Talk:Pareidolia

Archive

Talk page archived as of September 29, 2007. JFlav 20:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

foto

I think there is an incorrect foto posted. it concerns the picture of the fire that, so it is said, looks like the the written Allah yet it does NOT. I read arabic every day and there is no distinctive appearance to Allah. So I' take it out.

if you need to refer to Allah, please take note of this url: www20.brinkster.com/yyasir/moa/clouds.jpg

the fire is anyway not een correct example, making questions raised up about the person which want necessarly like to connect a negative event (explosion fire) to a religion(ous content) the person doesn not like.

thank you for your understanding

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.198.201.157 (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarism?

The text on this article is a direct copy from here: http://www.reference.com/search?q=Pareidolia 150.254.181.174 (talk) 14:00, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

That page indicates that Wikipedia is the source. WTucker (talk) 14:08, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Italian Peninsula

By the way the Italian Peninsula looks like a high heel boot.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.98.145.96 (talk) 09:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

IPA

Is /pærɪˈdoʊliə/ really how this is pronounced? æ is the sound in the beginning of "apple", and pærɪ would seem pretty unnatural in English...I had always assumed the first vowel in "pareidolia" was pronounced similarly to the vowel in "pAranormal", etc. Anyway, maybe this IPA is right, who knows, I just figured I should check to make sure it's not an error. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Real science?

It seems somwhat bizarre that Okamura's work is covered in a sub-section headed Scientific whereas the Rorschach test is not. But these two examples clearly do need separation. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I guess it depends on your opinion on whether or not the Rorschach test is scientific or not. As you can see in the Rorschach test article, there is a large body of evidence that questions the scientific validity of the test, and even whether it is really scientific, or rather pseudoscience. Given this debate within the Rorschach test world (and article) if we did not separate it, then we would be backing the position that the Rorschach test is indeed scientific, which would violate WP:NPOV Edhubbard (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes certainly separation required. Was more thrown by the Scientific sub-section heading which seems ambiguous. It may be read as an "example type", but because the Rorschach is not given any adjectival type, but merely its name, it seems to suggest that the Rorscharch is definitely NOT scientific, or even not science. Perhaps a sub-heading Personality assessment or Projective psychological test might redress the balance? Or replacing Scientific with Fossils? How does Mr. Okamura's work count more as scientific than the Rorscharch? To me it certainly doesn't look like science, and thus can't be "scientifc", certainly no more than the Rorschach can. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you're right there. Perhaps something like Fossils and Projective tests would keep the two clearly separate, and maintain them at an equal level of how even great minds can be fooled by the human brain's ability to impose structure on the world around us. I think that Okamura's work may have been scientific before this episode, but this certainly was not the brightest day for scientific thinking. Edhubbard (talk) 23:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. But I think some great minds might have raised WP:NPOV questions about the applicabilty of the term "fooled"? Were they still with us, of course. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

:-) Point taken. Cheers, Edhubbard (talk) 01:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

New headings a big improvement! Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:18, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

pareidolia can be used deliberately in art, in a positive way

the overall tone of this article is negative: in most of the examples given, people who experience pareidolia are presented as fools.

what about deliberate artistic use of suggestive, incomplete forms: inkblot art, marbling, certain other types of abstraction?

if pareidolia is a widespread, human phenomenon, why does this article slant it so strongly towards skeptics of psychic phenomena?

numerous recording artists deliberately include backwards speech in their recordings, sometimes to take the mickey out of people who are afraid of backmasking. some cursory research into heavy metal music (as well as other genres) will reveal many examples.

suggested articles to link to: abstract art surrealist automatism ink painting (in particular, splashed ink painting or broken ink painting) paper marbling noise music (in particular, the aesthetics of noise)

124.182.251.47 (talk) 01:06, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

That's a good idea. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 01:20, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Link to intelligent design?

