Type 2 Apophenia: Skotophenia

January 6, 2025

Executive Summary

Apophenia is seeing and believing meaningful connections where there aren't any—a false positive.

There is, however, a distinction between "seeing" and "believing". This difference is key. I will first define the cognitive flaws in relation to “believing” and then show how we can use the “seeing” part as a powerful epistemic tool in our search for truth. Just remember that there is (1) seeing, (2) believing, (3) not seeing at all and (4) refusing to believe.

Type 2 apophenia or as I call it skotophenia is NOT seeing meaningful connections where there ARE valid ones—a false negative.

Skotophenia is the Yang to apophenia’s Yin. Skotophenia is derived from Greek roots: skotos meaning "darkness" and -phenia from phaino, meaning "to appear" or "manifest." Being blind to the truth, making darkness manifest as opposed to the light. Darkness of appearances.

Apophenia (Type 1) is excessive light, seeing patterns that aren’t there. Skotophenia (Type 2) is darkness, rejecting real patterns.

Apophenia (Yang/light) paired with Skotophenia (Yin/dark), as concepts together create a balance (Yin Yang) and which together can be packaged as a “connection” bias. As cognitive errors they are not just seeing or not seeing meaningful connections, they are also believing falsity based on which false path the person has gone. The believing part is what makes them a cognitive error. A type of apophenia, pareidolia is the “error” of seeing faces etc in the clouds. It’s not a cognitive error unless you believe the faces are no longer clouds or are hallucinating the shapes. A duck shape in the clouds is objectively a duck shape in the clouds that many people can agree on upon seeing it. To argue an obvious duck shape cloud is not one because it may be interpreted as a “false shape that wasn’t intended” is insane and is the cognitive error of skotophenia. It is no different than claiming a drawing of a duck is not duck shaped because it is graphite on paper. A cloud in the shape of a duck is the same as graphite in the shape of a duck. Just as recognizing a triangle shaped rock is triangle shaped is not a cognitive error. Recognizing shapes is not a cognitive error. Believing they are something that they aren’t is the error. Seeing a human shape bush at night and believing it is a human is the error. Seeing or recognizing is not an error, believing falsity is.

Carefully using the seeing part of these errors and removing or suspending the believing part as an analysis of our own beliefs, speculations or ideas is a powerful critical thinking tool and brings us much closer to the truth than if we didn’t use it, but of course we should also use it on anything we hear or read from anywhere else. I call this bullshit filtering process a skotologic analysis. Not scatological, but it’s intentionally close.

In epistemology—the study of knowledge and how we justify it—a sound method explores all possible connections; failing to do so represents a significant flaw in epistemology and is itself an error, an error of not attempting to verify. A robust method for gaining valid knowledge would not ignore potential connections between ideas or phenomena, as this would limit our scope and risk overlooking important truths. Failing to explore these connections introduces an incomplete understanding, or worse, a false one. Intentionally failing to explore is willful ignorance. Good epistemology requires vigilance against wrongly discarding possibilities that could lead to deeper insights. To balance apophenia (which I call Type 1) we need a corresponding Yin to its Yang, which I until recently called Type 2 apophenia, which really isn’t “apophenia” so I hereby correct that—iterate—and call it skotophenia.

The two types of cognitive error, apophenia and skotophenia, false-positive and false-negative, can each be used for false support and false denial of a narrative. This gives our collection four cognitive errors. Any narrative and can be viewed as a counter-narrative to its counter-part. Whether it is a narrative or counter-narrative is simply perspective and doesn't effect the false logic being used. So narrative or counter-narrative can be used interchangeably, but I explicitly separate them to show the different ways we might use them in a skotological analysis.

Tetrad: a set of four elements, entities, or components that are closely related or interdependent. The term comes from the Greek word tetrás meaning "four." It is often used in various disciplines to describe structured groupings of four that form a cohesive whole.

The Skotological Tetrad:

Apophenia Type 1, Confirmation Bias: False SUPPORT of a narrative
• Believing false evidence that supports a narrative. (false positive)
• Example: Believing aliens abducted your neighbour because they told you so. (Narrative being "aliens are real")

Skotophenia Type 2, Neglecting Support: False DENIAL of narrative
• Failing to believe valid evidence that supports a narrative. (false negative)
• Example: A detective wrongly overlooking strong evidence from many first-hand witnesses that prove someone is innocent. The narrative is the person is innocent.

Skotophenia Type 2, Neglecting the Counter: False SUPPORT of narrative
• Failing to believe valid evidence that contradicts a narrative. (false negative)
• Example: A spouse refusing to believe their spouse is cheating, ignoring a private investigator’s evidence. The narrative of a faithful spouse.

Apophenia Type 1, Contradiction Bias: False DENIAL of narrative
• Believing false evidence that contradicts a narrative. (false positive)
• Example: Embracing false news stories that deny corruption in an office, when there actually is. Narrative is a corrupt politician.

Purpose:
These categories encourage self-reflection to avoid both false-positive (Type 1) and false-negative (Type 2) errors when interpreting patterns or connections.

