• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

Elizabeth I said:
...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]?
Click to expand...
No, because there are many things I don't understand. I do understand statistics quite well.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Well, since you have asked other posters to document their expertise in that field, would you be willing to do the same?
Click to expand...

I'd like to see what this would consist of. I will finally (and grudgingly) be taking a statistics class in the spring, something I've avoided for lo, these many years, but for professional development, I must have it. ;) I would definitely appreciate a bit more explanation as what it will all entail.
 
Maia said:
I'd like to see what this would consist of. I will finally (and grudgingly) be taking a statistics class in the spring, something I've avoided for lo, these many years, but for professional development, I must have it. ;) I would definitely appreciate a bit more explanation as what it will all entail.
Click to expand...

I had a bit of statistics in a psych course once, and that small exposure indicated to me that, while statistics may indeed offer some information, the return is too small for all that trouble. :p
 
I don't actually think that proficiency with statistics is all that useful here. Because I see statisticians making the same kind of mistakes that Rodney, TeapotsHappen and Marshmallow make. I have also noticed this same problem since the ready availability of statistics programs means that anyone can plug some numbers in and get an 'answer' out.

The necessary skill isn't the ability to use a particular formula or program. The relevant skill is the ability to properly formulate the question so the appropriate numbers are sought, and more importantly, the ability to understand just what the number that pops out at the end of equation means and what it doesn't mean. I don't think that those sorts of things are necessarily taught in statistics courses. I've taken quite a few statistics courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, but most of my knowledge about the application of these methods came from outside of the courses (although they laid a necessary foundation).

Linda
 
Rodney said:
No, because there are many things I don't understand. I do understand statistics quite well.
Click to expand...

I dunno Rodney. Do you still try to claim that it is valid to pool all the hits and misses from the various ganzfeld studies? Because if you do, then you have just falsified your last sentence.

Linda
 
Prometheus said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right up there with "the banality of evil" we should place "the banality of 'paranormal' events."


M.
 
Q

fls said:
I don't actually think that proficiency with statistics is all that useful here. Because I see statisticians making the same kind of mistakes that Rodney, TeapotsHappen and Marshmallow make. I have also noticed this same problem since the ready availability of statistics programs means that anyone can plug some numbers in and get an 'answer' out.

The necessary skill isn't the ability to use a particular formula or program. The relevant skill is the ability to properly formulate the question so the appropriate numbers are sought, and more importantly, the ability to understand just what the number that pops out at the end of equation means and what it doesn't mean. I don't think that those sorts of things are necessarily taught in statistics courses. I've taken quite a few statistics courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, but most of my knowledge about the application of these methods came from outside of the courses (although they laid a necessary foundation).

Linda
Click to expand...

HA! This is why I shouldn't be required to take that stats class, logically speaking. ;) Although I doubt that argument is going to get me very far.

It just seems to me that the basic problem here is awfully simple... there TWO classes of events, ONE of which relates to the probability of things happening in the real and objective world, and ONE of which relates to personal and subjective feelings and interpretations of events. The two classes are getting mixed up, and they really should not be. And that's where "synchronicity" comes from. And twenty pages of posts!!! Anyway. Everyone can carry on now. :)
 
Gosh. I should have studied the official definition of the word. What I was describing is what most people I know would call a synchronicity. "Weasal words" is a bit strong. I was trying to be even handed and logical, with no agenda in mind...certainly not a woo-agenda.

Joe the juggler, you're a hard case. Perhaps you haven't had the experience? That's possible. Maybe not everyone has felt a de-ja vu. I find them similar, in that we don't go looking for them. They just happen.

I've known some people that do go looking for signs and meaningful data in random perceptions. Numerologists will tend to look at numbers of road signs for purposes other than to know what road it is. I don't think this can be done with synchronicity; certainly not with de-ja vu. Nor does it seem likely that anyone would lie about having the de-ja vu feeling or experience.

Religious people I know tend to look for messages from God. They are able to find them without resorting to anything related to coincidence. Coincidences happen. We can notice them, or not. We can make religious proclamations about them, or not.

