Apophenia and Pareidolia by Christopher Orapello

Apophenia and Pareidolia

by Christopher Orapello

One of the core studies of parapsychology is psychology and the reason for this is that within parapsychology we find the need to understand human behavior, perception, and how the mind effects and relates to the world which exists at the tips of human sensory perception. After all, the world we live in is known and perceived by the senses through the human mind which interprets those sensory inputs into tangible information that in turn compiles our perceived reality. What we know and regard as being the world in which we live is entirely based on sensory perception. Everything we know and experience is the result of a processing of sensory input which is interpreted by our own mind. In a sense we are simply brains in jars, as once questioned by Descartes. All the other elements that make up our bodies serve one of two purposes which are either the sustainment of life and the body or the experience of the world that which exists outside our physical make up. I do not intend to get philosophical with this subject by delving into the notion of what is real with this article by addressing issues and topics already pursued by philosophers such as Rene Descartes and David Hume, but such an avenue of thought can be vital to the topic of perception and the interpretation of perception, specifically when it comes to discussing apophenia and pareidolia which are entirely perception based and even goes as far as being influenced by one's brain chemistry. But first, let's begin with some definitions and explanations of what apophenia and pareidolia are along with some examples to better familiarize us with them.

Apophenia is a term that was first coined by Klaus Conrad back in 1958, and is explained as the unmotivated seeing of connections [accompanied by] a specific feeling of abnormal meaningfulness. Another way to explain apophenia is the recognizing or the observance of patterns or connections between random or meaningless data. Or to further explain, it is the recognized association between a series of separate occurrences or incidents, which bear no out right connection or relationship, which are connected by an assumed association or associations by an observer or group of observers. So in essence, it is the mental rationale or result that causes one to draw haphazard conclusions in the form of observed associations between incidents or effects. Carl Jung referred to this occurrence as synchronicity or meaningful coincidence. It is often applied to jointly explain a series of random occurrences and there are numerous examples which can be given to further explain what apophenia is and how it often manifests in one's life:

While talking about my deceased Grandmother, her favorite decorative plate just randomly fell off the shelf and broke, i.e. she must be trying to tell us something.
This 'orb photo' was taken at the same time, there was an EM field present, a cold spot felt, and an EVP recorded, i.e. this validates all of them individually as each being evidence of paranormal phenomena and are from the same ghost.
Over 10 years, Bill has survived a dozen car accidents all without injury, i.e. he is special in some way.
Over the last week, there have been a dozen incidents where my deceased friend has either come up in conversation or something has occurred to make me think of them, i.e. they must be trying to make contact with me.

These are only some of ways in which apophenia occurs in everyday life and can be addressed individually to illustrate this phenomena further. The stand or mount for the grandmother's decorative plate could have simply malfunctioned or broke after years of use and the fact that this occurred while she was being discussed bears no actual significance. The simultaneous occurrence of the 'orb photo,' EM Field, cold spot and recording of the EVP are not indicative of paranormal phenomena in themselves and their happening at the same time does not prove or validate themselves or each other or show any connection between them simply because of their timing. Bill is just lucky and should not take his apparent luck for granted by thinking he is special, nor should any of his friends or family. And someone being constantly reminded of or thinking of a deceased loved one is not an indicator that they may being trying to be contacted by the loved one, but is probably more of an indication that they still love and miss the deceased individual in question. Though these are examples, it is easy to see how one could take an ordinary occurrence and make certain associations based upon their personal or relative significance or benefit by understanding something to be more implicit than it actually is. To elaborate further, statisticians Neyman and Pearson (1933) termed such deductions as being Type I errors and are further explained as a statistical error, it is the acceptance of a false positive, that is, believing to see a difference or meaning when the given result is attributable to chance.

Pareidolia is similar to apophenia, but is different in its interpretive focus. While apophenia focuses on seeing patterns between completely separate incidents, pareidolia focuses on the seeing of patterns in specific sensory based stimuli; turning something that was not present into something which was actually perceived. The online Skeptic's Dictionary defines pareidolia as a type of illusion or misperception involving a vague or obscure stimulus being perceived as something clear and distinct. Pareidolia has also been referred to by some individuals as matrixing, which is a subconscious mental re-evaluation or configuration of direct observable phenomena. Some examples of pareidolia are:

In order to refrain from succumbing to pareidolia, one must be extra careful. Since it is more directly ingrained into one's perceived reality, it is much more likely to go unnoticed by the individual. In some situations, incidents of it are enjoyable and more easily noticeable as simply as one's imagination creating or noticing recognizable shapes in random visual stimuli i.e. cloud gazing. In other situations the same occurrence could have a more dramatic result. For example, seeing a religious image in random visual stimuli i.e. the face of Jesus within the burn pattern of a piece of toast or an “image” of the Virgin Mary formed by road salt on a highway underpass in Chicago (BBC, 2005). If the individual happens to be a devote Christian, they would then likely react differently to such imagery than a non-Christian would which goes to question if a non-Christian would even notice either of the images without being guided into seeing them in the first place.

The same issue and concern has often been raised in regards to Electronic Voice Phenomena (EVP). Are we actually recording anomalous voices or are we lead into hearing them as voices by those who play them for us? It's a curious concern and one which any serious researcher should be familiar with, but thankfully- it is easily addressable. For example, with loud EVPs, there is no debating whether or not it is a voice as voices are recognizable, but more importantly audio forensic technology and those who work in the field of audio forensics are able to determine such a thing as being a human voice. What still remains debatable in most cases of EVP is what is being said. Sometimes voices are clear enough to enable a researcher to make a historical connection by the use of a name or cultural phrase. However, the main value of EVP, when they are not as clear, is the occurrence of the voice in a recording and the interaction that often takes place between the anomalous voice and the present researcher, a phenomenon that cannot be simply explained away as pareidolia.

