How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Dr H]

Sometimes it seems to me that those who find these co-incidences astonishing must be the type of person who usually never pays attention to anything.

LoL! I've thought the same thing, but never put it into so many words.

 

[Dr H]

Precisely. This is what makes cloud-busters believe they can clear clouds (hey, I was one, I should know; though it was never a strong belief).

I had a former girlfriend convinced that I had some mystical power over streetlights. We were driving along a street near my house and went by a streetlight that I had noticed failing for some time. "Look," I said, "this streetlight will go out just when we drive under it." And it did.

Her jaw dropped, and I just let it ride. Did it on a couple of other occasions where I noticed a light flicker and she didn't -- I'd point to the light and it would go out. Well hell, on any given street with a couple hundred lights there are always a couple about to go.

Anyway, I tired of the prank after a while, but she all of a sudden started paying attention to streelights, and whenevr we drove under one that blinked off, she'd say "You did that!" Needless to say, she never commented on any of the hundreds (probably thousands) of lights we drove under that didn't go out. Unfortunately, after that, I was never able to convince her that I wasn't doing anything at all, and that it was her making the (non-existent) connection between me and the lights.

Probably just as well that relationship eventually hit the skids. Last I heard, she had married a Reiki therapist, and I trust they are very happy together when the lights go out.

 

[Dr H]

Thank you for laying it out so nicely.

Hell, Third Eye Open did that way back:

So, to summarize:

You took some acid, bought a teapot, found the same model teapot in your attic, and now believe in magic.

 

[Rodney]

Thank you for laying it out so nicely. I think that you would agree that events 2 or 3 would be considered unremarkable by themselves. They become remarkable because they are preceded by the other events. If we walk into a store and find a particular object compelling, we are likely to attribute it to something like its aesthetic quality or its similarity to a favoured object (we may not remember the object, only the emotion associated with the object, as our memory for emotion is stronger than our memory for facts). Finding a teapot buried under a house may make us curious as to who put it there, but it wouldn't otherwise engage us. The compelling sensation in the store was noticed because it was preceded by an event which stimulated TeapotsHappen to take notice of subsequent sensations (at least, that's how he remembers it now). And the teapot under the house was noteworthy only because it had been preceded by the finding of an identical teapot.

If there hadn't been a reason to make note of compelling sensations or teapots with a particular appearance, those events would have been relegated to the bin conaining the hundreds and thousands of other events which we experience which aren't examples of 'synchronicity'.

Linda

So do you think there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

 

[Prometheus]

So do you think there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

There is no way to objectively prove that there isn't synchronicity, in the same way that it cannot be proven that there is no god. What we can say is that: a) There's no logical reason why it should exist; and, 2) All supposed evidence we've seen in favour of its existence can be more simply explained otherwise.

 

[Rodney]

There is no way to objectively prove that there isn't synchronicity, in the same way that it cannot be proven that there is no god. What we can say is that: a) There's no logical reason why it should exist; and, 2) All supposed evidence we've seen in favour of its existence can be more simply explained otherwise.

By "more simply explained otherwise", do you mean by stating each time a seemingly unlikely sequence of events is reported: "It was a coincidence. After all, it would be far stranger if coincidences didn't happen"? If so, that response doesn't even attempt to examine the particular sequence of events that was reported.

 

[Prometheus]

By "more simply explained otherwise", do you mean by stating each time a seemingly unlikely sequence of events is reported: "It was a coincidence. After all, it would be far stranger if coincidences didn't happen"? If so, that response doesn't even attempt to examine the particular sequence of events that was reported.

No, that's not what I mean. What I mean is that the notion that some external intelligence is attempting to communicate meaningfully with me by way of odd coincidences is, at best, implausible. Until there is independently verifiable evidence to the contrary (which is not completely consistent with known phenomena such as confirmation bias, false memory, random chance, pareidolia, observer error, confabulation, outright fraud, etc.), a rational default position is that it doesn't exist.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So do you think there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

What distinguishes an example of synchronicity from a low probability event that is mere coincidence? If you can't answer that in an objective way, then no, I don't believe there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity.

Similarly, there's no objective way to determine whether or not there is such a thing as mimetoglamjabberism. (It's a word I just made up.) I submit the claim that mimetoglamjabberism is better than intuition or rational thought at discerning real and meaningful things. It's an acausal alternative to both mere coincidence and synchronicity. So can you explain bizarre cases of mimetoglamjabberism? The anecdotes look exactly the same as extremely low probability events that might otherwise be described as coincidence or synchronicity, but they're not coincidences or synchronicity.

 

[Marshmallow]

Do you guys remember my blue butterfly example? What are the chances of something like that happening for about a week? Where you would see the same thing over and over in different, unrelated places? Because that's what's been happening to me (only not with butterflies). What's the probability?

