Ochelli Effect 9-3-2025 Mandela Mandala Effect Affect Part 1

to discuss with you? Well, I'm going to save the news to the second piece, just to see if my voice holds up, because I've been sick over the past few days and I've been doing the best well past few days, jeez, past I don't even know how long two weeks. Anyway, I've been sick. I've been trying to battle with things. Had the water shut off couple of times, had the electricity down, had the internet. You know, it's been a weird month. Anyway. Does anybody want to listen

to me? Bitch? Probably not. Let's get to the reality of the reality. And this is something I'm gonna call the Mandela Mandola effect affect. Okay, hopefully you can follow that because the Mandela effect. We hear about this all the time, especially in the alternative spaces, and now it's very very popular on YouTube as well among many performative

you know, seemingly conspiracy oriented channels. All that good stuff. Hey, let's blow your mind with the simulation theory, all that stuff which has been discussed in alternative media spaces for years and years, except now they generated through AI sludge and you know, clearly narrated AI. I think AI is assembling the video as well, and people are pumping these things out fast and furious. So let's get back to a real discussion on it and once again kind of

cap it off. Because the bottom line on the Mandela effect, that whole concept that a lot of people think that they are from a different reality or different realities collided or something to this effect, due to the fact that they have a memory they believe of Nelson Mandela dying in the nineteen nineties and things changed from there, and then all of a sudden they think, you know, mister Peanut did or didn't have a monocle, the monopoly guy

did or didn't have a monocle, etc. Etc. And therefore, since their memories don't match, or kit Kat had a dash, doesn't have a dash? Does have a dash? Now, as I'm saying these things and even bringing up the weirdness of the Sinbad movie that was allegedly produced called Shazam or Couzam and was it with Shack or was it with Sinbad? Simply because Sinbad used to run around in genie pants and all all that good stuff. People think that their memories are more reliable than the reality. And

this leads us to two very interesting concepts. And like I said, the Mandela effect versus the Mandola effect. And in the news, I'm going to get to one of the reasons why people that know very little always believe their own stupidity above all else any evidence, anything that could disprove it. Their confidence in their stupidity is part

of their stupidity. In fact, intelligence, once it gets to a certain level, causes one to question themselves and every assertion they find and even triple or quadruple check their facts, verify things, corroborate them, etc. When you're more intelligent, you are not quite as absolute in your certainties when your assertions come through your memory. In general, anything you've learned anyway This is all about the way memory is created

and how people completely misunderstand it. And that's all there is to it. See, a lot of people think that a memory is a recording. I have a memory. Therefore it is the strongest thing, and indeed you can maintain and keep certain information about particular events stored in your mind. But every time you relive or reaccess that memory, it is altered chemically and directly by the electrical responses in

the brain. Literally physiologically. The recall of your memory is an effort that takes place freshly every time you do it. And guess what, that's always subject to revision and always subject to at least perception being changed due to the fact that you have new information which has been added to and altered your perception from but new experiences, new

things gained over time. You may not have understood something you were looking at at the age of five, but when you get to be ten, eleven, twelve, you now can put it into a context based on new information, and you might have not realized. You know, we've all heard the jokes about I thought mommy and Daddy were wrestling and they were actually having sex because the five year old didn't quite get sex just yet in their brain.

And then when they realized that at the age of twelve, they realized that at the age of five, they saw sex. And that has to be adjusted now because now it doesn't look like wrestling. It doesn't appear to be a struggle, although I guess for some people's sex is a struggle anyway. The beauty of all of this is that we now live in a society where the Mandela effect is a

useful tool as well as the Mendala affect. Now I'm gonna have to explain that thing in just a moment, But remember cast Sunstein, right, and the white paper that came out about turning conspiracy theories on their head, turning them against themselves, weaponizing them by infiltration, by misinformation, and all of that interesting stuff. Sunstein promised literate observers will see the intentional, ironic engineering to occupy the easily amused

with trivial pursuits, rewarded with even less than a plastic wedge. Right, And a mandala, by the bye, is a sacred symbol creation. You've seen these sand pictures that people put together, you know, part of a very deep, very careful, very persistent, slow moving zen arrangement of sand or rocks. In these really elaborate,

interesting designs have become quite symmetrical and all that. Yes, indeed, it's like an old Hindu practice that has been adopted and it comes from the Sanskrit word for circle and is meant to evoke the idea of a geometric design representing the cosmos or deities in the Hindu and Buddhist traditions. But the symbolic meaning of mandalis okay, symbolize the universe,

its wholeness, its balance. That's why the symmetrical arrangement is necessary, and our relationship with infinity as it relates to relative positions. The creation is a meditative practice and the designs are meant to aid in spiritual and psychological growth. Okay. The purpose of course is to focus on the design and moving toward the center to where you have a finite

