How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Prometheus]

I don't think she's incompetent. It simply looks like "statistician" is the wrong skill-set for the type of evaluation that is being attempted. I wouldn't make a good nurse, for example.

Linda

I don't necessarily think she's incompetent either. However, based on statements like:

Using the standards applied to any other area of science, it is concluded that psychic
functioning has been well established. The statistical results of the studies examined are far
beyond what is expected by chance. Arguments that these results could be due to
methodological flaws in the experiments are soundly refuted.

I'm pretty confident that she's not competent, honest and sane.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Why limit it to just people who have existed upto the present?

Good point. The probability of the result of 1000 coin tosses in a row in an unknown number of total tosses is unknown. If the number of tosses is infinite, then the probability of getting any specific outcome is 1.

And you're right--that's also how the game of synchronicity is played. If you have an LSD "mystical experience" about teapots, there seems to be no time limit on how long you get to look for something you can shoehorn into being a significant or meaningful event.

 

[Dr H]

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.

And yet so many discussions of fringe claims seem to go down this same dark alley. Like when someone proposes that there may be a "force" as yet undiscovered by science -- and then they procede to use 'force' in a way devoid of any scientific definition of the term. Very annoying.

 

[Dr H]

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.

There are three kinds of people in the world: those who can count, and those who can't.

 

[Dr H]

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.

Aw geez, it's not rocket science, and it's not magic. Anybody with good basic math skills ought to be able to make it through at least an introductory stats course. Considering how we are constantly bombarded with claims supposedly based upon this or that statistic, a certain basic understanding of the use -- and misuse -- of statistics would seem like a must for making it through the modern world with any sort of critical thinking intact.

 

[Dr H]

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

You make a good point. Still, I would argue that at least a basic understanding of statistical principles has to be a part of such a critical evaluation. People continually fling statistical terms around -- much like they fling scientific terms around -- with little or no understanding of what they mean. "Statistics show..."; "statistically significant..."; "margin of error..." ; "closely correlated..." When this happens, and someone who does understand the terms enters the conversation, all too often all parties concerned end up talking at cross-purposes, sometimes for gigabytes...

Hell, in the very first stats course I ever took the teacher continually rammed home the point that merely establishing a correlation did not necessarily establish a causal connection. And any discussion of 'synchronicity' revolves around issues of correlation and causality.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And yet so many discussions of fringe claims seem to go down this same dark alley. Like when someone proposes that there may be a "force" as yet undiscovered by science -- and then they procede to use 'force' in a way devoid of any scientific definition of the term. Very annoying.

Don't get me started!

I was once in a relationship with a believer in all things irrational--everything from theosophy and astrology to homeopathy. I finally learned that there's a sort of consistent outlook on life that results in this abuse of language. (And this same sort of stuff has come up on this thread at least a little bit.) There is the rejection that there is any objective reality. Instead, everyone is free to "create" his or her own reality. (I say "create" though there seems to some conflation of the concepts "create" and "perceive".)

If there is no objective reality, then for me to criticize her reality is not just pointing out that something is factually wrong, but is more like limiting someone's freedom.

In the same way you can "create" your own reality, you can use words any way you want to. You can even, supposedly, have communication where you use a word to mean one thing and the other person understands it to mean something else. (And definitely don't get me started on the ramifications this has for art or poetry!)

Conversation with someone with this approach to language can be frustrating, but it sure helps to realize that they might not be using the conventional meaning of a word. (I can remember a conversation that involved her using a superlative applied to more than one thing. I tried to explain that you can't have two "tallest" things or two "best" things, but she insisted that she was free to use words any way she pleased.)

Sorry. . . looks like I got started after all.

Coming back on topic, I can at least say I agree that Rodney is using the term synchronicity properly, and attempts to re-define it to mean something else don't fit with the conventional meaning.

 

[Dr H]

No, I was simply making the point that a combination of 500 heads and 500 tails shouldn't astonish us, whereas a combination of 1000 heads and no tails should.

Why should we be "astonished" by an event that has a finite probability of occuring?

 

[paximperium]

Why should we be "astonished" by an event that has a finite probability of occuring?

Will someone just program a random binary generator and "surprise" DOC with a 1000 heads result?

 

[Dr H]

I would be surprised by a result of 1000 heads in a row, but not because of the odds--or at least not because of the odds alone.

I'd probably be surprised, too, but astonishment is taking things to a whole different level.

If we didn't know for sure it was a random outcome, then we might consider it to be a double headed coin or some such. (That's why the result that is THTHTH. . . would be even MORE surprising if we didn't know the result was random because it would be harder to fake that outcome.)

Ok, I admit that if you got a result like THTHTH with a double headed coin, I would probably be astonished.

 

[Dr H]

And you're right--that's also how the game of synchronicity is played. If you have an LSD "mystical experience" about teapots, there seems to be no time limit on how long you get to look for something you can shoehorn into being a significant or meaningful event.

Yeah... I just saw another snake today ...


ooooEEEEEooooo

 

[fls]

You make a good point. Still, I would argue that at least a basic understanding of statistical principles has to be a part of such a critical evaluation. People continually fling statistical terms around -- much like they fling scientific terms around -- with little or no understanding of what they mean. "Statistics show..."; "statistically significant..."; "margin of error..." ; "closely correlated..." When this happens, and someone who does understand the terms enters the conversation, all too often all parties concerned end up talking at cross-purposes, sometimes for gigabytes...

Hell, in the very first stats course I ever took the teacher continually rammed home the point that merely establishing a correlation did not necessarily establish a causal connection. And any discussion of 'synchronicity' revolves around issues of correlation and causality.

Despite appearances to the contrary, I didn't mean to imply that statistics knowledge wasn't necessary, merely not sufficient.

Linda

 

[quarky]

Apologies for not having read the last page of new stuff.

As per tossing a fair coin 1000 times, and recording the result, every result would be equally unlikely, as a sequence. If this wasn't the case; if there was some innocent looking random array of heads and tails that happened twice as often as all heads or all tails, that would be a brand new woo discovery.

These other experiences, which P.J. Denyer has pegged quite nicely, yet fail to qualify as synchronicity stuff, maybe because of Jung, need a name.

I think its quite possible to 'pretend' that the universe can flirt with you, in a personal way, without getting all wooed-out. So far, for me, all the pseudo-synchronicities I've had have been light, and fun. They cause a bit of a happy, excited feeling, like you just got an unexpected present. Maybe I'm lucky.

The odds would suggest the occasional dark synchronicity:
You're watching a movie and the phone rings. You pause the dvd remotely, having just heard the dialog "You will surely die tonight!"

You take the call. Its an old friend, concerned because they heard you had died.

That would suck all the fun out of noticing the happy synchronicities.

Point being, the way we interpret subjective data, if it exists, can have a a positive effect on our well being, and our chance at reproduction...and its easily possible to tune into something imaginary without jeopardizing one's critical senses or scientific curiosity.

If a bluebird flies by, making a lovely song, just as your having the first kiss with a love intrest, its a good sign. Especially if the kiss was amazing, and you really liked her.
God forbid you say anything about it to her/him. Imagine enduring a tirade of logic about the odds of a blue bird in that area during this season, and how there was no meaningful information in it, even if it did seem lovely.

That would kill a date.

 

[Rodney]

Of course. You have always made it clear that your criteria as to whether or not you associate yourself with something is not whether it is correct, but whether it can be taken as support for your beliefs.

Linda

Let me ask you a question: If someone reading this is a disinterested third party, why should s/he believe that you, a medical doctor, know more about statistics than a Professor of Statistics at a major university?

 

[Prometheus]

Let me ask you a question: If someone reading this is a disinterested third party, why should s/he believe that you, a medical doctor, know more about statistics than a Professor of Statistics at a major university?

Suppose this disinterested third party, instead of taking you at your word, wanted to find the place where Linda claimed that she knows more about statistics than a Professor of Statistics at a major university. Which post should she look at?

 

[Rodney]

Suppose this disinterested third party, instead of taking you at your word, wanted to find the place where Linda claimed that she knows more about statistics than a Professor of Statistics at a major university. Which post should she look at?

#804 -- Linda doesn't say that explicitly, of course, but that's certainly the implication, at least when it comes to Professor Utts' Ganzfeld analysis.

 

[quarky]

Hell, I know more statistics than that famous dead Professor of Statistics, ol' what's his name. And I only know two.

Yogi Berra's life time batting average is one of them, btw.

 

[Prometheus]

#804 -- Linda doesn't say that explicitly, of course, but that's certainly the implication, at least when it comes to Professor Utts' Ganzfeld analysis.

Neither explicitly, nor implicitly, it seems to me. That post says nothing about her knowlege as compared to Utts'. It contains a list of problems allegedly present in the paper you linked to. Instead of Ad Hominem and Argument From Authority, why don't you just read Utts' paper and explain why you think those problems are not present?

 

[PixyMisa]

Let me ask you a question: If someone reading this is a disinterested third party, why should s/he believe that you, a medical doctor, know more about statistics than a Professor of Statistics at a major university?

That was never asserted, and is irrelevant in any case.

Significant methodological errors have been pointed out in Prof. Utts' analysis. Are you going to address those errors, or just whine?

 

[Marshmallow]

I've been keeping track of the numbers I've been seeing over the past couple of weeks and I've noticed something really strange...there are certain combinations of numbers that I'll see all the time and certain combinations that I'll hardly ever see. For example, I hardly ever see 444 or 555, but I often see 111, 222, and 333. On different forums, I'll often look up suddenly to realize that the number of views for a thread is 111 or will have 111 in it somewhere (for example 17, 111). This happens to me with almost every set of triple numbers except for 555.

Also, the 2012 people are always pointing out that they keep seeing 11:11 with increasing frequency.

I still have trouble believing all this stuff is coincidental...I'm sorry if that makes you think of me as a woo.

As a side note, I've also been noticing that a lot of people on different sites have 777 in their username.