To me, it comes down to the likely odds against a particular sequence of events happening. If the odds against a particular sequence are off the charts (even if they can't be calculated exactly), it's a big stretch to fall back on the coincidence hypothesis. For example, if quarky really did see only the times 1:11, 2:22, 3:33, 4:44, 5:55, and 11:11 every time he checked his digital clock for a period of more than a year, I reject the hypothesis that "it was just a coincidence."
How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?
- Thread starter Marshmallow
- Start date
-
- Tags
- synchronicity
If you're saying that it would have been just as weird for Teapots Happen to have felt compelled to buy a particular vase and then digging up the same style vase under his house a week later, I agree with you.
It was, assuming that it considered a psychiatrist to be a life form.
The patient would not have progressed and would instead have wasted the rest of her life claiming that there's no such thing as synchronicity.
How could they have been specified before they happened?
Belz...
Fiend God
1) Why are triples significant ?
2) How do you distinguish synchronicity from coincidence &
Belz...
Fiend God
But that's not a useful definition, because it's the same definition as the word "coincidence", something that seems a priori unlikely.
First, you and I havw no idea of how many times quarky did NOT notice numbers that didn't match up, or chose to ignore them.
Belz...
Fiend God
People who are affraid of elevators also have a "feeling". So far feelings haven't been very useful at determining truth.
The patient would not have progressed and would instead have wasted the rest of her life claiming that there's no such thing as synchronicity.
Why? Even if we assume that Jung's advice helped her, that advice was based on interpreting her dream - something that didn't require 'synchronicity'.
That's what I've been asking of you. Obviously it can't simply be some probability threshold, since you rejected events with lower probabilities.
Linda
I wonder if the opposite is also possible? That people don't even notice that every time they look at the clock, it has one of those times?
An anti-synchronistic confirmation bias?
Either way, the information is pointless, except for a laugh.
I just heard a tale of a baseball fan whose team always lost when he went to a game, though he went randomly, as his schedule permitted.
The odds for odd odds are good, if we count everyone and all their perceptions. Meanwhile, I've moved on to traditional clocks, so, if its still happening, I don't notice.
The link that I cited states: "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." Presumably, the patient was stunned by the coincidence and without it, would not have improved.
What lower probability events were those?
Elizabeth I
Philosopher
[cue appropriate spooky music] Today I wrote this:
in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158632&page=2
And guess what was showing tonight on Turner Classic Movies? OMG!!!1!! Burton and Taylor's The Taming of the Shrew!
What is the universe trying to tell me? Should I become an actress? Should I write plays? Should I go around defending Shakespeare? Should I stay home and watch TV? Should I apply to become Elizabeth Taylor's personal assistant?
Come on, people. You think there's significance in this stuff. What's the significance here? What is the message I should take away from this?
in this thread: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=158632&page=2
And guess what was showing tonight on Turner Classic Movies? OMG!!!1!! Burton and Taylor's The Taming of the Shrew!
What is the universe trying to tell me? Should I become an actress? Should I write plays? Should I go around defending Shakespeare? Should I stay home and watch TV? Should I apply to become Elizabeth Taylor's personal assistant?
Come on, people. You think there's significance in this stuff. What's the significance here? What is the message I should take away from this?
Prometheus
Acolyte of Víðarr
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2007
- Messages
- 50,595
Post Hoc fallacy.
Belz...
Fiend God
I would doubt it. The human brain is designed to notice correlation, real or imagined, so it's far more likely that you'll notice hits than misses. The trick is to go against your own nature and notice the misses.
Considering what some people are willing to do even for those seemingly insignificant beliefs, I don't think so.
My license plate example, for example.
I can probably come up with dozens in a given day. Yesterday, I washed a bunch (13 to be exact) of football jerseys and as I was hanging them up, the last two just happened to be the jerseys that my husband and I wear to the games. That's way crazier than your 1 in 40 threshold.
Linda
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
One of the fallacies of pop psychology is that insight inevitably leads to improved mental health. If only it were that simple.
aggle-rithm
Ardent Formulist
True, but maybe there are no misses...just a lack of sophistication in what constitutes correlation. For instance, I don't look for prime #s in digital read-outs, much less even #s vs odd #s.
An 'after the fact' analysis of seemingly patternless correlations might reveal significant correlation...if that's what we're looking for.
I wouldn't notice, for instance, if every time I looked at the clock for a year, it said a different number...which would also be quite odd. Or, if every 4th time, it was the same # minus one...etc, etc.
Teapots Happen
Student
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2009
- Messages
- 38
Certainly! I've considered this idea as well, and I agree that it can happen. In our culture it is incredibly easy is to NOT NOTICE even strong coincidences - to to write them off instantly if we do. When I found the second teapot, it took me some time to realize how bizarre it even was - my first response was to try to dismiss the coincidence, to assume that the teapots were not at all the same, etc.
While having a check on finding meaning in patterns is needed, it can be too knee-jerk and go too far - automatically ruling out the possibility of meaning in a coincidence, based not on the case itself, but on a preexisting faith that 'all coincidences are mere.'
Somehow this reminds me of the classic experiment where people are shown a video and told to try to count the number of times that the people wearing white pass the basketball:
http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php
... people are so fixated on the ball, on the sensible and expected and goal-oriented, that between 50% and 90% utterly fail to notice the gorilla walking through the middle of the game ...
Synchronicity is such a gorilla.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inattentional_blindness
Did anybody find my MS diagnosis coincidence potentially meaningful? If not, why not - because of the facts of the coincidence ... or merely because your paradigm precludes the possibility of such a thing happening by any means other than random chance?
You're failing to distinguish event sequences that are guaranteed to happen from those that are so unlikely that they could not realistically be expected to happen even once in a lifetime. By your logic, if someone flips a fair coin 1000 times and gets 1000 heads, that's no different than that same person flipping the coin 1000 times and getting 500 heads. Now, it's true that any particular pattern of heads and tails is as unlikely as 1000 heads and no tails, but you know before you start that you will obtain some pattern of heads and tails, so you should not be surprised at any particular pattern as long as it contains in the neighborhood of 500 heads (say 450-550) with no long runs of heads or tails (which is not to say that there will no runs of 5-10 heads or tails, but it's extremely unlikely that there will be a run of 100 heads or tails). The point is that the odds of anyone on earth flipping a fair coin 1000 times and getting all heads is off the charts, and so it would be illogical to dismiss such an occurrence as "just a coincidence."
But let's return to the original issue. In post #472 on this thread, in response to my question -- "So do you think there is any objective way to determine whether there is such a thing as synchronicity?" -- you responded "Yes." However, you now seem to be doing what JoeTheJuggler has done throughout the thread by assuming the problem away on the basis that all event sequences are equally unlikely. So, for example, even if quarky really did see on his digital clock for more than a year only the times 1:11, 2:22, 3:33, 4:44, 5:55, and 11:11, you seem to be implying that it would not be anything to get excited about. Is that your position?