How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Rodney]

The implications of my report, if true and honest, still don't describe some new aspect of how the universe works, nor do they refute science.

They don't refute the current scientific consensus regarding the laws of probability? Again, you stated: "For a little more than a year, every time I checked the time on our digital clock, it would read 1:11 2:22 3:33 4:44 5:55 or 11:11." Those times combined represent only six out of the 720 possible times (AM or PM), and so the random odds of you seeing one of those six times on any given occasion is 1 in 120. Further, if this went on for more than a year, I would think that you would have checked the time on at least several hundred occasions. Now, you might have unwittingly been trying to select those six times, but even so, it's hard to believe that your "inner clock" would be so accurate as to never be off by even one minute. So, how do you reconcile your experience with the laws of probability?

 

[Prometheus]

They don't refute the current scientific consensus regarding the laws of probability? Again, you stated: "For a little more than a year, every time I checked the time on our digital clock, it would read 1:11 2:22 3:33 4:44 5:55 or 11:11." Those times combined represent only six out of the 720 possible times (AM or PM), and so the random odds of you seeing one of those six times on any given occasion is 1 in 120. Further, if this went on for more than a year, I would think that you would have checked the time on at least several hundred occasions. Now, you might have unwittingly been trying to select those six times, but even so, it's hard to believe that your "inner clock" would be so accurate as to never be off by even one minute. So, how do you reconcile your experience with the laws of probability?

There's no need to. Even if we ignore the obvious explanations (some combination of confirmation bias, selective memory, environmental cues, etc), then all that remains is an argument from incredulity. Nothing to see here; move along.

 

[sonofgloin]

I am not sure if this story fits but it's sequential.
When I was six I was on a train to the city with my parents and a grandfather type sitting opposite started talking to me, where are you going, day in the city, that sort of conversation. When he arose to alight he said there is some money under my seat, I looked and it was a bill, great find. He was gone by the time I looked to thank him.

When I was ten I was collecting golf balls from the river alonside the course quite early in the morning, so as to beat the tide. As I walked along an old grandfather guy walking the track asked me what I was doing, I told him. He suggested that I look between a tree and a lamp post further down the track. I headed there and looked and found quite a few balls in that line between the markers he pointed out, once again he was gone as I looked back.

When I was fifteen I was fishing in the harbour without much luck, an old granfather guy came up to me and asked how I was doing and I told him. He suggested that I go further around the point till I was in line with a lamp post on the above road. I did, I fished and caught a few good fish. Again he was gone when I looked back for him. On this occassion because of my age I thought about the luck that the old guy had brought me, and I started thinking about other good luck incidents and married the three up. I relived the three in my minds eye and found that the hat and check shirt and light coloured trousers were a theme in all of them. His face escapes me as the conversations except for the first were very brief and from the six year olds memory I could only come up with the clothing and hat as a stand out. I never thought about it again after that.

When I was thirty five I was rushing down the dock to catch a ferry dragging my four year old daughter behind me, and with my wife and the baby in stroller pushing ahead in front. Suddenly my daughter stops dead, which forces me to stop. I looked down at her and her gaze was fixed on a grandfather guy wearing a hat and check shirt and light trousers. He was stopped but heading in the opposite direction with his body turned 180 and his gaze was fixed on my daughter. In the rush of commuters getting on and getting off time stood still, I identified the sensation, I swept her into my arms and just made the gang plank as the ferry pulled out. When we had settled my wife asked what happened, to which I replied "when". She went on to say that she was at the gang plank and looked back to see our girl and this granfather locked in a stare and it made her feel uneasy like time had stopped for those moments and she said she feels shaken by the harmlesss incident. That is when it flooded to me , it was the same guy and I still could not describe his face, non descrirt grandfather type but the clothing was unique to an era fifty years past and I have never seen an old guy that makes me reminiscent of him. I told my wife of the trilogy of finds and we both agree it's weird. It really upset her and it made me wonder why.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

The hypothesis that the universe is telling you to kill your co-worker as an explanation of a low probability event is 1) unnecessary and 2) unparsimonious and 3) pretty insane.

