Feb 26, 2010

Have you ever seen familiar and improbable shapes in those puffy white cumulus clouds as they pass overhead? Notice the squirrel or dinosaur in the image to the right. Some of you may have you seen the recent American Express commercial that portrays items positioned in such a way that we perceive them as sad or happy faces (much like the bathtub fixture below). Now notice the “Hand of God” in the NASA image below and to the right, taken by the Chandra X-ray Observatory. This picture shows energized particles streaming from a pulsar, in a field of debris from a massive supernova. Many of us, instinctively see in this image what looks like the wrist and hand of a person (or God as the name of this nebula implies). Speaking of God, on the internet there are many more explicit examples of religious imagery in much more benign items such as tree trunks, clouds, pancakes or tortillas. This tendency is not limited to the visual sense. We make the same type of errors with auditory information (as is evident in backmasking in popular music). These tendencies, which are in fact illusory, are a consequence of our neural circuitry.


Our brains do not tolerate vague or obscure stimuli very well. We have an innate tendency to perceive clear and distinct images within such extemporaneous stimuli. This tendency is called pareidolia. It is also referred to as patternicity. This tendency is so ubiquitous that a projective personality test (the Rorschach Inkblot Test) relies on and “interprets” this inclination.*


It has been suggested that our ancestors, the ones who assigned agency to things that went bump in the night (perceiving vague data as a threat) responded in a way that facilitated survival. Those who ignored the stimuli were more likely to be predated and thus not pass on their genes. Carl Sagan noted in his classic book, The Demon Haunted World that this tendency is likely linked to other aspects of individual survival. He wrote:

“As soon as the infant can see, it recognizes faces, and we now know that this skill is hardwired in our brains. Those infants who a million years ago were unable to recognize a face smiled back less, were less likely to win the hearts of their parents, and less likely to prosper. These days, nearly every infant is quick to identify a human face, and to respond with a goony grin.


As an inadvertent side effect, the pattern recognition machinery in our brains is so efficient in extracting a face from a clutter of other detail that we sometimes see faces where there are none. We assemble disconnected patches of light and dark and unconsciously see a face. The Man in the Moon is one result”(Sagan 1995: 45).

Michael Shermer wrote of patternicity in the December 2008 issue of Scientific American Magazine. In that article Shermer wrote that scientists have historically treated patternicity as an error in cognition. More specifically he noted that this tendency is a type I error, or a false positive. A false positive in this context, is believing that something is real when, in fact, it is not. Shermer discussed a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society entitled “The Evolution of Superstitious and Superstition-like Behaviour” by biologists Kevin R. Foster (Harvard University) and Hanna Kokko (University of Helsinki). These scientists tested the hypothesis that patternicity will enhance survivability using evolutionary modeling. Shermer wrote “They demonstrated that whenever the cost of believing a false pattern is real is less than the cost of not believing a real pattern, natural selection will favor patternicity.” The implications Shermer wrote: “…believing that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is only the wind does not cost much, but believing that a dangerous predator is the wind may cost an animal its life.


It is a double edged sword it seems. Not only has this tendency entertained us and likely facilitated our very survival as a species, but it may in fact serve as the basis of our individual inclinations toward superstitious thinking. Shermer wrote:

“Through a series of complex formulas that include additional stimuli (wind in the trees) and prior events (past experience with predators and wind), the authors conclude that “the inability of individuals—human or otherwise—to assign causal probabilities to all sets of events that occur around them will often force them to lump causal associations with non-causal ones. From here, the evolutionary rationale for superstition is clear: natural selection will favour strategies that make many incorrect causal associations in order to establish those that are essential for survival and reproduction.”

Yet again this is an example of how our intuitive brain can lead us astray!


* The Rorschach inkblot test, along with most projective measures in the field of psychology, have fallen out of favor due to poor reliability and validity.


Share with others

15 Responses so far | Have Your Say!

  1. Kev
    March 2nd, 2010 at 6:29 am #

    That’s no Squirrel. It’s Zillagod!

  2. Gerald Guild
    March 2nd, 2010 at 3:55 pm #

    Well Kevin, you got me on this one – is that a play on Godzilla?

  3. You Can’t Trust What You See · How Do You Think?
    May 14th, 2010 at 10:04 am #

    […] evolutionary steps that conferred survival benefits to those with such capabilities. Just as pareidolia confers as survival advantage to those that assign agency to things that go bump in the night, […]

  4. The Brain’s False Idols – How Do You Think?
    December 4th, 2011 at 6:50 pm #

    […] Bacon’s first idol can be summed up as the universal transcendent human tendencies toward Pareidolia, Confirmation Bias, and Spinoza’s Conjecture.  In other words, humans instinctively: (a) […]

  5. The Illusion of Cause – Vaccines and Autism - How Do You Think?
    September 26th, 2012 at 8:41 pm #

    […] patterns where there are none. Shermer refers to this tendency as patternicity. It is also called pareidolia. I’ve previously discussed this innate tendency noting that “Our brains do not tolerate […]

  6. What Plato, Descartes, and Kant Got Wrong: Reason Does not Rule. - How Do You Think?
    October 2nd, 2012 at 3:44 pm #

    […] implicit associations, cognitive conservatism, attribution error, cognitive biases, essentialism, pareidolia). This is true, in part, because these newer and “higher” brain functions are […]

  7. Intuitive Thought - How Do You Think?
    October 3rd, 2012 at 8:36 pm #

    […] residuals or the direct consequence of the adaptive unconscious.  Issues such as essentialism, pareidolia, and superstition fall into this category, as they have been ushered along with the survival […]

  8. 2012 – A Year in Review: How Do You Think? - How Do You Think?
    December 31st, 2012 at 12:12 pm #

    […] how remarkable, is flawed in two fundamental ways.  First, the proclivities toward patternicity (pareidolia), hyperactive agency detection, and superstition, although once adaptive mechanisms, now lead to […]

  9. Peter Smith MD
    January 26th, 2013 at 1:59 pm #

    Please take the opportunity to watch the 1953 movie piece “Christmas is Magic” at youtube. Pareidolia masterpiece appears after 59 years? The experience is a celebration of Christmas. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

  10. Gerald Guild
    March 3rd, 2013 at 11:07 am #

    @Peter, Thanks for the prompt to check out: Christmas is Magic.” I just now, finally had an opportunity to sit down and watch it. The first time through, I did not see a thing. I then read through the video description and therein was cued into where to look. Then I did see it. It appeared to me as a vague image of what appeared to be the face of a bearded man just above the breast pocket of “John.” It didn’t strike me as being an obvious image of Jesus – but I can see why one would jump to that conclusion given the features and context. Watching it several times left me with the distinct feeling that the image had been superimposed rather than it being purely the result of pareidolia. There are very subtle differences between the movement of John and the movement of the image itself. If it were true pareidolia, the image would move in unison with the stimuli (the jacket). It’s subtle but detectable, particularly at the beginning of its appearance. That’s my impression. What do you think?

  11. Pareidolia: Clash of the Celestial Space Beasts - From Quarks to Quasars
    April 3rd, 2013 at 1:51 am #

    […] Sagan once postulated in his book “The Demon-Haunted World – Science as a Candle in the Dark,” that this […]

  12. Penny
    June 26th, 2017 at 2:54 am #

    I’ve seen an article about a study claiming women more prone and narcosis prone more likely to see images in object. Honestly I think it’s just having a more creative mind.

  13. You Are Your Worst Bully | Your Great World
    October 10th, 2018 at 8:48 pm #

    […] survival depended on the ability to see patterns in randomness. Our ancestors needed to discriminate friends from foes — they had to quickly decide to […]

  14. You Are Your Worst Bully – DuCentillion
    October 11th, 2018 at 5:00 pm #

    […] survival depended on the ability to see patterns in randomness. Our ancestors needed to discriminate friends from foes — they had to quickly decide to […]

  15. You Are Your Worst Bully — Gustavo Razzetti
    November 1st, 2018 at 8:44 pm #

    […] survival depended on the ability to see patterns in randomness. Our ancestors needed to discriminate friends from foes — they had to quickly decide to […]

Leave a Feedback

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>