How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Maia]

I disagree. I see synchronicity used to talk about some other connection (than normal causality), like "resonance" or "astrology" and so on. Even in the Merriam Webster definition it's obvious that they're talking about a connection that is not conventional causality. If the word only meant what Quarky says, the term "apophenia" would cover it.

No, that's what I mean. I just think that he needs to give the experience another name (and so does everyone else, apparently-- even Webster's dictionary, that's really sad, but then I guess they're just describing how people have defined it), because synchronicity is not the correct one, and "a subjective mental event, a reaction (often a shared one) to a coincidence, and as such, it belongs in that category and class of events" is a good description of what's actually going on. "Synchronicity" is a word that should probably be used to describe something else, such as a Police album, and then we can call the above definition by another name. "Apophenia" has a certain ring to it. But I do think that what Quarky describes may also include a certain shared feeling of fun and closeness between friends, as in the "hearing the song on the radio" example. Maybe we could take some nominations for a new name?

 

[Starthinker]

So, if two identical events of long odds happen to two different people, at different times, and one goes "meh!" and the other goes "wow, this is going to change my life", then one is synchrosity and the other not synchrosity, even though the event is the same?

Norm

Yes, exactly. I think I said that earlier in the thread.

 

[tsig]

No, that's what I mean. I just think that he needs to give the experience another name (and so does everyone else, apparently-- even Webster's dictionary, that's really sad, but then I guess they're just describing how people have defined it), because synchronicity is not the correct one, and "a subjective mental event, a reaction (often a shared one) to a coincidence, and as such, it belongs in that category and class of events" is a good description of what's actually going on. "Synchronicity" is a word that should probably be used to describe something else, such as a Police album, and then we can call the above definition by another name. "Apophenia" has a certain ring to it. But I do think that what Quarky describes may also include a certain shared feeling of fun and closeness between friends, as in the "hearing the song on the radio" example. Maybe we could take some nominations for a new name?

Stuff happens?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

No, that's what I mean. I just think that he needs to give the experience another name (and so does everyone else, apparently-- even Webster's dictionary, that's really sad, but then I guess they're just describing how people have defined it), because synchronicity is not the correct one, and "a subjective mental event, a reaction (often a shared one) to a coincidence, and as such, it belongs in that category and class of events" is a good description of what's actually going on. "

OK, so this is going to become a linguistics discussion. Again, words don't have any natural meaning. They only have meaning by convention. It really doesn't make sense to say that most people are wrong in how they use a word--that their usage is somehow in conflict with the real meaning of it. There is no other meaning but the conventional meaning.

The word synchronicity was coined by Jung, and I think the New Agers who use it (and Rodney) are staying relatively true to his meaning--the illogical claim that these events are meaningfully connected but not by causality (or not by "conventional causality"). If they're coincidence, they are not mere coincidence but something more.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, if two identical events of long odds happen to two different people, at different times, and one goes "meh!" and the other goes "wow, this is going to change my life", then one is synchrosity and the other not synchrosity, even though the event is the same?

Norm

Yes, exactly. I think I said that earlier in the thread.

And Rodney and I think the majority of people who use the term would disagree with you.

Besides that, we have a term for doing what Norm described. It's apophenia, not synchronicity.

 

[Starthinker]

And Rodney and I think the majority of people who use the term would disagree with you.

Besides that, we have a term for doing what Norm described. It's apophenia, not synchronicity.

Apophenia is seeing patterns where none exist, synchronicity is having an Emotional Response to a series of coincidences, or patterns even. Without the emotional response, it's not synchronicity. It's just "hey, that was a neat coincidence" but with emotions the same even becomes "hey, that coincidence has a lot of meaning for some reason I can't put my finger on and it may change my life or make me see meaning in the universe."

It's nothing you can prove. It's just a feeling, like deja vu (like how many times I've said that in this thread.)

 

[PixyMisa]

Again, I was trying to determine PixeMisa's statistics background. The ad hom was when PixyMisa stated: "So synchronicity only happens in poorly-defined and poorly-controlled circumstances to people who don't understand statistics. There's a hint in there, if you would care but to look for it."

How is that an ad hominem?

 

[JJM 777]

Sorry that I don't bother to read any previous posts in this thread.

Nearly all examples of incredible statistical coincidences are exactly that -- incredible statistical coincidences -- without any "force" causing them. But not all of them. Science finds new phenomenons every now and then.

Retrospective belief in forces, which once-upon-a time caused this-or-that incredible coincidence, is fruitless. The only thing that matters are phenomenons that we can control or reliably predict before they happen. Somewhere among the many incredible coincidences may yet lie many actual forces and phenomenons, which science will learn to understand in future.

 

[Marshmallow]

I was reading about Littlewood's Law of Miracles in the Skeptic's Dictionary:

Littlewood's law of miracles
Mathematician John Littlewood (1885-1977) calculated that a typical person would experience about one miracle a month during his or her lifetime. He defined a miracle as something deemed to have special significance and occurring with a probability of one in a million. He based his calculation on assuming that the typical person is awake and alert about eight hours a day and that events occur at the rate of about one per second. (For those who will do the math, you actually need about 35 days to experience one million events at the rate of one per second. But this is miracle math, so we must cut Littlewood some slack.)

