Talk:Pareidolia/Archive 1

Images

Maybe I don't have a creative mind, but I just can't see faces in the example pictures on the right (except for the alarm clock). Can someone come up with some better examples? (Perhaps a picture of an electrical socket, which looks a little bit like a face...) --Yekrats 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree, only the alarm clock really does something. I don't know who added them, but I'm going to remove the other images.--Sonjaaa 08:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Part of the point of pareidolia is that people do indeed have creative minds. I saw a face in the car photo but the one with the ruler eluded me. Still, it would be best to have images that have actually been interpreted this way. I know we have the wikilink to Face on Mars; would it be overkill to repeat here the first image used in that article? JamesMLane 08:50, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Virgin Mary?

I'm really surpised the virgin mary/grilled cheese isn't mentioned. I'd add it, but I don't belive I'm eloquent enough to add it. Also, James, the Ruler face is a long face, looking to the right.

Matrixing?

I'm reverting the allusion to "matrixing". It is definitely not in common use for pareidolia; in fact, it is a technical word in the field of (sound) signal processing (see Google dictionary search), and it is only mentioned in relation to pareidolia in a handful of paranormal-related websites. --Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 10:45, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

other examples

I have heard if you fold an american bill a certain way (I forget which one), you can see the twin towers burning on the one side. Also I think a good example would be the devil's face seen in the smoke coming form the towers on 9/11. I cannot see the one of the devil in the queen's hair, is there a larger version available?

--Jadger 15:10, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

pronunciation?

How exactly is this word pronounced? I'd put that in the article, but I actually don't know.

I'd guess par-eye-dole-eee-yah (don't understand the international phonetic alphabet or anything like that)...--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 22:38, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

You are correct. I find it a little awkward, but after a while one gets used to it. ^_^ V-Man737 01:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sagan reference

The paragraph including the Carl Sagan reference relating to the unresponsive infants is unclear. What is the correlation between babies being abandoned because they are unresponsive and the recognition of the human face? Is it trying to say that the babies don't recognize the human face and that's why they're unresponsive and thus abandoned? Clarification of this point would be great.

Here's the full quote from the relevant section of Chapter 3 of Sagan's book, the Demon Haunted World:

Humans, like other primates are a gregarious lot. We enjoy one another’s company. We’re mammals and parental care of young is essential for the continuance of the hereditary lines. The parent smiles at the child, the child smiles back, and a bond is forged or strengthened. 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 at 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 try to see a face. The Man in the Moon is one result. Michelangelo Antonioni’s film Blowup describes another. There are many other examples. (p. 45)

Edhubbard 17:57, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Apophenia vs. Pareidolia

In neither the apophenia article nor the pareidolia article is there any discussion of the difference between the two. They seem just about identical in meaning. If anyone knows of a difference, it would be a valuable addition to either or both entries.

Eggsyntax 02:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me pareidolia is a subcategory of apophenia. Apophenia is apparently any type of bad pattern recognition - for example, a false conspiracy theory - while pareidolia is solely visual. Λυδαcιτγ 05:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Leno "plug"

I added the Tonight Show mention (that has since been removed), not because I wanted to plug Jay Leno, but because I was contemplating adding an image of an eBay auction featured on the show of a "Superman Bird Turd", which struck me as the epitome of the cultural obsession with pareidolia. (The absurd thing sold for $100!) I must admit I'm hesitating because I find its subject gross, but if anyone else feels this would be a useful example, I'll be happy to upload the fair-image screencap I grabbed for this article and add it. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

...I say bring on the bird turd! Sounds like a good example to me. --AndyKali 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with that sections removal, and agree that the image would be gross. Let's stick with optimal examples, rather than using poor ones. --Quiddity 04:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Um, let's not merge this with Face Perception

Surely this is sligtly different issue? It would be more useful for someone looking for the term Pareidolia to find this article than to just be dumped onto Face perception, in my opinion. --AndyKali 03:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed it. --Quiddity 04:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Rorschach inkblots shouldn't be public

