Human pattern-seeking is designed for cooperation, not for randomness

Evidence

And this suggests an alternative orientation of those experiments in which subjects are instructed to make guesses, throughout a long random sequence of red or green lights, whether red or green will come up next. Subjects apparently persist in guessing on the basis of some pattern they think they perceive, an “irrational” mode of behavior given their knowledge that the sequence is generated by a random device. But, as Herbert Simon points out, “Man is not only a learning animal; he is a pattern-finding and concept-forming animal” (“Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science,” American Economic Review, 44:272). Why not, then, add to the experiment a cooperating pattern-maker, who generates the signals subject to various constraints and random interferences, and let the persistent pattern-seeking subject use his skill in finding the pattern planted by a cooperative partner rather than spend it futilely on random series? — Thomas C. Schelling, The Strategy of Conflict, 742

Categorization

• XREF: Connects to Gambetta’s private-protection framework and the idea that coordinated signals are part of tacit cooperation, and to Deep Listening’s reframing of noise as signal. — connects to: Anticipated future interaction makes people substantially more cooperative — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 554; Donor-specific image scoring sustains cooperation while self-only strategies fail — Nowak, M. A., & Sigmund, K, Evolution of Indirect Reciprocity by…, 73
• SEED: Angle: ‘malevolent nature’ vs cooperative pattern-making as two epistemologies of risk, applied to the difference between black-box AI suspicions and trust-building.

Broader Connections

• Anticipated future interaction makes people substantially more cooperative #corroborates (0.75) — Diego Gambetta, Trust - Making and Breaking Cooperative…, 554