amount of space and therefore it becomes complete. The practitioners symbolically guide themselves through a process of transforming a universe of chaos and suffering into one of a beautiful arrangement or you know what people call joy. Anyway, the Western interpretation, the psychologist Carl jung Right introduced the concept to the West, interpreting mandalis as archetypal symbols representing the mind's quest for

inner reconciliation and wholeness. And even you can see this in the common Judeo Christian and practices where they say, you know, if it is as above as it is below, and so on and so forth. The cyclical and symmetrical relationship of what if you make it this way on earth, it can be this way in heaven, or if it is this way in heaven, it can be this way on earth. And people have continued to struggle with that

open ended equation. Anyway, this is just another attempt to reveal the truth to people that really don't want it. But you know, again, I'm gonna keep going with this, and once again for context, the Mandela effect is a phenomenon which is a great example of those who know nothing insisting that they have discovered more than the reality they already have no grasp on. You know, you know all the product changes movie lines. Hey, I thought he said, Luke, I am your father versus no, I am your fado.

But does anyone discussing the other universe principle understand that concept or even how that would manifest itself. Do they possess any knowledge on how memory works and the ability okay, for reprocessing of fragments stored in a less than static facility in the brain. No, they don't. They also don't

understand the psychological phenomena. And believe me, I'm not a big fan of most of these, you know, psychological principles that are flung out there and represented as if they were scientific, even though they are performative and interesting insights sometimes into the sociology and the way that we interact with one another. The Dunning Kruger effect is something that I think people need to look up, and if you look in the show notes, I'll make sure to include it.

But there's also a terrifying theory of stupidity, and these are things that again Machiavelli understood, okay, and even Sunsu with the Art of War, understood quite well how our

memories formed. That is another interesting thing. Again, there is a biochemical element to it, and there is still a mystical element to it in that people that say they understand the body, the mind scientifically, etc. Cannot explain where storage and presentation become this unshaken reality in people's minds, their memories being absolute until often they're introduced with very

solid evidence that their memory is flawed. And it happens all the time in eyewitness testimony, which is why you know eyewitness testimony is a useful guide, but is never the absolute certainty when you're seeking the truth of a circumstance, a situation, a landscape, anything anyway. The Mandela effect, flat earth and the everything is Fake paradigm are the best subversions of critical thinking and any chance for the conspiracy

culture and those that challenge the architecture of selective ignorance. Okay, to seek the new savior, daddy. This is what the common populist idea is. And what do they do. It's because their adult minds can't confront the complexities of them, so defaulting to becoming a child and allowing the leadership to make all decisions, in all declarations absolute for them is the way to go. And it becomes even more confusing when the leader in air quotes is somebody who

doesn't have a coherent message or a logical one. We see this more prominently on the you know, left handed side of things. Apparently because they are completely incoherent about their own standards. I mean, the standard on the right nowadays is very simple. Whatever Trump says goes, and if he changed his mind, then he changed his mind for a good reason. So follow the leader. Very simple. Now that has its own problems. Not going to get into that.

Let's get back to the circular firing squad of the left. If you try to line up and make their alleged points of view and alleged you know of practice for morality into a straight line, you can't do it. They don't comport with one another, The cohorts do not comply with one another's logic. You have constant contradiction and subversion of the alleged core beliefs always, and I argue that that is on purpose, just like the turning of the entire leadership over to one man is also a terribly

flawed circumstance on the right. But again, I'm not here to pick on the right. I'm here to pick on something else, like the confidence illusion. And I'm going to use a couple of YouTube video audios so you don't have to listen to me, because I know a lot of people have already tuned out because they've had an emotional reaction and somehow think I'm directing this at their

team one way or another, at their particular compartment. But the truth is I'm directing this at ninety five percent of all people that you see anywhere, because there's only about five percent of us that are not trapped in the illusion of confidence. And the thing is, we don't get to positions of leadership when we're of a higher intellectual strength than those that are confident in their own ignorance.

Let's see if these YouTube videos can help me explain this a little better for you guys, and I'll make some comments along the way. Plus I'll give you the links so you can take a listen to the whole thing yourself. And we'll just take portions of these and see what we do. The first one is called why the most Foolish People End Up in Power, and it does have a serious Machiavelli theme where they constantly refer

back to the print and that Machiavellian creation. And we even have, you know, in our lexicon the idea of Machiavelli and Machiavellian strategies, styles behaviors. Maybe you'll relate to this. Maybe you won't, and maybe this will be a complete

waste of time. And if you feel like that at this point, I urge you to go to probably the next podcast I'm gonna do, which is going to be about the news, and it will be a bit more blunt force trauma regarding the stupidity of things, and you'll be able to get emotionally attached to everything in the news according to your desires, just like you are right now listening to me. Anyway, enough of my voice, let's try somebody else's.

