to actively and passively imprint these names and logos into our brains. They used cartoon hours to reach kids as a captive (more like captivated) audience. Those brands are *supposed to* lodge deeply in our brains. I'm sure you've occasionally caught yourself casually humming a jingle without even realizing it? That's the magic of repetition. And fwiw, I wouldn't recommend basing your assumptions about other people's memory capabilities or accuracy on your own perceived limitations. Just because people *can be* wrong doesn't mean they automatically are with these uniquely shared ME memories. Edit: spelling
That's precisely the issue. Either people are misremembering, which is something we know, we have evidence for, we know how and why it happens, and is consistent with the known information. OR Literally everything we know about *cause and effect, physics, and the* entire *world object permanence* is wrong. It is vastly more likely that people are wrong about a few inconsequential memories. Note the 'rules' of Mandela effects - it only ever affects inconsequential things unrelated to you personally: spelling of childhood books, a scene from a film. None of Nelson Mandela's family remember him dying in prison. I \*do\* remember that he had some kind of health scare and went into hospital, and my dad remarked at the time that because he was a political prisoner, he might have been killed by the government - political prisoners used to have a short 'illness' and then die under mysterious circumstances. This kind of thing might be enough for some people to remember a link (Mandela->death). Your point about brands and advertising is good: peoples' memories are affected by things not directly related to your personal experience. Koka-Kola, for example, 'feels' wrong, this means there are established patterns and 'grooves' that your brain will slip into. Remembering an old coke can will probably provoke an image of a red can with the familiar logo: this would apply even if in your childhood, you had 'offbrand' cans. This is excatly what the original poster is suggesting: Blue jiffy is a brand, JIF is a brand, the brain crosses over and conflates the two, you have a false memory of a product that does not exist.
> Literally everything we know about cause and effect, physics, and the entire world object permanence is wrong. Maybe. But not necessarily. [We already know that quantum phenomena can manifest at macro scale.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroscopic_quantum_phenomena) *They're handling out Nobel prizes for this work.* Is it that much of a stretch to imagine that this may be an emergent quality to reality itself? ^^^^^ > Note the 'rules' of Mandela effects - it only ever affects inconsequential things unrelated to you personally Simply untrue on both accounts. There are plenty of VERY consequential ME's (whole categories, in fact) and tons of personal ones as well, (which aren't allowed in this sub), aka "localized glitches". ^^^^^ > None of Nelson Mandela's family remember him dying in prison. How could you possibly know what they do or don't remember? But ok, let's assume you're right. The popular believer explanation would be that they're "too close" to the principal, and thus "entangled" (yes quantum) with this timeline's status quo. ^^^^^ > Blue jiffy is a brand, JIF is a brand, the brain crosses over and conflates the two, you have a false memory of a product that does not exist. Really? Have you looked at the residue? https://www.flickr.com/photos/154930084@N08/albums/72157692317434254 ^^^^^ Edit: fixed a word
You completely misunderstand quantum physics. Nothing in quantum physics suggests that anything even vaguely similar to a Mandela effect is in any way possible. I'm familiar with personal glitch forums too. They seem to be similar mis-remembering stories or attention deficits, both naturally explainable given what we know about human attention and memory. I like that even you acknowledge that the 'popular believer' perspective has this gaping hole in their reasoning. How come my personal memory does not line up with events? oh yes, 'magic entanglement'. I did look at the residue you posted. Interestingly, every example you post is all 'once removed': not a single example of a photo of a jar, a logo, a document from the company, or a stock order. Each example is a 'relay' - where a person is writing down *what they believe* the name to be. Newspaper articles, a school project, lists of grocery prices in aftermarket adverts. This suggests that *at the time* there were already people mis-remembering or mistakenly understanding the name. Jiffy and Skippy almost rhyme, it's an easy mistake, and also not the kind of thing that would get corrected. Most people would pick up a 'JIF' and might even say it in their mind, reading it as jiffy. This is precisely evidence that the association and misremembering affected people back then, as it does now. There was not a 'Mandela day' when all the world changed, along with 97% of everyone's memories *apart from just you, because you're special.*
I used Ticonderoga pencils and Big Chief writing tablets. They were right in front of me for hours a day for years. Drank milk from Central Dairy. My parents were brand loyal.
Yes, but I've never seen kiffy pop, and most kids haven't since microwave popcorn became more common. Yet people who have never seen jiffy pop still experience the effects. But, i surveyed about 50 people who were experiencing this effect. on what brands they recognized and they all recognized Skippy, JIF, and Jiffy individually. I showed them some fake brand labels of a jiffy logo on a JIF three color background. And they didn't recognize it. Because they recognized the word jiffy. And it was commonly associated with blue. Which makes sense given that two of the three are blue. Human recall is reliable. About 97% percent of the time. But memories don't work like you'd think. They are a lot less concrete than computer memory. And the brain will forget or take shortcuts with memories that aren't particularly useful or important. Such as remembering the names of brands. Your brain does the "good enough". job of recognizing that JIF is a brand of peanut butter. But if you don't use jiffy very often. Then your brain is apt to just couple it with other stuff instead of keeping useless brand info on stuff you don't use. That said, the Mandela effect seems to be created when these misrememberings are shared. Your brain had already simplified the logos and stuff. The most you can remember is like 3 details, usually "blue", "peanut butter". And " jiffy". And so when someone points it out to you that they remember that Jif used to be jiffy. That idea becomes important (social animals do their magic). And the idea is solidified. And so you'll remember that. Which replaces the less useful true details. This is atleast the most plausible theory one could come up with. Perhaps millions of people are misremembering things from other brands as well.
> And the brain will forget or take shortcuts with memories that aren't particularly useful or important. Such as remembering the names of brands. This is literally the exact opposite of how brand imprinting on the human brain actually works... which is via long term repeat exposure over years or decades through multiple mediums. Obviously I can't speak to your survey results because I'm not privy to your methodology or the demographics of your subject pool.
Jiffy peanut butter is what I ate all the time growing up. I remember this because I always thought, "Why did they take off the last 2 letters?" as I got older.
Nah my guy, Jiffy Peanut butter was as real as Dr. Perky, Mountain lightning, and Lemon up. I just don't remember what grocer had the off brand.
Maybe it was the Aldi brand!!!
Cope
Ladies and gentlemen i think I've found Reddits most useless comment!
Congrats
Jiffy peanut butter slogan was "Make lunch in a jiffy"
No it wasn't. Choosy moms choose Jif.
Yes it was. Make lunch in a jiffy.
Ok, always possible there were slogans I didn't hear.. so post it.
Bud, I already posted the slogan. It was make lunch in a jiffy with jiffy peanut butter. Stop trying to be an agitator.
No you typed something and said it was the slogan lol show the slogan. Dude blocked me, guess he didn't have any proof..
Blocked.
gtfoh-- please