Uhh, yeah, that was kind of the point! The coincidences were genuine but the conclusion was meant to be patently crazy while consistant with the perceived pattern, Reducto Ad Absurdum. Sorry I wasn't clear.

BTW: I've really enjoyed your contribution to this thread. Especially 'premature satisfaction of curiosity' wonderful turn of phrase.

 

[Belz...]

But again, the way people use the term synchronicity is to insist that it's neither a random coincidence nor a causally linked event. This of course is a logical contradiction or internal inconsistency in the concept. It's like a 4 sided triangle.

Same thing with free will: uncaused but non-random. Nonsense, in other words.

 

[Belz...]

Lots of good ones on this thread, but here is one of my all-time favorites:

"The French writer Émile Deschamps claims in his memoirs that in 1805, he was treated to some plum pudding by a stranger named Monsieur de Fontgibu. Ten years later, the writer encountered plum pudding on the menu of a Paris restaurant and wanted to order some, but the waiter told him that the last dish had already been served to another customer, who turned out to be de Fontgibu. Many years later, in 1832, Émile Deschamps was at a diner and was once again ordered plum pudding. He recalled the earlier incident and told his friends that only de Fontgibu was missing to make the setting complete—and in the same instant, the now senile de Fontgibu entered the room." See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

And ?

 

[AdinDraco]

There are times when I would wake up 5 minutes before the set alarm every morning, even when I varied the alarm time. Recently I heard a certain neurologist (you only get 1 guess) explained that sleep is a spectrum and not a stable one at that (my phrasing). In other words, in the right conditions, you can open your eyes and check the clock while still asleep several times as you slowly come up to full consciousness and not realise it. Of course confirmation bias covers a multitude of sins.

 

[aggle-rithm]

But again, the way people use the term synchronicity is to insist that it's neither a random coincidence nor a causally linked event. This of course is a logical contradiction or internal inconsistency in the concept. It's like a 4 sided triangle.

Probably somewhat like psychic phenomena that are real and yet unobservable (cannot be measured by science).

 

[fls]

I have never claimed that intuition can reliably identify synchronicity.

Then why cite TeapotsHappen's story as an example? Because realistically, we experience many 'two or more low probability events with one or more elements in common occurring within an unspecified time period', yet only a handful are identified as synchronicity. If you are not depending upon some sort of sensation to identify those which are a 'synchronicity', then what are you using?

My main point about synchronicity is that some reported coincidences seem to stretch to the breaking point the current scientific consensus regarding the laws of probability.

Really? Then why do you seem to only tell us stories about those that don't? What does "stretch [laws of probability] to the breaking point" even mean? That something is improbable?

You seemed to indicate that there is an objective way to determine whether that is actually true, but I'm still unsure of how you would go about attempting to prove or disprove synchronicity.

Because you still seem to be stuck on some fundamental misunderstandings of what probability means. Explain to me why my license plate of "WAI 264" doesn't stretch the laws of probability considering that the odds of this happening are about 1 in 17 million?

Linda

 

[aggle-rithm]

There are times when I would wake up 5 minutes before the set alarm every morning, even when I varied the alarm time. Recently I heard a certain neurologist (you only get 1 guess) explained that sleep is a spectrum and not a stable one at that (my phrasing). In other words, in the right conditions, you can open your eyes and check the clock while still asleep several times as you slowly come up to full consciousness and not realise it. Of course confirmation bias covers a multitude of sins.

That makes sense...you have to be awake for a certain amount of time for your waking experiences to be imprinted into memory. So, even though you might be awake and aware, you won't remember checking the clock, so it seems as if you did it "in your sleep".

