UKH

Apophenia (the tendency to perceive a connection or meaningful pattern between unrelated or random things) is surely the weak spot in cognitive processing and a catalyst for being exploited by misinformation and/or developing a debilitating spectrum of mental illnesses.

I should think that it's also a fundamental cog in the creative mindset, which could explain why many creative folk are "delicate flowers"; no offense intended; we need creatives.

Instead of debating with the deluded, the flat-earthers (being possibly the most palatable example), or fire-fighting - treating mental illness when it's really a bit late, we should as well be clinically putting their cognitive processes beneath the metaphorical microscope and encouraging a healthy and critical mindset. In the words of Bull Murray "It's hard to win an argument with a smart person, but it's damn near impossible to win an argument with a stupid person".

I'm open minded and so shoot me down (metaphorically please) if I'm being apophenic myself!

There have long been calls that schools should be teaching critical thinking rather than facts. Teach children how to access and assess information and they will learn the rest themselves. All the more important now that people are continually bombarded with an endless stream of utter drivel that is carefully designed to appeal to all our biases.

I'm not sure I agree with your premise; abstract modelling is the basis for human innovation, as opposed to learned behaviour which we share with lots of other animals.

So you could get someone to teach you how to solve a Rubik's cube, or you could randomly twist it around until you begin to see how it works.

Creatives, and flat-earthers, have developed their own models of how the world works. From the artists you can get amazing art, if you can relate to it somehow, which expands your ideas of the world. Flat-earthers feel happy that they've shown those pesky scientists the finger. Religious types have found a construct which satisfies their moral and emotional needs. Scientists are satisfied that their modelling is correct and verifiable.

All of these things, which are of course highly debatable, contain cognitive weak spots and are catalysts for being exploited by misinformation, spring from your apophenia.

Terry Pratchett said: "fantasy is where the falling angel meets the rising ape". Terry is always right.

"Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time." ~ Terry Pratchett

Can you give details of a couple of examples, please? Would it include religious beliefs which may be used to explain how everything is interpreted as a meaningful pattern due to there being a divine creator?

You can't go wrong with facts.

In terms of psychological wellbeing at least, I really think that asking ourselves “If I let this thought dictate what I do, does it take me in the direction of a more fulfilling life?” is more important than getting too caught up in whether the thought is strictly “right” or “wrong”.

I think there is probably an element of truth in this, but for a different reason. We all vary in terms of how intensely we feel emotions and how much we are affected by what happens around us. There’s a range of normal, healthy human experience within which some of us are more emotionally “flat”, and some experience emotions more intensely. Someone’s success as an artist/actor/musician/whatever usually depends on their ability to move other people emotionally - I think it makes sense that the people who are best at that are often those who experience emotions relatively intensely themselves and are more connected with their emotions.

A few of you may have heard of Edward De Bono = "Lateral Thinking as a skill".  Thats a lot of what he promoted.   I enjoyed his books and his lectures.   I'm sure many are on-line.
 

When I lived briefly  in Argentina lateral thinking/thinking as a skill,  was taught by some schools.

You can be presented with a series of unconnected facts, and draw an incorrect conclusion.

Worse still, once the brain has connected those facts, breaking that connection is incredibly hard.

Spotting patterns between unrelated things is as much the stuff of creativity and innovation as it is the tendency towards odd beliefs. I think they probably come from the same place.

If logic and imagination work well together, great things can happen. If either one is over-dominant, it heads towards dysfunction - like apophenia as you describe. Maybe the opposite of apophenia is a form of autism - strictly ordered and highly dependent on what is already known; less willing to entertain 'left field' imaginative ideas.

Imaginative ideas are easily shot down by inflexible logic. Hence 'delicate flowers' often wither under such an onslaught. I think the dominant consensus seems to be that it is safer to languish in established certainties than it is to entertain the possibilities of what could be known. Delicate flowers may wither, but purveyors of weaponised logic are often lacking in courage.

I think the hierarchy should be the big idea (imagination) first, then supported by the realistic steps (logic) to support it and to help anchor the idea in certainty. In other words, the parts should be in service to the whole, not an end in itself - certainly at and near conceptual stages.

So wrong. Scientists are seldom satisfied with current explanations of the real world and are always seeking better.

No he didn't.  Humanity is where the falling angel meets the rising ape.  But he did say that humans need fantasy to be human.

"The truth may be out there, but the lies are inside your head.”

Ok, disregarding summarised quotes and plain misquotes, let’s cut to the chase and repeat one of the better philosophical passages of modern literature:

All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."

REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.

"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"

YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.

"So we can believe the big ones?"

YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.

"They're not the same at all!"

YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.

"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"

MY POINT EXACTLY.