Talk:Synchronicity/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Causal or Acausal?

Did Jung say synchronicity was "a causal connecting principle" or an "acausal connecting principle"? Both versions are given at different points in the article. P Ingerson 17:29, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Acausal" it is. To me, the sentence

"Although not scientifically provable in the classical sense, a scientific basis for the phenomenon of synchronicity may be found in the principle of correlation, in so far as a more precise scientific term for Jung's expression 'a causal connecting principle' is 'correlation'"

does not make sense. As said in the next sentence, correlation does not imply causation, but neither does it exclude causation. So, correlation does not help defining synchronicity. I'm in favor of removing the whole correlation section, since all it does is confusing people. --Hob Gadling 19:22, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Correlation is a useful principle in illustrating another instance where acausality is scientifically studied, plus it describes well the subjective experience of synchronicity.

Isn't that an irrelevant analogy, like astrologers saying "tides are caused by the moon, so planets can influence humans"? "Correlation is not concerned with causes, so synchronicity doesn't have to be either"? Correlation is a more or less well-defined statistical term, but synchronicity is just "Aww - lookitthat!" No connection here. --Hob Gadling 14:27, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

It isn't correct to define 'correlation' purely in statistical terms. Evidence correlates, its statistical aspect being just that, an aspect. Your belittling tone distinctly implies US swank 'debunking' school POV, and your reduction of 'correlation' to 'statistical correlation' indicates reductionism. Etaonsh 23:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

So you have your own definition of "correlation" which contains more than statistics, and you claim that the standard definition is "not correct". But that is your own POV and does not belong into an encyclopedia. The things you detect in me are indeed there (if I ignore your POV wording of some of them), but I don't see anything wrong with either debunking bunk or reductionism. So, your problem with my deviation from your opinion does not belong into an encyclopedia either. --Hob Gadling 11:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not using my own definition of correlation, but the standard one. Correlation is the observed outcome of one or more causes acting upon more than one separate object, the use of statistics in said observation being a pedestrian, time-serving distraction which happens to dominate the 'Correlation' entry in wayward Wiki. The problem with debunking and reductionism is the familiar danger of 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater.' If you genuinely weren't aware of any such dangers, the only immediate response which springs to mind is, 'Welcome to planet Earth.' --Etaonsh 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so you are right and everyone else here is wrong about correlation. I can't say "welcome to planet Earth" back to you because you are obviously somewhere else.

So you think that my position contains dangers and your position does not? I am aware that every position, including the neutral one, threatens to color one's perception. I find it amusing that you are only aware of that in others, but not in yourself. Actually I think your anti-skeptic and anti-reductionism rhetorics is just a transparent trick that allows you to ignore what I say. --Hob Gadling 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's as simple as Etaonsh cuts it out to be. "Correlation" is no more a "scientific basis" for synchronicity than pirates cause global warming. In order for correlation to be put forward as a scientific explanation, a little more evidence is needed. It's not so much a matter of POV as definitions of words. Byrgenwulf 11:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was simple, but I am trying to point out that correlation is a long word for a very ordinary and mundane part of everyday life. When someone says, 'Everybody round here seems to be using marg these days - perhaps because it's on special offer at Tesco,' they are correlating - no statistics, no hocus-pocus, just part of everyday life. There is an acausal relationship - everybody round here using marg - with an underlying likely cause - a special offer. The difficulty arises when the underlying cause is unknown and/or hard to establish, as is often the case in these situations. --Etaonsh 12:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah, so your version of correlation is just a less accurate little brother of the statistics version. People can suspect a correlation but if one looks closer (by statistics), it may turn out not to be there. One common example is childbirth and full moon - lots of people, including midwives, believe that during full moons, more children are born, but statistical papers show it's just a cognitive illusion without a real correlation, causal or otherwise. I think your concept of correlation is indeed the same as the statistical one, but your methods of sniffing out correlations are less reliable. --Hob Gadling 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes 'little brothers' are despised and abused, only to rise up out of their pits to rule all Egypt and their erstwhile abusers. --Etaonsh 21:40, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup. "Correlation can also be described as an 'acausal connecting principle' " is nonsense. Correlation does not connect things. Correlation is just an indicator that things may be connected. That whole paragraph is nothing but hot air. --Hob Gadling 12:09, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Correlation does by definition connect things and events, and as you say, there may or may not be an underlying cause. 'Nothing but hot air' can be seen as epitomising the very contradiction inherent in debunking reductionism. --Etaonsh 12:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You could as well say that connection connects things and events. It's just a word describing that there may be a connection, not an acting agent. --Hob Gadling 13:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You're right in saying it's not an 'acting agent,' it's an organising agent. We organise together similar objects and events, and look for underlying causes (or, in the case of Jungians, underlying acauses, which are ultimately transparent nonsense and don't exist, apart from the correlation which can indicate and assist in tracking down common, underlying cause).

