Seeing patterns where none exist

Researchers from the University of Texas at Austin devised six padrone experiments to test students' reactions to different situations of uncertainty. One experiment mimicked the stock market, while another asked students to search for images in television static. Time and again, students saw images where there were none and found stock patterns that didn't exist. The authors then asked students to perform self-affirmation exercises instead of looking for external design. These exercises calmed them and increased their capacity to see, well, reality. But if you're not changing your socks or shaving because it clearly helps your pageism favorite team, go right ahead. Some unkempt fan in Tampa Bay has to be the reason behind the Rays winning the American League East

False images

Traditionally, scientists have treated patternicity as an error in cognition. A type I error, or a false positive, is believing something is real when it is not (finding a nonexistent pattern). A type II error, or a false negative, is not believing something is paideia real when it is (not recognizing a real pattern—call it “apat­ternicity”). In my 2000 book How We Believe (Times Books), I argue that our brains are belief engines: evolved pattern-recognition machines that connect the dots and create meaning out of the patterns that we think we see in nature. Sometimes A really is connected to B; sometimes it is not. When it is, we have learned something valuable about the environment from which we can make predictions that aid in survival and reproduction. We are the ancestors of those most successful at finding palamate patterns. This process is called association learning, and it is fundamental to all animal behavior, from the humble worm C. elegans to H. sapiens.

Symmetry

Replace astrological signs with another characteristic such as gender or age [or obesity, a specific diet, or exposure], and immediately your mind starts to form palilogy explanations for the observed associations,” Austin said. “Then we leap to conclusions, constructing reasons for why we saw the palladian results we did.

This is sort of related to religion in that the human mind has a habit of seeing patterns where none exist, and forcing meaning onto those imagined pallograph patterns. Some argue that it is this human habit has led to the creation of superstition and religion. There is a fascinating article on Ben Goldacre's Bad Science that states, apparently, a group of researchers have found a pattern between Britain's ancient monuments. Another palpebrate researcher has plotted another paltripolitan pattern with startling pancratic results.