“Humans are pattern-seeking animals and we are adept at

finding patterns whether they exist or not” (adapted from

Michael Shermer). Discuss knowledge questions raised by
this idea in two areas of knowledge.

Word count: 1’599

You will have a bad week. Your horoscope said so. Venus is going retrograde or
something like that and there is nothing you can do about it but sit and wait for the
catastrophe to unfold itself… Does this sound familiar? It should.

As animals, we are built with the primitive instinct to look for patterns, or events that
appear to have a recurring repetition. At the beginning of time, our ancestors looked for
these repetitions for survival purposes but over time, we have evolved to seek patterns
for a different reason.1 While the sciences and mathematics focus on the accurate
recognition of patterns, pseudosciences such as astrology or even basic superstitions
obsess over the perception of patterns because they can bring a comforting feeling.
Although finding repetitions in nature and the world around us may always seem like a
useful tool, it can sometimes hinder our development and growth, because we end up
finding connections that simply are not there.

There needs to be an important distinction made between a coincidence and a pattern.

In the words of Ian Fleming: “Once is happenstance, twice is a coincidence, three times
is enemy action.”2 In my words, if an event happens once, it is pure chance, if the same
happens twice, it is a coincidence. Only by the third time does the event become an
actual pattern. This points out the inherent fault in inductive reasoning where we look at
all relevant examples to derive a general principle. Often, we end up mistaking a mere
coincidence for a pattern because it is one of the ways we are taught to think. Inductive
reasoning, unlike deductive one, gathers examples to prove a general theory and is
generally understood and accepted to be a valid way of acquiring knowledge.
Nevertheless, the Problem of Induction leads to a dilemma: how do we prove what we
think we know? Because it is uncertain, we cannot do so deductively but we cannot
prove it inductively either because we would be back where we started. 3 So, while some
of the examples we find may be fitting and add to our knowledge, others may be
extrapolated to fit the theory. When that is the case, then said theory could become
invalid.

1TEDTalk, “The Pattern Behind Self-Deception | Michael Shermer,” YouTube, June 14, 2010,
posted February 5, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o.
2“Ian Fleming Quotes,” Brainy Quote, 2001, accessed February 21, 2017, https://
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/ianfleming539058.html.
3“The Problem of Induction,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, March 14, 2014, accessed
March 1, 2017, https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/.
It cannot be argued that humans are not adept at finding patterns, but there is a reason
for why that is so. Arguably, we stand as the ancestors of the most successful pattern-
seeking creatures in the world. To explain this, an example of a prey animal is most
commonly used. A prey animal hears a rustle in the grass and has two thoughts; either it
was just the wind and there is no actual danger present or it is a predator animal waiting
to pounce. Its fight or flight instincts would tell the prey to flee, knowing that many times
before the sound has represented a real danger.4

Some would argue that there is nothing dangerous about discovering patterns that
aren’t there. In the case of the prey animal, it even saved them! Scientists would
disagree with such a view due to the fact they rely so heavily on pattern recognition in
order to construct concrete knowledge. When deriving a general premise in Physics,
scientists make sure to repeat their experiments extensively before they are sure they
can turn the principle into something more than a hypothesis or a simple prediction.
When there is sufficient evidence provided, the hypothesis can turn into a scientific
theory or a scientific law. However, there is a certain amount of controversy surrounding
the definitions of these. For the purpose of the essay, scientific theories are patterns
that have been provisionally accepted, backed up by a relatively convincing explanation
of why the patterns work. Theories cannot be proved right but in order to exist, they
must be able to be proved wrong. Quantum theory is an example of a scientific theory
that no one has yet been able to falsify. On the other hand, scientific laws are even
more convincing patterns with clearer explanations but even they change to
accommodate new discoveries. For example, Newton’s Laws of Motion were proved
invalid for high speeds and heavy masses by Einstein, rendering them incorrect in
certain cases.5

At the same time, the same perceived recognition of patterns leads to pseudosciences
being created, sciences that are based on assumptions rather than facts. Superstition
arises from a strong belief in patterns, like if you open up an umbrella indoors, you will
have bad luck. There is nothing to back these theories up except for beliefs based on
past experiences, something more commonly known as inductive reasoning; a “hunch”
feeling that technically stands as a perception of patterns taken too far. It almost makes
you think of a crabby old lady who blames all her bad luck on her poor husband who
always leaves his umbrella open indoors to dry. Superstitions and paranormal beliefs

4TEDTalk, “The Pattern Behind Self-Deception | Michael Shermer,” YouTube, June 14, 2010,
posted February 5, 2017, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o.
5David Homer and Michael Bowen-Jones, IB Physics Course Companion, 2014th ed. (Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 2014).
are not designed to find new patterns like the sciences are; their theories are not meant
to be falsified and laws simply do not exist in this realm because of their spontaneous
nature. As a result, they draw on intuition and memory more than reason and pure logic.
If the crabby old lady didn’t have bad luck one day despite her husband opening his
umbrella indoors, she wouldn’t necessarily look for another pattern because her belief in
this one is already so strong. When a pattern fails in the pseudosciences, the hierarchy
does not bother to correct the theory; it is just accepted as a mistake in the cycle.
Additionally, where sciences’ facts can be traced back to reliable theories and laws -
actual confirmed patterns-, the other’s so-called “facts” cannot be traced back to
anything at all. What can superstitions be traced back to, and who starts these
suspicions?

Science has suggested that there may be something chemically amiss with people who
see too many patterns in nature. A study led by the infamous Peter Brugger, a Swiss
neuropsychologist, attempted to answer the previous question; who starts these
superstitions? He found a pattern amongst people who believe in paranormal activity:
they had higher levels of dopamine, leading them to creating more connections and
ultimately believing in ghosts and the like.6 This disorder is more commonly known as
apophenia and is very closely linked to other mental illnesses including schizophrenia, a
condition where people expose multiple personalities. It is believed it may be caused by
a highly stimulated right part of the brain, the part that controls our creativity and
intuitive thinking. When this part of the brain is over-used, higher levels of dopamine
appear to be released into our system. An overdose of this hormone can cause
enhanced imagination and sense perception, two ways of knowing key in the
anticipation of patterns.7 Science once again proves the fallibility of patterns through the
confirmation bias theorem. In its simplest form, it states that once you start paying
attention to something you will start seeing it everywhere, a plausible outcome in people
with higher levels of dopamine. Sometimes, you can even start imagining events that
never happened or your sense perception will deceive you into seeing a connection that
is not there. As an example, when you learn a new word or phrase, it will suddenly
appear to become frequently used by your friends and family. You will start seeing it and

6“Paranormal Beliefs Linked to Brain Chemistry,” New Scientist, July 27, 2002, accessed
February 23, 2017, https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2589-paranormal-beliefs-linked-to-
brain-chemistry/.
7“Creativity, Conspiracy Theories, and Delusions Have One Thing in Common: Apophenia,”
Slate, September 16, 2014, accessed February 23, 2017, http://www.slate.com/articles/
health_and_science/science/2014/09/
apophenia_makes_unrelated_things_seem_connected_metaphors_paranormal_beliefs.html.
hearing it everywhere but this is merely due to the fact you have become more aware of
the word or phrase. In reality, it is not meaningful. This currently stands as an argument
against synchronicity, a term coined by Carl Jung to explain “meaningful coincidences”.
While apophenics would believe the connections they see are relevant, others would
question their mental stability.

From a statistical standpoint, Gambler’s fallacy is an additional example of human

obsession with patterns. It is the notion that past events will affect the outcome of future
ones. As an example let us imagine a man flipping a fair coin for fun. In the first four
tosses he gets heads-tails-heads-tails in that exact order. Because of this perceived
pattern, the man will be inclined to think he will get heads next but in reality, the
mathematical chance of getting heads remains at 50%. Nothing about the coin or the
flipping makes the event special and the man would be foolish to assume a pattern. Any
“luck” is purely coincidental.

As can be seen, it is a perception of initial patterns that fools the brain into thinking there
will be future ones when clearly that sometimes will not be the case. Despite the
perception of patterns being a primitive tool, arguably, we live in a much more friendly
environment than our ancestors did. The theory of evolution -just a theory, and not a
law, mind you- suggests we have evolved from gorillas. These animals would have had
to survive a hostile domain full of predators and life-threatening situations. Now, our
biggest worry is comparably what the lunch line will serve tomorrow. Instead of using
our pattern-recognizing ability for survival reasons, we now mistake it as a device to
explain what we cannot yet in the form of astrology, paranormal belief and superstitions.
All of these bring us a certain degree of comfort in that they provide us with what
appears like knowledge but is actually knowledge’s annoying little sister, information.
Put simply, if you don’t see enough patterns, you will be called dumb; see too many of
them and you will be considered crazy but see just the right amount? Now, you’re
golden.
Works Cited List
BrainyQuote. “Ian Fleming Quotes.” 2001. Accessed February 21, 2017. https://
www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/i/ianfleming539058.html.

Homer, David and Michael Bowen-Jones. IB Physics Course Companion. 2014th ed.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014.

Inc, Minitab. “What Are Type I and Type II Errors?” 2016. Accessed February 5, 2017.
http://support.minitab.com/en-us/minitab/17/topic-library/basic-statistics-and-graphs/
hypothesis-tests/basics/type-i-and-type-ii-error/.

Philips, Helen. “Paranormal Beliefs Linked to Brain Chemistry.” July 27, 2002. Accessed
February 23, 2017. https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2589-paranormal-beliefs-
linked-to-brain-chemistry/.

TEDTalk. “The Pattern Behind Self-Deception | Michael Shermer.” YouTube. June 14,
2010. Posted February 5, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_6-iVz1R0o.
Vickers, John. “The Problem of Induction.” March 14, 2014. Accessed March 1, 2017.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/.

Waldman, Katy. “Creativity, Conspiracy Theories, and Delusions Have One Thing in
Common: Apophenia.” September 16, 2014. Accessed February 23, 2017. http://
www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2014/09/
apophenia_makes_unrelated_things_seem_connected_metaphors_paranormal_beliefs.
html.