Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site seismo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!security!genrad!grkermit!masscomp!clyde!floyd!harpo!seismo!flinn
From: flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn)
Newsgroups: net.physics
Subject: Apparent Order in Random Numbers - and worse
Message-ID: <472@seismo.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 15-Dec-83 14:43:51 EST
Article-I.D.: seismo.472
Posted: Thu Dec 15 14:43:51 1983
Date-Received: Sat, 17-Dec-83 01:53:11 EST
Organization: Center for Seismic Studies, Arlington, VA
Lines: 17


From a paper by A. Benjamin in a recent American Scientist:

"Briefly stated, the findings are that when presented with an array of data 
or a sequence of events in which they are instructed to discover an 
underlying order, subjects show strong tendencies to perceive order and 
causality in random arrays, to perceive a pattern or correlation which seems 
a priori intuitively correct even when the actual correlation in the data is
counterintuitive, to jump to conclusions about the correct hypothesis, to 
seek and to use only positive or confirmatory evidence, to construe evidence 
liberally as confirmatory, to fail to generate or to assess alternative 
hypotheses, and having thus managed to expose themselves only to confirmatory 
instances, to be fallaciously confident of the validity of their judgments 
(Jahoda, 1969; Einhorn and Hogarth, 1978).  In the analyzing of past events, 
these tendencies are exacerbated by failure to appreciate the pitfalls of 
post hoc analyses."