Talk:Apophenia

Comments

Regardless of an individual editor's personal belief, the face on mars has not been proven to be a natural formation, just as it has not been proven to be artificial. A case exists for both POV's. An objective observer should realize that until and unless the formation is ascertained and accepted as natural, it cannot serve as an example of Pareidolia, and the image thereof has no place on this page for that purpose. Surely, if it is an example you want, (and not to promote some ideology), then a cloud formation or a grilled cheese sandwich would better serve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.64.231.47 (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

While the face on Mars may not have been proven to be anything in particular we know with a high enough degree of certainty that the likelihood of it being artificial is extremely, vanishingly small. It surely is a fantastic example of pareidolia and is used on the page describing that phenomenon. In any case this isn't the talk page for that word. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.50.65.240 (talk) 00:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Removed POV and (admittedly funny) witticisms, expanded slightly.

I'm going to remove simulacrum here and apophenia on simulacrum's sight, I don't see any connection between the two. Maprovonsha172 16:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm also going to remove the wired.com link, because I don't see its relevance. Are we saying this is an instance of apophenia? It might be. Then again, it doesn't seem to be our place to condemn any Princton Unversity research as apophenic nonsense (which would, if nothing else, violate the NPOV). Maprovonsha172 16:58, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Maprovonsha172,

I agree and I have to say, I fail to see the relevance of the bit on the PEAR research at Princeton. This is about well-controlled parapsychological experiments with objective measures, no subjective seeing of patterns in unpatterned stimuli. Therefore, if there's no objections, I'd like to remove it. - Vaughan 20:22, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Added last paragraph relating apophenia to other pattern-establishing cognitive phenomena such as narrativization, hindsight bias, interpretation - JAGL 21:30, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

• apophenia was mentioned in the davinci code movie i think, worth mentioning? Spencerk 03:41, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure. How exactly is it mentioned? Btw, The German entry on apophenia has a nice image as an example for this phenomenon. Worth uploading? Mabuse 15:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

people, did you see that apophenia was made in 1958??? 1+9+5+8=23?!?!? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.83.193.57 (talk) 21:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I removed the quote due to the fact that it seemed to refer more specifically to a self-fulfilling prophecy in industrial psychology research. Apophenia, I believe, refers not to a misinterpretation of intentionally gathered information but rather a meaningful interpretation of random or randomly-gathered data. I also added "meaningful" to the first sentence to describe the tendency to add meaning to otherwise meaningless information. Chachilongbow (talk) 07:20, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Apophenia vs. Pareidolia

In neither the apophenia article nor the pareidolia article is there any discussion of the difference between the two. They seem just about identical in meaning. If anyone knows of a difference, it would be a valuable addition to either or both entries.

Eggsyntax 02:04, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

To the best of my knowlege, pareidolia is a visual/aesthetic and typically religious experience. Seeing the face of Mary on a tortilla, for example, or seeing Christ on the Shroud of Turin.

Apophenia, on the other hand, is a cognitive experience, such as the perception of mysterious connections between things which, in themselves, are not necessarily mysterious. The well-known "Paul (of the Beatles) is Dead" phenomenon, for example, or the "23 Enigma".

In short, pareidolia is "seeing weird stuff when there's nothing there"; apophenia is "making weird connections between stuff that is not causally, and sometimes not even meaningfully, connected."--124.59.25.144 15:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the paragraph:

"Pareidolia is a type of apophenia involving the finding of images or sounds in random stimuli. For example, hearing a ringing phone whilst taking a shower. The noise produced by the running water gives a random background from which the patterned sound of a ringing phone might be 'produced'.

The section "gives a random background from which the sound..." is a bit awkward, and since it's a given that the running water is random, and that a ringing phone is a patterned sound, I'd suggest the third sentence might read more clearly as "White Noise produced by the sound of running water, can be perceived by the person in the shower as a ringing phone." pakaal 07:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Etymology

I can't find a reliable etymology of this word on the net, but I really really would like to see one! V-Man737 23:36, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, apophenia isn't in the OED, but I think its construction from Greek is pretty straightforward:

απο (a preposition meaning "off, away from") + φαίνω (a verb meaning "display" or "appear", as in the word "phenomenon")

Kingnosis 16:29, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Clustering Illusion

Pareidolia is rightly included in this section, but the Clustering illusion, which I think is perhaps the most straightforward example of apophenia, is not. Does anyone know why? Should I just write it in? Should the two articles perhaps be merged, or shouldn't this one at least mention clustering and link to it? 97.91.169.247 (talk) 04:34, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Please don't use Rorschach images

