I’m curious what you think about this- how does define whether the information is “meaningless” and therefore the pattern is not in reality, but only in perception? With the drawing and bunny cloud, it’s pretty obvious, but in large data sets, it’s often difficult to tell if it’s a pattern or random chance, especially if we don’t have all the context (and in biological systems, we often don’t).
For example, if I gave you a set of binary answers (0/1) and you saw a pattern of 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1, you would rightfully notice a pattern and suspect that 0 is “weighted” or “favored”. But then if I told you they were coin flips, and that it was random chance, then your assumption has to be thrown out. Statistics are supposed to tell us whether something is chance or a “real” pattern, but without all the information of reality, it’s often merely an educated guess.
Last year, two incidents in my life occurred that appeared to be directly related. I later discovered that it was a coincidence and they weren't related.
As in science, conclusions should be provisional, meaning one cannot be 100% certain and one must allow for the conclusion to change when it turns out to be wrong. In the first paragraph, I realized what seemed to be an obvious conclusion was incorrect.
I think the major point of this post is right on target.
I'd like to expand the frame. How does apophenia interact with anxiety?
I suspect a U-shaped correlation, in which those in highly anxious states are either more sensitive or less so. I also suspect anxiety related differences in people respond to the information that apophenia provides to them.
Yes and also perceiving more can help to solve problems (especially for a "Sherlock Holmes type") and thus reduce anxiety. Of course, the same dynamic can feed denial.
It would be interesting to assess both for apophenia and for anxiety, and then to see what the patterns of correlation are.
Thank you for your writings. You have a real skill in conveying complex information so that it is accessible and interesting to a lay audience.
I’m curious what you think about this- how does define whether the information is “meaningless” and therefore the pattern is not in reality, but only in perception? With the drawing and bunny cloud, it’s pretty obvious, but in large data sets, it’s often difficult to tell if it’s a pattern or random chance, especially if we don’t have all the context (and in biological systems, we often don’t).
For example, if I gave you a set of binary answers (0/1) and you saw a pattern of 0,1,0,0,0,0,0,0,1,1, you would rightfully notice a pattern and suspect that 0 is “weighted” or “favored”. But then if I told you they were coin flips, and that it was random chance, then your assumption has to be thrown out. Statistics are supposed to tell us whether something is chance or a “real” pattern, but without all the information of reality, it’s often merely an educated guess.
Last year, two incidents in my life occurred that appeared to be directly related. I later discovered that it was a coincidence and they weren't related.
As in science, conclusions should be provisional, meaning one cannot be 100% certain and one must allow for the conclusion to change when it turns out to be wrong. In the first paragraph, I realized what seemed to be an obvious conclusion was incorrect.
I think the major point of this post is right on target.
I'd like to expand the frame. How does apophenia interact with anxiety?
I suspect a U-shaped correlation, in which those in highly anxious states are either more sensitive or less so. I also suspect anxiety related differences in people respond to the information that apophenia provides to them.
Has any research been done in this area?
I agree. Anxiety often involves imagining worst-case scenarios.
Yes and also perceiving more can help to solve problems (especially for a "Sherlock Holmes type") and thus reduce anxiety. Of course, the same dynamic can feed denial.
It would be interesting to assess both for apophenia and for anxiety, and then to see what the patterns of correlation are.