Pareidolia also relates to apparitional experiences which are not necessarily visually based, but are also based within any of the five senses. Apparitions generally refer to paranormal sensory manifestations, which in many ways are very similar to what pareidolia describes. The prevailing difference is that apparitional experiences are not reactions to apparent physical stimuli, but are more explained to occur on a mental level. Meaning what is experienced is a reaction or response to an unknown environmental condition which manifests in the mind of the witness or witnesses, but can be experienced differently by those present within one or more of the senses and not necessarily in the same way. It is as if the individual's mind was being invaded or plugged in to receive an unknown signal to observe a transmission of some kind. Regardless of the seeming similarity between the two, a distinction can be made to differentiate between pareidolia and apparitional occurrences. For example, historical research has been known to reflect and correlate with apparitional experiences, shedding light on what was perceived by a witness and the fact that the same apparitional experiences have been known to occur to different people over a period of time provides credence to the potential reality of apparitions and such experiences. The same cannot be so easily said about occurrences of pareidolia and certainly cannot be used to debunk apparitional type experiences.

Now, that apophenia and pareidolia have been defined, discussed and illustrated, we can move on to some of the more interesting aspects of these occurrences.

One of the natural traits of the human mind is pattern recognition. It is probably one of the greater survival skills that we still harbor from our ancestors. This can be noticed in the recognizing of food, predators, safe plants, and any ensuing danger. Such an effect could even be the reason for animal and insect mimicry to have developed, such as why a harmless snake looks like and acts like a venomous one or why poison darts frogs are so brightly colored. This is often explained as a result of their own evolutionary development, but it is just as much based on them individually as it is on their interaction with their surroundings and any animals that may share their environment with.

Probably the most interesting aspect of apophenia and pareidolia is that science has found that its occurrence has nothing to do with personal beliefs or intelligence, but in fact studies have shown that their occurrence is more based on the dopamine levels in the brain than in simple superstition. Peter Brugger has found that people with high levels of dopamine are more likely to find significance in coincidences, and pick out meaning and patterns where there are none. And in similar studies conducted by Helen Philips, skeptics and [paranormal] believers were both given the drug L-dopa, which increases dopamine levels in the brain, and as a result the skeptics began to perform much more like the believers.

The value of this knowledge is that the occurrence of apophenia and pareidolia is independent of the thought processes and beliefs of the individual, indicating that one is not superior over the other, but revealing a great potential in the development of science and research. Sandra L. Hubscher makes this interesting connection by stating that the entire enterprise of science, after all, is the organized and rational search for order in the seeming randomness surrounding us. Nobel Prize winner Max Born says that, science is not formal logic-it needs the free play of the mind in as great a degree as any other creative art. So, with the combination of the two perspectives (skeptic and believer) at play within the pursuit of science we are better enabled to make discoveries and leaps in scientific understanding because merely noting patterns or coincidences is not proof in and of itself but, applied properly, can be the creative leap needed to devise new and testable hypotheses (Hubscher). Such an approach and mind-set can help us move beyond committing a Type I error or regarding everything we observe as being paranormal in nature simply because it initially strikes one as being so. The combination of the two mind-sets is obviously imperative to all scientific development, and not just paranormal investigation.

As in life, we need two sides of the self (the left and right) in order to arrive at a new destination; each of which carrying, supporting and resting upon the other at a series of specific increments and pertinent placements. A perfect balance of give and take allows the whole to prosper and develop. The seemingly conflicting mind-sets of the skeptic and the believer are entirely dependent upon one another to keep the other in perspective. The occurrence and existence of apophenia and pareidolia and their tendencies need not be seen as a fault as much as they are a blessing for without them order could not be drawn from the design of chaos and science could not grow and develop.

1. Brugger, Peter. From Haunted Brain to Haunted Science: A Cognitive Neuroscience View of Paranormal and Pseudoscientific Thought. In Hauntings and Poltergeists, ed. James Houran and Rense Lange, North Carolina: McFarland & Company, Inc. 2001. 195-213.

2.Carroll, Robert Todd. Apophenia. the Skeptic's Dictionary. <http://skepdic.com/apophenia.html>

3.Carroll, Robert Todd. Pareidolia. the Skeptic's Dictionary. <http://skepdic.com/pareidol.html>

4.Carroll, Robert Todd. Synchronicity. the Skeptic's Dictionary. <http://skepdic.com/jung.html>

5. Descartes, Rene. Meditations on First Philosophy. translated from the Latin edition of 1641 by Ronald Rubin. Arete Press. 1985

6. Hubscher S. L. Apophenia: Definition and Analysis. Digital Bits Skeptic. November 4, 2007. <http://www.dbskeptic.com/2007/11/04/apophenia-definition-and-analysis/>

7. Hume, David. A Treatise of Human Nature. edited by L.A. Selby-Bigge, 2nd edition revised by P.H. Nidditch. Oxford University Press. 1978

8. Jung, Carl. on Synchronicity. The Portable Jung, Edited by Joseph Campbell, Viking Penguin Inc., 1971. 505-518

9. Kemerling, Garth. Descartes: God and Human Nature. Philosophy Pages. October 27, 2001 <http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/4d.htm>

10. Philips, Helen. Paranormal Beliefs Linked to Brain Chemistry. New Scientist. July 27, 2002. <http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2589.html>