Skotology Definition

Skotological is derived from skotophenia (obviously). Combining skotos (darkness) with -logical (related to study or reasoning), it could mean "relating to the study of darkness" or "pertaining to dark reasoning or ideas” but we’re interpreting it to mean “checking for darkness” (Yin). We are using it in a metaphorical context, representing an inquiry or analysis aimed at uncovering deception, ignorance or hidden falsehoods. It involves probing areas where truth has been obscured, distorted or never revealed in the first place, seeking to bring clarity, veritas and illumination. It can be used in many ways:

Philosophical Context:
A skotological examination analyzing belief systems, ideologies, or assumptions to reveal where they lack truth or coherence. It could align with Socratic questioning, aimed at dismantling illusions and uncovering deeper understanding. Keeping in mind that Socrates was a dick for pointing out everyone else’s errors which ultimately caused him his life.

Ethical or Moral Context:
The term could imply scrutinizing actions, policies, or societal norms for moral failings, dishonesty, or ethical "blind spots." It might focus on exposing corruption or misinformation. Which would be an anathema to governments, legacy news and paid-for “science”.

Psychological Context:
This might involve exploring cognitive biases, self-deception, or the refusal to confront uncomfortable truths—what Jung called the "shadow". A skotological examination could aim to shed light on areas where one’s perception of reality is clouded, and all of us have a cloudy perception of reality.

Spiritual or Mystical Context:
In a metaphysical sense, skotological could describe the process of seeking enlightenment by confronting and transcending ignorance or spiritual "darkness," moving toward higher truths.

It could also mean analyzing hidden, obscure or suppressed aspects of possibly unconscious biases, or exploring taboo ideas, or societal "darkness”, which sounds kind of spooky and fun.

For instance, analyzing underlying motives, fears, or ethical blind spots could be a skotological examination.

It could also involve exploring shadow aspects of the psyche, similar to Carl Jung's concept of the shadow. Keeping in mind that Jung was fucking insane.

This neologism skotology could have a lot of depth in multidisciplinary use, but for us it refers to our analysis based around apophenia and skotophenia.

The Skotological Analysis based on the Skotological Tetrad is a critical-thinking tool that parses "seeing" from "believing". It is a logical "false table" as apposed to the traditional truth table used in Boolean logic. The cognitive errors are defined against a “pretend” truth based on belief. We use the flaws as questions to ask ourselves to see if we are believing falsity and the Skotological Analysis is a critical examination of any narrative where the truth is not known. We simply ask a few simple questions based on it.

Apophenia and Aliens

I could be wrong, but I believe it was Micheal Schermer who coined—or at least popularized—the term "apophenia". Dogmatic materialists often weaponize this concept as an attack on "naive fools" who believe in UFOs, aliens or paranormal phenomena. They assert that these naive "idealists" suffer from apophenia, a mental condition where one sees and believes "meaningful" connections in unrelated events.

If there are, in fact, no valid connections in the events, this argument is valid. However, simply asserting there are no valid connections doesn't make it so. Asserting someone is experiencing apophenia doesn't prove that they are. Just because a concept can be valid in context doesn't make it valid every time it is cast upon someone.

This weaponized type of apophenia is incomplete. It's deployed to belittle believers, painting them as gullible or intellectually inferior. Watching assertion-based materialists wield Type 1 apophenia against the undefended can be triggering, especially since the targets never retort with the other half of the apophenia equation: Type 2, or skotophenia. If the believer sees false connections, the toxic skeptic may likewise fail to see valid ones.

On December 27, 2024, around 6:30 a.m., I awoke with the idea: both Type 1 and Type 2 could be further divided into two forms, creating a total of four forms of The Skotologic Tetrad. These forms allow for rhetorical attacks on both believers and skeptics. Materialists, for example, can claim the believer falsely supports their narrative (Confirmation Bias) and ignores contradictory evidence (Neglecting the Counter). Conversely, the believer can assert that materialists fail to accept valid evidence (Neglecting Support) and embrace false evidence or dogma that contradicts the narrative (Contradiction Bias). A double Yin Yang emerges.

This framework is great news for the rest of us! It's valuable for self-reflection. We apply The Skotologic Analysis to our beliefs as a self-critical filter by asking the following simple questions:

Am I a naive kook?

Am I falsely supporting this idea?

Am I believing false evidence that supports it?

Am I ignoring valid evidence that counters it?

Am I a skeptical fool?

Is my disbelief valid?

Am I failing to believe valid evidence that supports this idea?

Am I believing false evidence or dogmas that contradict it?

Ideology and the Weaponization of Apophenia

A deeper question arises: why do rational people instinctively use these flawed attacks? While self-criticism is productive, why do otherwise logical individuals weaponize apophenia in debates?

The answer may lie in ideology. In Western society, thought is often constrained by the guardrails of materialism—a worldview that posits physical matter as the fundamental substance of reality. Materialism asserts that all phenomena, including consciousness, can be reduced to physical interactions. This stands in contrast to idealism, which views the mind or consciousness as the primary reality, with the material world being a manifestation of mental phenomena.

Since we are not omniscient, materialism remains an arbitrary construct, albeit a powerful one. It is reasonable to think there is more we don't know than we do, leaving room for phenomena that defy materialistic explanations. These could be categorized as noumena, or unknown phenomena.

Given the limits of human understanding, materialism cannot claim exclusive access to truth. Idealism, dualism, phenomenalism, or other yet-unnamed paradigms could better explain reality. Quantum physics, for example, increasingly challenges strict materialism.

This ideological blind spot fuels rhetorical attacks. Materialists dismiss idealists as fools, while idealists accuse materialists of narrow-mindedness. A critical mind acknowledges its limitations and leaves room for the possibility that the opposing view may hold truth.

Summary

Simply ask yourself: