How do you guys explain really bizarre cases of synchronicity?

[Elizabeth I]

Of course you can give a very specific and non-standard definition for a word and then consistently use it in that way -- philsophers do this all the time -- but then you need to be aware that what you've done is create a jargon, and behave accordingly (ie., not everyone can be expected to understand jargon without explanation).

Physicists do that too - "flavor","charm", "strangeness"...hmm...

 

[Rodney]

I don't think anyone should, or rather, instead of attempting to decide whether or not something is correct based on the personal characteristics of the person presenting the information, one should focus on the information presented instead.

I have no reason to doubt that Jessica Utts knows more about statistics than me, although I will admit that I am depending upon an element of authority in order to make that call. If I read that article and the author had an undergraduate, rather than a graduate degree, or was working at a community college instead of an established university, I'd wonder just how much they knew about statistics. But because of her background, I am willing to make the assumption that she has a deep understanding of statistics. So rather than allowing me to have an inflated sense of my own understanding of statistics (which I presume is quite limited in comparison), what my experience with statisticians has taught me over the years is that my understanding of what it is that statisticians are expected to know about was wrong. It is my understanding of their scope of practice which I have had to modify. So I no longer expect statisticians to know how to weigh evidence, develop valid outcome measures, understand research design methods, test inferences, choose statistical techniques, formulate prior probabilities or display any knowledge about the subject which is undergoing testing. I do expect them to be able to know what kinds of statistical tests can be applied to specific kinds of data, how to calculate p-values and confidence intervals, how to model different kinds of distributions, or even to be aware of the assumptions which underlie the use of specific tests (although, apparently this last one is pushing the envelope). So I expect that they can provide the numerical information that is used for activities such as inference testing, weighing evidence, or assessing validity, but I don't expect them to be able to carry out those activities as it has been amply demonstrated that an understanding of the numerical information does not lead to an understanding of these other issues.

What I see when I read the article by Utts is that some of the topics covered are outside of those which fall under her reported area of expertise. And I see that she has made what appear to be errors in those topics, which makes sense if you take into consideration what I said earlier. So, I point out some of those errors, and in the past, I have explained some of them in greater detail to you. It obviously gets me nowhere with you, as I am simply someone whose information can be dismissed on the basis of personal characteristics.

What is a neutral third-party supposed to think of that? No one can be expected to judge whether or not it is appropriate to use Rosenthal's fail-safe N under these circumstances. What I say here really cannot be used to decide this issue, even if I manage to come across as credible to some. It gets decided within the scientific arena, when Utts and other parapsychologists are or are not able to interest an ever-widening circle of scientists in related fields. That they have not been able to do so is really all that is needed.

Linda

Thank you for that thoughtful post. I question, however, of what use statisticians are if your analysis is accurate! I also question the logic of concluding that, because parapsychologists are not able to interest an ever-widening circle of scientists in related fields, the evidence for parapsychology is wanting. I believe that most scientists are biased against parapsychology for three reasons: (1) Results of parapsychology experiments vary; (2) No body part has been identified as being potentially responsible for paranormal communications; and (3) Parapsychology is associated with irrational beliefs, such as old wives' tales and wishing on a lucky star. Therefore, I think that most scientists will not accept evidence for parapsychology that would be accepted for other disciplines. For example, based on my understanding of statistics, there is no reason why hits and misses from identical or similar (choosing one of four potential targets) Ganzfeld trials cannot be pooled, and I did not arrive at that conclusion by first reading Utts' papers. However, my belief is strengthened by her analysis.

So, while I am open to the possibility that my knowledge of statistics is insufficient to understand some crucial finer points, for the moment I believe that it's more likely that your critique of Utts' analysis amounts more to nit-picking than to a devastating refutation. Moreover, I note that, in almost all scientific disciplines, even experts can differ on some fundamental issues. Take, oh, I don't know, medicine. Isn't there some little dust-up currently as to when women should have mammograms?

 

[Maia]

No such thing. I've been here for years and never thought I'd say this...but show me evidence that people experience anger the same way. So if I throw a chair and you throw a chair we must be experiencing the exact same anger? I'll say it again, your assertion that two people can experience the same emotion, in this case anger, in the same way is ludicrous. Prove it.

Okay... here's how we do it in social work. We operationalize our definitions. The question is how to measure anger; the answer is that it must be based on what is observable and/or quantifiable in some way. A measure of anger in a child, for example, would include listings of the number of times that the child "acted out" during a week in school and at home (threw something, hit another child, had a temper tantrum, etc.,) the child's own rating of his/her angry feelings on a scale of one to ten at various times, and teachers', parents', and siblings' ratings of the child's expressions of anger. Normally, this would be done over a period of time and ratings from week to week and month to month would be compared before, during, and after some type of therapeutic intervention.