I think I'm spent on the subject matter. Its not important enough to me to defend, or even definable enough. Though, evidently, its all been defined in the past by various famous people. I just wasn't happy with the definition.
 
fls said:
I don't actually think that proficiency with statistics is all that useful here. Because I see statisticians making the same kind of mistakes that Rodney, TeapotsHappen and Marshmallow make. I have also noticed this same problem since the ready availability of statistics programs means that anyone can plug some numbers in and get an 'answer' out.

The necessary skill isn't the ability to use a particular formula or program. The relevant skill is the ability to properly formulate the question so the appropriate numbers are sought, and more importantly, the ability to understand just what the number that pops out at the end of equation means and what it doesn't mean. I don't think that those sorts of things are necessarily taught in statistics courses. I've taken quite a few statistics courses at the undergraduate and graduate level, but most of my knowledge about the application of these methods came from outside of the courses (although they laid a necessary foundation).

Linda
Click to expand...

Well said.

I've shown where Rodney was basically cheating in the 1000 coin toss thought experiment, saying that one outcome is less likely than other individual outcome. Since the game is played ex post facto with arbitrary rules, asking the odds against that outcome after the fact is just the Texas Sharpshooter fallacy.

At any rate, it's plain that low probability is not what distinguishes something from being an example of synchronicity from something that is mere random coincidence. Extremely low probability events happen all the time and are not remarkable at all. What makes the events given as "synchronicity" remarkable is the apparent pattern in random events. Claiming these patterns are significant or meaningful is just a Type I error.
 
quarky said:
Gosh. I should have studied the official definition of the word. What I was describing is what most people I know would call a synchronicity.
Click to expand...
I noticed you put in the "out" phrase by not saying it's the way most people use the term, but most people you know.
I've shown repeatedly that that's not how the words is used by most people, including the guy who coined the word. Here are a few page 1 hits to a Google on "synchronicity" (ignoring those about the album and song)

http://www.synchronicity.org/
http://www.crystalinks.com/synchronicity.html
http://www.skepdic.com/jung.html
http://www.flowpower.com/What is Synchronicity.htm




"Weasal words" is a bit strong. I was trying to be even handed and logical, with no agenda in mind...certainly not a woo-agenda.
Click to expand...
Again, it's weasel words if you claim that using "synchronicity" is not making a claim of inherent meaning or significance but just a personal subjective meaning or significance (which is, of course, the claim that there is an inherent meaning). In other words, it's weasel words to claim that saying you think the fly was sent by the universe to motivate you to mow the lawn is NOT a claim of inherent meaning but just a subjective meaning.

Joe the juggler, you're a hard case. Perhaps you haven't had the experience? That's possible. Maybe not everyone has felt a de-ja vu. I find them similar, in that we don't go looking for them. They just happen.
Click to expand...
I have experienced apophenia and pareidolia. I just don't usually ascribe any meaning or significance to these events, and when I do I am making a Type I error.

In comparing it to the deja vu experience: I've spoken with some people who claim that when they have that experience they really do know what someone is going to say before they say it. This is a false claim. If that's what they mean by deja vu, I would say there is no such thing. The way synchronicity is used (and the way Jung used it) is similar to that claim.
 
Maia said:
It just seems to me that the basic problem here is awfully simple... there TWO classes of events, ONE of which relates to the probability of things happening in the real and objective world, and ONE of which relates to personal and subjective feelings and interpretations of events.
Click to expand...
But aren't "personal and subjective feelings and interpretations of events" about events that happen in the real world?

The two classes are getting mixed up, and they really should not be. And that's where "synchronicity" comes from.
Click to expand...
I disagree. The term synchronicity was coined by Jung. See the quote above--Jung thought there was a real connection or inherent meaning in these events. He thought it supported the case for ESP, astrology and what not.

He was NOT treating it as apophenia or the tendency of humans to make Type I error or to infer intention when there is none. He was clearly not talking about something that is a purely subjective experience. Jung thought there was was statistical case for the reality of an acausal connection or acausal significance (which, as I've said, is as logical as the term "acausal cause".)
 