Here's my example, in case you haven't seen it or don't remember it:

Someone sees a pale blue butterfly on a TV show and a couple of seconds later they see a pale blue butterfly on a page of a book or magazine that they flip open (one that they've never read before) and later they see a similar butterfly on a website they've never been to before, and the next day sees it again in another unexpected place, etc.

 

[AdinDraco]

Do you guys remember my blue butterfly example? What are the chances of something like that happening for about a week? Where you would see the same thing over and over in different, unrelated places? Because that's what's been happening to me (only not with butterflies). What's the probability?QUOTE]

First of all it's been explained very, very well by a number of posters already that a form of confirmation bias shows up clumping of phenomena all the time and that if fact such clumpings happen all the time and you only notice the ones that you're looking for. Taking the butterflies for example, there may be hundreds of other objects/events clumping around you - cars, people, colours, numbers etc, etc, but you only notice the butterflies.

Secondly, even if we were somehow able to calculate the odds, how would this number be in anyway significant. We have no recognized limit or odds at which events aren't coincidental anymore and large number mathematics tells as that billion to one improbable events should happen all the time. By your reasoning, we should be incrediably suspicious that at times, someone wins lotto every single week!

 

[fls]

Do you guys remember my blue butterfly example? What are the chances of something like that happening for about a week? Where you would see the same thing over and over in different, unrelated places? Because that's what's been happening to me (only not with butterflies). What's the probability?

This has a very high probability of happening.

You are exposed to thousands of pieces of information, the vast majority of which do not come to your conscious attention. Your brain filters the information and most of it remains subconscious. All you have done with your blue butterflies is to apply a "notice blue butterflies" filter to those thousand of pieces, so that you become conscious of their presence. The frequency probably hasn't changed (although it could have for similarly mundane reasons). All that has changed in that you are now counting the frequency. Whatever it was that brought something to your attention in the first place - an image that is visually compelling, the occurrence of two events in close proximity due to random variation, etc. - once you apply the filter, you are guaranteed to get results.

The other thing that happens is that no events are distributed perfectly uniformly. So over the course of our lifetime we may be exposed to 3 people with purple eyes, 69 images of a possum, 19 encounters with a pogo stick, 23 acquaintances with breast cancer, and 122 sirens blazing firetrucks, it would be very unusual for these things to all occur at regularly spaced intervals. Instead, several of them should occur in quick succession, simply due to random variation, even before you take into account normal reasons for variation in exposure.

Also, once we are making note of something, attribution bias comes into effect. Previously we may not have attributed a particular event as an example of that something, but now that we are looking for examples, we make that attribution. A black and white photo of a butterfly, a yellow butterfly on a blue background, and a purple butterfly fluttering around some blue flowers all become examples.

It is very interesting to discover what tricks your mind plays.

Linda

 

[fls]

So do you think there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

Yes. But first it is important to understand that the way in which you and others talk about finding synchronicity is the way in which it cannot be found. You are taking patterns that are formed by the way we think, and stating that these patterns correspond to synchronicity. However, synchronicity is not necessary for the formation of these patterns - they can form in the absence of any underlying order - so their presence cannot be taken as a marker for the presence of synchronicity. It may be that some of these patterns are due to synchronicity, but unless you have a way to distinguish a pattern created from the way that we think from a pattern created by synchronicity, we cannot use those patterns to discover synchronicity. We need something different.

An analogy would be the discovery of effective medicine. For the longest time, we attempted to discover effective medicine by using the pattern of trying things until we felt subjectively better. An effective medicine was whatever we took just before we felt subjectively better. However, this pattern can be created for anything - even stuff that is completely ineffective. And so it happened that almost everything we considered effective was actually completely ineffective. And more importantly, those few medicines which were actually having an effect were completely indistinguishable from those which weren't. It wasn't until we developed a different means of discovery - measuring changes in disease rather than changes in symptoms, removing the effect of timing on the application of treatments - that we vastly increased our discovery of effective medicine.

Until you shed the practice of using patterns created by cognitive bias as markers of patterns created by synchronicity, no progress can be made in this area.

Linda

 

[Belz...]

To repeat the context of my request, in post #396 on this thread, JoeTheJuggler stated: "Sometimes we get a 'bad vibe' about a person or situation. That gut feeling is just as apt to be wrong as any conscious opinion or conclusion."

I am asking for evidence that a "'bad vibe' about a person or situation is just as apt to be wrong as any conscious opinion or conclusion." Is there a study you can point me to?

You mean, that something with no relation to objective reality may not give you relevant information on objective reality ?

Hell, it's a tautology.

 

[dlorde]

As for the 'negative energy'? Well, that part was true in a sense. I was very pessimistic, believing that the world was cursed. I tried to be more optimistic and realistic, so her mystical statement may actually have helped nudge me towards skepticism and more rational thinking.

Please, please, PLEASE keep humbly de-bunking things like this.