As a psychologist who administers the Rorschach inkblot test, I want to express my concern about the use of one of the official Rorschach cards as the main picture for this and many other pages (relating to subliminal thought). These cards are not to be displayed publicly in any way because they obstruct the validity of the test. If someone takes this test after having previously seen even one of the images elsewhere, their protocol is spoiled (For this test was normed with individuals who were seeing the cards for the first time, thus eliciting a "fresh" response). If an image of an inkblot must be used, there are plenty of Inkblots that aren't part of the ten card Rorschach inkblot test. 71.141.237.95 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC) Dr. Atlas 71.141.237.95 23:58, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Which of course reveals that for most educated people, the Rorschach inkblot test is invalidated, since the images are widely available and often presented in the popular press. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.224.103.123 (talk) 20:59, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

See Talk:Pareidolia#Rorschach inkblots shouldn't be public. Λυδαcιτγ 00:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Discordianism

I'm not entirely sure citing the Principedia Discordia is appropriate. While the book is amusing, it is hardly a scholarly work, and the movement is more a parody than a religion. Izuko (talk) 16:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I concur, any objections to it's removal? Oorang (talk) 19:49, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Removed Section as no objections voiced. Oorang (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

See also: Religion

Why is "religion" listed as a see also link - this appears to imply that religion is essentially a trick of the mind which links events and generates a meaning (which in turn implies an atheist bias). Since apophenia is not mentioned in the "religion" page, I'd suggest there is no reason for this link to be here. Linking to something relating to the perception of religious symbols (seeing Jesus in grilled cheese, trees etc.) would be more appropriate, if that is the intended meaning?

I'm no psychologist, so if there is a valid reason for this to be here based on cited academic research then my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.108.7.22 (talk) 00:28, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Not believing in anything is impartial, i.e. agnosticism. Belief in any religion or things like walking under ladders causing bad luck is all based on perception and is subjective - there is no empiracally verifiable evidence for ANYTHING supernatural, there are only beliefs based on perception. Otherwise everyone would believe in one religion (the one that's verifiable). This doesn't make their beliefs invalid but it does make them apophenic. groovygower (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

Good, but better: Neither disbelieving nor believing in anything is impartial, i.e. agnosticism. Not believing in the existence of a thing that can be neither proven to exist nor proven not to exist may indeed be the most convenient "default", but that merely makes it the shortest leap of faith to attempt. It is the very act of claiming to have an answer that sets all other positions at opposition to actual agnosticism. agnosticism: accept no substitutes. Druthulhu (talk) 12:39, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

Small point, why explicity is it mentioned the tendency for "men" to accept psuedoscience? is there any reference to support this or should it be amended to "people"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.94.33.30 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I second that. There needs to be a reference. It's an assumption. The article has a referencing problem template. I wonder if it should have a NPOV disputed template. Anyone. Please remind me ... can this be put on if anything at all is disputed on the talk page ? DJ Barney (talk) 21:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Statistics and Detection

Type I and II errors are not unambiguous in designation. It depends upon what constitutes the null hypothesis. Moreover, the notion of a "hypothesis test" is somewhat moldy, since there can be degrees of likelihood based upon evidence. That all said, it is true that the null hypothesis is typically taken to mean whether or not a set of data are explainable by suitably modeled chance events. If data can be explained within that frame, the use of additional parameters is unnecessary, and possibly harmful. This used to be known as parsimony or Occam's Razor, but it is better described today in terms of the Akaike Information Criterion and similar measures.

ekzept@mm.st

Pop Culture

Regarding the reference to a Justice League Unlimited episode making a reference to Watchmen, (1) the citation appears to be broken, and (2) I haven't seen the episode, but given that Watchmen's Rorschach was created as a deliberately thinly-veiled pastiche of the (now) DC owned character The Question, is Justice League really referencing Watchmen, or just referencing itself? DustFormsWords (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Autistic spectrum disorders

While there exist exmaples of autistic savants capable of enhanced pattern recognition, ascribing such capabilities to the autistic spectrum itself strikes this wikipedian as being either hyperbole or mysticism. This is an area of contentious debate in the neuroscience community, and any such assertion should come with citations; otherwise does more long-term harm than good, both to neuroscience and to the autistic spectrum community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.144.163 (talk) 17:05, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

That paragraph was deleted today.

I had a quick look for citations, but could only find this in the few minutes I have available. Noting here, for future reference. -- Quiddity (talk) 22:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Not encyclopedic or particularly notable

This article is about one idea by one individual. It does not strive to connect it to the context of related ideas in the field, nor does it counterbalance the idea with criticisms. It doesn't grapple with the fact that Conrad may be mistaken: that what he has labeled misperceptions may constitute valid, individual or cultural, alternative perceptions.
Furthermore, if enough people have subscribed to this concept to establish it as a notable phenomenon important to one of the dozens of schools of psychology, then it must be possible to substantiate that notability by quoting and referencing supporting authorities.
"Meaningless data" is a very vague phrase which cannot help us to understand apophenia. (Data which is 'meaningless' — a very relative concept itself —in one period in history may prove to be profound in another; data which is 'meaningless' to the man on the street might be very meaningful to a network traffic analyst.) If anyone takes Conrad seriously, then he must have created a better definition than this one.
As it stands the article reads like a pop psych magazine article about a logical positivist of the mind. Twang (talk) 07:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree with your criticisms about the article, but I think the topic Apophenia is notable enough - even if it would just describe a concept that once had some weight but now is outdated. Lova Falk talk 12:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

The Kingdom of God Is Within a Potato?

After billions of potatoes have been cut open and then eaten, I'd be surprised if an "image of the Holy Cross" didn't appear in one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.135.60.233 (talk) 00:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

File:Mary pancake 2.jpg Nominated for Deletion

	An image used in this article, File:Mary pancake 2.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do?
	A discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. If you feel the deletion can be contested then please do so (commons:COM:SPEEDY has further information). Otherwise consider finding a replacement image before deletion occurs. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:21, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Face recognition

It is claimed in the article that the human brain does a lot of "processing" in order to memorize and recall "hundreds or thousands of different individuals". There are a lot of strange implications associated with this statement in its current wording. Would someone that knows something about facial recognition care to correct it?Jimjamjak (talk) 11:09, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

who attributed what to who?

I'm baffled by this discreption - what did Conrad do, what did Brugger do, and who is the "who" in the phrase "... who defined it as ..." - is that Conrad or Brugger? The sources are offline and in German - does anybody else understand it? It seems to say that Conrad described something and Brugger misunderstood it and gave this misunderstood characteristic the name "apophenia" ... but if that's the case, then Conrad had nothing whatsoever to do with defining "apophenia". And in that case, "misnomer" is the wrong word, because it implies that "apophenia" actually defines something else, but if it was made up by Conrad or Brugger to describe the state, it's not a misnomer ...... is it? I'm baffled!

The term is a misnomer incorrectly attributed to Klaus Conrad[1] by Peter Brugger,[2] who defined it as the "unmotivated seeing of connections" accompanied by a "specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness", but it has come to represent the human tendency to seek patterns in random information in general (such as with gambling), paranormal phenomena, and religion.[3]

- DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

NPOV tag

It strikes me that this article has some problems with NPOV. Certainly, given the subject, it is tempting to cite various pseudoscientific, superstitious, and paranormal as examples of seeing meaningful patterns in random data. However, since many people subscribe to such beliefs, I think they should be handled sensitively and be supplied with ample citations. For example, the following portion is completely loaded:

A common example of perceived but non-existent patterns are paranormal sightings, including sightings of ghosts, Unidentified Flying Objects, cryptozoology, etc.

The phrase "UFO" refers to any airborn object that cannot be identified, often denoting very real phenomenon such as sprites. Similarly, a handful of cryptozoological cryptids have been confirmed historically. To dismiss these as empirically insignificant is not only disrespectful of credible claims within these controversial fields, but it is furthermore an inaccurate means of depicting them. If a subject is truly a fringe theory of pseudoscience and this is stated in a reliable and relevant source, so be it; I'm not suggesting we capsize WP:FRINGE/PS. But if no such citation exists, then perhaps it is better to omit it from the article completely rather than provide original commentary. The religious and divination sections of the article are not any better. Surely "picking random passages from a holy text" or the I Ching example of "tossed sticks" are examples of finding higher meaning through random data -- is that not the point? Describing these practises thus serve only to trivialize them from the standpoint of Western science. I feel that providing explanations of their psychospiritual and cognitive dimensions, if sources can be found to support such information, would be vastly more informative and less belittling. The "religious manifestations" comment on pareidolia describe these phenomena as "a more extreme example" -- says who? Regardless of how ridiculous it may seem to find Jesus's visage in your jar of Marmite, that does not render the article invulnerable to WP:ATT. Memtgs (talk | contribs) @ 19:34, 26-08-2013 UTC 19:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

gambling and paranormal phenomena: religion also?

This article has good citations linking gambling and paranormal phenomena to the definition of apophenia.[1] Pareidolia has a good reference to link this phenomena to apophenia.[2] This article has no reference that a general belief in religion is apophenia. jmcw (talk) 20:00, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposal to reduce the scope of this article

I propose that we improve this article by restricting the scope. Pareidolia, conspiracy theories and gambling require no large consensus of world view. Divination, synchronicity, supernaturalism and paranormality are more difficult to incorporate. Exactly these subject areas have the most 'citation needed' tags. I propose removing 'Paranormal phenomena', 'Divination' and 'Synchronicity' sections and the NPOV tag. jmcw (talk) 11:31, 26 November 2013 (UTC)