I think that paragraph should, perhaps, just be deleted. The knowing references it makes to quantum nonlocality/EPR stuff are meaningless: there is absolutely no reason to believe that nonlocal entanglement of the spin states of two photons can explain why my mother phones me just when I'm thinking about her. The paragraph, as it is, doesn't say anything: it reads like someone thinking out loud: "could it be this? no, it couldn't" and hence doesn't inform in any way. Byrgenwulf 12:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that in focusing on the 'quantum nonlocality/EPR stuff' in the paragraph you are getting warmer in hunting down its weakness. When Einstein first realised that nuclear physics was getting out of the control of its great minds, the subject lost its nerve and started going downhill. Modern theories of parallel lives and Littleworlds, where normal cosmic rules needn't apply, are transparent poppycock of the worst order. --Etaonsh 12:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

"In the d20 Modern supplement Urban Arcana, there is a spell known as 'Synchronicity', which subtly alters the laws of reality to make the mundanities of life more convenient for the caster, such as altering bus and taxi schedules so that they always appear within a maximum of four minutes after the caster begins waiting for one, and subtly moving pedestrians on crowded streets out of the way of the caster." I think this part should at least mention the context of a role-playing game. I was quite confused when i read it after the other text. 82.139.89.146 23:04, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Thank you. Rather than 'trivia,' I think your contribution has possible elucidatory value, if this isn't straying into original research. ESP is among the hypothetical possible explanations for synchronicitous phenomena. 23:54, 26 April 2006 (UTC) Etaonsh 06:16, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"awkward silence"

Is the "awkward silence" (i.e. several conversations in close proximity all finish at the same time, and as a result the whole room goes quiet" an example of synchronicity, or merely a bog-standard coincidence? Chris talk back 00:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I would move that this falls more under the auspices of orgiastic union, herd behavior, and/or mob psychology than synchronicity. Unless a survey of the conversations revealed that they had a relationship to one another that was significant to one or more persons involved. --Mjformica 12:51, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Those unfamiliar with astrology are likely unaware that it provides natural explanations for seemingly unrelated coincidences - i.e., a macrocosmic explanation of seemingly unconnected events in the microcosm. I think Jung was aware of astrology as an explanation of synchronicity, but I'm not sure whether he explained the connection as clearly as that(?). It would be unfortunate if clear explanations are ruled out of order on original research grounds, as I have no current plans to make clear explanations elsewhere(!). Etaonsh 23:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but astrology does not provide any explanations for anything, since it itself does not have any theoretical basis. It's like synchronicity in that respect - it claims connections but does not really explain them. Explanation means reducing to already known facts - it always contains an element of information compression. Before the explanation you have a lot of unconnected facts (say, 100 GB, zipped), afterwards, you have a few basic rules (say, 1 kB, zipped) from which you can derive all those facts. Astrology does not do this - it generates "rules" and "exceptions" from them every time an astrologer does "research". The rules and exceptions still have 100 GB, zipped. --Hob Gadling 11:37, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

What one can say is that astrologers as a group are peculiarly closed to the public, statistical methods you and those like you espouse. But this is not to say that they are wholly unscientific, stupid, or barren of research. Perhaps they fear empowering scientific reductionism, and who can blame them? --Etaonsh 20:31, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re Introductory Definition: 'Simultaneously'?

The definition seems faulty because, as examples on the page testify, events don't need to occur 'simultaneously' to constitute coincidence, meaningful or otherwise. I'll therefore alter to 'coincidentally.' Etaonsh 23:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is it that just cause you cant see it, touch it, smell it or any of that sort of thing that science says it dosn't exist. The non physical dimensions of reality have been run out of town. Why it it that talking about synchronistic events can create them? Luke

Alternative explanations

I am not too certain that the wording in the paragraph about correlation is correct. I cannot see how correlation, judging from the explanation giving there, can account for synchronicity...what I mean is, I know the argument, but it isn't particularly well expressed in the article. Moreover, it is by no means certain that quantum non-locality a la EPR and Bell is merely a correlatory relationship; furthermore, I would like to see a (plausible) citation for how this can account for synchronicity...because while the spin-entanglement of two photons is amply described by these states, so far as I am aware there has been no rigorous study extending this concept to macroscopic "co-incidence".

So if someone with more knowledge of this specific field could provide citations, etc and clarify the wording, please? Byrgenwulf 06:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's fair to say that EPR cannot be responsible for synchronicity simply because there is causality involved in quantum nonlocality; if synchronicity is caused by some "spooky action at a distance" through a means that wasn't understood in Jung's time (or, indeed, today), it would be more appropriate to tweak Jung's definition by adding the phrase "apparently acausal", which would allow us to explain the exact phenomenon Jung was describing by applying modern science. If an early chemist defined "combustion" as the release of phlogiston, we wouldn't say that oxidation wasn't a form of "combustion" because oxygen is involved rather than phlogiston. If we reach the point where we can replace Jung's metaphysical shared archetypes with real physical explanations, we'd have a better theory of synchronicity, but it would still be a theory of synchronicity. Geoffrey Spear 12:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree entirely...I have removed the EPR stuff, and replaced it with a bit of an explanation of causality and acausality. I wasn't quite sure exactly how synchronicity was being described here, but I think I have a good feel for it now, and to me the use of nonlocality is definitely speculative, and probably misplaced. Do let me know if the edit I made was too rash. Thanks! Byrgenwulf 12:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Could someone explain the following statement, please: 'However, the link between two correlated events which are known to be causally unrelated is not generally the subject of scientific investigation'? --Etaonsh 03:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

It means that, if we have events A and B which are known not to be related, then no matter what the statistical correlation is, a scientific investigation won't yield results, so there is no need to bother...for example, the graph I linked to in the above discussion, with lack of pirates causing global warming. It is known that even though there is a significant statistical correlation between the two concepts (decrease in number of pirates, increase in global temperature), the relationship is not a causal one, and I don't think any serious papers have been, or will be, published showing why the low number of pirates has nothing to do with environmental crises. Byrgenwulf 06:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

There is no such scenario I'm aware of. Altho pirates causing climate is as absurd as you say, it's not so absurd the other way. --Etaonsh 20:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

11:11

Why does 11:11 re-direct here?