Should this article link intelligent design? I am not one who takes reverting well but I am curious if this phenomenon can contribute to ID and related articles.--Kencaesi (talk) 16:37, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I was just querying the possible correlation between Intelligent Design and Pereidolia (sic?) myself and wondering why their hasn't been any research or studies attempting to link the two. Seedogg (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

you mean you wish to proactively prove your a priori beliefs as right? 2600:8800:2517:5E00:1D1B:7AC3:1CC3:C1A4 (talk) 23:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

No, they do not. But there is consensus that ID is a dishonest PR campaign, and in the fifteen years since the first suggestion above, nobody found any sources about a connection to the visual effect. You can safely ignore it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

this speaks for itself

http://fireside.designcommunity.com/topic-19642-0-asc-0.html 74.196.22.125 (talk) 04:11, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe it does speak for itself, but I'm not sure it speaks about Pareidolia, unless it could be proved that these are natural geographic features that are being mis-interpreted as something else; or that they "look like" something they are not, e.g. facial features, guitars, runways, whatever on a giant scale. Even with the help of Google Global Imaging, it seems we are some way away from that proof yet? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

I would say that there there should be some reference to the concept of ID. There has been a lot of speculation that the entire concept of intelligent design rests on a projection of nothing more than the evolutionary advantages bestowed on animals that utilize search imagery, in the classic ethological sense.

example:

http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/08/our-innate-tend.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.234.139.47 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Untitled

How come ive seen faces everywhere for 11 months? I wake up one day and suddenly: Cars, houses and other objects do expressions... I also see faces in any pattern... tree's, walls, floors, rugs etc... Been to 4 doctors and no one know whats wrong with me... Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.239.111.66 (talk) 12:11, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

I think what is going on here is simply that once you have noticed that one everyday object happens to resemble a face, then you suddenly start seeing other examples of the same kind of thing almost everywhere you look. Any random object that can be construed to resemble a face automatically has an expression of some sort. I think that kind of thing happens to a lot of people. It does not sound pathological to me if that is the whole extent of it. Invertzoo (talk) 00:50, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The article mentions pathology only in relation to loss of face-recognition ability (in fact seems a little misplaced here). But has an increased level of pareidolia ever been shown to be an indicator of any deeper pathology, apart from the single case study cited? Martinevans123 (talk) 09:27, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Mostly Faces

It seems that human beings (and perhaps animals) have some image pre-processing going on that alerts us, for example, to faces staring at us, including in our peripheral vision. (I don't have a source on this, but studied vision systems in the 1980s at Arizona State University and recall this.) This phenomenon aids our social interactions, and is also a defense mechanism (if an animal or a person is looking at you from behind a bush, you might want to know). If this is true, this would be a physiological factor that would help explain why pareidolia is so common, and especially regarding faces. Bob Enyart, Denver radio host at KGOV (talk) 17:13, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

fake face

Recognition of the fake face (two circles + line inside circle) is quoted as being a good example of Pareidolia. Is this really true? Do we recognise it because it "Looks like a face", or do we recognise it because it looks like "the well-known symbol for a face". Not certain this is the best possible example. RichardNeill (talk) 02:27, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

And if that is an example of pareidolia, when does an image stop being pareidolia and become just an image? Is it pareidolia to think that this arrangement of pigments looks like a face? Wardog (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Depends if we see Leonardo's work as "a vague and random stimulus"? But more generally. I think the idea is that the stimulus has not been created, by a person, to look like anything in particular, and certainly not to look like a human face, for example? Knucklehead-McSpazatron (talk) 20:07, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally I think the fake face is unnecessary in the article - the concept is quite clear without it. I'd be happy to see it gone. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:17, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

The problem with the face is that it apparently was designed to look like a face, it is in no way random. Perhaps we could replace it with another easily recognizable non-martian face. There are many examples of objects and even chemical structures which look like faces. --92.26.33.243 (talk) 10:20, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

This strikes me as (maybe) a kind of paradox. The arrangement of 3 circles and a line was (I'm assuming) "designed" as an example of the phenomenon, therefore perhaps shouldn't be used as a "real" example of it. However, a chemical structure or photograph of a rock that evokes the phenomenon can be said to be a "real" (i.e. "not obviously designed") example of it. But couldn't the very fact that the image was selected by a person (a human, I assume one without severe prosopagnosia) selected the image in a way itself a kind of 'non-randomness'?

I suppose this gets back to the old philosophical question (I'm not a philosophy major, so this is probably rather inaccurate): what exactly is "an object" (or "a picture" in this case): is it the arrangement of pigment atoms on a substrate, or is it the perception of that image that is formed "inside" a person's consciousness? What exactly does "random data" mean? Is the image of "the face" on Mars really "random" - I can after all identify what contours seem to be the eyes, mouth, nose, etc. Doesn't the very fact that I can do that mean the data isn't truly "random"?