but I wanted to point that out. They're already bringing up the Dunning Kruger psychological concept, and we're going to get into a little more of that a little later. But it does play a role in the Machiavellian thing as well, So let's continue of.

this bias operates in leadership contexts. A twenty twenty study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology found that individuals who displayed over confidence were more likely to be perceived as leaders by their peers, regardless of their actual competence. The appearance of certainty was more persuasive than demonstrated expertise. Consider figures like George Armstrong Custer, whose supreme confidence led to catastrophic military decisions yet earned him rapid

promotions and devoted followers. Or look at the tech industry, where founders who speak in absolute visionary terms often secure men mass of funding over more measured experienced entrepreneurs. We works Adam Naimann exemplified this. Despite a shaky business model, his unshakable confidence helped him attract billions in investment and occult like following. This pattern repeats globally. Japan's Masayoshi son of SoftBank, lost seventy billion dollars on failed investments while

maintaining investor confidence through sheer force of personality. Russia's oligarchs rose not through competence, but through connections and confidence during the post Soviet privatization. Singapore, by contrast, built safeguards specifically designed to prevent confidence from trumping competence in leadership selection.

In twenty twelve, researchers from Stanford and the University of Houston found that narcissism, not competence, may be the strongest predictor of who emerges as a leader in unstructured groups. Groups led by narcissists didn't perform better. They just thought they did. Why does this happen? Our brains use mental shortcuts when evaluating others. Confidence signals competence, decisiveness suggests clarity of thought. These shortcuts served our ancestors well in straightforward environments.

actually is competent takes a more measured approach. See the emotional response. The emotional handle that they grab you by is a whole lot more effective than giving you facts and figures, and people glaze over. They just do. It's a simple reality here that we're dealing with all the time throughout history, and currently I think this explains Trump. But you know, you probably knew that if you've heard me before. Anyway, back to the history lesson. I like this. It's interesting.

psychologists describes this as competence threatening. Insecure leaders feel threatened by competent team members who might expose their limitations or eventually replace them. Instead of selecting for talent, they select for loyalty and non threatening personalities. Think of it as a competence drought that spreads outward from central leadership. In Emperor Commutus's court, capable administrators were systematically replaced by flatterers

and entertainers, accelerating Rome's decline. In contemporary Brazil, the Centrome political system institutionalizes this dynamic, where in competent political appointees secure positions through personal connections rather than merit. African nations like Zimbabwe under later Mugabe saw systematic replacement of capable administrators with partisan loyalists, devis dating economic consequences. Following this creates what organizational scientists call homeofully, the tendency of individuals

to associate with similar others in power structures. This means incompetent leaders create islands of incompetence around themselves, insulated from conflicting viewpoints and constructive criticism. Ask yourself, have you ever worked in an organization, where asking questions was discouraged, where raising concerns was labeled as not being a team player. These are symptoms of this network effect and action. Yet even knowing all this, we still find ourselves drawn to

leaders who offer simplistic answers. This vulnerability helps explain why incompetence continues to thrive despite our best intentions. Why do we often choose leaders who offer simple answers to complex problems. The answer lies in cognitive psychology and our fundamental need for certainty in an uncertain world. Genuine expertise is almost always accompanied by nuance. Real experts understand the limitations of

their knowledge, They recognize complexity, they acknowledge trade offs. But these intellectual virtues can be profoundly unsatisfying to our psychological needs. For the great majority of mankind are satisfied with appearances as though they were realities, and are often more influenced by the things that seem than by those that are. When Machiavelli wrote these words, he identified something fundamental about human psychology. We crave certainty even when certainty isn't possible

or realistic. Consider what happens in times of crisis or uncertainty. People rarely rally behind the leader who says this is a complex situation with no easy answers that will require careful thought and inevitable trade offs. Instead, they follow the person confidently proclaiming I alone can fix this. The solution

is simple. Look at how actual environmental scientists speak about climate change with careful caveats, ranges of possibilities, and nuanced policy recommendations, versus how popular figures on both sides frame

the issue with absolute certainty. The scientific approach, while intellectually honest, struggles to compete with the psychological comfort of simple narratives or consider healthcare debates, Actual medical experts acknowledge complex trade offs in any system, while political figures offered simplistic solutions that promise everything with no downsides. Which approach typically wins public support. The simple a certain one regardless of feasibility.

not scientifically sound. It wasn't as though it was completely useless, but it had its uses, And nobody talked about the nuance right and the vaccination, nobody talked about what it was or even got into the nuances of the concoction

that was being loosed on people. And even today some of the more you know, supposedly intelligent people well speak in absolute certainties about this and try to draw you into paradigms where you only have certainties for choices absolutes, and yet they're both incorrect and it seems like there is no other choice being offered all the time. And I say, apply this to anything, like they said, apply it to your workspaces where you found that asking a

question is a bad thing. You're not a team player now because you're looking to explore a possibility, trying to improve something. When they have a formula that they say is the only one, that's it, everything is the only one until there's another one that comes along. Everybody's the absolute certain master of the circumstance until it is so obviously clear that disaster strikes and even then there will be people that will defend the disaster as either inevitable

or the fault of someone else. There is always a deflection, there is always a diversion, but there is no never the careful examination by people who might be might be examining things outside of their own confidence and comfort zones.

