Cheesus, It’s Just a Type 1 Error

cheesus2Dan and Sara Bell have seen Jesus again. Once more, he has appeared in a convenience snack. In this case, the deity appears in the form of a “Cheeto” – a rather disgusting corn-based munchie from the US that sticks to the roof of your mouth and clogs the gaps in your teeth. We covered this tendency of seeing the divine in an earlier blog on pareidolia where Jesus turned up on the backside of a dog. No doubt, Dan and Sara will try their luck on eBay where other examples of divine apparitions in snacks such as cheese toasties and pizzas have sold for silly money. 

This nonsense bring me to Michael Shermer’s piece in this month’s Scientific American about what he calls “patternicity” – the human tendency to find meaningful patterns in meaningless noise. (He also gives, “SuperSense” a good plug in the article so I am hoping this mention will drive some of his readers over here). Patternicity is the consequence of a brain that automatically seeks out structure in the environment, looking for significant events. This tendency is particularly strong in the case of detecting people and faces as our brains readily interpret all manner of random configurations as evidence for others. As the Scottish philosopher Hume said, “We find human faces in the moon, armies in the clouds.”

The psychologist Stewart Guthrie has argued that this is a perceptual bias that means we are trip-wired to detecting the presence of potential enemies even when the evidence is so weak. It is better to assume that someone is hiding in the bushes rather than ignore them. So if you see a face in the bushes when there is none, this is know as a Type 1 error because you have inferred the presence of something which is not really there. On the other hand, if you ignore the face in the bushes when there really is an enemy hiding in there then that would be a Type 2 error. The evolutionary argument is that it is better to make a Type 1 error than a Type 2 error because the consequences of ignoring the evidence of a potential enemy are much greater than assuming that someone is there.

However, I don’t think you necessarily need an evolutionary argument based on potential threat for the person bias. All the evidence suggests that newborns (human and monkey) have built-in mechanisms for paying extra attention to faces so we are supersensitive to any face-like pattern to begin with. We even have special face processing areas in the visual parts of our brain. So having a perceptual bias could arise from a variety of different advantages, not necessarily enemy-detecting.

Shermer’s discussion of Type 1 and Type 2 is very relevant to one of my arguments developed in SuperSense – namely that individual propensity to supernatural belief is supported by their interpretation of ambiguous evidence. You can test this by presenting people with computer tasks where they have to detect a faint pattern that may or may not be present among random noise.

Individuals who score highly on scales that measure supernatural belief are also more likely to make Type 1 errors compared to those who score low on such measures who make Type 2 mistakes. So we vary in our susceptibility in detecting evidence and how we interpret it. If you already have a strong belief that there are significant patterns out there, then you will more readily find evidence for it. Beautiful theory, isn’t it. I can easily see all the evidence to support it! Or that might be my SuperSense at work.

12 Comments

Filed under book publicity, In the News, Research

12 responses to “Cheesus, It’s Just a Type 1 Error

  1. Arno

    You know, it is at times like this that I really wish that some culture, somewhere, had a cheesemaking deity. The heated discussions between believers of the cheese deity and christians about whom the Holy Cheetos really represents, would provide me with endless joy.

  2. podblack

    Blessed are the cheesemakers? Or any manufacturers of dairy products?

  3. It’s time to trot out my old joke again….

    You know the one…

    Yes, you do! – the one about the bloke who opened a dairy products shop in Palestine, and called it…

    (wait for it…..)

    Cheeses of Nazareth.

  4. poietes

    Cheeses of Nazareth. Good one. Old, but good. Still got a chuckle out of me.

    Now, let me beg to differ here on the wonderfulness of Cheetos. I love them. They are disgustingly nasty, contain MSG, are really bad for me, and do leave a film on your tongue and teeth. That being said, when you are craving salt, as I still do, Cheetos are better than potato chips (or crisps). For some reason, I prefer the nasty coated kind of salty snacks like Cheetos and Doritos.

    As to Jesus the Cheetoh–I actually thought that it looked more like one of the monks in Monty Python’s Holy Grail, you know, the ones who walked in a line carrying their bibles, and after each chant, they would whack themselves in the head.

    See, I made you take a second look. Don’t you think that my analysis is much more on point?

  5. What the **** makes people think that it looks like this Jesus chap?

    It looks more like some little old biddy hanging on to an invisible zimmer frame.

    But… You WILL believe that it’s Jesus…of course it’s Jesus…. what else could it be… it’s a SIGN, I tell you, a SIGN…

    …that we should all eat more cheetos.

    What a canny bit of marketing. One carefully crafted vaguely deity-shaped article in every 10,000th bag, and you’ve got a whole heap of free publicity. Just don’t do one that looks like Mohammed, or an angry mob will come and burn your factory down.

  6. Arno

    Or, in a shameless reference to a certain Oscar winning movie with Daniel Day-Lewis:

    I
    WILL
    EAT
    YOUR
    PROPHET!!
    *crunch*
    I will eat him up!!

  7. 2Newfs

    For all you Cheeto lovers out there – and you know who we are – may I suggest a book? “The End of Overeating” by David Kessler examines how food is designed to be craveable, and reward pathways in the brain. I look at the supermarket in a new light. I wonder how many deities (and potential eBay silliness) I’ve crunched over the years by not paying attention to the patterns! Cthulu for sure.

  8. My only problem with your argument here is that you call cheetos “rather disgusting” when they clearly don’t become that until you’ve eaten your way through half the bag.

    Try chugging a Coke with them next time. That will make it easier for you to enjoy their unique…. flavor… longer.
    🙂

  9. Katie

    I was just about to chime in about the deliciousness of cheetos when I realised that it’s all tha laydeez giving it props. Maybe you need to have had a certain time of the month in order to appreciate them – though men definitely get PMS…

  10. Pingback: Blog Anthology Final Selections! | Young Australian Skeptics

  11. Pingback: Michael Shermer’s Believing Brain «

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s