There is a grain of truth in the idea that 'negative energy' woo is related to a pessimistic viewpoint. For my part, I've come to realise that my rational scepticism is just a layer on top of a non-rational subconscious that can be manipulated. For example, if I consciously try to ignore the negative (disadvantageous) events that happen, and instead focus on even the smallest advantageous event, telling myself "That's lucky" each time - even though rationally I know it's nonsense, I soon find myself feeling boosted in mood and self-image and feeling 'lucky', noticing how often things seem to go my way. As with pessimism, it's a relatively easily habit to get into, it just needs a little conscious prompting. It's really quite strange (and amusing) to experience this effect while being consciously aware that it's all due to subconscious bias. I suppose it's similar to the elevating effect on mood that deliberately making a smile can have.

For 'lucky' people the glass is half full, for 'unlucky' people the glass is half empty...

 

[Dr H]

So over the course of our lifetime we may be exposed to . . . 19 encounters with a pogo stick . . .

OMG! I've had at least 37 such encounters!

What must this MEAN?!

o o o o E E E E o o o o . . . .

 

[Rodney]

Yes. But first it is important to understand that the way in which you and others talk about finding synchronicity is the way in which it cannot be found. You are taking patterns that are formed by the way we think, and stating that these patterns correspond to synchronicity. However, synchronicity is not necessary for the formation of these patterns - they can form in the absence of any underlying order - so their presence cannot be taken as a marker for the presence of synchronicity. It may be that some of these patterns are due to synchronicity, but unless you have a way to distinguish a pattern created from the way that we think from a pattern created by synchronicity, we cannot use those patterns to discover synchronicity. We need something different.

An analogy would be the discovery of effective medicine. For the longest time, we attempted to discover effective medicine by using the pattern of trying things until we felt subjectively better. An effective medicine was whatever we took just before we felt subjectively better. However, this pattern can be created for anything - even stuff that is completely ineffective. And so it happened that almost everything we considered effective was actually completely ineffective. And more importantly, those few medicines which were actually having an effect were completely indistinguishable from those which weren't. It wasn't until we developed a different means of discovery - measuring changes in disease rather than changes in symptoms, removing the effect of timing on the application of treatments - that we vastly increased our discovery of effective medicine.

Until you shed the practice of using patterns created by cognitive bias as markers of patterns created by synchronicity, no progress can be made in this area.

Linda

Don't keep us in suspense! What, specifically, are you recommending be done to prove or disprove synchronicity?

 

[Trystero4]

OMG! I've had at least 37 such encounters!

What must this MEAN?!

o o o o E E E E o o o o . . . .

37!?!

 

[Prometheus]

So do you think there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?

Yes. But first it is important to understand that the way in which you and others talk about finding synchronicity is the way in which it cannot be found. You are taking patterns that are formed by the way we think, and stating that these patterns correspond to synchronicity. However, synchronicity is not necessary for the formation of these patterns - they can form in the absence of any underlying order - so their presence cannot be taken as a marker for the presence of synchronicity. It may be that some of these patterns are due to synchronicity, but unless you have a way to distinguish a pattern created from the way that we think from a pattern created by synchronicity, we cannot use those patterns to discover synchronicity. We need something different.

An analogy would be the discovery of effective medicine. For the longest time, we attempted to discover effective medicine by using the pattern of trying things until we felt subjectively better. An effective medicine was whatever we took just before we felt subjectively better. However, this pattern can be created for anything - even stuff that is completely ineffective. And so it happened that almost everything we considered effective was actually completely ineffective. And more importantly, those few medicines which were actually having an effect were completely indistinguishable from those which weren't. It wasn't until we developed a different means of discovery - measuring changes in disease rather than changes in symptoms, removing the effect of timing on the application of treatments - that we vastly increased our discovery of effective medicine.

Until you shed the practice of using patterns created by cognitive bias as markers of patterns created by synchronicity, no progress can be made in this area.

Linda

Assuming such a marker could be found, that would only be able to prove the existence of syncronicity (if it exists), not to disprove it (if it does not).

 

[Prometheus]

Don't keep us in suspense! What, specifically, are you recommending be done to prove or disprove synchronicity?

She's under no burden to prove or disprove anything. The rational default position is to assume that it does not exist unless some evidence is produced to the contrary.

 

[Dr Adequate]

Don't keep us in suspense! What, specifically, are you recommending be done to prove or disprove synchronicity?

First, it has to be made into a testable hypothesis. That is, you must be able to say how a universe with synchronicity in it would look different from one without it.

At the moment, you don't have that. The "hypothesis" so far is: "Hey, what if some things that look exactly like coincidences are in fact the result of some ill-defined hidden cause which I'm going to call 'synchronicity'." You might as well postulate that some things that look like ducks and walk like ducks and quack like ducks are really pixies using their magical powers to disguise themselves as ducks.