BEING FOOLED IN THE MOMENT
Not only are our memories malleable and ever-changing based on our own understanding of events, but we can actually be tricked in the moment, as well. Our own human perception is flawed and easily fooled because our expectations and preconceived notions can actually shape what we see and remember. In fact, a 2015 study published in The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences showed that prior knowledge can influence some people’s thoughts even more than sensory evidence.37 The scientists involved with that research found that hallucinations are sometimes caused by nothing more than a normal, functioning brain.
“In other words, the potential for psychotic experiences such as hallucinations might be a logical consequence of the way in which our brain deals with the inherent ambiguity of sensory information by incorporating prior knowledge into our perceptual processing,” the authors of the study wrote. “The current study uncovered an imbalance of this processing type that shows its effects at the perceptual level.”
The fact is that it’s not uncommon for people to hallucinate, even when there are no drugs or medical issues involved. In one study, researchers showed that 66 percent of participants staring into a mirror in a dimly lit room noticed “huge deformations” in their own face while 48 percent described “fantastical and monstrous beings.”38 That same study found that 18 percent saw a parent’s face with altered traits and 28 percent saw an unknown person looking back at them in the mirror. The observations were made in a quiet room dimly lit with a 25-watt incandescent light, but researchers say the illusion can be “easily experienced and replicated” because the details of the setting “are not critical.” This particular illusion may be partially linked to the Troxler effect, an optical illusion that occurs when a person focuses on a specific point for a period of time. The effect, first identified by Swiss physician Ignaz Paul Vital Troxler in 1804, serves as the basis for many optical illusions you find online and elsewhere.39 If you want to experience the Troxler effect yourself, search for the “Lilac Chaser” online. If you stare at the cross for a few seconds, the lilac dots should begin to disappear.
Another example of being fooled in the moment involves pareidolia, the psychological phenomenon that causes a person to interpret vague images and sounds as significant or important. Introduced by Russian psychiatrist Victor Kandinsky in the 1800s,40 this process not only causes you to spot faces in the clouds and on the moon, but also explains a number of alleged ghost sightings and even why you might “hear” hidden messages on records when you play them in reverse. Pareidolia, which is experienced more regularly by certain types of people, including those with higher levels of neuroticism,41 works a lot like the Rorschach inkblot test used in psychology because individuals pick out images that aren’t really there.
Pareidolia is a type of apophenia, which characterizes the experience of spontaneously recognizing patterns, connections, or meaningfulness in unrelated data. Interpreting arbitrary events in daily life as “signs” from a god or ghost or other force is a good example of this phenomenon. B. F. Skinner called this shortcut in the human brain “conditioned seeing, hearing, and so on,”42 while Michael Shermer coined the term patternicity. Shermer describes patternicity as “the tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise.” All these terms speak to the fact that we have an innate human instinct to seek out familiar patterns and assign them meaning and agency, even when the patterns themselves have been manufactured. We are good at pattern seeking—perhaps too good, as we often notice patterns that aren’t really there. But that’s not necessarily a bad thing. I think our brains are truly impressive because we can forge false connections, count only the hits, and see coincidences as meaningful without the knowledge that we’re doing anything at all.
All of these examples of optical illusions and flawed perceptions occur regularly during the normal course of a person’s life, and do not include some of the more extreme misfires of which the human brain is capable. There are also a number of medical conditions that provide possible natural explanations for so-called supernatural phenomena. In The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat, author and neurologist Oliver Sacks brought a number of these disorders to national attention, including visual agnosia, the visual recognition impairment that serves as the basis for the book’s title.43 Sacks also details case histories of patients suffering from Korsakoff’s syndrome, which causes an inability to form new memories, and a number of other conditions. In addition to those described by Sacks, there are many more abnormalities that can change how we see the world. For instance, those who suffer from schizoaffective disorder, a mental condition characterized by abnormal emotions, hallucinations, and delusions,44 often develop a strong belief in ghosts and demons. People who go undiagnosed with this disorder and other similar conditions might not ever find the real answers that could be enormously helpful to them, whether they are just curious about their condition or in need of serious medical assistance, because society often reinforces the false beliefs (in this case, symptoms of illness) as normal. This is unfortunate because, although eerie feelings and delusions can be terrifying, there’s nothing quite like the relief one feels by understanding the scientific reasons behind experiences thought to be the result of malevolent supernatural creatures.
