It just isn't.
By no stretch of the imagination, and within no sensible, everyday frame of reference is "people see patterns where there are none" any kind of "definition" of the word "counter-intuitive" at all. It may be an example of it, but it's clearly not a definition.
It's perfectly true and valid that many people see patterns where there are none, of course - I'm not disputing that for a moment - "misattribution of causation" is one of the commonest mistakes made, both in everyday life and in trading.
But it's also true that many of us are - directly or indirectly - trading patterns, of one kind or another, for a living. The fact that people think they see a lot more than there really are clearly doesn't signify that there aren't any.