AGENTICITY
A term coined by Michael Shermer to refer to the tendency people have to see an ‘agent’ or an intentional cause behind perceived patterns, even if those patterns are accidental and simply the result of chance. It is related to the concept of Apophenia.
Overview:
Agenticity describes a human tendency to see patterns (“Patternicity”) and to assume that something must be behind these patterns. An extension of the teleological fallacy that insists that an outcome must be meaningful, agenticity derives that meaning from intention. Quoting directly from Shermer:
“The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real.”
Application:
Students need to make sure that they are not engaging in either type of error. More importantly, they need to be careful about assigning intent, or even rational cause, to a random event. Agenticity can make people look for conspiracies behind random or unrelated events, and it can cause people to assign morals and intentions to events, actions, or beings that lack both.
When student writers construct arguments, they need to be careful about assuming that any pattern is a meaningful one. Many times, people will have a tendency to force random observation into place in order to construct what seems to be a plausible pattern.
What to Avoid:
Avoid elaborate conspiracy theories and teleological fallacies. Avoid assuming that each thing that is discovered must have been deliberately and intentionally made that way. More importantly, when encountering patterns that are presented by other people, student writers need to look into the pattern and determine if it is accidental (i.e. a random occurrence), meaningful (i.e. there really is something going on), or even manufactured (i.e. the person presenting the pattern has edited the facts in order to make a more believable argument out of random facts).
References:
Shermer, Michael. “Why Do People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World.” Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity
A term coined by Michael Shermer to refer to the tendency people have to see an ‘agent’ or an intentional cause behind perceived patterns, even if those patterns are accidental and simply the result of chance. It is related to the concept of Apophenia.
Overview:
Agenticity describes a human tendency to see patterns (“Patternicity”) and to assume that something must be behind these patterns. An extension of the teleological fallacy that insists that an outcome must be meaningful, agenticity derives that meaning from intention. Quoting directly from Shermer:
“The problem is that we did not evolve a baloney-detection device in our brains to discriminate between true and false patterns. So we make two types of errors: a type I error, or false positive, is believing a pattern is real when it is not; a type II error, or false negative, is not believing a pattern is real when it is. If you believe that the rustle in the grass is a dangerous predator when it is just the wind (a type I error), you are more likely to survive than if you believe that the rustle in the grass is just the wind when it is a dangerous predator (a type II error). Because the cost of making a type I error is less than the cost of making a type II error and because there is no time for careful deliberation between patternicities in the split-second world of predator-prey interactions, natural selection would have favored those animals most likely to assume that all patterns are real.”
Application:
Students need to make sure that they are not engaging in either type of error. More importantly, they need to be careful about assigning intent, or even rational cause, to a random event. Agenticity can make people look for conspiracies behind random or unrelated events, and it can cause people to assign morals and intentions to events, actions, or beings that lack both.
When student writers construct arguments, they need to be careful about assuming that any pattern is a meaningful one. Many times, people will have a tendency to force random observation into place in order to construct what seems to be a plausible pattern.
What to Avoid:
Avoid elaborate conspiracy theories and teleological fallacies. Avoid assuming that each thing that is discovered must have been deliberately and intentionally made that way. More importantly, when encountering patterns that are presented by other people, student writers need to look into the pattern and determine if it is accidental (i.e. a random occurrence), meaningful (i.e. there really is something going on), or even manufactured (i.e. the person presenting the pattern has edited the facts in order to make a more believable argument out of random facts).
References:
Shermer, Michael. “Why Do People Believe Invisible Agents Control the World.” Scientific American. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=skeptic-agenticity