In what could be considered yet another medical nonmystery, even something as simple as a migraine can cause auras, or perceptual disturbances that are sometimes linked to auditory and visual hallucinations, as well as strange smells and tastes.45 These visual migraines can last for hours and can leave the sufferer confused and disoriented, but they are also regularly blamed for ghostly and divine experiences. Similarly, those who report seeing strange lights where none should be often discover that their experience can be explained by phosphenes, phenomena associated with eye conditions and induced by movement or sound. Many believers are happy to attribute these medical conditions to otherworldly forces, but the truth can also be a great relief to sufferers who find out that their sightings are not a result of some evil spirit world—but are instead caused by something as simple as disrupted blood flow to the occipital lobe of the brain, or by an eye condition. There are innumerable similar examples and these conditions are not new, even if they are only now being studied in-depth. It’s interesting to imagine how these hallucinations, illnesses, and other issues were interpreted by our ancestors, and then sad to think about the fact that many modern people have a similar mindset. The way we bring those people up to speed, of course, is through education (see chapter 10).
ANECDOTES IN THE COURTROOM
Because of the potential for inaccuracies when it comes to first-hand accounts, court systems in the developed world don’t generally convict people based solely on the assumption that purported eyewitness testimonies are true. They might assume an allegation is true for the sake of an argument to follow a line of questioning, or use eyewitness testimony to bolster certain claims, but they don’t often allow prosecutors or litigants to base a successful case on personal experience alone. And even when they do—because of the problems that plague human memory—that is a flaw in the legal system, and not a reason to believe in any supernatural claims.
In an ideal world, all courts would use only verifiable evidence because it would always be available. But this isn’t that world, so legal systems do sometimes rely on personal testimonials alone. When that happens, it can cause serious problems. Take a look at Luis Vargas, for instance, who spent 16 years in prison for sexual assaults he didn’t commit. Vargas was originally misidentified as the attacker because of a similar tattoo and sentenced to 55 years in prison, but he was cleared of the charges in November 2015 after DNA evidence revealed the real culprit.46 Experts generally agree that hundreds of suspects each year are wrongfully convicted based on faulty eyewitness testimony in the United States alone—largely because people are unaware of how their experiences can be misremembered and therefore have too much confidence in their memories. In fact, as of 2016, ey
ewitness misidentification testimony was a factor in 70 percent of the 347 postconviction DNA exonerations in U.S. history, according to the Innocence Project, which advocates for prisoners who can be proven innocent through DNA testing. Despite exonerations based on physical evidence, false confessions resulting from suggestion,47 and study after study indicating how flawed our personal experiences can be, justice systems around the world continue to rely (often too heavily) on eyewitness accounts as conclusive evidence. But that doesn’t change the fact that experience is not equal to scientific proof. Neil deGrasse Tyson is one of many scientists to draw attention to this disparity between science and justice: “No matter what eyewitness testimony is in the court of law, it is the lowest form of evidence in the court of science.”48
To explore the nature of anecdotal accounts as evidence of the supernatural even further, I recommend looking at a common paranormal claim through the lens of the justice system. For example, we can take Christianity, the most popular supernatural belief system in the world, and apply our courts’ rules as we review its spiritual claims.49 If the Christian religion were to stand trial today and use biblical scripture as evidence for its validity, not only would it fail to meet the burden of proof necessary for a decision in its favor, it wouldn’t even come close. Christians themselves don’t agree on which biblical statements are “real” and which are to be considered figurative, so how would they present a coherent argument to an objective judge? This lack of consistency and hard evidence is where religious faith comes in, but “faith” isn’t a compelling argument in court. Christianity’s case might look something like this:
EXHIBIT A: A BOOK I VIEW AS SACRED IN ORIGIN SAYS PEOPLE THOUSANDS OF YEARS AGO CLAIMED THEY SAW MIRACLES (ALTHOUGH WE NOW KNOW THAT THESE ACCOUNTS WERE WRITTEN DECADES AFTER THE SUPPOSED MIRACLES WOULD HAVE OCCURRED).
EXHIBIT B: DESPITE THE FACT THAT OUR SIDE CAN’T AGREE ON WHICH MIRACLES REALLY HAPPENED AND WHICH ARE METAPHORS, YOU CAN’T PROVE THEY DIDN’T HAPPEN, SO WE DESERVE VICTORY.
Even if we examine a specific supernatural claim that most Christians do agree really occurred, such as the resurrection of Jesus, the case for the religion looks bleak. The fact is that the Synoptic Gospels were written 40 to 70 years after the supposed death and resurrection of Jesus by people who could not have been eyewitnesses.50 These are considered, by the vast majority of secular and religious experts in the field, to be anonymous texts because the authors never divulge their names. According to New Testament scholar Bart D. Ehrman, these stories “circulated anonymously, for years and decades.”
“We have no certain evidence that they—these particular Gospels—were called by their familiar names until around 180 CE, in sources connected with Rome,” Ehrman said. “At this stage, what we can say with certainty is that the Gospels are quoted in the early and mid-second centuries by proto-orthodox Christian authors, who never identify them as Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.”
These anonymous stories written long after the developments are said to have occurred don’t prove anything, especially because there are major points of disagreement among them and the alleged witnesses aren’t available to give their account—but the trial isn’t over yet. Before closing arguments, let’s allow Christianity to put forth another common piece of hollow “evidence” for Jesus’ resurrection. A number of Christian apologists, including William Lane Craig, have asserted that an “empty tomb” constitutes clear evidence that Jesus rose from the dead and into Heaven.
“[M]ost historical scholars agree that after his crucifixion Jesus’ tomb was discovered empty by a group of female disciples, that various individuals and groups saw appearances of Jesus alive after his death, and that the original disciples suddenly and sincerely came to believe in Jesus’ resurrection despite their every predisposition to the contrary,” Craig wrote in 2013 for Fox News.51 “I can think of no better explanation of these facts than the one the original disciples gave: God raised Jesus from the dead.”
In a courtroom, this argument would fail to establish any common occurrence with certainty, let alone an act the likes of which has never been recorded in human history. Christian apologists who argue that a story about an empty tomb is convincing evidence of a resurrected body are likely unfamiliar with Occam’s razor, which is named after the famed philosopher William of Ockham and states that, among competing hypotheses, the one with the fewest assumptions should be selected. These believers probably assume the most likely explanation for the alleged empty tomb is miraculous resurrection through some unproven divine connection, but more likely scenarios include a stolen body, a mismarked grave, a planned removal, faulty reports, creative storytelling, edited scriptures, and much, much more. No magic required.
It’s fine if ancient “eyewitness” testimonies written down in the form of scripture are sufficient for you to believe in the reported supernatural events that form the basis of Christianity, but that means you don’t have a very high standard for evidentiary support. And if that’s the case, you should be consistent in your approach. You should open up the hadith literature to Sahih al-Bukhari, Volume 5, Book 58, and see that there are numerous eyewitnesses who saw Muhammad ascend to Heaven on a winged steed. If we are to assume this is true, should we infer that Muhammad was indeed a prophet? What’s the verdict?
TYING IT TOGETHER
I know about the many flaws in our memory and eyesight, as well as our potential biases that make each of us susceptible to being fooled, but I still can’t escape them. All these issues skew perceptions and establish exactly why anecdotes, either my own or those of others, will never be enough to convince me of the existence of anything supernatural (or even extraordinary). I would need observable, scientific evidence of something previously unknown to all humanity before believing in it, and I have set that same standard for creator-gods, disembodied human spirits, and a number of other supernatural, paranormal, and otherwise implausible claims. As a result of this understanding of the inherent problems with eyewitness accounts, when I hear a believer (in any sort of woo) proclaim, “I was skeptical, too, until I saw it for myself!” it always sounds suspiciously like: “I used to recognize that human beings by their very nature can be and often are mistaken, but I refuse to apply that simple fact to myself!” We are fallible, and we shouldn’t hide from that.
If more people understood the facts regarding flawed senses and memories, they might be less likely to jump to supernatural conclusions when analyzing experiences. But my work isn’t just about pointing out cognitive roadblocks in other people: it’s about understanding and adjusting for my own in the pursuit of what’s real. Just by actively looking for and recognizing these perceptual problems, we can actually make ourselves less likely to experience them, so it’s a worthwhile endeavor. Many of us believed ridiculous things when we were younger, and those ideas sometimes persist for years or even lifetimes, but by learning about the human imagination and the errors in our own senses we can often move beyond those childish notions and realize how easily we can be tricked. We can learn to be skeptical of our own eyes and our own memories and advocate for empirical research over anecdotes, bringing us ever closer to reality.
“Every journey into the past is complicated by delusions, false memories, false namings of real events.”
—Adrienne Rich
NOTES
1. R. H. Thouless, “The Tendency to Certainty in Religious Belief,” British Journal of Psychology General Section 26 (1935): 16–31.
2. Keith E. Stanovich, How to Think Straight About Psychology (Boston, MA: Pearson Allyn and Bacon, 2007).
3. Chase B. Wrenn, “Fallacies,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/.
4. Wayne Weiten and Douglas McCann, Psychology: Themes and Variations (Toronto: Nelson, 2006).
5. Laura P. Otis and James E. Alcock, “Factors Affecting Extraordinary Belief,” Journal of Social Psychology 118, no. 1 (1982).
6. Lindeman, Marjaana and Annika M. Svedholm-Häkkinen, “Does P
oor Understanding of Physical World Predict Religious and Paranormal Beliefs?” Applied Cognitive Psychology 30, no. 5 (2016): 736–742.
7. M. Wierzbicki, “Reasoning Errors and Belief in the Paranormal,” Journal of Social Psychology 125 (1985): 489–494.
8. Peter Krummenacher, “Dopamine, Paranormal Belief, and the Detection of Meaningful Stimuli,” Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 22, no. 8 (2010): 1670–1681.
9. T. Lawrence et al., “Modelling Childhood Causes of Paranormal Belief and Experience: Childhood Trauma and Childhood Fantasy,” Personality and Individual Differences 19 (1995): 209–215.
10. Chase B. Wrenn, “Fallacies,” The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, www.iep.utm.edu/.
11. Irving Lester Janis, Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes (Boston, MA: Wadsworth, 1982).
12. S. E. Asch, “Effects of Group Pressure upon the Modification and Distortion of Judgment,” in Groups, Leadership and Men, ed. H. Guetzkow (Pittsburgh, PA: Carnegie Press, 1951).
13. Edmund Parish, Hallucinations and Illusions: A Study of the fallacies of Perception (New York: C. Scribner’s Sons, 1897), 311.
14. Robert E. Bartholomew, Little Green Men, Meowing Nuns and Head-hunting Panics: A Study of Mass Psychogenic Illness and Social Delusion (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2001).
15. Tim McGirk, “Hindu World Divided by a 24-hour Wonder,” Independent, September 22, 1995.
16. John F. Burns, “India’s ‘Guru Busters’ Debunk All That’s Mystical,” New York Times, October 9, 1995.
17. T. Jayaraman, “Obscurantism vs Science Behind the Milk-drinking ‘Miracle,’” Institute of Mathematical Sciences.
18. David Hume, An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, ed. Charles William Hendel, vol. 49 (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1955).
No Sacred Cows Page 22