This is the problem we find ourselves in politically, socially, etc. Right now, we find ourselves in the midst of this as a constant, and the extremes are growing more and more starkly and uniquely available as the only options in any circumstance when there's a lot of things in between. You know, much like the concept of I watched a guy you know, George will say, I don't believe there are people that have a problem with a four hundred

dollars disaster that doesn't exist. Now, this guy thinks that way because it doesn't exist for him, But he's trying to make a general statement about the rest of the world. Simply because you experienced it a certain way does not mean that the entirety of the world will experience it in a similar fashion or exactly the same way. Plus, he obviously don't live among the majority of us, and there is a way to determine how the majority is

experiencing things like right now. If you ask people about, you know, what changed when this person was, you know, put in charge of things, or what changed when that person was put in charge of things? They will even adjust the timeline of events in order to fit the proper narrative where their savior, Daddy was the protector and

the right one. The people that say the country was better when Joe Biden was there, well, besides the fact and other and other and other and other, and he was dysfunctional in this and that he wasn't the only one in charge of things, first of all, but secondly, the people that feel as though things were safer then are as ill informed as the people that think on

January twentieth of this year, everything changed right away. It is not a supportable position that that leadership change caused anything to instantaneously occur, except what the mood of the easily influenced, and that does create literal changes, but only

as a reaction. They're putting the chicken before the egg, and the egg before the chicken, and the horse before the cart, and mixing it all up until they get the combination they want, and those are the points of view that you won't mostly hear, especially by those that feel as though their opinion drives everything in reality. Well, I'd love to see somebody demonstrate how their opinion drives

everything in reality, but it does not. Now, your opinion may drive enough influence to then shift reality because you have a massive people now acting on behalf of your opinion,

and that is yet again another dangerous weapon. Anyway, let's return to this discussion quickly, and I'm going to get out of this one soon and go to another audio that I think is just as instructive, and it will be about that little psychological concept that I was talking to you about before, and again the complete works on these things will be in the show notes, also about the formation of memory, recent scientific studies, and a few

other things. But I urge you to take a look at more than that, go beyond what it is I'm showing you and try to apply these things for yourself. Yes, indeed, I want you to think for yourself and find the answer you can relate to please, so that you see exactly how this mass manipulation is truly a unified theory that is being loosed on us from the alleged opponents out there. Like I say all the time, it is the WWE circumstance. Here's your good guy, here's your bad guy.

You might like to root for the bad guy because you like the anti heroo. You got to do that sometimes. And either way, at the end of the day, the same corporation pays them, and you are just a member of the audience. You're just an observer. Sure you can change their financial fortunes because you've been given this idea that participating in that particular transaction will do what, all right, help to shape your identity. In fact, this is the way people identify themselves. I am this, I am that

I fit with this group, that group, et cetera. I root for the undertaker as opposed to Hull Cogan. I root for hull Cogan. Yeah. Sure, that is a way to identify where you're at when you're in the audience. But does it really identify who you are when you're on your own and trying to make your way through life? And how does that fit with this idea that you find all the time that confidence is not rewarded confidence,

which of course is you know, the longer word. At the beginning of con Man, confidence is what's rewarded, and really it's about the strength of confidence as opposed to anything that's effective, useful, or helpful to you, which is how people wind up giving away their money for nothing and et cetera, et cetera, and selling their souls literally almost you know, and not realizing it until much later

that they were had. And it's to be kept in mind, especially when things are amplified unreasonably, you know, like the big threat from what might be about one hundred people in the whole country is a massive threat that needs to be worked over and fixed right away. But the fact that there's tens of thousands of others that are causing a serious problem, well you ignore them because they're on your side. Their problem is acceptable or not even

a problem they're creating. Even if death, destruction, costs and things come directly out of your pocket based on their actions, it doesn't matter because they're the good guys anyway back to it, and.

the results aligned with their political beliefs. Even more striking, the most mathematically skilled participants showed the strongest bias, using their intelligence not to reach the correct answer, but to justify their preferred conclusion. Cognitive psychologists call this cognitive closure, our desire for definite answers rather than continued ambiguity. Studies show that when people feel threatened or uncertain, their need

for cognitive closure increases dramatically. They become more receptive to black and white thinking and more willing to follow authoritarian leaders who project absolute certainty. This creates a dangerous dynamic. The more complex and frightening our world becomes, the more susceptible we become to simplistic thinking and the leaders who peddle it. It's like a psychological immune system failure. Precisely when we most need nuanced thinking, we become most vulnerable

to intellectual shortcuts. Ask yourself, have you ever found yourself drawn to an explanation precisely because it was simple and definitive, even when part of you suspected the reality was more complex. That's this principle at work in your own mind. While our psychological comfort with simplicity explains part of this dynamic, there's an even more troubling dimension to consider, one that reveals why intelligence alone doesn't guarantee effective resistance to manipulative power.

those unburdened by such considerations. In any competitive environment, the person willing to cross ethical lines has access to strategies that morally constrained competitors do not. They can make promises they have no intention of keeping. They can undermine rivals through deception. They can exploit fears and prejudices that others refuse to touch. Consider the contrasting fates of Cicero versus

Julius Caesar in ancient Rome. Cicero, brilliant and principled, ultimately lost the power struggle to Caesar, who had no qualms about crossing the rubicon literally and figuratively breaking norms his opponents felt bound to respect. In modern context we see ethical candidates struggling against opponents willing to employ deception and

character assassination. In organizational contexts, University of British Columbia researchers found that psychopathic traits like lack of empathy were positively associated with rapid advancement when combined with social charm. This pattern appears cross culturally from China's Shengnu ruthless businesswoman archetype to Nordic companies, where studies show that, despite cultural emphasis on collaboration, manipulative leaders often outpace their more ethical peers

in advancement speed. This creates what game theorists call a race to the bottom. When unethical tactics prove successful, others face pressure to adopt similar approaches or be left behind. Over time, this can transform entire systems, making unethical behavior the norm rather than the exception. Understanding these dark dynamics might make the situation seem hopeless, but not all environments

equally reward incompetence and unethical behavior. By recognizing which conditions favored stupi, pidity, and power, we can begin to design systems that select for genuine merit instead. Machiavelli understood that different environments reward different qualities. Some contexts naturally select for competence, while others create fertile ground for incompetence to flourish. What determines which type of environment develops several structural factors. First, feedback,

loops and accountability structures. In environments with clear immediate feedback about decisions, and competence is quickly exposed. Think of a surgeon whose patients consistently die or a bridge engineer whose structures collapse. These fields tend to select for genuine competence because failure is obvious and consequential. But in environments where feedback is delayed, indirect or easily manipulated, incompetence can thrive indefinitely.

Systems where outcomes can be blamed on predecessors or external factors, corporate hierarchies where results can be obscured through creative accounting, or media landscapes where being entertaining matters more than being accurate. These are all fertile grounds for the incompetent to rise. Second, institutional design and power distribution. Centralized power systems with weak

checks and balances create conditions where incompetence flourishes. The Soviet Union's collapse was accelerated by a system that concentrated decision making and unaccountable hands. Conversely, Germany's dual board corporate governance structure, which separates management from oversight, provides structural resistance to incompetent leadership. Third, information asymmetry and complexity. When success is easily measured and compared, merit tends to win, but when goals are ambiguous or

success is subjectively evaluated, style often Trump's substance. Men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. What Machiavelli recognized here is that most people evaluate others based on surface impressions rather than deep understanding, especially in complex domains where few have

the expertise to make inform judgments. Fourth, economic incentive structures systems that reward short term performance over long term outcomes create fertile ground for incompetent leadership with superficial charm. The two thousand and eight financial crisis exemplified how incentive structures rewarding immediate profits regardless of risk, fostered leadership that prioritized

appearance over substance. Ask yourself in your own life which environmental factors promote competence and which enable incompetence to thrive. Understanding these structural forces can help you navigate your own path and recognize when systems are vulnerable to manipulation. Even in well designed systems, and competent leaders can still rise by employing specific psychological tactics that allow them to manipulate perception and neutralize opposition.

gains and things like that, like that financial crisis. Those companies were doing well, their stockholders were happy, they were getting big bonuses, and then everybody said, why the hell did that happen when they were setting them up for collapse. It's because the longer term result was not known right away, and the perception was manipulated, and just by that perception, they were able to keep up the value of all

those collapsed assets. Pretty simple, And this is what happens with you know, these presidential administrations and various other leaders and other parts of the world. Hey, look, this guy's in there. Things are collapsing now, not recognizing that it took time for the results of somebody else's actions to really take hold. But if things are a me idiot, things are simple, and perception is manipulated regardless of what

is accounted for as results, then it all becomes irrelevant. Anyway, We're gonna get into the Dunning Kruger effect just a bit before I'm all done here, and see if you learned anything as I end.

Why the Vietnam War by author Mike Swanson. Revelation through conversation episode says we're a bar na.

I was reading up on. So this is about the Dunning Krueger effect, Okay, and again I just want you to listen to it objectively and see what you can apply it to. I'm not aiming at any particular political party, religion, nothing.

I just want you to take this in and see what you can do with it, because I see a lot of things being hijacked by the most incompetent and idiotic people, and I gotta tell you, there's nobody on any one side any equation that seems to be immune from these particular practices, issues, realities, pieces of human psychology that do make us a little more subject to manipulation than I think anybody really wants to admit anyway, the Dunning Kruger effect.

underestimate theirs. As Dunning himself put it, the first rule of the Dunning Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning Krueger Club. Today we'll dive deep into this psychological phenomenon that affects us all to some degree. We'll explore its origins, mechanisms, real world examples, and most importantly, how to recognize and overcome it in ourselves.

the bias is developed. And think about this. Just you know, this is just my words, but think about how often you have marveled at someone who's clearly uninformed about something making a statement when you have information better than what you hear coming out of their mouth. And they're absolutely convinced of well they're expertise, their knowledge level, their complete understanding of a circumstance. I mean, I point out all

the time about the JFK thing. The guy that once said to me, I read all the books on the case, so I know the case. And then when I asked him, how many is that, by the way, and he said three. That is a remarkable example of someone who has convinced themselves that they have a great level of expertise. But it's literally part of the problem. See, if you're too stupid to understand that you're ill informed, you're a also too stupid to understand that your information is not absolute already.

Like they both walk hand in hand. The idea that you think you know everything about something okay, is a serious red flag that shows that you know next to nothing. People that actually have knowledge on something understand the limitation of their knowledge. They know they have some of the knowledge, they know they have a great deal of the knowledge.

They might even be aware that they're an expert, but the idea that they know everything does not enter their mind because they have a concept of exactly how expansive the universe of information is and how they could not possibly contain it all within their minds, their memories. And again, your memory is subject at all times the revision. But

it's not always good revision. Sometimes there are biases that are built up that tell you that something is possible or more likely because you have experienced it that way, and it's not necessarily the way it is represented on mass.

You know, it's pretty simple and yet rather complex because those that have expertise don't necessarily automatically, you know, possess the confidence to represent that they have that expertise, and even when they do, as a matter of fact, the more expertise someone claims to have with absolute certainty without

ever entertaining a single question. When you've got a guy who doesn't entertain a single question but claims to be an expert, you're dealing with a dangerous individual who limited their information to a certain point and didn't continue it. Education is a continuous process and learning the entirety of anything. It doesn't matter if it's a crack or a particular body of literature or anything else. These things are not limited. There is always additional information which can be gleaned. There

is always additional perspective that is possible. There is always an experience that you have not had. So someone recognizes that nuance, it usually means they are more intelligent, but since they don't present themselves confidently as the end all and be all expert, they're not accepted that way. And the more strength behind the I know how to do this.

I'm the guy, I'm the man. I get it. The more you hear that there is somebody focused on the I who has no idea about the nuance or the expansive nature of the actual circumstance, situation, problem, et cetera.

And that's the overall issue here where the bias swings both ways and causes destructive results because people get behind these confident people far too often, and the most confident people are not necessarily those who have the knowledge, intelligence, or the solutions anywhere near them, because they do not understand even the beginning of the landscape that they claim

to know entirely. Anyway, back to this explanation in the video, just part of it, just part of it, And each of these things are like, you know, twenty minutes long or twenty five minutes long or whatever. But I'm not playing the whole thing. I'm just playing a couple of clips to give you an idea of what it is that needs to be considered here.

as invisible ink. This remarkable case caught the attention of psychologists David Dunning, who was fascinated by Wheeler's profound misunderstanding and complete confidence in his flawed logic. It led Dunning to question, how could someone be so incompetent that they didn't even realize their incompetence. He partnered with then graduate

student Justin Krueger to investigate this phenomenon systematically. In their seminal study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Dunning and Kruger assessed participants on humor, grammar, and logical reasoning skills. After each test, participants were asked to estimate how well they performed compared to others. The results were

striking and consistent. Those who scored in the bottom quartile dramatically overestimated their performance, believing they outperformed sixty two percent of their peers when they had actually only outperformed twelve percent. Meanwhile, top performers consistently underestimated their relative performance. As Dounning observed,

if you're incompetent, you can't know you're incompetent. The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is. This creates a double burden of incompetence. Not only do people lack the skills to perform well, but they also lack the metacognitive ability to recognize their deficiency. At its core, the Dunning Kruger effect stems from a metacognitive deficiency of

failure to accurately assess one's own knowledge and skills. This metacognitive blind spot creates an illusion of superiority that can be remarkably resilient to evidence. The effect operates through several psychological mechanisms. First is the unknown unknowns problem. When we venture into unfamiliar territory, we lack awareness of the full scope of knowledge or skills required. We don't know what we don't know.

I said, it really is. If you think about it, those that are so convinced that they have only the right answers, see, this explains certain things, doesn't it If you think about it carefully, If you think about those that speak with absolute certainty about how they know certain things happened and everything else, and then you discover the complete fallacies built into this these assertions, then you recognize why it is they're so wrong. Because they don't recognize

that they're wrong. They don't have the skills to recognize that they're wrong. So therefore they don't have the skills to recognize that they're wrong. It's a beautiful thing. This, to me explains quite a bit why people end up defaulting and following individuals who just appear to be confident in them competence. And yet again it is exactly the opposite circumstance. Those who are not confident in their competence

are usually much more competent. I mean, it's precisely the the you know, black is white and up as down circumstance here that we find in human psychology. This is why we're so confounding as a species, you know, I mean relatively speaking. Anyway, let's go back to this explanation just a little more, because I'm almost done with the Mandela effect Mandela affect.

A novice who believes their skilled will remember their successes, attribute failures to external factors, and interpret ambiguous feedback positively. Third is the difficulty in accurately calibrating self assessment. Even when trying to be objective, humans struggle to evaluate themselves without reference points. In the absence of clear feedback or comparison, we tend to rate ourselves above average, a phenomenon known as the above average effect or illusory superiority.

in your mind. There are many people that I know listen to this show that think it's absolutely insane to believe that we have a medium income in this country of like one hundred and fifty thousand or a hundred and twenty thous whatever it is, one hundred and something thousand, that's like that should be the average. The majority of people well below that average do not recognize how far below average they are. I do, because I know I'm

well below that. You know, I'm probably like what to I guess, I'm probably what less than a quarter of average income wise?

You're measuring yourself against the standard. And like I said, once again, unless you're in you know, the triple figures of the thousand dollars annual income, you're not even close to average. That's the weird thing. I don't even know people that are close to that average, which makes me question those numbers. And there you go. You see how the bias loop begins. I'm using myself as the example as best I can, but I'm sure that some people

can relate to this. And you know, it's no wonder that I'm struggling as I do and having difficulties when I had just the smallest amount of my income cut away, because people would think that it's a very tiny amount of income that was cut away from me recently, But it is what it is. Anyway, I just used myself as an example because it is the most accessible thing. But the truth is, I want you to consider where

you fall into these paradigms. I want you to consider where others fall into these paradigms, so that you can more accurately measure what's going on around you and why it is that some people have the confidence in particular paradigms, in particular collective understandings, in particular groupings that people do volunteer themselves too. Why is it they're doing it? And why is one even better than the other? And meanwhile,

to me, there isn't us and them. There is a more simplified way to look at this, but most people will not join the us that I think is most relevant. And again, I have a very nuanced view of this. I understand that, you know, people may have differences of opinion about various things, but it's not about opinion. It's about how about what is best for self preservation and

self elevation. And you can't get people to agree on that either, even with empirical evidence in front of them about what has actually worked, what was working at a certain time. They decide that other factors, aside from the ones that you note are most relevant, are more relevant. And what is that about. It's about this confirmation bias,

this overconfidence in certain things. And we do have our histories to look back on and say, you know, well, during this particular time of history, these were the conditions. Therefore this was the result. But people adjust the timelines and ascribe blame in different ways. So you don't even get a universal answer there. You don't even forget about universal you don't even get a majority answer there. These things shift back and forth based on perceived collective grievances,

whether they are actually relatively important or not. I may have to do my news show tomorrow because this is going a little longer than I thought, but I think it is necessary once again to continue with this. So let's continue on the Dunning Krueger effect just a bit longer.

of the knowledge spectrum. While popular culture often portrays the Dunning Kruger effect as a simple inverse relationship between confidence and confidence, the actual relationship is more nuanced, rather than a linear relationship. Researchers have identified a characteristic curve that

maps the journey from novice to expert. The journey begins at what some call Mount Stupid, the peak of confidence experienced by absolute beginners who have gained just enough knowledge to feel informed, but lack awareness of the vast terrain they haven't yet explored. As Mark Twain wisely observed, it ain't what you don't know that gets you into trouble. That's what you know for sure that just ain't so.

After this initial peak comes the Valley of despair, when continued learning reveals the true scope of the domain, causing confidence to plummet. This is the critical juncture where many give up, unable to reconcile their self image with a newly discovered reality of their limitations. Those who persevere begin the gradual climb up the slope of enlightenment.

Therefore here we go. There used to be jippy peanut butter. There never was. I don't understand that at all. There was. And the weirdest thing when I went through a whole bunch of these Mandela effect videos also, and just to kind of do some background study before I decided to speak on this, was the fun fact that there are a bunch of people out there that swear up and down that Governor Connolly and Nellie Connolly were never in

the car for the JFK assassination. It's because people removed that which was less relevant in their brains from the equation. Nobody wanted to talk about Governor Connolly and his wounds until you got into nuances, until you wanted to discuss the magic bullet et cetera, et cetera. So what was most important and most striking. They kept the bullet points, they kept the cliff notes, but they didn't read the

full context. They didn't read the book. So oh, Nelly Connolly and Governor Connolly suddenly appeared out of an alternate dimension, which is easier for them to explain than their lack of competence in recall memory, than their lack of an ability to retain more facts than were relevant to the

immediate emotional response. And therefore they swear up and down that there was nobody in the middle seats, and even say that one of the cars that's displayed at one of the uh, you know, one of the what do you call it, a duplicate cars that they display like the one at the Ford Museum, which is not the JFK car, but it's just like it, it's a you know, duplicate of it. Well, there's no middle seats there because

they were jump seats. They were added. They're they're not something that's always, you know, up and ready to go. It's like saying, hey, there was no top on that car. They couldn't have a top that day. Well, that's because they don't display it with a top. It dummy. They could have had a top on it. There was a bubble top. That wouldn't have stopped things. But again, now we got to go into nuances, and it means you didn't study this thing. You know. It's like people, it's

a revolutionary war seventeen seventy six, that's it. No, there's more to it. And there were allies for both sides, and there was the help from a foreign entity and da da da da da, And how did they pay for the war? Look, you can oversimplify things and by the time you pare it down enough. You know, if you peel a potato and then you continuously try and peel it down to the easiest to carry potato possible, you might end up with a French fry. But it doesn't mean that you can only get a French fry

from the potato. I don't know how else to explain this. But like I said, this philosophy code of channel does a pretty good job of taking us through some of these nuances. And I like this discussion of the curve and how there is not a simple you know. And again people go, well, if it's one, it's reaction. It's you know, the reaction is as strong as the initial event. No, none of this is true. Have you ever played a game of pool? You know, you hit that cue ball

really fast and hits the other ball. There is a transmission of force from one ball to the other, but it doesn't carry over equally. You know, use your head. And yes, the geometry is there, but there's more to it. You know, there's about the spin of the ball. Now, you can make a ball go around another ball as opposed to jumping over it, or you can make it jump over. It depends on the strike, the exactness of the strike, the effect caused on the initial ball before

it ever strikes the other ball. Again, things nobody thinks about if they're just looking at ball, hits ball, ball goes So there you go. Anyway, enough of my commentary, a little bit more of this, and then we'll close this sucker out for the night, and I do have a news program. Maybe I'll have to add to it, but I got an extensive news program already. I might have to break it in two, you know, one all Trump news and then everything else. I don't know something

like that anyways, But forget that for now. I'm not doing politics. I'm doing psychology right now and seeing if people can get the various, nuanced and layered messages that I'm placing in this particular podcast. I doubt it, and I don't think it'll be very popular, but what the hell got to give it a try, and also by request, because people support me, and when they do support me, I want to reward that with directly taking on subjects

that they want taken on. So there will be a news program before we get to the Friday night call ins, and hopefully that comes off without a hitch this week. We'll see. But let's continue with this Dunning Krueger effect.

have answers that might be wrong. This intellectual humility is a hallmark of true expertise, a far cry from the over confidence of novices. While most experimental evidence for the Dunning Kruger effect comes from laboratory settings and academic skills, the phenomenon extends far beyond these contexts, permeating virtually every domain of human endeavor. In professional settings, the effect manifests as the unskilled and unaware employee who consistently overrates their

performance and contribution. One study found that ninety five percent of managers believed they performed in the top fifty percent of their peer group, a statistical impossibility. This inflated self assessment often leads to resistance to feedback, limited professional growth, and interpersonal conflicts. In healthcare, the effect can have life

threatening consequences. Medical students with the lowest skill levels often overrate their clinical abilities, potentially leading to dangerous over confidence in clinical decision making. One study found that doctors who were most confident about their diagnoses were not more accurate than their peers, but they were less likely to consult references or seek second opinions. In politics, the effect helps explain why some of the most vociferous voices on complex

policy issues often demonstrate the least nuanced understanding. Those with rudimentary knowledge of economics, climate science, or international relations may express absolute certainty in their positions, while experts in these fields typically acknowledge the limitations and uncertainties inherent in their domains.