Why do "unlikely" chance events seem meaningful?

Rramjet

Unregistered
R
Joined
Nov 28, 2008
Messages
3,046
I came across the following podcast recently:

Science Show - 2010-06-26
Saturday, 26 June 2010 12:00 AM
Radiolab: Stochasticity
This Radiolab looks at the role chance and randomness play in sport, gambling, and even the cells in our own body. Radiolab is a production of WNYC in New York City. (http://www.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/feeds/science.xml)

It is a very amusing and beautiful exploration of why we as humans seem to attach importance and meaning to events we consider to lie outside random chance. This is a "must see". All true skeptics should listen to this one.
 
The human brain evolved to look for significant relationships in order to make sense of the world. Coincidental events appear causal for that reason.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
The human brain evolved to look for significant relationships in order to make sense of the world. Coincidental events appear causal for that reason.
Click to expand...

The podcast is not really tackling the issue concerning the common misperception that correlation = causation. Rather it focuses on why we might consider it more than a coincidence (to borrow for example from the first story in the podcast) that when a ten year old girl lets a balloon go with return to sender name and details on it, the balloon flies hundreds of miles to land in the garden of a ten year old girl with the same name, same pets, same dress sense, etc. Spooky huh? The odds of that happening are astronomical, right? With such odds against, surely it cannot be just a random, chance event... well that's the issue tackled in the podcast.
 
Rramjet said:
The podcast is not really tackling the issue concerning the common misperception that correlation = causation. Rather it focuses on why we might consider it more than a coincidence (to borrow for example from the first story in the podcast) that when a ten year old girl lets a balloon go with return to sender name and details on it, the balloon flies hundreds of miles to land in the garden of a ten year old girl with the same name, same pets, same dress sense, etc. Spooky huh? The odds of that happening are astronomical, right? With such odds against, surely it cannot be just a random, chance event... well that's the issue tackled in the podcast.
Click to expand...
Shermer addresses this as well. If billions of events occur every day, then 1 in a billion chance events are going to occur. Those 1 in a billion chance events will appear to be more than chance because we are unaware of the billion (-1) failures.
 
Skeptic Ginger said:
Shermer addresses this as well. If billions of events occur every day, then 1 in a billion chance events are going to occur. Those 1 in a billion chance events will appear to be more than chance because we are unaware of the billion (-1) failures.
Click to expand...
The problem with this reasoning is that we're largely unaware of both the coincidences and non-coincidences that are going on all around us. Dismissing a one in a billion coincidence on the grounds that there were undoubtedly a billion non-coincidences that we don't know about may be comforting to skeptics, but it is not evidence-based.
 
Pareidolia and confirmation bias?


I hope I spelled pareidolia right. It's not in my spell checker, and my dinner is burning.
 
Rodney said:
The problem with this reasoning is that we're largely unaware of both the coincidences and non-coincidences that are going on all around us. Dismissing a one in a billion coincidence on the grounds that there were undoubtedly a billion non-coincidences that we don't know about may be comforting to skeptics, but it is not evidence-based.
Click to expand...


Neither is the godidit paradigm.
 
Sledge said:
I don't have a kilt, so am I exempt from this?
Click to expand...
Ah yes, the master cynic at work. Perhaps it is you especially that should have a listen to the podcast.

fromdownunder said:
Does deja vu exist?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=156806&highlight=synchrosity

Norm
Click to expand...
Well, no … nothing at all to do with synchronicity (or déjà vu).

Skeptic Ginger said:
Shermer addresses this as well. If billions of events occur every day, then 1 in a billion chance events are going to occur. Those 1 in a billion chance events will appear to be more than chance because we are unaware of the billion (-1) failures.
Click to expand...
You’re getting closer to the idea, but still missing some crucial elements. Can you answer this question: Why are basketball players like coins?

John Jones said:
Pareidolia and confirmation bias?
Click to expand...

No, nothing to do with Pareidolia (“…is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia).

You’re on the right track with confirmation bias though. The story about the balloon and the ten year old girls is a prime example of this. But how so?
 
Why
Rramjet said:
Ah yes, the master cynic at work. Perhaps it is you especially that should have a listen to the podcast.


Well, no … nothing at all to do with synchronicity (or déjà vu).


You’re getting closer to the idea, but still missing some crucial elements. Can you answer this question: Why are basketball players like coins?



No, nothing to do with Pareidolia (“…is a psychological phenomenon involving a vague and random stimulus (often an image or sound) being perceived as significant. Common examples include seeing images of animals or faces in clouds, the man in the moon, and hearing hidden messages on records played in reverse.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareidolia).

You’re on the right track with confirmation bias though. The story about the balloon and the ten year old girls is a prime example of this. But how so?
Click to expand...

Why is unsubstantiated nonsense so attractive?
 
Rodney said:
The problem with this reasoning is that we're largely unaware of both the coincidences and non-coincidences that are going on all around us. Dismissing a one in a billion coincidence on the grounds that there were undoubtedly a billion non-coincidences that we don't know about may be comforting to skeptics, but it is not evidence-based.
Click to expand...

Are you saying that because we don't know about the non-coincidences we can discount them or that they really aren't happening?
 
Rodney said:
The problem with this reasoning is that we're largely unaware of both the coincidences and non-coincidences that are going on all around us. Dismissing a one in a billion coincidence on the grounds that there were undoubtedly a billion non-coincidences that we don't know about may be comforting to skeptics, but it is not evidence-based.
Click to expand...
But the other option is to assume the event was unique when you also don't know the number of failed incidences.

Most of the time one can deduce a more accurate number. For example, how often one dreams or thinks of a person is not impossible to estimate when considering the one time that thought or dream correlates with the person calling or dying or something.

The balloon example is weirder, if it was a true example. But if someone said it was a true example, the first thing I'd want to do would be to confirm the event really occurred. There are a lot of made up stories like that one circulating. The second thing I'd want to do would be to rule out a hoax. People love to perpetrate hoaxes.
 
Rramjet said:
....
You’re getting closer to the idea, but still missing some crucial elements. Can you answer this question: Why are basketball players like coins?...
Click to expand...
Your OP citation is about randomness. That is not an answer to the question, "why" does a random event seem non-random.

So you can keep playing this game or you can actually carry on a discussion about the topic you've brought up.

BTW, the OP link goes to a page of clutter not many will bother to read. I had to Google the subject to get to a link to the actual podcast.
 
Rodney said:
The problem with this reasoning is that we're largely unaware of both the coincidences and non-coincidences that are going on all around us. Dismissing a one in a billion coincidence on the grounds that there were undoubtedly a billion non-coincidences that we don't know about may be comforting to skeptics, but it is not evidence-based.
Click to expand...

It's a very interesting podcast, and it's obvious you haven't really listened to it.
 
You know, for years, I believed the "crazy guy" was me from-another-dimension, or my guarding angeling, cause my life was always in havoc. 'cause I used to drink a lot. But, the more I sobered up, and the more I grew up, the more I realised that those spectors were just spectors of my sad imagination.
I'm very sad now, but there are no "boogy-men" ; there are no "angels" to blame; There's only me.
There's only a great lot of supportive people here at the Jref , and wherever you are, and the people who care about you...

your support system here and at home, trying to help you get a grip on those stupid demons.
And, even if it takes a life-time; haven't you got a "life-time"?.
, g
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom