More on superstition, lack of control

[ugly_boy]

Last week on NPR's Science Friday host Ira Flatow did a more in-depth interview, with a few listener call-ins, with one of the researchers behind the study showing which "indicates that in situations in which a person is not in control, they're more likely to spot patterns where none exist, see illusions, and believe in conspiracy theories." You

Comments

[jryson]

We may need to get into pattern theory. We always look for patterns. I don't know, but I speculate we carry around templates of patterns we've seen before. We're always comparing these with reality. Ordinarily, we can readily reject candidates that aren't really patterns, as we examine them with finer and finer templates. When under stress, however, we may accept false patterns without fine checking, because we're in a hurry.

[ugly_boy]

That's basically what this, and a lot of other, research is getting at. I would add that when under stress it's not simply because we are in a hurry that we accept (or create) false patterns, but because of the anxiety that uncertainty causes us. We have a strong desire to explain and understand the world around us, and on a certain level any explanation is better than no explanation. Even an explanation that has negative consequences, or goes against something we already know, this can sometimes be enough. And even when it would seem that a particular explanation is actually causing the person more harm than good-and that may be the case-order is more comfortable than chaos.

In the interview the researcher mentions the example of people who think their family and/or friends are conspiring against them. Assuming the person is wrong, their thinking that way may cause additional stress and harm their relationships, and they would not consciously choose to hold such an erroneous view.

[jryson]

Right, I used the "in a Hurry" comment as a catch-all to explain the whole thing because I was in a hurry, at the time. In any case, that stress causes us to make bad decisions is hardly disputed.

The topic is about patterns of events, I think; and I was going with the notion (I think it still fits) of visual patterns. I also wonder if anybody is going with the template analogy. Where you see three objects that form a triangle, where two resemble each other more than the third resembles either, something in our heads says "face." Usually, that gets disposed of on the next brain cycle, where the face doesn't reside in the bounds of our "head" template.

I suppose patterns of events, or the actions of others. Where B follows A closely in time, we suspect A=>B, after very few cases.

[fringekitty]

Thanks for these follow-up links!

I often wonder how sample size and scope effects pattern recognition. Is it possible that things which seem to be part of a pattern at one level of examination appear random at a larger scale or vice versa?

[ugly_boy]

That's certainly plausible. It's easy to think of situations where a small portion of data appears to follow a certain trend that is lost when you look at the whole picture. You see this a lot with clinical trials. You will often see a few small studies that seem to support the efficacy of a new treatment, but as you expand your sample size things even out and the effect disappears. That's why bigger is almost always better when it comes to sample size in scientific studies.

[fringekitty]

Clinical trials are a great example. I was also thinking about other stats-based observations, such as climate change as measured over decades or centuries or the effects of environmental pollution on a habitat, a waterway or an entire landscape.

Even certain types of music that might sound like random notes and varied rhythms to a casual listener, might be recognized as a very challenging, complex structure to a trained musician.

And then, there are always political polls…