If this is true, then I can't find a way to rationalize the large number of synchronicities I have in just a week, assuming that by using the term "miracle", you are including synchronicity. Lately I feel like I've been getting stalked by synchronicities.

 

[fromdownunder]

I was reading about Littlewood's Law of Miracles in the Skeptic's Dictionary:



If this is true, then I can't find a way to rationalize the large number of synchronicities I have in just a week, assuming that by using the term "miracle", you are including synchronicity. Lately I feel like I've been getting stalked by synchronicities.

And you know these events all exceed One Million to One odds because...?

Norm

 

[Marshmallow]

I didn't say that they exceed One Million to One odds. I was referring to the fact that so many of them happen within such a short timeframe. But this article is saying that you can expect one miracle a month. I'm saying that I often see a large number incredible coincidences in a month...not just one.

 

[PixyMisa]

I didn't say that they exceed One Million to One odds. I was referring to the fact that so many of them happen within such a short timeframe. But this article is saying that you can expect one miracle a month. I'm saying that I often see a large number incredible coincidences in a month...not just one.

That's at least three failures of your grasp of statistics.

First, the fact that people will experience an average of one personally significant million-to-one occurence per month doesn't mean that you will experience one million-to-one occurence per month.

You might experience none at all for a whole year, or ten in the space of a week. What happens to you doesn't apply to anyone else, and what happens to you one month doesn't apply to any other month.

Second (or third, depending on how you look at it), you don't know what the probabilities of your events are, so you can't make any meaningful statistcial argument about them.

 

[Marshmallow]

That's at least three failures of your grasp of statistics.

First, the fact that people will experience an average of one personally significant million-to-one occurence per month doesn't mean that you will experience one million-to-one occurence per month.

You might experience none at all for a whole year, or ten in the space of a week. What happens to you doesn't apply to anyone else, and what happens to you one month doesn't apply to any other month.

Second (or third, depending on how you look at it), you don't know what the probabilities of your events are, so you can't make any meaningful statistcial argument about them.

I apologize for my ignorance...yes my grasp on statistics is very poor, I admit. But at least I'm learning.

It's just that I've been having some really creepy coincidences/synchronicities this month and I can't get my head around it. I'm still having trouble believing that this is all random.

 

[PixyMisa]

I apologize for my ignorance...yes my grasp on statistics is very poor, I admit. But at least I'm learning.

Okay, that's good.

It's just that I've been having some really creepy coincidences/synchronicities this month and I can't get my head around it. I'm still having trouble believing that this is all random.

Oh, I can understand that. There's two things you can learn about that will help you here.

One of them is statistics, and the other is psychology.

Statistics will help you understand what is and isn't improbable, and how improbable things are. So if you see something that seems astoundingly unlikely, but then you calculate the numbers and realise that it happens all the time and you just hadn't noticed it before, you can relax.

Psychology will help you understand why your mind places particular signficance on some events, or notices some things and not others. Our brains are built to find patterns, and sometimes we find patterns that aren't really there. The best introduction to psychology I have ever run across is the MIT Introduction to Psychology lecture series given by Prof. Jeremy Wolfe. It's exceptionally engaging and informative, and I recommend it to anyone with an interest in the subject.

 

[Rodney]

How is that an ad hominem?

When you state -- "So synchronicity only happens in poorly-defined and poorly-controlled circumstances to people who don't understand statistics. There's a hint in there, if you would care but to look for it." -- the "hint" is rather obviously that I don't understand statistics.

 

[paximperium]

When you state -- "So synchronicity only happens in poorly-defined and poorly-controlled circumstances to people who don't understand statistics. There's a hint in there, if you would care but to look for it." -- the "hint" is rather obviously that I don't understand statistics.

How is a statement of truth, an ad hominem?

 

[Rodney]

Statistics will help you understand what is and isn't improbable, and how improbable things are. So if you see something that seems astoundingly unlikely, but then you calculate the numbers and realise that it happens all the time and you just hadn't noticed it before, you can relax.

I urge you to do that, Marshmallow, and then draw your own conclusions as to whether what PixyMisa (and most others here) is arguing is true.

 

[Rodney]

How is a statement of truth, an ad hominem?

Let's put it this way, I'm quite confident I know more about statistics than you and PixyMisa.

 

[paximperium]

Let's put it this way, I'm quite confident I know more about statistics than you and PixyMisa.

And your post history is evidence that your statement is blatantly false.

 

[Elizabeth I]

When you state -- "So synchronicity only happens in poorly-defined and poorly-controlled circumstances to people who don't understand statistics. There's a hint in there, if you would care but to look for it." -- the "hint" is rather obviously that I don't understand statistics.

...and yet another poster who doesn't seem to understand that the ad hominem fallacy is more than just an insult. "You are ugly" is an insult but not an ad hom. "You are wrong because you are ugly" is the ad hominem fallacy.

Besides, I don't really see how saying someone doesn't understand statistics is even an insult. I know lots of people who would cheerfully say the same thing about themselves. Would you think it an insult for someone to say you didn't understand string theory or genetic biology or [fill in some complicated, highly specialized field of study]?