Last edited:
JoeTheJuggler said:
But aren't "personal and subjective feelings and interpretations of events" about events that happen in the real world?
Click to expand...
Sure. But they're still personal and subjective.

I disagree. The term synchronicity was coined by Jung. See the quote above--Jung thought there was a real connection or inherent meaning in these events. He thought it supported the case for ESP, astrology and what not.

He was NOT treating it as apophenia or the tendency of humans to make Type I error or to infer intention when there is none. He was clearly not talking about something that is a purely subjective experience. Jung thought there was was statistical case for the reality of an acausal connection or acausal significance (which, as I've said, is as logical as the term "acausal cause".)
Click to expand...

Eh. I think that Jung got the entire thing screwed up in the first place by making the original error, which led to a definition of something that didn't and doesn't really exist. I just think that "synchronicity" is kind of like the word "paranormal." Clearly there is such a word, and it has an agreed-upon meaning. However, people on this board do tend to argue that this agreed-upon meaning is not accurate in terms of empirical reality. Similarly, "complementary and alternative medicine" is an accepted term, and it does have an accepted meaning for a large group of people. However, we can see in people's signatures around here that alternate names for this phenomenon have been suggested.:rolleyes:

But it's not as if lives exactly hang in the balance one way or the other. It's just an interesting discussion about different ways of naming things.
 
fls said:
I dunno Rodney. Do you still try to claim that it is valid to pool all the hits and misses from the various ganzfeld studies? Because if you do, then you have just falsified your last sentence.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily all, but certainly those that used identical or very similar protocols. And I believe that statistician Jessica Utts agrees with me. In one of her papers she concluded: "The recent focus on meta-analysis in parapsychology has revealed that there are small but consistently nonzero effects across studies, experimenters and laboratories. The sizes of the effects in forced-choice studies appear to be comparable to those reported in some medical studies that had been heralded as breakthroughs." See http://anson.ucdavis.edu/~utts/91rmp.html
 
Rodney said:
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.
Click to expand...
Um, no. That's not the hint, and that's not an ad hominem.
 
fls said:
The necessary skill isn't the ability to use a particular formula or program. The relevant skill is the ability to properly formulate the question so the appropriate numbers are sought, and more importantly, the ability to understand just what the number that pops out at the end of equation means and what it doesn't mean.
Click to expand...
Yes, very much so. Being able to do the maths is important, but being able to ask the right questions - and comprehend the answers - is critical.

I don't think that those sorts of things are necessarily taught in statistics courses.
Click to expand...
My first undergrad statistics course (Mathematics 1X, UNSW 1985) spent as much time on that as on the actual maths. But I expect you're right.
 
Maia said:
Sure. But they're still personal and subjective.
Click to expand...
Not really. That's why I put those terms in quotes.

Again, in Quarky's example about a fly coming along as a guy is sitting in a chair considering whether to mow the lawn or continue taking it easy. It is a meaningless random event. If the guy thinks that the fly was sent to motivate him to mow the lawn, it is not merely a personal and subjective feeling. It's a purported explanation. It's a hypothesis about the external world.

Just saying it's his own "meaning" doesn't change the fact that he's making an hypothesis about the external world. (And that hypothesis is wrong.)


Eh. I think that Jung got the entire thing screwed up in the first place by making the original error, which led to a definition of something that didn't and doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...
I agree, but I don't think you can then just take the term he made up and claim that it refers to something else--especially since, as I've shown, the definition Jung gave it is the one Rodney and a great many people are using.

It's just an interesting discussion about different ways of naming things.
Click to expand...
Again, language works by convention. You're free to think up different ways of naming things, but then you're just going to cause confusion.
 
Elizabeth I said:
Well, since you have asked other posters to document their expertise in that field, would you be willing to do the same?
Click to expand...
"Document" is too strong a word because no one here has produced any evidence that would stand up in a court of law about their knowledge of statistics. For the record, I have taken undergraduate courses in statistics and mathematical economics and a graduate level course in statistics, and have done a fair amount of statistical and probability analysis since that time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom