GET HAUNTED UNIVERSITY × PARANORMALLY BLONDE
The Suggestibility Quiz
In investigation we call it contamination.
On social media we call it scrolling.
On social media we call it scrolling.
This quiz is sharp by design. Not to accuse — to reveal. The same suggestibility principles we talk about in paranormal investigation operate in how we consume and respond to information online. Answer honestly. Nobody is exempt from this. Including the person who built it.
QUESTION 1 OF 5
BEHAVIOR — OPINIONS USED AS FACT
A well known figure in the paranormal community posts a definitive claim about what causes haunting activity. No sources. No methodology. Just the statement delivered with certainty.
You have no direct knowledge either way. What do you do?
QUESTION 2 OF 5
BEHAVIOR — PERSONAL FEELINGS USED AS FACT
Someone shares an intense emotional experience from an investigation. They felt overwhelmed, frightened, certain something was present. There is no corroborating evidence.
How much weight do you give this in your own understanding of what happened at that location?
QUESTION 3 OF 5
BEHAVIOR — RAGE BAITING
Two posts appear in your feed within minutes of each other.
Post A: Someone calling out a well known investigator for faking evidence — no proof, just accusation, high emotion.
Post B: A thoughtful question asking what methodology actually produces meaningful paranormal data — genuine, no drama.
Post B: A thoughtful question asking what methodology actually produces meaningful paranormal data — genuine, no drama.
QUESTION 4 OF 5
BEHAVIOR — USING OTHERS’ OPINIONS TO FIT IN
You had an experience at a location that felt significant to you. Afterward you discover that the dominant community opinion is that nothing genuine ever happens there — it is considered debunked.
What happens to your experience?
QUESTION 5 OF 5
BEHAVIOR — ALL FOUR AT ONCE
A heated community discussion is happening about a well known paranormal figure. The dominant opinion is negative. People are piling on. Someone you respect has weighed in critically.
You have no direct knowledge of the situation. You have a platform. What do you do?
YOUR SUGGESTIBILITY PATTERN
Q1 — Opinions used as fact
WHAT YOUR ANSWER REVEALS
Q2 — Personal feelings used as fact
WHAT YOUR ANSWER REVEALS
Q3 — Rage baiting
WHAT YOUR ANSWER REVEALS
Q4 — Using others’ opinions to fit in
WHAT YOUR ANSWER REVEALS
Q5 — All four behaviors at once
WHAT YOUR ANSWER REVEALS
THE INVESTIGATION PARALLEL
In paranormal investigation we talk constantly about suggestibility. Don’t contaminate the witness. Don’t lead the question. Don’t let the group’s expectation shape the individual’s experience. We understand that a contaminated investigation produces unreliable data.
The same principles apply to how we consume information on social media. The algorithm leads the question. The trending post contaminates the witness. The group’s outrage shapes the individual’s response before they’ve had a chance to think for themselves. We are being investigated by the platform — and most of us don’t notice.
The question worth sitting with —
If you applied the same standards to your social media behavior that you apply to your investigations — what would your methodology actually look like? And what evidence would you be willing to throw out?
Bring this conversation to Get Haunted University →