How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[fls]

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

That has been my point as well. Once you start paying attention, there are an overwhelming number of patterns available to us. Regardless of what sort of meaning one wishes to apply to events which co-incide, my question has been, why do believers in synchronicity only attend to a small handful of those patterns?

Did anybody find my MS diagnosis coincidence potentially meaningful?

I'm curious as to why you ignored all the other coincidences, focussing instead on the diagnosis of MS. That is the part that I personally find more 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?

What do you mean by random chance? Are you referring to chaotic causes, rather than the more linear causes you seem to be more comfortable with?

Linda

 

[fls]

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.

Are you attempting to claim that an insect buzzing outside a window is an event which realistically could not 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.

No, that is not at all what I am saying. I'm saying that if you flip a fair coin 1000 times, that we will find some patterns more meaningful than others. For example, we would usually find 1000 heads far more interesting than 500 heads, although we would probably find 500 heads in a row followed by 500 tails in a row just as interesting (if not moreso).

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."

You've entirely missed my point. Are you seriously trying to claim that the only pattern of coin flips which would be considered interesting is all heads?

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?

My position is that your criteria for "excited" is so inconsistent that you fail to notice the plethora of equally, if not moreso, exciting sequences.

Linda

 

[fls]

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."

This parallels discussions about the fine-tuning argument whereby it is assumed that fairly simple patterns should be more exciting than patterns that have a superficial appearance of randomness. However, a coin which exhibits a fairly simple pattern, while probabilistically unlikely if it were a fair coin, can be attributed to a fairly dumb influence. What is much more exciting (at least, exciting to those who aren't hung up on glib explanations), are patterns which are unexpected if due to chance, but have no easily discernible, fairly dumb explanation. So the 1000 heads is actually pretty unexciting compared to human attempts to generate a 'random' heads/tails sequence.

Yy2bggggs explained this very nicely here:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=5071936#post5071936

Linda

 

[P.J. Denyer]

...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...

Alternating heads and tails would fit this description perfectly and would therefore by your reasoning not be significant?

The point is that the odds of anyone on earth flipping a fair coin 1000 times and getting all heads is off the charts

Yes it is hugely unlikely, but it is possible and therefore it could potentially happen anytime someone decides to toss acoin 1000 times. Under these circumstances the probability of the event speaks to the average frequency of the event not to the timing of individual occurances, it may only happen on average once every 10^301 attempts, but that doesn't mean it won't happen until the 10^301st attempt.

 

[Belz...]

True, but maybe there are no misses...

That's why we can't trust people to provide accurate statistics about their own successes. They tend to over-estimate them. We need a study to determine that, something that eliminates confirmation bias.

An 'after the fact' analysis of seemingly patternless correlations might reveal significant correlation...if that's what we're looking for.

Here's my question agani, then: how do you distinguish conincidence from syncronicity ?

 

[Belz...]

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).

You're contradicting yourself. Is it or is it not true that ANY pattern is as likely as the next ?

 

[quarky]

That's why we can't trust people to provide accurate statistics about their own successes. They tend to over-estimate them. We need a study to determine that, something that eliminates confirmation bias.



Here's my question agani, then: how do you distinguish conincidence from syncronicity ?

I'd say you tell them apart because you decide to, with an emotional involvement, however subtle.
Synchronicity is like a personal coincidence. I had one moments ago, when a friend stopped by and started talking about synchronicity, and how it happens to his wife and him all the time. Then he tells me how they went through a long period of only seeing repeat digit times on their clock.

This is honestly true, and he brought it up. Then we talked briefly about deja-vu. He volunteered that all the synchronistic moments, as well as the de-ja vu moments, were always mundane and meaningless. I concurred.

I would be curious if the meaninglessness is a normal feature of these experiences? A poll would help.

If it was the universe winking at the deluded, then it is done remarkably gently. I couldn't concieve of anything gentler than the clock experiment.
The teapot is pretty mild, too.

Whereas, coming home and finding a floating groundhog speaking English in your bedroom would be life-threatening.



The improbable coin toss; 1000 heads in a row, is very exciting, but doesn't say much. I wonder if kids flip coins to receive binary messages? That would be way cool, though I suspect the universe would be even cooler, and send them gibberish.

 

[Prometheus]

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?

If such an occurance were to actually take place verifiably, a rational first guess would be that the coin was, in fact, not a fair one. After checking that it is, one would then look for other possible environmental effects. Heck, even the possibility of an MDC-winning paranormal ability on the part of the coin flipper is more plausible than the notion of synchronicity, which, as has been explained above, is a logical contradiction.

 

[Rodney]

Heck, even the possibility of an MDC-winning paranormal ability on the part of the coin flipper is more plausible than the notion of synchronicity, which, as has been explained above, is a logical contradiction.

So, if I understand your position (and I think, Linda's and JoeTheJuggler's as well), there's no need and no way to test whether synchronicity exists because logically it cannot. Correct?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, if I understand your position (and I think, Linda's and JoeTheJuggler's as well), there's no need and no way to test whether synchronicity exists because logically it cannot. Correct?

Not if you can't say how an example of synchronicity can be distinguished from something that is a random coincidence. (Low probability doesn't make this distinction as has been amply demonstrated to you.)

Yes, it is illogical to claim there is a connection between the events and at the same time that the coincidence of events is acausal.