I think the problem with the "synchronicity" definition is that nothing that's been proposed here as an incident that should fit the definition (numbers on clocks, teapots, etc.,) actually has been accepted as doing so. And this is correct, because there hasn't been one incident yet that should be. They have all been called by another name (such as apophenia.) However, this means that "synchronicity" is such a theoretical concept that it doesn't seem as if could actually exist. If every proposed example of it is really something else and is being called something else on this board, then why keep using the word "synchronicity" at all? Wouldn't that be correct to use only if an example ever came up that actually was "synchronicity"? Since this is the case, then why don't we just call it apophenia, or whatever else it actually is, rather than using a word for something that doesn't even exist? And if it does exist, then why does everyone keep insisting (correctly, I might add) that every single time an event is proposed as "synchronicity", that's not really it after all? Until at least a plurality agree that a given event actually does represent "synchronicity", then I don't think there's much point in using the word, at least without the qualifier "claimed" in front of it.

 

[Rodney]

Rodney, please answer the questions I asked in post #811.

This is the point where your vast knowledge of statistics actually is relevant to the topic of synchronicity.

First, my knowledge of statistics is only half-vast. (I'm sure you'll agree with me there.) Second, I can state with a high degree of confidence that your series is not random -- it has too many repeating patterns. So, it is synchronous. Third, if you have some time on your hands, you might try listing the other (1.07E+301) - 1 permutations. Fourth, we can agree that the odds of any one permutation occurring is vanishingly small. And with that, I'll adjourn for the evening.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

Physicists do that too - "flavor","charm", "strangeness"...hmm...

To be fair these terms are defined and not vague in that context, sometimes words have two meanings and can be vague or precise depending on the setting. For example the phrase 'a bit of data' will have different meanings depending on whether you're talking to a sales manager or a programmer!

 

[Marshmallow]

If not coincidental, then what do you think it is?

I'm not sure what it is. Just because I think something strange is going on doesn't mean I think I know what it is.

And an update on the whole 555 thing: I have been testing this out and it's gettin really freaky. I've been seeing basically all the other combinations of triple numbers except 555. Like, when I look at the number of views for threads on a forum (any forum, not just this one), I'll see 111, 222, 333, etc...but no 555 and rarely any 444s...even if I scroll through for several minutes or go to a different website. Since I know next to nothing about statistics, how statistically likely or unlikely would you say this is? It's really starting to creep me out.

 

[Elizabeth I]

I'm not sure what it is. Just because I think something strange is going on doesn't mean I think I know what it is.

And an update on the whole 555 thing: I have been testing this out and it's gettin really freaky. I've been seeing basically all the other combinations of triple numbers except 555. Like, when I look at the number of views for threads on a forum (any forum, not just this one), I'll see 111, 222, 333, etc...but no 555 and rarely any 444s...even if I scroll through for several minutes or go to a different website. Since I know next to nothing about statistics, how statistically likely or unlikely would you say this is? It's really starting to creep me out.

But you're looking to get creeped out, aren't you? The phrase has been a frequent refrain for you both here and in the other threads you've started on this forum. You won't be happy unless you're good and creeped out.

Why don't you just go to your library and check out a book of really good ghost stories?

 

[paximperium]

I'm not sure what it is. Just because I think something strange is going on doesn't mean I think I know what it is.

And an update on the whole 555 thing: I have been testing this out and it's gettin really freaky. I've been seeing basically all the other combinations of triple numbers except 555. Like, when I look at the number of views for threads on a forum (any forum, not just this one), I'll see 111, 222, 333, etc...but no 555 and rarely any 444s...even if I scroll through for several minutes or go to a different website. Since I know next to nothing about statistics, how statistically likely or unlikely would you say this is? It's really starting to creep me out.

I'll be very sincere in my suggestion: If this is true, I suggest you see a psychiatrist. Seeing patterns where there is none, is a sign of psychosis.

 

[Marshmallow]

I'm not looking to get creeped out, but a lot of things do creep me out. I'm sorry, but I can't help it. Maybe that makes me immature or highly impressionable, but I guess that's the way it is. I have anxiety issues. Still, what I've said about the frequency of other numbers in comparison to 555 is true...not necessarily for everyone else, but something is stopping me from seeing this number outside of a certain period of time.

Also, you didn't answer my question...how statistically likely or unlikely is it?

And I have been seeing a psychiatrist, but he doesn't seem to think I've shown any signs of psychosis.

Edit: I should add a reminder that the only reason I keep mentioning this 555 thing is because I've had bizarre synchronicities with this number and I've come to realize that I only see it during a specific time period (this is related to a story that is really personal for me and that I don't feel comfortable talking about here). I didn't set out looking for this number or its absence until after I've had several of these synchronicities.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

The fact that we may be evolutionarily predisposed to believe the information vouchsafed in such circumstances says nothing about the validity of that information. As several have already observed, a valid argument is valid regardless of who is making it, or what their credentials may be.

But the fact that we evolved a tendency to believe what an authority tells us does not mean that what they tell us is correct.

I'm pretty sure I specified that this was the logical ad hominem fallacy. The credentials are not logically relevant in assessing the argument.

ETA: For example, an argument of this form:

If p then q
q
Therefore, p.​

Is not sound no matter who makes it, no matter how strong their credentials.

And arguments of the form

If p then q
p
Therefore, q.​

Are logically sound no matter how uncredentialed the person is who makes it.. If the two premises are true, the argument is valid (and the conclusion is also true).

While correct and incorrect reasoning can be identified, for real world problems there is often insufficient information for such logical analyses to give useful answers. In these cases we use the opinions of perceived and/or actual authorities to base our views on.

For example, some of Linda's criticisms of Utts' analysis are not that she has used invalid reasoning, but that she has used inappropriate techniques to analyse the data.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

If you're not seeing enough 555's, watch more movies where phone numbers are written down.

 

[Starthinker]

Okay... here's how we do it in social work. We operationalize our definitions. The question is how to measure anger; the answer is that it must be based on what is observable and/or quantifiable in some way. A measure of anger in a child, for example, would include listings of the number of times that the child "acted out" during a week in school and at home (threw something, hit another child, had a temper tantrum, etc.,) the child's own rating of his/her angry feelings on a scale of one to ten at various times, and teachers', parents', and siblings' ratings of the child's expressions of anger. Normally, this would be done over a period of time and ratings from week to week and month to month would be compared before, during, and after some type of therapeutic intervention.

I think the problem with the "synchronicity" definition is that nothing that's been proposed here as an incident that should fit the definition (numbers on clocks, teapots, etc.,) actually has been accepted as doing so. And this is correct, because there hasn't been one incident yet that should be. They have all been called by another name (such as apophenia.) However, this means that "synchronicity" is such a theoretical concept that it doesn't seem as if could actually exist. If every proposed example of it is really something else and is being called something else on this board, then why keep using the word "synchronicity" at all? Wouldn't that be correct to use only if an example ever came up that actually was "synchronicity"? Since this is the case, then why don't we just call it apophenia, or whatever else it actually is, rather than using a word for something that doesn't even exist? And if it does exist, then why does everyone keep insisting (correctly, I might add) that every single time an event is proposed as "synchronicity", that's not really it after all? Until at least a plurality agree that a given event actually does represent "synchronicity", then I don't think there's much point in using the word, at least without the qualifier "claimed" in front of it.

To me the definition is: Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner. Since the meaning can only be inferred by the observer, then synchronicity means different things to different people. Again, (I think this is the 5th time in this thread) it's more an emotion, not something quantifiable that can be measured. You guys keep arguing statistics and odds when that has very little to do with it. The odds could be 1 to 2 or 1 to 2,000,000,000 it doesn't matter, all that matters is how the observer FELT about the outcome. I keep bringing up this comparison, but it's like deja vu. You can't prove deja vu or test for it, and neither can you prove synchronicity or test for it. It's just an odd feeling you get when you witness a coincidence, or experience a coincidence, and you infer meaning into it. This shouldn't be a debate with statisticians, it should be a debate with psychologists.

It's not apophenia, that is seeing patterns where none exist. You could say someone found patterns in a string of coincidences and they found meaning in it, but just plain apophenia is not it. It can be part of the definition, but not the definition itself.

Synchronicity is just a word coined for an emotion that no one had a name for. I know I'm just a lay person but I've read everything I could get my hands on about this topic since Sept 11, 2001 when a string of coincidences saved my life. It's kinda frustrating seeing a continued argument over the odds of flipping a coin when that has nothing to do with it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

To me the definition is: Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events that are causally unrelated occurring together in a meaningful manner.

And this is self contradictory. If the the coincidence of events were meaningful, then there must be some relationship. Otherwise, you're just talking about apophenia (seeing patterns in meaningless random data).

I keep bringing up this comparison, but it's like deja vu.

and I keep pointing out to you that this isn't the way the word synchronicity is conventionally used.