An interesting experiment might be to see if you could very the probability that a person would or wouldn't perceive a face or whatever in an image - and then do the same test on people both with and without varying degrees of prosopagnosia. Then see if there were a correlation between the "percentage of recognizability" and brain activity.

Some of the examples given (specifically the images of Galle Crater, Daluis France gorge, and "Old Man of the Mountain") I could just barely see the illusion - although I do have (I think) a mild-moderate degree of some form of prosopagnosia. Jimw338 (talk) 03:34, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I completely agree with the argument that the symbol widely known to represent a face is not a good example of pareidolia. We don't perceive a face in that image, we recognise it as a representation of a face because we were told at some point (in kindergarten or wherever) that it was supposed to represent a face. As such, we recognise it as the symbol for a face but that's not pareidolia. A good example of pareidolia can be seen in the pictures Example1 Example2 of the mushroom cloud of the atomic bomb detonated over Nagasaki. Goscuter1 12:09, 22 January 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Goscuter1 (talk • contribs)

It seems that wikipedia is supporting the idea that the face on Mars is a trick of the light because subsequently provided WORSE images show a blurry cliff that doesn't look like a face. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.13.53.93 (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Mars' little Bigfoot?

What is the licensing on that photo from a Mars rover where people spotted a silhouette matching very closely one of the frames of the famous shaky blurry alleged bigfoot spotting film; except that the if you see the rest of the picture you realize the shape is very small, not even close to human sized, much less taller like the cryptozoologic primate? If the license isn't gonna be an issue i think it would be nice to have that photo in the article too. --TiagoTiago (talk) 07:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Or maybe the so-called "rat" on Mars that was just photographed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.159.194.78 (talk) 02:20, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

Constelations

I thought constelations were a mneumonic device for navigation. Drrake (talk) 18:43, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

The Jurist

When I click through to the large version of The Jurist, it's obvious why the painting appears on this article. However, there's no mention of either the work or the artist in the text. I think it would be helpful to provide a line about it in the Examples:Art section. Sbeitzel (talk) 15:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I concur exactly. I was about to make the same post. The picture has no caption, so it's impossible to know what point it's meant to support.Landroo (talk) 20:34, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Improper use of Carl Sagan anecdote in paragraph 1 Explanations

p1 Explanations >"Carl Sagan hypothesized that human beings are "hard-wired" from birth to identify a human face. He viewed this as a survival technique which enables people to use only minimal details to identify a face from a distance and in poor visibility."

This doesn't seem necessary. It appears as a layman's anecdote based on interest in popular science. Carl Sagan has doctoral expertise in astronomy and astrophysics, not evolutionary biology or bio-mimicry. Why describe the "hypothesis" or opinions of a non-expert in a page that is clearly not about planetary science, astronomy, or astrophysics? — Preceding unsigned comment added by FilthyTicklr (talk • contribs) 19:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Tend to agree. Neonate preference for human faces, or even face patterns, is very well established in the psychological literature. Suggest replacing with a passage from more relevant work and/or quote from a more relevant specialist. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:28, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the Carl Sagan content. Wahrmund (talk) 20:52, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

ISIS dildo flag

There has been a stir in the media about the ISIS dildo flag, where someone created an obvious parody of the ISIS flag with the silhouettes of sex toys. CNN mistook the parody for the real thing. I'd classify this as a case of pareidolia. Would a Wikipedia:Reliable source agree? — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 14:45, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

In this case, meaning was found in data that was clearly intended to have meaning, but it was not quite the meaning the data's originator had in mind. What CNN thought it had found was someone parading around an ISIS flag, not a flag intended to ridicule that flag. The result was a social faux pas and the news clip going viral. — Rickyrab. ^{Yada yada yada} 15:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

If you could find a WP:RS report on this story that used the word "pareidolia", then it might be a good candidate. Except that the dildo patterns were purposefully arranged to look like something else. This is not what pareidolia is. But then, elsewhere, we also see ... a brain stem hidden in the Sistine Chapel: [1]. So, who knows. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:21, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

"purposefully arranged to look like something else" -- just like "The Jurist," n'est-ce pas? 96.36.9.12 (talk) 01:25, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Pareidolia on Pluto

There has been a lot of social media attention about various shapes on Pluto, such as a heart or Pluto the Pup, and there have also been a few news articles on this, for example this: [2]. I am not sure about the copyright rules regarding these things (NASA allows free use of their images, but Pluto the Pup might have some copyright issues, although it could qualify as fair use), so I'll leave it to the editors to decide whether to include this example in the article. Biodome (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

