The library was selling discard books, and Oldest Boy picked out one called The Encyclopedia of Monsters. At first I thought it was just for kids, but then I was pleased to discover that it’s a well-researched, easy-to-read, and skeptical look at crypto-zoology. Entries include the Loch Ness Monster, Bigfoot, Spring-Heeled Jack, and even Gef the Talking Mongoose.
The article I found most interesting was that of the Nottingham Lion. In 1976, two workers in Nottingham thought they saw a lion, complete with tufty tail. They called the police, and the media got involved. Soon, everyone was phoning the police to report that they’d seen the lion. Police dutifully tracked the beast on a map until they realised that a) no zoos or private collections were missing a lion, and b) no lion could appear in so many places simultaneously. Police called off the search, and the mythical lion joined the list of ‘phantom cats‘ that people in the USA and England sometimes claim to have seen.
The Nottingham lion contains a useful lesson about perception and bias: we tend to see what we’re looking for. Exorcists see the devil everywhere, psychologists who work with (and generate) ‘repressed abuse’ cases are amazed at the extent of the problem, religious believers see the face of Jesus or Mary in everyday objects, and people with theories to protect see multitudes of evidence for their theory. Though science and statistics have tools to combat this kind of bias, it is well to remember that even people trained in these areas are not immune to suggestion.
18 May 2006 at 3:12 pm
Have you noticed its always something “scary” that people seem to see. ufo, bigfoot, large predators. Why is it there is never mass sightings of a purple azelea? “really, it was right here but I can’t find it anymore.”
I wonder how much of this are real reptilian memories of things that eat us. add a pinch of suggestion and we are seeing monsters all around us.
1 June 2006 at 6:49 am
Exactly. And did you notice how newspapers reported a surge in religious affiliation after the New York terrorist attacks?
People under threat are more suggestible because they’re willing to play along when the risks are high. Can’t afford to think critically and dispassionately when there’s so much at stake. Unfortunately, that’s when we need it.