As a psychologist who administers the Rorschach inkblot test, I want to express my concern about the use of one of the official Rorschach cards as the main picture for this and many other pages (relating to subliminal thought). These cards are not to be displayed publicly in any way because they obstruct the validity of the test. If someone takes this test after having previously seen even one of the images elsewhere, their protocol is spoiled (For this test was normed with individuals who were seeing the cards for the first time, thus eliciting a "fresh" response). If an image of an inkblot must be used, there are plenty of Inkblots that aren't part of the ten card Rorschach inkblot test. 71.141.237.95 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Dr. Atlas 71.141.237.95 00:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Since it's a load of hooey anyway, what's the concern? - DavidWBrooks 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

If you provide a decent replacement, I'll be happy to make the change. You can email it to me if you want by clicking the "email this user" link at User:Audacity. It'll have to comply with the image policy. Λυδαcιτγ 00:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a good chance that some browsers of Wikipedia are in counseling with psychologist, and may take the Rorschach inkblot test. With this in mind, it will greatly affect the true nature of the test, which is to study the individual's mind in some sort of way. There is a valid point in subliminal thought, where even a glimpse of the image can be stored in the brain, which in turn will affect future tests and further the disputed concept that this method area in psychology is a fallacy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeryck89 (talk • contribs)

So when it doesn't work, it's wikipedia's fault because they glimpsed it a teeny bit once! And the docs can still collect their fees. Brilliant! - DavidWBrooks 18:44, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I suggest replacing the inkblot with the "face on Mars" picture, or another famous example not mentioned: the Canadian flag can be viewed as the outline of two guys arguing with each other, instead of a maple leaf outline. The Rorschach inkblot test article discusses the issue of seeing the inkblot outside of the test context and gives the reader a link to click to decide whether to see the picture. For what it's worth, the inkblot pictures (at least the first one) have been public for many years and the first one was published in Time Magazine at least a decade ago. They are very widely used in psychology. As a troublemaking grade school kid, I remember being shown the whole set by the school psychologist, and supplying sarcastic answers to his questions ;). 64.160.39.153 21:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

First, it's only one picture out of ten, so it gives a sense of the types of images shown, without (I assume) completely invalidating the test. Second, anyone who's interested will immediately find the images online anyway, at a site like this one (which is linked to by the Rorschach inkblot test article). I would rather not replace the inkblot picture in the template for aesthetic reasons (at least, not with either of the two images suggested). Λυδαcιτγ 23:42, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that Doorhandle image is good here

Door handle

I think that door handle is good in the article, but it was deleted by a wikipedia user. In my opinion, this image shows very good the pareidolia effect and it should be included back in the page. Please discuss more here about this. Paul —Paulnasca (talk) 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

I disagree. We should probably be picky about these examples as we don't need this to be a dumping ground for every object with three dots on it. While we are at it we could probably get rid of the praying tree as it is tough to see and is really a low quality image. --Daniel J. Leivick 21:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I deleted it, so my opinion is obvious! I think we need, at most, one photo of various "types" of pareidolia - and this is the same type as the back of the clock, so it was redundant. I agree that the tree is such a poor photo that it could go. And the "false wood" photo, which is interestingly different than the others, could use slightly more of a caption - what is it, anyway, a shot of veneer? - DavidWBrooks 22:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The tree image is pertinent to Muslims; I'd say, ask a few to take a look at the image and ask their opinion. V-Man737 01:32, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I afraid I don't quite understand. Is the tree image some kind of cultural phenomenon in the Muslim world or do you think it is important to them because it looks like a Muslim praying. --Daniel J. Leivick 01:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, if a Muslim spends a lot of time around other Muslims that pray like that, the general shape and features will become familiar to the extent of making that tree seem identical to that particular prayer position. Having not spent a lot of time around people who pray like that would make it understandable to not see the tree as significant. This would help illustrate Pareidolia's subjectivity. V-Man737 02:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:NPOV

This article appears to give a single perspective on religious phenomena and without giving alternative perspectives. It's questionable whether the claim that the perceptions are false is a scientific one. It seems to be more in the nature of a religious judgment. The research suggests that human beings are wired to perceive themselves as being surrounded by human-like beings and suggests that the ability to perceive this has survival value. But whether this wiring reflects a completely false phenomenon, or an ability to perceive something true or meaningful in a religious or humanistic sense, is not a question that appears to be answered by this research. --Shirahadasha 20:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

