The Misconception: You take randomness into account when determining cause and effect.
The Truth: You tend to ignore random chance when the results seem meaningful or when you want a random event to have a meaningful cause.
Abraham Lincoln and John F. Kennedy were both presidents of the United States, elected 100 years apart. Both were shot and killed by assassins who were known by three names with 15 letters, John Wilkes Booth and Lee Harvey Oswald, and neither killer would make it to trial.
Spooky, huh? It gets better.
Lincoln had a secretary named Kennedy, and Kennedy had a secretary named Lincoln.
They were both killed on a Friday while sitting next to their wives, Lincoln in the Ford Theater, Kennedy in a Lincoln made by Ford.
Both men were succeeded by a man named Johnson – Andrew for Lincoln and Lyndon for Kennedy. Andrew was born in 1808. Lyndon in 1908.
What are the odds?
In 1898, Morgan Robertson wrote a novel titled “Futility.”
Written 14 years before the Titanic sank, 11 years before construction on the vessel even began, the similarities between the book and the real event are eerie.
The novel describes a giant boat called the Titan which everyone considers unsinkable. It is the largest ever created, and inside it seems like a luxury hotel – just like the as yet unbuilt Titanic.
Titan had only 20 lifeboats, half than it needed should the great ship sink. The Titanic had 24, also half than it needed.
In the book, the Titan hits an iceberg in April 400 miles from Newfoundland. The Titanic, years later, would do the same in the same month in the same place.
The Titan sinks, and more than half of the passengers die, just as with the Titanic. The number of people on board who die in the book and the number in the future accident are nearly identical.
The similarities don’t stop there. The fictional Titan and the real Titanic both had three propellers and two masts. Both had a capacity of 3,000 people. Both hit the iceberg close to midnight.
Did Robertson have a premonition? I mean, what are the odds?
In the 1500s, Nostradamus wrote:
Bêtes farouches de faim fleuves tranner
Plus part du champ encore Hister sera,
En caige de fer le grand sera treisner,
Quand rien enfant de Germain observa.
This is often translated to:
Beasts wild with hunger will cross the rivers,
The greater part of the battle will be against Hister.
He will cause great men to be dragged in a cage of iron,
When the son of Germany obeys no law.
That’s rather creepy, considering this seems to describe a guy with a tiny mustache born about 400 years later. Here is another prophecy:
Out of the deepest part of the west of Europe,
From poor people a young child shall be born,
Who with his tongue shall seduce many people,
His fame shall increase in the Eastern Kingdom.
Wow. Hister certainly sounds like Hitler, and that second quatrain seems to drive it home. Actually, Many of Nostradamus’ predictions are about a guy from Germania who wages a great war and dies mysteriously.
What are the odds?
If any of this seems too amazing to be coincidence, too odd to be random, too similar to be chance, you are not so smart.
You see, in all three examples the barn was already peppered with holes. You just drew bullseyes around the spots where the holes clustered together.
Allow me to explain.
Say you go on a date, and the other person reveals they drive the same kind of car you do. It’s a different color, but the same model.
Well, that’s sort of neat, but nothing amazing.
Let’s say later on you learn their mom’s name is the same as your mom’s, and your mothers have the same birthday.
Hold on a second. That’s pretty cool. Maybe the hand of fate is pushing you toward the other person. Later still, you find out you both own the box set of Monty Python’s Flying Circus, and you both grew up loving Rescue Rangers. You both love pizza, but hate rutabagas.
This is meant to be, you think. You are made for each other.
But, take a step back. Now, take another.
How many people in the world own that model of car? You are both about the same age, so your mothers are too, and their names were probably common in their time. Since you have similar backgrounds and grew up in the same decade, you probably share the same childhood TV shows. Everyone loves Monty Python. Everyone loves pizza. Many people hate rutabagas.
Looking at the factors from a distance, you can accept the reality of random chance.
When you desire meaning, when you want things to line up, you forget about stochasticity. You are lulled by the signal. You forget about noise. With meaning, you overlook randomness, but meaning is a human construction.
You have just committed the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
The fallacy gets its name from imagining a cowboy shooting at a barn. Over time, the side of the barn becomes riddled with holes. In some places there are lots of them, in others there are few. If the cowboy later paints a bullseye over a spot where his bullet holes clustered together it looks like he is pretty good with a gun.
By painting a bullseye over a bullet hole the cowboy places artificial order over natural random chance.
If you have a human brain, you do this all of the time. Picking out clusters of coincidence is a predictable malfunction of normal human logic.
When you are dazzled by the idea of Nostradamus predicting Hitler, you ignore how he wrote almost 1,000 ambiguous predictions, and most of them make no sense at all. He seems even less interesting when you find out Hister is the Latin name for the Danube River.
When you marvel at the similarities between the Titan and the Titanic, you disregard that in the novel only 13 people survived, and the ship sank right away, and the Titan had made many voyages, and it had sails. In the novel, one of the survivors fought a polar bear before being rescued.
When you are befuddled by the Lincoln and Kennedy connections, you neglect to notice Kennedy was Catholic and Lincoln was born Baptist. Kennedy was killed with a rifle, Lincoln with a pistol. Kennedy was shot in Texas, Lincoln in Washington D.C. Kennedy had lustrous auburn hair, while Lincoln wore a haberdasher’s wet dream.
With all three examples there are thousands of differences, all of which you ignored, but when you draw the bullseye around the clusters, the similarities – whoa.
If hindsight bias and confirmation bias had a baby, it would be the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy.
When reality shows are filmed, the producers have hundreds of hours of footage. When they condense that footage into an hour, they paint a bullseye around a cluster of holes. They find a narrative in all the mundane moments, extracting the good bits and tossing aside the rest. This means they can create any orderly story they wish from their reserves of chaos.
Was that one girl really a horrific bitch? Was that guy with the tattoos really that dumb? Unless you can pull back and see the entire barn, you’ll never know.
The reach of the fallacy is far greater than reality shows, presidential trivia and spooky coincidences. When you use the sharpshooter fallacy to determine cause from effect, it can harm people.
One of the reasons scientists form a hypothesis and then try to disprove it with new research is to avoid the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. Epidemiologists are especially wary of it as they study the factors which lead to the spread of disease.
If you look at a map of the United States with dots assigned to where cancer rates are highest, you will notice areas of clumping. It looks like you have a pretty good indication of where the groundwater must be poisoned, or high-voltage power lines are bombarding people with damaging energy fields, or where cell phone towers are frying people’s organs, or where nuclear bombs must have been tested.
A map like that is a lot like the side of the sharpshooter’s barn, and presuming there must be a cause for cancer clusters is the same as drawing bullseyes around them.
More often than not, cancer clusters have no scary environmental cause.
“A community that is afflicted with an unusual number of cancers quite naturally looks for a cause in the environment – in the ground, the water, the air. And the correlations are sometimes found: the cluster may arise after, say, contamination of the water supply by a possible carcinogen. The problem is that when scientists have tried to confirm such causes, they haven’t been able to. Raymond Richard Neutra, California’s chief environmental health investigator and an expert on cancer clusters, points out that among hundreds of exhaustive, published investigations of residential clusters in the United States, not one has convincingly identified an underlying environmental cause. Abroad, in only a handful of cases has a neighborhood cancer cluster been shown to arise from an environmental cause. And only one of these cases ended with the discovery of an unrecognized carcinogen.”
The Cancer Cluster Myth, The New Yorker, Feb. 1999
There are many agents at work. People who are related tend to live near each other. Old people tend to retire in the same areas. Eating, smoking and exercise habits tend to be similar region to region. And, after all, one in three people will develop cancer in their lifetime.
To accept something like residential cancer clusters are often just coincidence is deeply unsatisfying. The powerlessness, the feeling you are defenseless to the whims of chance, can be assuaged by singling out an antagonist. Sometimes you need a bad guy, and The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is one way you can create one.
According to the Centers for Disease Control the number of autism cases among 8-year-olds increased 57 percent from 2002 to the 2006. Looking back over the last 20 years, the rates of autism have gone up 200 percent. Today, 1 in 70 male children has some form of autism spectrum disorder.
When those numbers were released, it seemed absolutely nuts. Parents around the world panicked. Something must be causing autism numbers to rise, right?
Early on, a bullseye was painted around vaccines because symptoms seemed to show up about the same time as kids were getting vaccinated. Once they had a target, a cluster, they failed to see all the other correlations. After years of research and millions of dollars, vaccines have been ruled out, but some parents and celebrities refuse to accept the findings. Singling out vaccines while ignoring the millions of other factors is the same as noting the Titan hit an iceberg but omitting it had sails.
Lucky streaks at the casino, hot hands in basketball, a tornado sparing a church – these are all examples of humans finding meaning after the fact, after the odds are tallied and the numbers have moved on. You are ignoring the times you lost, the times the ball missed the basket and all the homes the tornado blindly devoured.
In World War II, Londoners took notice when bombing raids consistently missed certain neighborhoods. People began to believe German spies lived in the spared buildings. They didn’t. Analysis afterward by psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky showed the bombing strike patterns were random.
Anywhere people are searching for meaning, you will see the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy. For many, the world loses luster when you accept the idea random mutations can lead to eyeballs or random burn patterns on toast can look like a person’s face.
If you were to shuffle a deck and draw out 10 cards, the chances of the sequence you drew coming up are in the trillions, no matter what they are. If you drew out an ordered suit, it would be astonishing, but the chances are the same as any other set of 10 cards. The meaning is a human construct.
Look outside. See that tree? The chances of it growing there on that spot, on this planet, circling this star in this galaxy among the billions of galaxies in the known universe are so incredibly small it seems to have meaning, but that meaning is only a figment of your imagination. You are drawing a bullseye around a cluster on a vast barn.
It is no less astronomical the odds of it being there than the patch of dirt beside it. The same is true if you looked out onto a desert and found a lizard, or into the sky and found a cloud, or into space and saw nothing but hydrogen atoms floating alone. There is a 100 percent chance something will be there, be anywhere, when you look, but only the need for meaning changes how you feel about what you see.
For as long as there been humans we have searched for our place in the cosmos. Where are we? Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a hum-drum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people. This perspective is a courageous continuation of our penchant for constructing and testing mental models of the skies; the Sun as a red-hot stone, the stars as a celestial flame, the Galaxy as the backbone of night.
- Carl Sagan
To admit the messy slog of chaos, disorder and random chance rules your life, rules the universe itself, is a painful conceit. You commit the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy when you need a pattern to provide meaning, to console you, to lay blame.
You mow your lawn, arrange your silverware, comb your hair. Whenever possible, you oppose the forces of entropy and thwart their relentless derangement.
Your drive to do this is primal. You need order. Order makes it easier to be a person, to navigate this sloppy world.
Pattern recognition leads to food, protects you from harm. You are born looking for clusters where chance events have built up like sand into dunes. You are able to read these words because your ancestors recognized patterns and changed their behavior to better acquire food and avoiding becoming it.
Carl Sagan said in the vastness of space and the immensity of time it was a joy to share a planet and epoch with his wife. Even though he knew fate didn’t put them together, it didn’t take away the wonder he felt when he was with her.
You see patterns everywhere, but some of them are formed by chance and mean nothing. Against the noisy background of probability things are bound to line up from time to time for no reason at all. It’s just how the math works out. Recognizing this is an important part of ignoring coincidences when they don’t matter and realizing what has real meaning for you on this planet, in this epoch.
You Are Not So Smart – The Book
If you buy one book this year…well, I suppose you should get something you’ve had your eye on for a while. But, if you buy two or more books this year, might I recommend one of them be a celebration of self delusion? Give the gift of humility (to yourself or someone else you love). Watch the trailer.
Order now: Amazon - Barnes and Noble - iTunes - Books A Million
Links:
Kennedy and Lincoln Similarities
The Complete Text of “Futility”
The Global Consciousness Project
Cubik’s Rube on The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy


The world is a bell curve whether you like it or not folks. Or in some cases a binomial distribution, Poisson, etc. Check out Dr. Edwards Deming and his red beads.
Pingback: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy « Informing Learning
Pingback: Responses to Psychic Wins Millions in Lottery Posting « Jeffrey Saltzman's Blog
Can you still say it’s the Texas sharp shooter if you omitted some information to the story? I was reading up to the spot where you revealed some of the other information to the stories of Lincoln, Titanic, and Hitler; does it still count if the information was not available when you first ready the story? It would be wrong to say that I ignored it because it wasn’t there to be ignored in the first place.
I do happen to like the article, though :) I just think the example was a little iffy — is all :)
Pingback: First Post » readme
Pingback: One word at a time… » TP for the weekend…
Agree with Andy from Sept 4, but instead of reading The Drunkards Walk for more of this, just read it to get a longer version of what was posted here. The earlier examples were familiar, and the later ones as well. Eventually I realized that I had heard of these examples, arguments, and conclusions before. This post was posted after the Books release, and I can only find Andy’s comment that makes any kind of reference at all to the book. Life can’t so random that this is just coincidence.
Paul
Wow! I’m a baby, but some of you people have not even hatched yet. This is the blind leading blind. This is the blind reinforcing and comforting their blindness.
Don’t even mention the word ‘dawkins’ to me. This is your great messiah? This is the answer for you? How easily you are spoon-fed?
So what is the point of this article? It’s obviously written with extreme intelligence, as it has several undertones that have the potential to subliminally brainwash you.
Jedi mind tricks.
First subliminal undertone programming: There is no such thing as a conspiracy.
—- Hmmm.
Second subliminal undertone programming: If something looks supernatural to you. Never explore it further, because it is not possible.
You hit the bulls-eye! Right?
Third subliminal undertone programming: Since conspiracies or the supernatural do not exists, then God cannot exists and dawkins is your messiah.
I suspect this article was written by a member of the ‘elite’ group that runs this planet.
Unfortunately, not all of you can see this. Many of you never will see it. That will cost you.
There ‘is’ a supernatural. There ‘is’ a spirit world. Many have felt it. Some have seen it. Oh, it’s real alright.
Did nostradamus predict some future events? Seems he might have. Have others successfully predicted the future. Yes, they have. But remember, man , in and of himself, is ‘not’ a god. Man cannot predict the future. There are only ‘two’ sources of information regarding the future. One is from God himself; and the other is from the darkside, who has limited information about the future.
Was nostradamus a prophet? Not according to the Bible. The Bible states that a ‘true prophet’ is Never Wrong.
So where did nostradamus get his information? Not from God, that’s for sure.
I realize that many of you have never experienced anything you could say was ‘supernatural’. However, I know that you have had to make a decision on the subject many times throughout your life so far. So each time you are face with this decision, did you ever consider that perhaps it is ‘you’ that is the problem?… always making the ‘bulls-eye’ … every time.
Damn, couldn’t agree more. It’s a great article, but theres definatley a very subtle implication behind all of it. The fallacy itself can be true for many cases, but to apply it to every supernatural, unrealistic, or uncanny coincidence is taking it too far. Seems like the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy is a contradiction in and of itself, looking at what everything that disproves the coincidence instead of trying to find a deeper explaination.
Pingback: links for 2011-02-11 « Personal Link Sampler
Given a long enough time frame, every single possibility will play out.
This article describes that principle quite well, but the perspective seems a bit too nihilistic for my taste.
Looking back at the events that have lead to me being here right now, it seems amazing that I’m alive at all, let alone responding to the thoughts of another human being through a series of wires and signals. This possibility was bound to play out, and by logic there is no significant meaning to it.
I agree and disagree with that notion. We as human beings are assemblages of atoms that are aware of the fact that we are assemblages of atoms. To say that there is no meaning to the fact that there are self-aware chemical constructs seems silly to me. If simple, carbon-based life has the ability to think, is it really insane to say that the overall universe may have some sort of rationale behind it? Specific events may not have any particular meaning, but a universe made of pieces that are capable of being self-aware seems like it might have a purpose.
But I guess it’s really just a matter of perspective. No matter how many scientific explanations that are made for the existence of love, it doesn’t change the feeling it brings. I suppose I view coincidences the same way from time to time.
<>
Incorrect on at least one count – the idea of the “hot hand” in basketball takes into account the times the ball misses also.
Pingback: 34 More Contest Entries « You Are Not So Smart
Pingback: Explaining the Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy « Jason Clarke
I want to marry this article and have its babies.
Pingback: I Freak Myself Out Sometimes- News Robot
Pingback: Baby Showers & Hospitals « Liz Boltz Ranfeld
I enjoyed this. Have you read The Sheltering Sky by Paul Bowles? There’s a beautiful passage where he describes our conception of the sky as a familiar blue bowl covering our heads, when in fact we are seeing only a thin atmospheric haze between us and endless emptiness.
I think the scariest Kennedy/Lincoln parallel is this:
A week before his death, Abraham Lincoln was in Monroe, Maryland.
Coincidence?
ROFL
Pingback: Divine Revelation | Soul Sprawl
Pingback: Итог года | You are not so smart.
Pingback: Gloo - Gloo Communications » Blog Archive » More data + smarter tools = better marketing
Pingback: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy | brandon martinez
This post is fantastic !
Pingback: Review and Giveaway: You are Not So Smart by David McRaney « 1330v
Pingback: How to Be Your Own Therapist and Solve the More Manageable Problems in Your Life | Got2.Me
Pingback: How To Be Your Own Therapist And Solve The More Manageable Problems In Your Life | Lifehacker Australia
Pingback: How to Be Your Own Therapist and Solve the More Manageable Problems in Your Life – TEMPLATES
Pingback: Leif in Clojure
Pingback: How to Be Your Own Therapist and Solve the More Manageable Problems in Your Life | Next Job Application
Pingback: How to Be Your Own Therapist and Solve the More Manageable Problems in Your Life [Video] | Next Job Application
Pingback: How To Be Your Own Therapist And Solve The More Manageable Problems In Your Life | Job Application Letter
Pingback: Change blindness « Later On
Pingback: How to Be Your Own Therapist and Solve the More Manageable Problems in Your Life | The Irish Timez - Breaking the truth from Ireland ...
Drawing a circle around a cluster of bullet holes = Factorial Analysis (something that psychologists love, by the way). Calling the cluster a “bull’s-eye” and claiming it must be a real entity = Reification.
On another note, can you say that our inept gunman was _trying_ to spray the barn uniformly, or even randomly? We might have a priori reasons to expect that he was pointing his gun _somewhere_. So a significant cluster could very well represent some quirk of his aim or shooting technique. It might not be the actual point he was trying to hit. He may or may not have been aiming for a specific spot. We may argue about the meaning of the cluster &/or cede that we can’t be sure of it’s causes.
Pingback: A Celebration in Self Delusion - MGC Mag
Pingback: stochasticity…or how we turn chance into narrative | the love story project
Pingback: Tim Teabow wins. - Page 3 - US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
Pingback: What to Consider before Selecting a Company for Bricklaying in Perth | Wind And Solar Power For Your Home
Of course it’s random chance but let me say a few things that ruins this article.
1. I haven’t read Titan so no I didn’t ignore the facts you stated because you didn’t tell them to us before hand. You painted the bullseye not me.
2. Having different hair, religions or even death locations or killed by different weapons doesn’t increase or decrease the chance that it was or wasn’t random those variables don’t necessarily matter. If the shots miss the barn or the gun jams no holes are formed they are just small details that don’t change the outcome.
As far as if it’s random or not in reality holes in the story can’t be used as a defense against it being random. If the powers that control the events had the power to make it happen the way it happened they might not bother themselves with every little detail or they may do it in a way that leaves doubt. Placing the gun at the target firing every shot into it then stepping back and firing holes everywhere else to cause the debate and make over thinkers over think.
The real question you should be asking is what was the sharpshooter thinking? Can he really shoot straight if he want’s to? The barn comes second to the shooter who might be a good enough aim to miss on purpose.
Here,here! Thank you for that bit of fresh air on a topic growing stale. Original thinking occurs right before our eyes!
Pingback: Logical Fallacy of the Day: The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy | The Thinker
I found this essay very enlightening. However, and please forgive me for being feeble of mind, it offers little in the way of how to pick out the few meaningful patterns we see from the sea of “false bullseyes” on the side of the barn.
Is there any methodology one can employ to help discern the difference between the two, to know when you are confronted with a random pattern you simply wish to assign meaning to from those which have actual significance?
Pingback: Falling For The Texas Sharpshooter Fallacy | Something Authorly
Pingback: Použime rozum (zaváranie závitov na internete) :: Blog Post
Pingback: Shanyar M.D. - The texas sharpshooter fallacy
Pingback: Political Thread - Page 2756 - Fires of Heaven Guild Message Board
Pingback: Troubleshooting–Beware the Inattentional Blindness « Rui Quintino Blog