Vì sao con người mê tín?

Superstition persists because it is a by-product of an effective learning system, not a random error. Skinner (1948) showed that pigeons fed at fixed intervals developed ritualistic movements as if those movements caused the food, a model for how chance coincidences become reinforced into rituals. Foster and Kokko (2009) added that when the cost of missing a real causal relationship exceeds the cost of a false belief, natural selection favours broad causal attribution. Beck and Forstmeier (2007) argued that learning from very little data inevitably produces some false beliefs such as superstition.

Thí nghiệm chim bồ câu của Skinner chứng minh điều gì?

Skinner's pigeon experiment demonstrated that random reinforcement can produce ritualistic behaviour: pigeons fed at fixed intervals regardless of their actions developed repeated movements as if those movements summoned food. Skinner treated this as a model for superstitious behaviour in humans, where a chance coincidence is reinforced into a ritual. However, later researchers (Staddon and Simmelhag 1971; Timberlake and Lucas 1985; Moore 2004) reinterpreted those behaviours as expressions of food-seeking instinct rather than superstition, so the experiment is a useful analogy, not direct evidence about human superstition.

Mô hình tiến hoá của Foster và Kokko nói gì?

Foster and Kokko (2009) built a mathematical model based on optimality theory showing that when the cost of missing a real causal relationship (Type II error) exceeds the cost of falsely believing in one (Type I error), natural selection favours strategies that attribute causality broadly. Under such conditions, superstitious behaviours or behaviours that look superstitious are an inevitable feature of adaptive behaviour in all organisms, including humans. The model is theoretical and has not been directly measured in humans.

Why superstition never disappears

Short answer: two complementary explanations

Superstition never disappears because it is not a random error of the mind but an understandable by-product of how we learn. Two scientific explanations, rather than excluding each other, complement each other.

The first comes from behavioural psychology. In his famous 1948 experiment, B. F. Skinner fed pigeons at fixed intervals regardless of what the birds did, and observed that they still developed repeated movements as if those movements summoned the food. Skinner treated this as a model for superstitious behaviour: a chance coincidence reinforced into a ritual¹.

The second comes from evolutionary biology. Kevin R. Foster and Hanna Kokko (2009) built a mathematical model showing that when the cost of missing a real causal relationship exceeds the cost of falsely believing in a non-existent one, natural selection will favour strategies that attribute causality broadly². In other words, the habit of causal attribution is retained because it is usually beneficial, even if it sometimes produces superstition.

Both explanations answer the question "why does it exist", not the question "is it true". The fact that superstition is an understandable by-product of the learning machinery does not mean superstitious beliefs are correct.

Skinner's pigeon experiment: the mechanism of random reinforcement

What did Skinner do?

知识类别: 史料In an experiment on operant conditioning, Skinner fed pigeons at regular intervals regardless of what the bird was doing. He observed the birds developing ritualistic repeated movements: one turned its head toward a corner of the cage, another thrust its head at a particular spot, as if that behaviour caused the food to appear¹.

Skinner described the phenomenon by saying the bird behaved as if there were a causal relationship between its behaviour and the appearance of food, when no such relationship existed². The important point in Skinner's approach is that he focused on behaviour (external outcome) rather than on the mental representation of causality (internal process)².

Mechanism: random reinforcement produces rituals

The mechanism is simple. When food appears at random, whatever behaviour the bird happens to be doing at that moment is accidentally "rewarded". Next time, the bird tends to repeat that behaviour. Over many trials, the behaviour is reinforced into a stable ritual, even though it has no real effect.

Limits of extrapolating to humans

知识类别: 证据不足It must be stated clearly: Skinner's results on pigeons do not automatically transfer to humans. Later researchers (Staddon and Simmelhag 1971; Timberlake and Lucas 1985; Moore 2004) reinterpreted those behaviours as expressions of food-seeking instinct, similar to Pavlov's salivation reflex in dogs, rather than superstition in Skinner's intended sense². This means the pigeon experiment is a useful analogy, not direct evidence about human superstition.

Foster and Kokko's evolutionary model: two types of error and their costs

The core idea

知识类别: 流派：Foster and Kokko 2009Foster and Kokko (2009) asked: under what conditions is a tendency to attribute causality falsely beneficial from an evolutionary standpoint? They built a mathematical model based on optimality theory, in which an individual must decide whether to respond to an event based on its estimated probability².

The model shows that when an individual cannot fully separate events with real causal relationships from events that are merely coincidental, it must respond to a mixed set containing both types, or not respond at all. In that situation, natural selection may favour a strategy that lumps non-causal relationships together with causal ones².

Table: two types of error and their costs

Type of error	Content	Cost	Evolutionary consequence
Type I (false positive)	Believing there is a causal relationship when there is none	Waste effort on a useless behaviour	Low if the behaviour is cheap
Type II (false negative)	Ignoring a real causal relationship	Missing a survival opportunity (food, avoiding a predator)	High if the miss is dangerous

When the cost of a Type II error exceeds the cost of a Type I error, natural selection favours a strategy that makes more Type I errors. That is the condition under which superstition can be an adaptive trait².

Conditions for superstition to appear

According to the model, false responses become most common when the probability that two events are truly linked is low to moderate. Very strong links are rarely misjudged, and very weak links are rarely favoured by natural selection. When the model is extended to multiple simultaneous events, the authors identify conditions under which natural selection may favour attributing causality to events that have never had a real causal link².

Foster and Kokko conclude that superstitious behaviours, or behaviours that look superstitious, are an inevitable feature of adaptive behaviour in all organisms, including humans².

Limits of the model

知识类别: 证据不足This is a theoretical model, not yet directly measured in humans. The model demonstrates that under certain conditions natural selection may favour a broad causal-attribution habit, but it does not measure the degree or specific form of superstition in humans. The authors also note that their model does not account for cultural influence, though they acknowledge culture plays an important role in shaping the specific content of superstition².

Superstition as a by-product of a fast learning strategy

Learning from little data

知识类别: 流派：Beck và Forstmeier 2007Jan Beck and Wolfgang Forstmeier (2007) offer another explanation that complements Foster and Kokko's model. They argue that an effective learning strategy that extracts rules from very little data inevitably produces a portion of false beliefs such as superstition³.

On this argument, superstition is a by-product of the capacity to learn, without needing to assume it is itself beneficial. This is a familiar "by-product" argument in evolutionary biology: a trait exists not because it was directly selected for, but because it comes along with another beneficial trait.

Why does fast learning produce superstition?

If an organism learned only from complete and accurate data, it would be slow and miss opportunities. In nature, recognising a rule from a few observations can be the difference between life and death. But precisely because it learns from little data, an organism easily extracts rules from chance coincidences. Superstition is the price paid for speed of learning.

知识类别: 证据不足Note: this is a theoretical paper, not an empirical study directly measuring superstition in humans. Its result is an argument on evolutionary logic, not yet replicated by independent empirical studies.

People who see patterns in random sequences believe more in the supernatural

Van Prooijen and colleagues' research

知识类别: 史料Jan-Willem van Prooijen and colleagues (2018) published a series of five studies in the European Journal of Social Psychology, showing a link between illusory pattern perception and belief in conspiracy theories as well as supernatural phenomena⁴.

In these studies, people who saw patterns in random coin-toss sequences or in abstract paintings tended to believe more in conspiracy theories and the supernatural. The experiments also suggested that priming participants to perceive patterns could increase such belief⁴.

Scope of the data

知识类别: 史料The scope must be stated clearly: these studies were conducted abroad, mainly on English-speaking adults, not on Vietnamese people. The results show a correlation and an effect under experimental conditions, not that all Vietnamese people or all cultures share the same level. Extrapolating to Vietnamese people would require research on Vietnamese people⁴.

Link to the general mechanism

This result fits both explanations above. If our cognitive machinery is designed to find patterns, then finding patterns even where none exist is understandable. People with a stronger tendency will believe more in the supernatural. This is a general mechanism of all people, not a peculiar trait of any group.

Why is superstition present in every culture?

Not because it is true, but because it is a by-product

The central question of this article is: if superstition is false, why is it not eliminated but present in every culture? The answer from the two explanations above is: superstition exists because it is a by-product of an effective learning system, and because under certain conditions a broad causal-attribution habit is more beneficial than missing a real causal relationship.

This explains why superstition is present in every culture, even though its specific content differs. The mechanism is common; the form is shaped by culture. Foster and Kokko explicitly acknowledge that their model does not account for culture, but culture plays an important role in shaping the specific content of superstition².

Distinguishing "exists" from "true"

Two things must be clearly distinguished. First: superstition exists and is widespread, and we can understand why it exists from an evolutionary and psychological standpoint. Second: that existence does not mean the content of superstition is true. The fact that a belief has an understandable evolutionary origin does not make it an accurate description of the world.

Real effects arising from belief

One point deserves accurate statement. Sometimes belief changes behaviour, and behaviour changes outcomes. For example, a person who believes a certain ritual makes them more confident may actually become more confident, and therefore perform better. That effect is real, but it is not evidence that the ritual has supernatural power. It is the psychological effect of belief on behaviour. Stating it accurately means saying belief changes behaviour and behaviour changes outcomes, without calling it the system predicting correctly, and without denying the effect.

Where the evidence is still lacking

知识类别: 证据不足Foster and Kokko's evolutionary model is a mathematical theory, not yet directly measured in humans. It shows under what conditions natural selection may favour a broad causal-attribution habit, but it does not measure the degree or specific form of superstition in humans. Beck and Forstmeier's argument is also a theoretical paper, not yet replicated by independent empirical studies.

知识类别: 史料Van Prooijen and colleagues' (2018) studies are empirical evidence for the link between illusory pattern perception and supernatural belief, but they were conducted abroad, mainly on English-speaking adults, not on Vietnamese people⁴.

知识类别: 证据不足In addition, researchers after Skinner reinterpreted the pigeon experiment as an expression of food-seeking instinct rather than superstition². This means evidence from animals cannot be directly extrapolated to humans.

Summary table of main sources

Study	Author, year	Method	Data scope	Main result
Pigeon experiment	Skinner, 1948	Experiment on pigeons, fed at fixed intervals	Pigeons in the laboratory	Birds develop ritualistic repeated movements¹
Evolutionary model	Foster and Kokko, 2009	Mathematical model of optimality theory	No empirical data on humans	When missing costs more than false belief, selection favours broad causal attribution²
By-product of learning	Beck and Forstmeier, 2007	Theoretical paper	No empirical data	Superstition is an inevitable by-product of learning from little data³
Illusory pattern perception	van Prooijen and colleagues, 2018	Five studies, experimental and correlational	Adults, mainly English-speaking	Seeing patterns in random sequences predicts supernatural belief⁴

Why superstition never disappears: from Skinner's pigeon experiment to an evolutionary model