By "true in a religious or humanistic sense" you mean "not really true but people really, really, really want to believe it", I assume. - DavidWBrooks 22:12, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The added material on the view of C.S. Lewis addresses the issue involved. It refers to truth in a non-materialistic sense. Best, --Shirahadasha 22:23, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added material reflecting the viewpoints of the theologian C.S. Lewis and the philosopher Clarence Irving Lewis. As these these viewpoints illustrate, the problem of whether or not to characterize a perception as an illusion has drawn significant attention from a variety of philosophers and has been regarded by some of the world's greatest thinkers as not an easy problem to solve, let alone dismiss. Best, --Shirahadasha 01:06, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

GG. As I was reading the CS Lewis bit, I was reminded of a quote that Madeleine L'Engle said: "The naked intellect is an extraordinarily inaccurate instrument." Is there a justification for putting that in the article, do you think? V-Man - ^T/_C 02:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find myself very curious not only what instrument she used to measure its accuracy, but what she found to compare it to. What exactly was the ordinary thing compared to which she found it extraordinary? Best, --Shirahadasha 06:07, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe any of these folks argue that pareidolia is "real" in the objective sense - that is, that the pictures were created by an outside force to convey some message. Rather, they argue that their perception conveys some sense of reality to the viewer that cannot be dismissed as "mere" coincidence and/or delusion. I didn't phrase that very well, but I don't want anybody to think that C.S. Lewis says Mary slaps her face on English muffins as a message to the world. - 11:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

That may be in line with the intent. I think think that C.S. Lewis was trying to say that while English muffin sightings etc. should be taken with a grain of salt, there is such a thing as religious visions and visitations, and the potentially spurious ones don't mean they're all invalid, and similarly, events which appear to be inconsequential to one person may have significance to another, that is, just because it may seem silly to me doesn't mean I know for sure it's silly universally. --Shirahadasha 21:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I find myself very curious that ...

I don't know her basis for that statement, but as she had a strong interest in science, it could well have been a description of human cognitive bias. If so, it's a correct statement, and measurement is possible: for instance, by comparing the objective record of an event with a person's report of how it happened. Check out list of cognitive biases. Tearlach 03:43, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Devil's head photo?

Does anybody know what happened to the picture of the devil's head in Queen Elizabeth's hair on the Canadian dollar? It's been blank for a while - DavidWBrooks 17:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

See Commons:Commons:Deletion requests/Canada money (2007-03-03). I think this was done in error, and I've requested undeletion. Λυδαcιτγ 01:17, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Pareidolia in Art

Is there any discussions regarding pareidolia in art? Intentional pereidolia as seen in works by Bev Doolittle is interesting, but what of unintentional pereidolia which leads to unintended interpretations of the work? Thanks,A2Z 21:49, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Material attributed to Carl Sagan

Removed material incorrectly attributed to Carl Sagan to talk:

Skeptics assert that sightings of religious or iconic figures in everyday objects, such as Marian apparitions, are examples of pareidolia, as are some cases of electronic voice phenomena. The Face on Mars is a phenomenon that succeeded the Martian canals, both eventually attributed to pareidolia, when the "seen" images disappeared in better and more numerous images. Many Canadians saw the face of the Devil in the Queen's hair on a dollar bill in the Canadian 1954 series, adapted from a photograph. The bills were not withdrawn from circulation, but the image was altered in its next printing.

This material can be put back in the section on Carl Sagan if it is properly sourced and attributed to Carl Sagan. Material that's simply unsourced can get a maintenance tag. The problem here is that this is unsourced material that's being described, apparently incorrectly, as an identified individual's opinion. --Shirahadasha 02:21, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

C.S. Lewis material

I've moved this material to the Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena article. The reason is that perceived religious imagery was what C.S. Lewis was actually attempting to explain, so putting the explanation there seemed the better fit. On reflection, there might be potential WP:OR issues in using Lewis' approach to "explain" a phenomemenon that hadn't been coined when he wrote. Other editors might prefer to have this material in both places.--Shirahadasha 02:32, 13 May 2007 (UTC).

No, looks all right. The term hadn't been coined, but from the description he's clearly talking about the same thing. My main worry is how Perceptions of religious imagery in natural phenomena so totally downgrades these possible explanations to a footnote after all the anecdotal stuff. Tearlach 02:57, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Apophenia/Pareidolia merge?

These two articles seem to cover the same ground. I propose a merger.--Snowgrouse 08:44, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

They are different, though, and the Skepdic covers them separately. I added a pareidolia section to apophenia to further intertwine the two articles. Λυδαcιτγ 01:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)