How amazing that it has the eyes and nose drawn on ready. That must have taken ages a few moments with paintshop pro, not really the full nine years. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Assuming that this is a serious suggestion -- and that mocking newcomers is still considered poor form -- the answer is that unless/until a reliable source specifically identifies it as "pareidolia", it cannot be included in the article. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 19:36, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Apologies, Biodome - was your suggestion serious? My understanding of pareidolia is that it has to exist without the helping hand of a friendly cartoonist. Maybe you could find a better source where, as User:DoctorJoeE suggests, is is discussed as "pareidolia"? Martinevans123 (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I think, Martinevans123, you may have missed the point of the suggestion. The image released by NASA didn't have anything drawn on it; but the resemblance to a cartoonish head-and-nose shape was promptly (and apparently independently) spotted by a number of social media types who enhanced the image. That makes it something pretty close to pareidolia – but, I agree, unless we actually have a reliable source using the term, it shouldn't go in. GrindtXX (talk) 21:00, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I missed the point of the suggestion as the only source provided was an image of the surface of Pluto with the eyes and nose of a cartoon dog drawn on it. Not my idea of pareidolia. But then, I'm just mocking newcomers and that's poor form, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:06, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I didn't realize that the article had to explicitly mention pareidolia to qualify as a source, since the whole thing fits the definition of pareidolia anyway. A few social media sources did link these images with pareidolia, but they aren't reliable. I guess I'll wait for some serious articles to pop up then. Thanks for the info and help everyone. Biodome (talk) 22:11, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Pft. I'm just mocking you, apparently. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

obligatory XKCD link50.193.19.66 (talk) 17:00, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Are the Jurist painting and the pies really examples of pareidolia

They are nice images, but surely Pareidolia is seeing things in "random" images that are not there, whereas the painting and the pies are images which were made deliberately and therefore not really representative of the phemonena being discussed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.23.83.11 (talk) 20:58, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm in two minds about this one... on the one hand it is not strictly Pareidolia, since the image has been purposely created as an illusion and is not random, but on the other it leverages the Pareidolia of the viewer to see the result as a face (albeit with heavy surrounding visual cues). I'm inclined to leave it for now but maybe it should be removed... other thoughts, anyone? Tony 1212 (talk) 21:58, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Although it's usually thought of as the misinterpretation of random, accidental patterns, pareidolia also involves misinterpreting deliberate patterns, like paintings: "the mind responds to a stimulus ... by perceiving a familiar pattern where none exists." So I think at least one of these pictures is an appropriate example of deliberately invoking pareidolia; whether we need both of them is another matter. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 22:11, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Pareidolia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091013143627/http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/33-creepiest-clouds-on-earth/1515 to http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/featured/33-creepiest-clouds-on-earth/1515

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:54, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Too many photos of examples

We currently have 13 photos of big rocks that look like faces or animals that have been given names and are backed up on their individual article. I think that's too many, and is becoming a pointless trivia pit. There are thousands of such examples around the world - I could add a Frog Rock and Indian Head from within 100 miles of where I'm sitting, and any editor could probably add one or two more.

I don't think they add anything to the article, aside from adding to load times in areas with slow internet connection. I would like to get rid of any that are not truly famous or very unusual; obviously there's an element of subjectivity involved, so I wonder what other editors think? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 19:35, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Well, Mister, if you refuse diversity by reverting original illustrations like this, please don't be surprised there are still only boring faces in the article. Now deal with it. Good luck -- Basile Morin (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that there are too many rocks -- too common, not all are notable. Be bold, DWB.Hollarbohem (talk) 16:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC)

I removed a few, which are not mentioned in the article that they wikilink to. That still leaves a lot. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Now we're getting additions of photos of stuff-that-looks-facelike - furniture, etc. These are even more endless than rocks-that-look-facelike, and they don't have the excuse of being known publicly. These photos are just Hey, that looks like a face - cool!" trivia. Ugh. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:14, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree there has to be a limit. Personally, I don't see a problem with a gallery of up to 20 items, provided they show a variety of subject and preferably are well-known/ in public space. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:36, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings about this. The new editor (whose username I won't attempt to reproduce) has at least been replacing items in the gallery, rather than just expanding it ad infinitum, and the result is a rather better range and variety of examples than just a bunch of similar-looking rock formations. But I do agree that – ideally – we should only include images that some external third-party source has identified as examples of pareidolia; and not images that some individual editor thinks look a bit like faces. From that point of view, I think the Samurai crab is an excellent addition, and well worth jettisoning a rockface to include; but I'm less happy with (though not implacably opposed to) the jet, the furniture and the woodgrain. I'm more strenuously opposed to the two Arcimboldo paintings – both the new one added to the gallery, and The Jurist, which has been in the body of the article for some years – because those are not random collections of stimuli onto which the brain imposes a pattern, but artworks deliberately created so that they can be read in two alternative ways – in my opinion not pareidolia at all. GrindtXX (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

(unindent) I also agree that "we should only include images that some external third-party source has identified as examples of pareidolia and not images that some individual editor thinks look a bit like faces" - but that would (I think) kill off everything but lots of large rock faces given a name by local tourism folks. Which would get us back to where we started. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:12, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

By the way, there's an entire Twitter feed (@FacesPics) that is nothing but pictures of things that look like faces - hundreds of them. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 20:19, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Images of rocks, like say photos of DavidWBrooks’ Frog Rock and Indian Head, would be easy — because there are fewer concerns regarding copy-right. I suggest that if anyone can find what they think is a good image they should go ahead and put it in the gallery, it can always be deleted and discussed, etc. especially the way this article seems to be in an evolving state.

I'm not sure I agree with DavidWBrooks that examples need to be restricted to the “truly famous or very unusual” — not that I’m opposed to such things as exceptions, but I think instead that this article should be encyclopedic — in the sense of being open to demonstrating the extent of pareidolia in terms of its definition. That could include one or two great looking rocks and spiders, but it might have to include a few things that are common, as well. Like an electric socket. Because the word may be unusual and those who know of the word may be a special few, but the actual thing (pareidolia) can be found in toast and spots on the floor. We need of each category enough to demonstrate meaning. We might only need one or two rocks, for example. And we can loosen up a bit to also include David’s “truly famous or very unusual”.

Grindtxx makes good points, but is opposed to the article including the examples of paintings, because Grindtxx doesn’t consider paintings to be pareidolia because thay are not “random collections of stimuli onto which the brain imposes a pattern…” I respectfully think that examples of paintings need to be in the article because there are a large number of reliable sources that discuss them as pareidolia and that use the term pareidolia. And sources don’t confine the term to be sourced by “random collections of stimuli”. For example a cloud does not become a random collection of stimuli when it contains what looks like a face.

Do we really need a third party to claim that a particular image is what it claims to be? I don't think so. Because if Wikipedia shows a photo of a tree or a dog — those images are not also required to carry an assertion (like a notary public) that that particular image is in fact a tree or dog. The usual procedure (and perhaps we should stick to the usual procedures and guidelines on this) is simply to post the image of a tree, and if any other editor wants to say: “That’s not a tree” — then it can be deleted and discussed.Hollarbohem (talk) 15:57, 20 July 2019 (UTC)

From WP:Gallery - "A gallery section may be appropriate in some Wikipedia articles if a collection of images can illustrate aspects of a subject that cannot be easily or adequately described by text or individual images. ... Gallery images must collectively add to the reader's understanding of the subject without causing unbalance to an article or section within an article while avoiding similar or repetitive images, unless a point of contrast or comparison is being made." (I added the bold).

So what's the point of having lots of pictures of things that look like faces? We can't be exhaustive - wikipedia doesn't try to be exhaustive - so how does the second or third or fourth mountain-like-a-head or building-like-a-face or whatever-like-something-else help readers? - DavidWBrooks (talk) 12:37, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DavidWBrooks, the gallery should not be exhaustive and doesn’t really need more than one example of a “mountain-like-a-head”. I also agree with WP:Gallery (which David linked to), particularly when it says articles should “avoiding similar or repetitive images”. The gallery section might benefit by a bit of trimming. I would start with the “Old Man of the Mountain” postage stamp, which shows a rock formation that collapsed years ago — so that face doesn’t exist anymore. Although if you look long enough at the rock that remains after the collapse, you might start to see other faces. If we had to keep only one rock, I would keep "Elephant Rock”, because I think it resembles an elephant beautifully. It seems to have been carved by a sculptor (probably the wind and water) that seems to know elephants. - Hollarbohem (talk) 13:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

Type of heuristic?

Is it related to Representativeness heuristic ?

Zezen (talk)

"Matrixing" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Matrixing. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 18#Matrixing until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Are the "face on Mars" and Martian "canals" really examples?

In the text of the article, it's clear that both of these were the result of low-quality imaging. The lines that were said to be canals apparently disappeared with better quality telescopes, etc. And the area that looked like a face in the original pictures clearly does not when you take a modern satellite picture. So is this really pareidolia? The Earth examples involve situations where people have complete(ish) information and still see impressions of faces, etc. A low quality picture of an alien construction could be indistinguishable from a low quality picture of a natural phenomenon, so I don't think people's preference for the alien explanation is the same topic as pareidolia. It has more to do with people enjoying speculating about interesting explanations over more likely mundane ones. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.1.142.1 (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Differences in autistic people

I have just edited part of the article to give information that it may be different with autistic people. After editing within a paragraph, I have now read later on in the same paragraph and it occurs to me that my edit is, indeed, correct and like a Eureka moment as the rest of the paragraph (that I didn't even read before editing the parts that were, for me, incomplete and inaccurate to apply to everyone) fits in. It says "A 'stick figure face', despite its simplicity, can convey mood information, and be drawn to indicate emotions such as happiness or anger. This robust and subtle capability is hypothesized to be the result of eons of natural selection favoring people most able to quickly identify the mental state, for example, of threatening people, thus providing the individual an opportunity to flee or attack pre-emptively." This rings true with one instance in my life where, as an autistic person, I didn't recognise that a fight was breaking out in a pub until it happened. (Fortunately I am rarely out because my disability has reduced my socialising, otherwise this would have been much more dangerous to me.) The first I knew was that my friends/colleagues, on the night out, suddenly all started moving away from a pub, which caused me to move with them. Whilst moving away with them, I turned and looked into the pub and then saw a man throw a punch at someone else in the pub. This was the first I knew of the fight, my colleagues were obviously aware before it happened but the first I knew was seeing him get up and give the punch - I saw no "stick figure face" on him and wasn't even aware of any stick figure faces. It therefore conveyed absolutely no mood information at all to me and instead conveyed nothing as I didn't even know it was there. And, still, to this day I didn't even see the 'stick figure face' - I wasn't even aware of any such concept until I have read this article over a decade later. (Even if I try to look for stick-figure faces in future, in order to avoid danger happening to me, I still won't be able to see them. So this article's information does fit in.) I was aware my colleagues were moving away, for some unknown reason to me at the precise moment they did, and I moved with them. Then the fight broke out (and at that moment I became aware of why they had moved). They were obviously aware, in advance, that the fight was going to happen, even before it did so. I was unaware: at the time they started moving I didn't know why they were moving. Then, a split second later, when I turned whilst moving and saw the man get up and throw the punch, I knew why they had moved and were moving. I now, from this article, know the reason why. EDIT: And of course, even if I were to try to look for stick-figures in people's faces, I would not be able to see them before my conscious mind had received the information. There is simply no way for me to be aware before the information has been received but, in any event, I can't even see stick-figure faces for staring and would have to be looking at numerous people in turn in order to try to see if any of them had a stick face and still not be able to recognise any of them doing so as, it seems, I can't even see it is there. EDIT 2: Actually they don't alert the observer's mind to the emotional state of the subject. If the subject is myself (or presumably someone else on the autistic spectrum), my emotional expression, of which I am most likely unaware, would not reflect my emotional state and people would think, even subconsciously, my emotional state is something that it isn't - they are not able to read me - even if my face contains any expression and gives people anything, I am just not aware of what it might be saying, no idea, total blankspot. I know people used to come to me at work many years ago and ask me if I was stressed or tell me I was stressed, when in fact I was at my happiest and wasn't having any stress at all. Then, when I started to go into and was into my stress illness several years later, no-one recognised anything was happening to me at all.

aspaa (talk) 05:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

"Among Us" cultural phenomenon

It would be a good idea to dedicate a section describing the recent large-scale trend of seeing real-life objects or images from art as resembling the characters in the video game "Among Us." It's a very prominent example of pareidolia being memeified in our culture.

Example: some kind of bathroom appliance which resembles an Among Us character

(reference image of among us characters)

Foobles (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2021 (UTC) foobles

Lead image?

As this article is about a visual phenomenon, I think it would benefit from a good, clear image in the lead. (It used to, until July last year, in the form of the "Face on Mars", which an editor then moved into the body of the article. I tend to agree with that move: the face is worth illustrating, but it isn't really a leading "iconic" example, as it seems to work only for a photo taken from a particular angle, in particular lighting conditions.) The obvious candidates for a replacement would be one of the images currently in the gallery; or maybe a composite of, say, four examples. What do others think? GrindtXX (talk) 14:31, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Sure but the question is: which one? One possibility would be the Old Man in the Mountain stamp, because it reflects not just a thing-that-looks-like-a-face but the fact that the thing was very well known. However, I live in New Hampshire so I may be prejudiced. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 14:38, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

At default size.

That was actually my first thought, and for just those reasons (and I'm in the UK). The only problem is that it's a slightly low-res image, that wouldn't enlarge to the larger size ideal for the lead (see right). It would work as part of a composite group, however. GrindtXX (talk) 15:08, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Another negative, from my point of view, is that it's an artist's impression, which could of course be made to look "more" like anything. A photograph of the real rock formation, or indeed of anything in the real world, should illustrate the phenomenon much more convincingly? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Reference 34 ("Does the Devil's Face Appear in the Smoke on 9/11?") is a bad link

"During the September 11 attacks, television viewers supposedly saw the face of Satan in clouds of smoke billowing out of the World Trade Center after it was struck by the airplane."

1. 34 Emery, David (2 September 2018). "Does the Devil's Face Appear in the Smoke on 9/11?". ThoughtCo. Retrieved 21 April 2019.

This link actually takes you to a liveabout.com page which has nothing to do with the reference. Searching Google turns up 3 irrelevant results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dgramstorff (talk • contribs) 00:43, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

My former cow-orker Dr S opined that the “face” was less Satan and more Fenella out of “Chorlton And The Wheelies”. Which cannot now be unseen. Mr Larrington (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

receptacles

How has American electrical receptacles not been included in the examples section it has to be one of the most know pareidolia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.30.199 (talk) 14:21, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Talk about pareidolia in astronomy

This is a really interesting topic! (So that's why I see eyes everywhere.) But seriously, there are lot of really good examples written here, and I think it would be necessary to write about astronomical examples too. Most of the deep sky objects got their names because they bear resemblance to some animal or tool. The constellations are the same story. I remember, I've read a pretty long summary about this on an old astronomy blog (with some gibberish name like ivuuzkarvcxfev), maybe I can find it. Is it okay if I write about it? JaceyAbsent (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course, but it needs a better source than some blog. Probably the blog references a better source than you could use. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I created a list of pareidolia in photographs of astronomical objects. Alas, there seems to be no space for such a list in Wikipedia, or...??? DannyCaes (talk) 13:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

The little pareidolia in Apollo 17 photograph AS17-146-22345

Perhaps this could be something for the article. First of all, am I really the first discoverer of that little and somewhat funny pareidolia in Hasselblad photograph AS17-146-22345? It (that pareidolia) is located at the rear part of the depicted Lunar Roving Vehicle (LRV). It looks like the grin of a white skull-like face (dark eyes, dark mouth, rectangle-shaped chin). DannyCaes (talk) 19:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I could not wait. It's in the article since december the 28th of the year 2022, about two days after I mentioned it here in the talk-page. DannyCaes (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, but we can't list everything that editors see in famous photos - it would be endless! Unless there are reputable sources referring to it, it shouldn't be listed. I'm going to remove it. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

It's o.k., it was an experiment to see what would happen if something like this appear'd in a Wikipedia article. I don't have reputable sources, I discovered it "on my own" and suddenly I thought... "Why not?" (Wikipedia). DannyCaes (talk) 10:56, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Other natural examples

Fortunately, there are quite a lot of Wikipedia articles which have descriptions of nicknamed astronomical objects beyond the solar system. Many of them are true pareidolia. On the other hand, still another large part of these nicknamed objects are, say, waiting to get Wikipedia articles (most of them are non-NGC and non-IC objects). The REAL pareidolia are, of course, all the astronomical objects and geological structures in which we see human-like creatures and animals. DannyCaes (talk) 11:18, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Alas, the... eh... expanding list of natural (or rather: astronomical) pareidolia was as big as the universe itself and could not fit in the article. Perhaps... an individual Wikipedia page for the list? (LIST OF NATURAL PAREIDOLIA). DannyCaes (talk) 13:27, 31 December 2022 (UTC)