Synchronicity is just a word coined for an emotion that no one had a name for.

No it's not. Synchronicity is a word coined by Jung to give an alternative explanation to mere coincidence. He said, as I quoted earlier, that synchronicity is evidence of paranormal things (psychic powers, astrology, etc.). He believed there was a real connection in the universe (in the external world, that is, and not just imposed by a perceiver).

What you're offering is a new definition that doesn't fit the way Jung defined the term or the way the vast majority of believers in synchronicity (and what in Jung's day was called the "occult").

The way it's used most of the time these days is very much the way people talk about "The Secret"--your thoughts "resonate" with the "vibrations" or "frequencies" of the universe and actually attract certain events.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's not apophenia, that is seeing patterns where none exist. You could say someone found patterns in a string of coincidences and they found meaning in it, but just plain apophenia is not it.

I don't buy that. Do you think pareidolia is an accurate description for when people see Jesus' face on a tortilla? The term, as with apophenia, isn't just a matter of seeing a pattern, but a description of the accompanying emotion and ascription of meaning.

From the Wiki article I'm pretty sure I linked to at least once, apophenia is a term "coined in 1958 by Klaus Conrad,[1] who defined it as the 'unmotivated seeing of connections' accompanied by a 'specific experience of an abnormal meaningfulness'."

So your attempt at re-definining synchronicity not only goes against Jung and conventional usage, but it is also exactly the same definition as Conrad's term, apophenia.

 

[fls]

I also question the logic of concluding that, because parapsychologists are not able to interest an ever-widening circle of scientists in related fields, the evidence for parapsychology is wanting.

It is how science progresses. New discoveries aren't made and problems aren't solved without people working on them. And people won't dedicate their efforts towards something that doesn't look like it will be fruitful or provide novel insights.

I believe that most scientists are biased against parapsychology for three reasons: (1) Results of parapsychology experiments vary; (2) No body part has been identified as being potentially responsible for paranormal communications; and (3) Parapsychology is associated with irrational beliefs, such as old wives' tales and wishing on a lucky star.

Those have to be the lamest excuses I've seen you give yet. All those qualifications are rampant among medicine, yet somehow we've managed to make progress in the field.

Therefore, I think that most scientists will not accept evidence for parapsychology that would be accepted for other disciplines.

Well, my response has always been, why not try it and see? Until we have been presented with the kind of evidence that is available to us for other disciplines, does it really make sense to pretend to know what our reaction would be - especially when we have been convinced of far weirder things than precognition, on the basis of evidence?

For example, based on my understanding of statistics, there is no reason why hits and misses from identical or similar (choosing one of four potential targets) Ganzfeld trials cannot be pooled,

Well, since you brought up the idea of other disciplines, can you find an example in any other discipline of meta-analyses performed by pooling the data in that manner?

and I did not arrive at that conclusion by first reading Utts' papers. However, my belief is strengthened by her analysis.

Of course. Because she agrees with you. You ignore the far more vast body of work which recommends against the practice.

So, while I am open to the possibility that my knowledge of statistics is insufficient to understand some crucial finer points, for the moment I believe that it's more likely that your critique of Utts' analysis amounts more to nit-picking than to a devastating refutation.

Well, you have to consider that all we need to account for is a vaguely characterized, tiny effect occurring under uncontrolled (in the sense that they have not made use of control groups, so there is no measured baseline) conditions. This kind of information is so unreliable that it doesn't even really need refutation in the first place. It's the kind of information we might try to use to persuade a granting agency that it wouldn't be a complete waste of time to perform some decent studies, but it would be a hard sell.

Moreover, I note that, in almost all scientific disciplines, even experts can differ on some fundamental issues. Take, oh, I don't know, medicine. Isn't there some little dust-up currently as to when women should have mammograms?

How do you think that argument would go if the research clearly showed that mammograms failed to accurately identify the presence or absence of breast cancer so that the pick-up rate was hardly any different than simply selecting women at random for breast biopsy?

Linda

 

[fls]

I'm not sure what it is. Just because I think something strange is going on doesn't mean I think I know what it is.

And an update on the whole 555 thing: I have been testing this out and it's gettin really freaky. I've been seeing basically all the other combinations of triple numbers except 555. Like, when I look at the number of views for threads on a forum (any forum, not just this one), I'll see 111, 222, 333, etc...but no 555 and rarely any 444s...even if I scroll through for several minutes or go to a different website. Since I know next to nothing about statistics, how statistically likely or unlikely would you say this is? It's really starting to creep me out.

The numbers that you can expect to see will vary depending upon the source of those numbers. If you are looking at numbers that are the result of counting things (like dollar amounts or numbers of flu cases) you should see lots of 1's at the start, and then lesser amounts of 2's and 3's with even lower amounts of the higher numbers (see Benford's law). It may be worthwhile characterizing the source of the numbers that you see and see if you can discover patterns in what sorts of numbers are available to you. For example, I mentioned earlier that looking at digital clocks gives you many opportunities throughout the day to see multiple 5's. It may be that depending upon seasonal or personal or work-related factors, that you are exposed to different kinds of numbers. For example, in the winter season we tend to be bombarded with numbers that are the result of counting disease incidence. Near each quarter and at the end of the year, in particular, we get lots of summaries of earnings. Maybe at work all the clocks are analog, but at home they are mostly digital (microwave, cable box, alarm clocks, etc.). It may creep you out less if you approach this in a more investigative manner? Or maybe you like to be creeped out? My husband claims that he doesn't like to get mad, yet he gets mad over really stupid and trivial stuff.

Linda

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

For those interested in such things (from the response to the thread I started a few weeks ago, that's not very many people), check out the analysis of Benford's Law here:

http://www.dspguide.com/ch34.htm

For those without the necessary background to understand the mathematics in the article (or motivation to read it):

Where does the logarithmic pattern of leading digits come from? Is it some hidden property of Nature?

In short, the logarithmic pattern of leading digits comes from the manipulation of the data, and has nothing to do with patterns in the numbers being investigated.

Why does one set of numbers follow Benford's law, while another set of numbers does not?

With a few caveats, Benford's law is followed by distributions that are wide compared with unit distance along the logarithmic scale. Likewise, the law is not followed by distributions that are narrow compared with unit distance.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

For those interested in such things (from the response to the thread I started a few weeks ago, that's not very many people), check out the analysis of Benford's Law here:

http://www.dspguide.com/ch34.htm

For those without the necessary background to understand the mathematics in the article (or motivation to read it):

That is very cool.

I suspected this was nothing inherent in nature. I'll see if I can understand the explanation in the article you cite (the Mystery #1 section).

ETA: The non mathy explanation is pretty accessible, I think:

This result can be understood in a simple way, showing how Benford's law resembles a magician's slight of hand. Say you tabulate a list of numbers appearing in a newspaper. You tally the histogram of leading digits and find that they follow the logarithmic pattern. You then wonder how this pattern could be hidden in the numbers. The key to this is realizing that something has been concealed– a big something.

Recall the program in Table 34-1, where lines 400-430 extract the leading digit of each number. This is done by multiplying or dividing each number repeatedly by a factor of ten until it is between 1 and 9.999999. This manipulation of the data is far from trivial or benign. You don't notice this procedure when manually tabulating the numbers because your brain is so efficient. But look at what this manipulation involves. For example, successive numbers might be multiplied by: 0.01, 100, 0.1, 1, 10, 1000, 0.001, and so on.

This changes the numbers in a pattern based on powers of ten, i.e., the anti-logarithm. You then examine the processed data and marvel that it looks logarithmic. Not realizing that your brain has secretly manipulated the data, you attribute this logarithmic pattern to some hidden feature of the original numbers. Voila! The mystery of Benford's law!

Thanks for that, Ivor!

 

[Maia]

You can't prove deja vu or test for it, and neither can you prove synchronicity or test for it. It's just an odd feeling you get when you witness a coincidence, or experience a coincidence, and you infer meaning into it. This shouldn't be a debate with statisticians, it should be a debate with psychologists.

Well, for whatever it's worth, both deja vu and jamais vu (the weird feeling that objects and surroundings which should be familiar actually aren't) are much more common in temporal lobe epilepsy. So while you can't exactly test for deja vu, if anyone starts having it really, really often (and particularly if you start having jamais vu, which is quite unusual outside of TLE), you might think about getting tested for something else. Then it becomes a debate for the neurologists.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Well, for whatever it's worth, both deja vu and jamais vu (the weird feeling that objects and surroundings which should be familiar actually aren't) are much more common in temporal lobe epilepsy. So while you can't exactly test for deja vu, if anyone starts having it really, really often (and particularly if you start having jamais vu, which is quite unusual outside of TLE), you might think about getting tested for something else. Then it becomes a debate for the neurologists.

Good point. I'd go even further and say that just because we can't test for deja vu right now doesn't mean it's impossible.

At any rate, see my earlier arguments that synchronicity is not like deja vu in that it is a word that describes a subjective experience and is not a purported explanation that is an alternative to mere random coincidence.