 

[Starthinker]

That's why we can't trust people to provide accurate statistics about their own successes. They tend to over-estimate them. We need a study to determine that, something that eliminates confirmation bias.



Here's my question agani, then: how do you distinguish conincidence from syncronicity ?

This has been answered many times. Synchronicity is just giving meaning to a coincidence. It's a feeling, like deja vu. It has nothing to do with odds. Could be astronomical odds or just 2 to 1. The coincidence itself, the odds, none of that matters, what matters is how the observer feels about it. That feeling is synchronicity. It can't be proved or predicted any more than deja vu, or the feeling you are being watched, or any other useless, non-logical emotion. What you are asking is like asking how do you distinguish a gunshot from the color green?

Coincidences happen constantly = no big deal
Someone observing a coincidence and feels it has meaning = synchronicity

 

[fls]

So, if I understand your position (and I think, Linda's and JoeTheJuggler's as well), there's no need and no way to test whether synchronicity exists because logically it cannot. Correct?

An idea that is useful is testable. I think that what is being said is that formulations of synchronicity are only untestable because they fail to be useful.

Linda

 

[tsig]

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."

After something has happened the chance of it happening is 1.

This is not a hypothesis it is a fact.

 

[tsig]

[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?

It's obvious, you are a special person and the Universe loves you.

 

[tsig]

I'd say you tell them apart because you decide to, with an emotional involvement, however subtle.
Synchronicity is like a personal coincidence. I had one moments ago, when a friend stopped by and started talking about synchronicity, and how it happens to his wife and him all the time. Then he tells me how they went through a long period of only seeing repeat digit times on their clock.

This is honestly true, and he brought it up. Then we talked briefly about deja-vu. He volunteered that all the synchronistic moments, as well as the de-ja vu moments, were always mundane and meaningless. I concurred.

I would be curious if the meaninglessness is a normal feature of these experiences? A poll would help.

If it was the universe winking at the deluded, then it is done remarkably gently. I couldn't concieve of anything gentler than the clock experiment.
The teapot is pretty mild, too.

Whereas, coming home and finding a floating groundhog speaking English in your bedroom would be life-threatening.



The improbable coin toss; 1000 heads in a row, is very exciting, but doesn't say much. I wonder if kids flip coins to receive binary messages? That would be way cool, though I suspect the universe would be even cooler, and send them gibberish.

What is the universe trying to tell you?

 

[tsig]

This has been answered many times. Synchronicity is just giving meaning to a coincidence. It's a feeling, like deja vu. It has nothing to do with odds. Could be astronomical odds or just 2 to 1. The coincidence itself, the odds, none of that matters, what matters is how the observer feels about it. That feeling is synchronicity. It can't be proved or predicted any more than deja vu, or the feeling you are being watched, or any other useless, non-logical emotion. What you are asking is like asking how do you distinguish a gunshot from the color green?

Coincidences happen constantly = no big deal
Someone observing a coincidence and feels it has meaning = synchronicity

So synchronicity is a product of the human mind?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

This has been answered many times. Synchronicity is just giving meaning to a coincidence. It's a feeling, like deja vu. It has nothing to do with odds.

And I've shown that this answer isn't correct for several reasons.

First, it's not how believers use the term. (Rodney, for example.) If it has nothing to do with the probability, why do many synchronicity believers end their anecdotes with, "What are the odds against that?" (Yes, they commit the Texas Sharpshooter's fallacy.)

If it's just a name for incorrectly reading significance and meaning (seeing patterns) in meaningless and insignificant data, we already have a term for that: apophenia.

It's clear in the way the word is used (even by Jung) that synchronicity is offered as an alternative explanation to "mere coincidence". If it's just a feeling, as you say, then the event can be an example of synchronicity AND a meaningless and insignificant random coincidence. People use the term to refer to something that is NOT merely random coincidence.

There is a claim of some acausal connection between events. That is, it's a purported explanation (albeit an entirely illogical one).

 

[Prometheus]

So synchronicity is a product of the human mind?

Yes.

 

[Marshmallow]

I'm sorry, but no matter how I try, I just don't buy that "it's all in your head" stuff.

Remember how I mentioned that I sometimes go through these number synchronicities in phases and how I won't see 555 when I'm not already going through a 555 phase? The trouble is, even when I look really hard for 555 outside of that particular period, I won't find it. It just doesn't show up. It's just not there, when it was previously showing up all over. Also, the 555 seems to coincide with another seemingly paranormal phenomenon I experience and it doesn't show up outside of the time I experience it. I don't know how to explain it.

Once, during one of those times, I realized I'd left my stopwatch going (I had been using it for something earlier) for a long time, and I pressed the button to stop it while not looking at the screen. Then I looked and realized I'd stopped on 55 hours, 55 minutes, 55 seconds, and 55 milliseconds. I am not making this up. I even took pictures of it because it was so weird.

And I'll look up at a billboard (when driving past) or the TV at just the right time to see 555...but only when I'm going through this other phenomenon.

I just don't know how to explain this except for some kind of outside force. To be honest, it's scaring me the way this stuff happens. I looked it up and found out that some of the New Agey people assign meanings to these numbers.

I know that confirmation bias and apophenia exist. However, that really doesn't seem to be a possible explanation in my case.

 

[Belz...]

I'd say you tell them apart because you decide to, with an emotional involvement, however subtle.

In other words it is non-existent or entirely subjective.