 

[fls]

3 articles of this year - 2009 - tested this claim and the 3 articles found evidence for telepathy:

It should be pointed out that the second set of experiments found non-significant results and the first and third set of experiments were done under uncontrolled conditions (i.e. there were no restrictions on ordinary communication between the participants). The first experiment also did not confirm telephone telepathy, since a minimum noticeable effect size (i.e. one which would account for the observation) would be 0.5 instead of the miniscule 0.03 found in the experiments. Plus, Sheldrake makes an error in analysis when he uses 25% as the expected hit rate. It is a common error to think that with four choices, the chance of each choice is 1 in 4. But the number which should really be used is the actual frequency of each choice. Especially since the actual frequencies are different from 25%. An easy way to understand this would be guessing A every time on a test. If 28% of the questions had A as an answer, then you would get a hit rate of 28% instead of the 'expected' 25%. And the data Sheldrake has supplied shows that this is a very real problem, as randomization somehow leads to more (sometimes many more) trials where a familiar caller is selected (up to 30 to 40% in some cases). When you combine that with a tendency for the subjects to guess familiar callers more often than 25%, you introduce a bias which will create the appearance of a small effect.

Linda

 

[Vitor Moura]

It should be pointed out that the second set of experiments found non-significant results

Do you mean the second article?

Do You Know Who is Calling? Experiments on Anomalous Cognition in Phone Call Receivers. The Open Psychology Journal, 2009, 2, 12-18. Stefan Schmidt, Devi Erath, Viliana Ivanova and Harald Walach

The non-significant results were for the general population. The authors selected the best subject of this population - a woman - and tested she again. She achieved significant results (34 hits in 80 trials, p = 0.00015).

and the first and third set of experiments were done under uncontrolled conditions (i.e. there were no restrictions on ordinary communication between the participants).

Do you mean the first and the third article? Only a part of the experiments were done under uncontrolled conditions. The best subjects were tested under controlled conditions (in both articles).

The first experiment also did not confirm telephone telepathy, since a minimum noticeable effect size (i.e. one which would account for the observation) would be 0.5 instead of the miniscule 0.03 found in the experiments.

Do you mean the first article? The best subject scored well above chance:

"She subsequently took part in a further series of tests, supervised and filmed in her family home. The hit rate in these tests was 17/36 (47%, as opposed to 25% by chance, p = 0.003) (Table 6). She also took part in three control tests, in which there were no actual senders, with a hit rate not significantly different from chance (Table 6)."

Plus, Sheldrake makes an error in analysis when he uses 25% as the expected hit rate. It is a common error to think that with four choices, the chance of each choice is 1 in 4. But the number which should really be used is the actual frequency of each choice. Especially since the actual frequencies are different from 25%. An easy way to understand this would be guessing A every time on a test. If 28% of the questions had A as an answer, then you would get a hit rate of 28% instead of the 'expected' 25%. And the data Sheldrake has supplied shows that this is a very real problem, as randomization somehow leads to more (sometimes many more) trials where a familiar caller is selected (up to 30 to 40% in some cases). When you combine that with a tendency for the subjects to guess familiar callers more often than 25%, you introduce a bias which will create the appearance of a small effect.

In the first article, the real senders have only 14 trials against 22 of the virtual senders. The girl hit 8 in the 14 and 9 in the 22. So, the frequency that the girl hit the real senders was much above of the virtual senders, an the problem that you mention clearly can't be the cause for this, since the frequency of the real senders was minor than the virtual senders (to be equal, should be 18 and 18).

 

[Rodney]

Then why cite TeapotsHappen's story as an example? Because realistically, we experience many 'two or more low probability events with one or more elements in common occurring within an unspecified time period', yet only a handful are identified as synchronicity.

Can you give a few examples?

If you are not depending upon some sort of sensation to identify those which are a 'synchronicity', then what are you using?

The nature of the events and the timing. Again, the claimed sequence of events for Teapots Happen was:

1) He had a mystical experience, which had absolutely nothing to do with teapots.

2) One week later, he felt compelled to buy a particular teapot.

3) One week after buying the teapot, he decided to explore the crawl space beneath the house he had lived in for eight years, and found the same style teapot buried there.

Really? Then why do you seem to only tell us stories about those that don't? What does "stretch [laws of probability] to the breaking point" even mean? That something is improbable?

Extraordinarily so. Such as:

In his book Synchronicity (1952), Jung tells the following story as an example of a synchronistic event: "A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from the outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which, contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt the urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

Because you still seem to be stuck on some fundamental misunderstandings of what probability means. Explain to me why my license plate of "WAI 264" doesn't stretch the laws of probability considering that the odds of this happening are about 1 in 17 million?

Now you're beginning to sound like JoeTheJuggler. Your license plate has to be imprinted with some letters and/or numbers, and so -- unless the sequence "WAI264" has some special significance to you -- it's meaningless to calculate the odds of that particular sequence. Now, I think I know where you're going with this: If someone named "Wanda A. Ingram", who was born in February 1964, were randomly assigned that license plate, she would likely consider that to be a striking coincidence. And yes, I realize that "it would be far stranger if coincidences never happened." Still, don't you think many reported coincidences go way beyond this and cannot simply be assumed to have happened randomly?

 

[Fiona]

If not randomly, and if not related by some cause, then what is left? If I have missed the answer to this I am sorry, I have not read the whole thread

 

[Elizabeth I]

Can you give a few examples?


The nature of the events and the timing. Again, the claimed sequence of events for Teapots Happen was:

1) He had a mystical experience, which had absolutely nothing to do with teapots.

2) One week later, he felt compelled to buy a particular teapot.

3) One week after buying the teapot, he decided to explore the crawl space beneath the house he had lived in for eight years, and found the same style teapot buried there.


Extraordinarily so. Such as:

In his book Synchronicity (1952), Jung tells the following story as an example of a synchronistic event: "A young woman I was treating had, at a critical moment, a dream in which she was given a golden scarab. While she was telling me this dream, I sat with my back to the closed window. Suddenly I heard a noise behind me, like a gentle tapping. I turned round and saw a flying insect knocking against the window-pane from the outside. I opened the window and caught the creature in the air as it flew in. It was the nearest analogy to a golden scarab one finds in our latitudes, a scarabaeid beetle, the common rose-chafer (Cetonia aurata), which, contrary to its usual habits had evidently felt the urge to get into a dark room at this particular moment. I must admit that nothing like it ever happened to me before or since."
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronicity

And what portentous message is the universe trying to communicate by sending a beetle - apparently indigenous to the region and not at all rare, since its name is the "common rose-chafer" - to Carl Jung and his unfortunate patient?

Why would Jung - or you - assign this amusing but trivial incident any particular significance?

Now you're beginning to sound like JoeTheJuggler. Your license plate has to be imprinted with some letters and/or numbers, and so -- unless the sequence "WAI264" has some special significance to you -- it's meaningless to calculate the odds of that particular sequence. Now, I think I know where you're going with this: If someone named "Wanda A. Ingram", who was born in February 1964, were randomly assigned that license plate, she would likely consider that to be a striking coincidence. And yes, I realize that "it would be far stranger if coincidences never happened." Still, don't you think many reported coincidences go way beyond this and cannot simply be assumed to have happened randomly?

Nope. What causal action are you postulating to have brought about these coincidences that "cannot simply be assumed to have happened randomly?" If it's not the random operation of chance, what is the source of these significant occurences?

 

[Olowkow]

Feynman certainly knew how to deal with the bizarre.

Richard Feynman: You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won't believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!

 

[fls]

Can you give a few examples?

Really? Don't you play the license plate game?

If you're going to play dumb, then use the examples from this thread which weren't considered synchronicity, most recently Quarky's clock and Bronwyn Elko's book.

The nature of the events and the timing.

What nature of the events? He had an altered state of consciousness, he bought something in a store and he did some work on his house. How are we supposed to pick those sorts of things out from all the other things we do in a given day/week/month/year?

Extraordinarily so.

How are the events in this story improbable? An insect commonly found in the area is found in the area. A patient describes a dream with a different insect in it (nice example of attribution bias, though).

Now you're beginning to sound like JoeTheJuggler. Your license plate has to be imprinted with some letters and/or numbers, and so -- unless the sequence "WAI264" has some special significance to you -- it's meaningless to calculate the odds of that particular sequence.

You didn't answer my question. Why isn't it similarly meaningless to calculate the odds of someone buying something in a store?

Linda

 

[quarky]

They don't refute the current scientific consensus regarding the laws of probability? Again, you stated: "For a little more than a year, every time I checked the time on our digital clock, it would read 1:11 2:22 3:33 4:44 5:55 or 11:11." Those times combined represent only six out of the 720 possible times (AM or PM), and so the random odds of you seeing one of those six times on any given occasion is 1 in 120. Further, if this went on for more than a year, I would think that you would have checked the time on at least several hundred occasions. Now, you might have unwittingly been trying to select those six times, but even so, it's hard to believe that your "inner clock" would be so accurate as to never be off by even one minute. So, how do you reconcile your experience with the laws of probability?

I should have stated that one of these 'all the same digits' times would be the time when I checked the clock, which may have only happened once or twice a day. I didn't always see all of those possible times, and I saw 3:33 more often than the others. Lots of times, when I got up to pee at 3:33, I didn't even look at the clock.

As far as reconciling anything vs laws (of probability, which are made to be broken) I find the universe to be quite strange. The weird deal with the clock is pretty mild. I never found my self glancing at the clock, longing for some verification of my stance.

 

[Maia]

Okay, HERE'S an example of my astonishing ability to overturn the laws of probability... I wondered if this thread was still going and if people were still posting about the original topic, and when I checked it out.... it was all true! No topic drift at all. What are the odds of that?

I will now be starting a 1-900 psychic hotline. Only $4.99 a minute. (whips out crystal ball and puts on mysterious-looking purple fringy scarf) I see a tall, dark, mysterious man/woman/transgendered person/Bigfoot in your future who will fall in love with you/bring you money/abduct you on an alien spaceship... either that or your deadbeat uncle Fred wants to borrow money for hemorrhoid surgery again...

 

[Rodney]

Really? Don't you play the license plate game?

No.

If you're going to play dumb, then use the examples from this thread which weren't considered synchronicity, most recently Quarky's clock and Bronwyn Elko's book.

Not considered synchronicity by whom? To me, if Quarky's and Bronwyn's stories are accurate, they are classic examples of synchronicity.

What nature of the events? He had an altered state of consciousness, he bought something in a store and he did some work on his house. How are we supposed to pick those sorts of things out from all the other things we do in a given day/week/month/year?

The teapots, Linda, the teapots!

How are the events in this story improbable? An insect commonly found in the area is found in the area. A patient describes a dream with a different insect in it (nice example of attribution bias, though).

You don't find at all unusual the timing of a scarabaeid beetle knocking on a window to a darkened room where Jung's patient was relating a dream in which she was given a golden scarab? By the way, according to http://ofscarabs.blogspot.com/2009/04/golden-scarab.html -- "Jung knew the scarab is a symbol of rebirth in Egyptian mythology and believed the dream might portend some sort of psychological rebirth that would pull her out of the excessive rationalism that had impeded her treatment. As he was about to say as much, he heard a noise behind him and glanced around to see an insect fluttering at the glass. He opened the window to let the bug in, caught it, and discovered it was the closest thing his area had to a scarab beetle. Jung then shared his interpretation of the dream and from that point forward, the stunned patient started to improve."

You didn't answer my question. Why isn't it similarly meaningless to calculate the odds of someone buying something in a store?

Because Teapots Happens says that he felt compelled to buy that something, and then, just a week later, he found the same something buried beneath the house he had lived in for eight years.