Aaah!!! we have another Religonist!!!!!!

Patternicity among those into pseudo-science. Just today I listened to a hugely popular speaker – Lisa Nichols. Her story: she was selected to be in the movie, The Secret, though she knew nothing about it or the (supposed) law of attraction, and has come to be one of the star speakers in it. This means (according to her), that if she can do it, everyone can, because the odds were more stacked against her than just about anyone else.

I see a pattern here – and not the pattern she sees. I see someone discounting the lack of success of all those who knew way more than her.

I also see a massive lack of logic in her “reasoning.” I suppose patternicity goes with jumping to erroneous conclusions.

Anyway, patternicity – it is a term I plan to start using in my site – http://the-idea-emporium.com, which is about (among other things) good thinking and the massive current barriers to good thinking.

When people see a “pattern of universal common descent we can also chalk that up to patternicity.

Now if someone sees a pattern and comes to a design inference all that has to be done is demonstrate that nature, operating freely can account for it.

One finds a pattern based on a combination of external stimuli and stored templates. Whether the stimuli are actual components of what one perceives them to be or simply “meaningless noise” is rarely knowable at the point at which the perception occurs. This is exactly as nature “intended” since an individual inclined to wait for certainty would quickly fall prey to any even moderately camouflaged predator.

Perhaps patternicity would be better defined as “the tendency to find patterns in stimuli before it can be reliably determined whether they are in fact meaningful signal or meaningless noise.

Finding error in pattern recognition depends on how one measures. For example, when you walk down the street, see someone and think “That’s my brother; wait a minute, no it isn’t” is this an example of error or accurate perception? Depends on where in the process you take the measurement. Of course, the perception itself depends on the the viewer’s expectations. Hunters expect to see deer, so they see them in what turns out to be cows, dogs, or fellow hunters. Most of the time, they wait long enough to correct the misperception before they shoot, but those episodes don’t make the news.

Similarly, intelligence officers expect to find conspiracies and so they do. In many cases, these turn out, upon further examination to be false (ideally before ideologues use them as excuses to take the nation to war). On the other hand, conspiracy theorists, make many of the same kind of judgements. They may in fact be right, but whether they are or aren’t, they tend to stick obessively to their judgements, though part of the reason may be that they don’t have access to the data that might allow them to invalidate their initial judgements.

But back, for the moment to the question of “meaningless noise.” Let’s take two pieces of toast, one with a randomly formed pattern that a viewer perceives as Elvis. Now take an identical piece of toast with an identical pattern, this one formed by a carefully designed stencil. Same pattern, same perception. Would you call one a pattern found in “meaningless noise” and the other an accurate perception of a pattern that looks like Elvis? My point exactly!