I'm wondering the same thing...

11:11 used to have its own page and was explained by synchronisity but I guess someone decided to remove it. A great shame, I think it deserved its own space and it is not even mentioned here. KittensOnToast 13:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Me too. I actually came to the 'Synchronicity' page by entering '11:11' in search. Scanning the entry I couldn't find any reference at all to '11:11' and figured it must be, er, synchronicity that had steered me to this page. I'd be interested to see the original entry, and know why it was deleted.Brownm 18:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

If some unrelated word (in this case number) redirects to a page then there should be at least a short paragraph on it; I think the article was a victim of overediting.

incoincident

The use of the word incoincident in the introduction does not make the article meaningful for the general reader who is the main user of an encyclopedia. Please introduce it further down the article. Lumos3 13:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Citation Issue

The preamble states that Synchronous events are those that happen with far greater frequency than allowed by greater chance. This does not seem to me (disclaimer--- I wrote it) to need a citation, since it is the definition of synchronicity. If the synchronous events were accounted for by random chance, then synchronicity would be the same as coincidence.

Now if somebody claims that there are events which actually _are_ synchronous, and not just coincident, then this would require a citation. But the definition does not imply that the phenomenon exists, it just defines it. Likebox 20:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed the phrasing so that it is clear and hopefully uncontroversial. Likebox 20:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Looking for guidance

Hello to the community -

I posted what I thought was a carefully worded addition to the Synchronicity article referencing the latest work on the philosophy of synchronicity as the underpinning of astrology in a recent book entitled Cosmos and Psyche by Richard Tarnas. This is an important work, and astrology is an interesting modern example of the uses of synchronicity.

Not sure if because of the reference to a particular (taboo?) subject - but my addition was removed without comment. I would have thought there would be a comment generated to my user id? No such luck. On the other hand, perhaps my addition was removed accidentally.

I'll give the addition again below - between existing parts of the Wikipedia article to show its intended position. Perhaps someone can help me formulate it in a way that would be more acceptable. The reference would point to the following URL (I am not related in any way to the author btw):

http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/

---

One of Jung's favourite quotes on synchronicity was from Through the Looking-Glass by Lewis Carroll, in which the White Queen says to Alice: "It's a poor sort of memory that only works backwards". [4]

According to Richard Tarnas, one of the modern concrete ways that the principle of synchronicity crops up is as the philosophical underpinning of the subject matter of Astrology. Jung used astrology with his clients, in fact, and refers to a study of the astrology of marriage in his 1952 paper. For a good discussion of the philosophical trends in a post-modern setting that point to both astrology and synchronicity, see the reference to Cosmos and Psyche, below.

Events that happen which appear at first to be coincidence but are later found to be causally related are termed Incoincident .

---

HenrySeltzer 23:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

If you have the book, use this to generate the ref. Please also state what the author's credentials are, but the Barnes and Noble publisher is a really good sign. I'd take the website out completely, as it does look like an ad. I suggest changes below:

According to Richard Tarnas (credential), one of the modern concrete ways that the principle of synchronicity crops up is as the philosophical underpinning of the subject matter of Astrology. Jung used astrology with his clients, in fact, and refers to a study of the astrology of marriage in his 1952 paper. For a good discussion of the philosophical trends in a post-modern setting that point to both astrology and synchronicity, see the reference to Cosmos and Psyche, below.

Put it under the heading ==Synchronicity and Astrology==. I think this addition was hastily deleted. The whole article is in terrible shape... we really need an expert to work on it. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 07:13, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

-- Thanks very much - I'll get on that HenrySeltzer 18:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

It has been 25 years since I read Jung's book on synchronicity, but there is a summary at the back of the book describing the acausal conncecting principal. While I can see that there are similarities in the 2 philosophies of Astrology & Synchronicity, I do not see that the primary source (Jung) was referring to astrology at the time that he described the principal.

However, I am willing to re-read any (few) pages of Jung's works you cite. Jok2000 20:56, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Jung doesn't have to have mentioned Astrology. It is enough that someone else connected synchronicity and astrology. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 17:42, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, they aren't connected, its just a coincidence. Jok2000 17:46, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth. See WP:V. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 18:23, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I feel, in that case, that an addition about Astrology should also refer back to Jung's book in the summary where he tries to explain it as a connection between psychic and physis. Astrology refers to a different part of "physis". I would argue that adding astrology to synchronicity has similarities to adding creationism to "Big Bang". They have similarities, but no one seems to like to see them together and as such WP:V does not apply. I would first expand the acausal connecting principle described by Jung *before* tacking on other, possibly pet, theories about it. Jok2000 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Also, from a consistency point of view, the Astrology Wikipedia article offers up synchronicity as one of many possible mechanisms for Astrology. In that regard, the scientific literature on Astrology and Synchronicty is a bit different, most of the sceptical literature attributes Astrology to vagueness and the power of suggestion, while synchronicty is more closely related to one's natural tendency to make connections. I cite James Randi, The Skeptical Enquirer and Skepdic.com Jok2000 19:27, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

We aren't adding superstition to science. Synchronicity was just Jung's name for what he observed, or thought he observed. But it has never been science. We can't say that Astrology is less scientific than synchronicity. They are both non-scientific cultural items, and should be treated exclusively or almost exclusively as culture and history. We do need an expert on the whole subject, but at this stage of the article I don't think it's the time to eliminate well-sourced contributions which do deal with the subject.

As to referring back, we can't make a connection as editors which isn't made in the sources. But if the sources make the connection, then we could do as you say. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 00:06, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but I feel that the added link http://www.cosmosandpsyche.com/ is just an ad. I have gone to the site and read some selections and have not yet even found the word "synchronicity" in the text. If the section has to come back, the citation needs to be improved IMHO. Jok2000 01:16, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that it is an ad and shouldn't be included, but the book, being published by a major house, seems legit. ——Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 01:50, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Littlewood's Law

The idea that an individual should expect a synchronous event about once per month is not satisfactory as an explanation of synchronicity. It does not add anything except to present a scientific sounding pseudo-argument which dismisses the phenomenon of synchronicity entirely. I think it is important to understand that synchronicity is not supernatural in any way, so that people do not have such a knee jerk reaction. It is a phenomenon of coincident thinking, like birds and bats evolving wings that look alike.

The probability that a turn of phrase, a musical style, a design pattern, or a scientific idea will be developed independently in widely separated placed by random chance is nowhere near 1 in a million. The way I see it, in order to explain these phenomena, you need to accept that there are larger frameworks which produce these ideas, and that these larger frameworks are structured along the lines suggested by Jung. into collective consciousnesses. Whether you believe the last part or not, the synchronous events are normally at a level of improbability of at least 1 part in 10^{40} or so, estimating by using the probability of two people precisely repeating an exact english phrase of about 40 words at .5 bits per character, or by a loosly parallel construction with significant ovelap which has (to my intuition at least, its hard to quantitate) comparable improbability. These are the types of events which are identified as synchronous, not mundane coincidences at any reasonable level of probability.Likebox (talk) 08:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I see Littlewood's law as supporting the ideas Jung had about synchronicity. Even if synchonisity should happen more frequently as assumed by math than assumed by human observers doesn't mean it implies there is no such thing or that it wouldn't effect the universal unconscious. I don't think Jung needs it to prove his theory, he just saw it that way at the time. But you have a point, is a synchronistic event a "miracle"? If it isn't, witch i don't believe so because nothing really 'miraculous' happens, it jars consciousness with it's improbability and lack of causality, miracles are something of awe inspiring unexplainable and more importantly don't have temporal significance. Jesus healing the sick is a miracle, if Jesus and Joe from the other side of Jeruselem both healed the same disease at the same time , that's not a miracle , it's synchronicity. Calling that a miracle belittles miracles (except for the act of healing). Miracles are causal in a sense (It was a result of attempt such as an example of Jesus curing the sick, the cause is that he attempted it. Just because attempting to do the impossible yields results, doesn't mean it's not causal. Where as Jesus and Joe did not attempt to do the same thing at the same time so is acausal. ) The miracle of lights, that the oil lasted seven days during the Maccabean war is also casual. After all, the Hebrews did ATTEMPT to use the oil for seven days.) I believe you need a new Littlewood law for Synchronicity or you need to somehow prove synchronicity and miracles are the same thing.Sanitycult (talk) 08:10, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

By the same notion Attempting to flip a coin into a very small shot glass and succeeding is a miracle, attempting it and finding out that your friend also attempted it at the same time at a different bar, is synchronicity. It's statistically more likely to succeed at doing a near impossible thing than the presupposed statistic. (With good aim the coin tosser should get the coin in the glass more often mathematically than is supposed.) but this is not the same as the human supposition and the mathematical facts of synchronicity because no one ATTEMPTS to have those events happen to them. (What are the chances that two friends would go to different bars and attempt to win the same game at the same time?) They have no motive to and it is absolutely acausal. Ironically, if they did attempt it, their success would be very likely but because they didn't attempt it, it is even more unlikely than a miracle. I don't think Littlewoods law actually aplies. But should still be added to the article for people who think it does. I just think it needs modifiers.Sanitycult (talk) 08:18, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

What Conceptual Relation?

There doesn't appear to be any other than temporality and that poorly addressed. Relations are themselves specifically identified concepts, e.g. temporality, equality/inequality, causality, etc. Also the statement that (unqualified) cause and effect relations must be necessarily simultaneous is especially simple-minded and false. Lycurgus (talk) 13:28, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Attunement

something is up with 11:11 and synchronicity ther is something happening soon. While I think the first two sentences are correct, I think the remainder:

The process of becoming intuitively aware and harmonious with these forces is what Jung labelled "synchronicity." Jung purported that a person that reached this enlightened state could actually shape events around them through the enjoining of one's awareness with these universal forces.

Would be closer to correct if it read:

The process of becoming intuitively aware and acting harmoniously with these forces is what Jung labelled "individuation." Jung said that an individuated person would actually shape events around them through the communication of their consciousness with the collective unconscious.

In fact, I'm convinced enough I'll change it for now. -- Someone else 06:37 Nov 11, 2002 (UTC)

While I see the reason for the dissatisfaction with the previous version, I don't feel satisfied with the update, particularly without references. 'The process of becoming intuitively aware and harmonious with these [cosmic] forces' is arguably the opposite of individuation. I would prefer 'attunement,' but whether 'Jung said' that is another matter altogether! Etaonsh 08:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Easy Definition

I'm a fairly smart guy, but as I read the definition of synchronicity I still can't tell what makes it different from coincidence. Can this article begin with a less technical definition, then expand on it using the big words?

The Example, though intriguing, also seems like coincidence; what makes it synchronicity instead?

ShawnVW 06:57, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

How's that? --Mjformica 12:48, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

As bad as before. If I meet M. Fontgibu while eating plum pudding, then M. Dumas while eating potatoes, then M. Dupont while not eating anything, that's not synchronicity because it's not meaningful, but it's not a coincidence either. (Or would you say, after M. Dupont enters the room, "Oh! What a coincidence!"? I wouldn't.) I guess there simply is no difference. --Hob Gadling 20:02, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

There is no defined difference between synchronicity and coincidence. A coincidence is an observation that there are no causal connections between two events. Since two events with a synchronistic connection have no causal relationship, the connection is indeed a coincidence. But let's say a coincidence can be a "mere coincidence" (meaning no synchronistic connection between the events) or something more than a coincidence (meaning also a synchronistic connection).

The theory of synchronicity states that such coincidences can have an acausal connection. If one imagines cause-effect relationships as following straight vertical lines, then synchronistic relationships would be horizontal. Since they don't follow cause-effect, they are probably by their nature unprovable.

Taking the theory further, it may be that all coincidences have synchronistic connections. Mathematicians like Rudy Rucker actually believe that synchronicity is a crucial part of what makes up the physical universe, and that it is all-prevalent, like causality itself. There are many more interesting aspects to the theory, such as how it relates to the collective unconscious and symbols and gods etc.

(Looking at the article now, I think it actually is a little misleading. It states that synchronicity is "not just a happenstance", but causally speaking it is just that, and most people would think about words like "happenstance" and "coincidence" in a causal way. But of cource, the trouble is in explaning this without using such words. It's a bit like describing how a timeline could change as a result of time travel, words like "before" and "after" don't suffice anymore.) 193.91.181.142 02:37, 7 March 2007 (UTC) (Nick Knutsen)

The problem here is Jung, while highly accredited and acclaimed, was a mystic, and this was integral to his work. This article's definition of Synchronicity is typical of this aspect of his writing, and the writings of those who followed him. Its language is a highly obfuscatory way of saying "a mysterious law of physical reality which causes complex events to shape themselves in ways meaningful to observers". To the hard-nosed rationalist the phrasing is unintelligible, and so shields the premise from ridicule. Don't bother editing the article to reflect that, however. Jung adherents will do even more to refute it than his critics.

Search YouTube for Carl Jung interviews. You'll find him stating his mystical beliefs explicitly to the popular press. — Clarknova (talk) 14:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That does not make him a mystic. I cite "A Very Short Introduction to Jung", Oxford University press, wherein it is stated that he was not concerned that some of his interests might draw scorn. Jok2000 (talk) 19:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I also had trouble with the definition. I read it, it sounded interesting, and then I realized that I had understood none of it. There's no one statement that lays it out simply and clearly in words that the average person can understand. I've read the definition several times now, and I think the idea is that there's an underlying pattern causing all things to happen, as opposed to some of those things causing other of those things to happen. It took an awful lot of work to figure that out though, even assuming I'm getting it right.

(Actually, I'm thinking of the description, not the definition.)

76.234.127.204 (talk) 16:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Fontgibu, or Fortgibu

Which one is it, or why is it presented in this manner? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.35.143.98 (talk) 08:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

just happened to me today

I believe this is original research, but that was for real, maybe worth your look.

So, around 6pm in my university, I suddenly remembered one particular song (for no reason absolutely), that had words "..wish you are here". I recalled voice singing this words. I didn't know either title of this song, or author and I heard it very long ago. So, I thought, maybe i would get it via file-sharing software, but first I should find the full title. I came back home several hours later, and logged into irc-channel around 22pm (related to some online game), there I talked with some known to me person, in the process of discussing _he_ switched discussion to music. He mentioned "Blackmore's Night" (I never heard that name before) as a good one. Just for curiosity I searched in that file-sharing software on this words. First result was "Blackmore's Night - Wish You Were Here. I got it. It was exactly that song... It was very weird feeling to see exactly the same words and then hear them soon after my brain for some unexplained reason thought about it" DFighter100 03:04, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

cool.. none of this is really neccesary for the article but if anyone wants to read it, it might be interesting.. Ive had minor synchronicities, but one notable one stands out.. I was reading a book a year or two ago, "your immortal reality" by gary renard (incidentally it is one of those books that is all about sychronicity and psychological type of things) It mentioned how technology of the future/today mirrors science fiction of today/the past very soon after I was at a friends (who incidentally I would often think things just before she would say them) and I discussed this concept with her. pretty soon after we were watching star trek on TV, and they are using these cell-phone like communiction devices. this was pretty neat, but it's not important since the real synchronicity hadn't happened quite yet.. later, I think it was the same night, I went to eat dinner with my parents, my family somehow got on the subject of technology, I was going to mention the startrek-phone-future-technology thing, but for some reason I decided not to (I often think of saying things, but as an introvert I usually stay quiet) My dad starts talking about how isn't it interesting how technology resembles science fiction of the past blah blah.. This got me excited but I decided to stay quiet and let him talk and see if he'd take it farther.. he did, and he ended up using the cellphone and star trek as an example. I later asked him things, such as if he'd watched star trek that day, and he didn't. He also said when he was picturing the idea he sort of imagined a cave, as I described from the episode I watched. I was wondering if he got the same mental picture as me, though I can't really confirm that.

I think both of our examples could perhaps be explained by a link between minds in which we can sort of read other peoples minds on some level or to some degree? It honestly seems more plausable to me than coincidence. so many times I've felt like my thoughts aren't private, like my thoughts influence others. when I've taken psychedelics it seems so obvious, and I feel like I can move into the conciousness controlling or overseeing multiple individuals.

and while we're on the subject, I thought I'd throw in a quote from "the Disappearance of the Universe", the original book upon which the book I was reading in the story above was a sequel to..

"Synchronicity is just a symbol of the pseudo-oneness that always exists, even in the illusion." Everything Inane (talk) 01:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I was reading up on the famous American singer Gene Pitney to write a TOEFL practice test, while listening to his rendition of "Stop! In the Name of Love", when all of a sudden my CD player stopped in mid-song. I checked the Internet the next day and lo and behold: Gene had passed away after a successful gig in England. Now that's what I call Synchronicity... Frank Landsman (talk) 10:24, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Just happened to me on this page. I first heard of The Game-Players of Titan earlier today. Then I read this article, and right there in the "In popular culture" section... 211.26.76.84 (talk) 08:20, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Of Course It Should...

For what is it we are really searching for? If not love then what? It is a question we need to ask more, I should think. For what are we truly capable of, when we are confident in the ones we love? Confident that they will be there for us no matter what. Even when all hope is lost, someone will always be there. Even when you think every possible force in this universe has left you, or turned against you or has just simply confused you, it will always be made clear to you how love is the most natural expression in the world. It is the expectation of nothing. The anticipation that something is always born. This is the true relevance of the world myth of a virgin birth.

Remember, friend that Jung's primary interest was what lay beyond the symbol, the force that animated it. That gave, what Jung called a numinousity. I hope my addition is not considered grafitti, or worse simple tom foolery. My intention was simply to add a reminder where one least expects it.

Synchronicity in Jane Eyre?

For those who have read the classic Bronte novel of Jane Eyre, towards the end of the story where Jane hears Rochester's voice (and later finds out that he heard her voice as well) would that be an example of synchronicity and if so what would it be caused by? Their love for each other or something completly different (such as Jane now being equal to Rochester)? "The archetypes in the unconscious is what allows synchronicity" perhaps this was it, but if so which archetypes?

"Baader-Meinhof phenomenon"

I heard this term and was unable to find it on wikipedia because it redirected to this article but is never mentioned, meaning it's page rank is like zero. Someone needs to explain "Baader-Meinhof phenomenon" and why it redirects to this article so the term is associated with this page.

Wolfgang pauli and confirmation bias

It the section about scientific reasoning there's mention of pauli being critical of confirmation bias, I think it would be a great contribution to the article if we can find some of his written down sentiments on confirmation bias- that is if they are really there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.180.153.22 (talk) 16:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It's not exactly the same, though, is it? The confirmation is the synchronicity in this case. No one argues that acausal meaningful coincidence is "all in the head" or that you see it because you want to see it. It's much more empirical. For example, if I had a dream that my local grocery store was burned down, and then it did burn down, that would be confirmation bias if I thought it was a prophetic vision, if i burned the store down myself after the dream that would be a self-fulfilled prophecy, but If my neighbor had the same dream I had and we met at a street corner wearing the same necktie and with the same paperback book in our back pockets, its synchonicity. The store doesn't need to actually have burned down but having the same dream and the other coincidences are empirical, the facts are not in question, events like this DO actually happen, the only aspect of it that Wolfgang Pauli's idea's would apply is the interpretation of the events and their meaning. But unlike the prophetic vision, where the person WANTS the events to be related when they are coincidence, synchronicity is when events SEEM improbably related in a meaningful way WITHOUT anyone wanting it to be or planning it. Where's the bias?Sanitycult (talk) 21:59, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

For a Pauli specific answer--- Pauli did not write about confirmation bias specifically, since the concept of "confirmation bias" only got a name relatively recently. But confirmation bias itself is a disease that afflicts science, and any scientist sees it all the time. When you have a theory, you tend to accept data which agrees with the theory and reject data that disagrees.

There are two notable examples where Pauli was very critical of this type of confirmation bias, both in himself and in others. When he proposed the neutrino theory, he was very hesitant, although the theory is now known to be correct. The reason is that the cross section he predicted for neutrinos was so small, that they would be practically unobservable, so that his theory would be easy to confirm but hard to refute. He said that he had done the unpardonable--- constructed a theory which would be next to impossible to refute. This led him to delay publication of this important (and correct) idea. Similarly, when Pauli was working on Yang-Mills theory, he did not believe that the theory could be correct because it predicted massless particles, which are in conflict with experiment. After Yang published and presented the theory, Pauli criticized him for not explicitly saying that the particles in his theory are massless, and that the theory is therefore experimentally ruled out. By emphasizing the connection between symmetry and forces, and deemphasizing the massless part, Yang was, according to Pauli, being scientifically dishonest. Again, Pauli is criticizing confirmation bias.

Every decent theorist needs to be aware of confirmation bias and fight against it, so I am sure there are other examples.Likebox (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

re the passage. "Many critics believe that any evidence for synchronicity is due to confirmation bias, and nothing else," I would be very interested in seeing a reference. Beyond my own personal interest in researching this further, "many critics believe" seems just the sort of vague language to be avoided in credible encyclopedia entries. Clocke (talk) 19:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry--- I wrote that to replace the long description of confirmation bias which was there in an earlier version. By putting a long description of confirmation bias in this article, the implicit suggestion was that the evidence people give for synchronicity is a manifestation of confirmation bias, and nothing else. I rewrote the section to make the suggestion explicit, instead of implicit. I suppose that to source it, you would need to find a notable synchronicity skeptic. The source was the previous version of this article, and the anonymous critics are the previous editors.

Maybe it's true that some of the examples people give for synchronicity are pure coincidence pulled out of the noise by confirmation bias. The Dark Side of the Moon/ Wizard of Oz synchronicity might be an example of that, I don't know, I never tried it, but it seems implausible for an album to have a dramatic arc that matches a film to the second. Maybe its true for all the examples, once hidden causes are found. It's hard to quantitate meaningfulness, so it is difficult to say which synchronous events are really synchronous, and which other ones are connected by hidden causes, and which others are just illusions created by confirmation bias. Most examples of synchronicity seem to me to be too improbable to be confirmation bias.

Classic examples are simultaneous invention. For example, the Rubik's cube was invented by Erno Rubik in Hungary and Terutoshi Ishigi in Japan with a nearly identical mechanism at almost exactly the same time. If this isn't plagiarism, it's the most obvious example of synchronicity I have seen. There are other examples, especially in theoretical science. New ideas are often produced in widely separated places at nearly the same time. This is a manifestation of a collective mind--- everyone in the community is thinking along similar lines--- and collective mind is what Jung is trying to give evidence for.Likebox (talk) 21:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here's a web site with a critical point of view: [1]. For other examples of people expressing similar ideas, just google "synchronicity confirmation bias".Likebox (talk) 23:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but a critic can only argue about the meaning of synchronisity or what causes synchronisity. A critic could very well argue that synchrnonisity is not caused by the psyche's connection to the psychoid level (where matter and mind converge) like Jung thought, but he or she cannot be critical of the phenomenon itself. Thats like arguing that the color blue doesn't exist. Synchronisity is real. The interpretation of where it comes from or why is speculative.Sanitycult (talk) 14:48, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The problem here is that there are no scientific studies that guarantee that it is real. If you have a claimed real effect, it should be possible to make a test.

There are problems with any proposed study. For example, here's one that comes to mind: look at the library habits of some distant towns, to see if books that have not been checked out for a long time are suddenly checked out at nearly the same time in different places. The problem is, that there could be a hidden cause for that which is just that the book was mentioned somewhere in the media. So the question is whether there are spontaneous events like that which are not explainable by media attention. But even in the absence of media attention, the books might have been mentioned in society, by word of mouth. In this case, you explain more of the correlations because you include more of the sociology. So you try to account for the sociology, and see if there is a residual effect left over.

But the more sociological the causes become, the more of these events become explainable. If you believe that all group-thinking is due to sociological cause and effect, you've probably explained the entire phenomenon, because you would be including any group-mind or "transcendent collective mind" activity as a sociological cause.

Another way you might study this is to try and find correlations in vocabulary choices in a cross section of blogs which are not linked by cause and effect. For example, you can look for the use of the word "quisling". This word is not used often anymore, but maybe in three weeks, suddenly people start to use it all of a sudden. So you trace the word down to the first occurences, and you see if they are simultaneous or if there is a seed event which causes all the others, like a prominent reporter using the word.

Since it's so hard to say exactly what the phenomenon is, and it's so hard to quantitate it, a skeptical scietist could say there's no synchronicity at all. I presume that this is what a lot of scientists believe, but it's hard to find them saying it in print.Likebox (talk) 20:37, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

misrepresentation

The concept of Synchronicity of course was jumped upon by New Agers, astrologists, and all sorts of "paranormal" pseudoscience. This, however, doesn't make it a New Age or pseudoscientific concept, it just means that it has been parroted in New Age popculture.

What this is actually about has very little to do with the "paranormal", and is essentially about the philosophy of mind. It boils down to the observation that any "event" is a function of a mind. To give causality primacy in the description of events amounts to the claim that the mind is a machine for evaluating causality. That's true to some extent, of course, but what I believe Jung is trying to make out is that the mind is first and foremost a machine for evaluating meaning, not causality, and that events therefore should primarily be seen in terms of meaning, not causality. Meaning and causality overlap most of the time, of course, and "synchronicity" is about those rarer cases where they do not. It is a mistake to imply that synchronicity postulates some hidden or "paranormal" mechanism of causality, since it is essentially not about causality. dab (𒁳) 07:55, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The New Age and spiritual adoption is unfortunate and applies almost to all of Jung's theories. The same can be said for Christians who try to confirm the "golden rule" as advanced reason by equating it with Immanual Kant's idea of the Moral Imperative. No matter how much Jung and Kant despised these associations, there is little anyone can do about it but repeat oneself. I think what you are talking about should be in the article but it's the kind of "controversy" that has an agenda on one side (That is, the New Age thinkers and shamans want to keep the association to give themselves a glimmer of reason, where as the Jungian Psychologists don't have an agenda at all concerning the matter except annoyance at misinterpretation.)Sanitycult (talk) 22:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Watered down synchronicity

The intro now waters down the concept to say that it is a relabeling of events according to meaning rather than according to causality. That's not sufficient. For example, I could let the computer run a random number generator to generate three letter combinations, and then group them by "causality" by making a list of the order in which they were spit out, or group them by "meaning" by extracting:

“cat" “dog“ ”pet“

This is not synchronicity, even if I run a thousand computers, and I notice that "cat" and "dog" come out at the same time on two different computers, or even, every once in a while, that three computers come up with "cat" "pet" and "dog", all at about the same time.

The point of synchronicity is that the events that are grouped together by meaning are extraordinary unlikely to occur together. If I have a dream that half the sun is green and that it then splits in two, and I find out that somebody else had a similar dream the same week, and nobody else ever had that dream before, it is nothing like the example with the computers spitting out random three letter words. It is extraordinary unlikely to happen, because it is a long sequence of events, each full of meaning, which were put together in a similar way without causal influence. The only way such a thing can be explained causally (I think it happens all the time) is if the world of dream-generation has large collective influences which are unseen, and are act in myself and the other person to generate the dream. These are the collective consciousnesses that Jung is postulating.Likebox (talk) 15:30, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Collective mind

I thought Jung claimed that synchronicity is a manifestation of a collective mind. But from what I read here, he lumps events which are synchronous in different minds together with events which involve the natural world and the external world. I am confused about this, because it conflicts with the way I understand the explanation of synchronicity. If you say "I would like to bungee jump with an onion" and someone else also says that, and a guy on TV does that, that's synchronicity to my mind, because it reflects some collective mind. But if you say "I would like it to rain and hail and snow, all at the same time", and then it does, I would say that was a weird coincidence, since there is no mental collective which could change the weather. Perhaps Jung included the animal world in his definition of mind, which would explain the scarab example. Maybe plants too. But perhaps Jung also thinks that the weather is included in the collective? If so, I think that would cross the line into pure mysticism. Does anybody know the answer? Was Jung vague on this point?Likebox (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Synchronous

what is the correct one-word form of "being synchronous"? Is it "synchronistic"? "Synchronic"? Does a word exist?Likebox (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Here are Webster's first definitions for each:

synchronic - 1) synchronous

synchronistic - adj form of synchronism - 1) the quality or state of being synchronous

As you can see, the difference is negligible, but in the spirit of catching your intention of "being synchronous" I made the edit to synchronistic. I also think it is the more common choice when referring to synchronicity, at least among the people I've met.

Eveningsky (talk) 00:03, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violation

I just made a grammatical edit to the story about Professor Marvel's costume under the Examples heading. However, I think it might actually be a copyright infringement against Snopes.com. Somebody with more experience please check it out and advise. Snopes cites a book, The Making of the Wizard of Oz by Aljean Harmetz. So if somebody could find that book, we could use that for the source. Eveningsky (talk) 09:44, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Jung and Lewis Carroll

I had supplied the information about one of Jung's favourite quotes about Synchronicity being from Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking Glass", Chapter 5, Wool and Water, wherein the White Queen says to Alice "It's a poor sort of memory which only works backwards".

I had my personal notes from a lecture given by a scholar of the Jung Foundation in New York City in the 1980s. So I wrote it into the article. I didn't record the scholar's name or the specific date. The scholar had said it had been from his notes or letters.

So it's now been flagged as needing a full citation. But that's all I have in my notes.

Should I delete it until or if I can find the citation information out?

I am certain that the scholar said it. She was very clear on it. I asked some of my other friends who were at the lecture in the 1980s with me and they remember her saying it and it was in their notes too. But no one has the name of the scholar or date.

I could put in a weak but tentative citation like "lecture notes, Jung Foundation, New York City, 1980s" but this is not up to snuff.

Any ideas would be appreciated. --- (Bob Wikiklrsc (talk) 21:38, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have ordered an out of print book with some of Jung's more important letters. Leave it in until I receive the book in a few days, anyway; it has been hard to find a citation for this on Questia, Amazon, books.google.com or the web so far however. Jok2000 (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I have written to the Jung Foundation in NYC and asked them for (a) who it was that might have lectured then when I took notes, and more importantly (b) if they can corroborate the claim. It was clearly stated as a known fact amongst Jungian scholars when I heard it in the 1980s in the lecture. There was no question that the scholars in the audience accepted the statement as true. But I will keep following this up. Jung wrote a lot of letters and notes. So it's a quest. Best wishes. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc (talk) 19:54, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Rat Man

In Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis of an OCD patient, Ernst Lanzer ("Rat Man") (1909), we find reports of strange coincidences that his patient experienced (chapter II B, 2nd paragraph). This seems to be a multiple occurrence of synchronicities. Could this case be dicussed in this article? 78.54.237.162 (talk) 13:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

The inclusion needs to be put in somewhere natural. Difficult to do, but I'm sure you can do it. I think its relevant enough.Sanitycult (talk) 10:05, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Image request?

I previously deleted the {{reqphoto}} template from the top of this page, because the request was added someone who seems to spend his time adding irrelevant templates to talk pages, rather than contributing to the encyclopedia. However, User:K2709 thinks an image request is reasonable and suggested the images on this page as possible examples of the kind of thing that could illustrate synchronicity. I am quite happy to admit I was over zealous in removing the image request, but what about possible images for this subject? Astronaut (talk) 14:11, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Intuition as a "See also"

Intuition (knowledge) was recently introduced and then removed from the new == See also == section. This search link was the primary rationale for its original inclusion. I recommend looking at atleast the first 20 results before deciding what you think. - Steve3849 ^talk 03:21, 6 September 2009 (UTC) PS - more specifically: link - Steve3849 ^talk 03:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Language Pitfalls

First let me say this is my first attempt at joining a Wikipedia conversation so please forgive me and, if you would, correct me if this is inappropriate in any way.

I want to raise this concern regarding the article on synchronicity: the language used frames the subject in intellectual terms that contradict the meaning of the word "synchronicity" as defined / described by Jung. He alluded to the difficulty in defining this term rationally since our very language contains implicit assumptions of cause and effect, and of rationality. For example, the article says "Synchronistic events reveal an underlying pattern, a conceptual framework..." (I changed the first word from "synchronous" to "synchronistic" in accordance with Jung's suggestion). Elsewhere it is called a "governing dynamic that underlies the whole of human experience and history". "Underlying" implies a causal relationship, as does "governing", and a "conceptual framework" implies consciousness. The archetypes, which Jung posits as the numenous constellated nodes that form the tertium comparationis for two synchronistic events, are not conceptual and they do not underlie anything. They are aspects of the collective unconscious, according to Jung's formulation. Unconscious is not conceptual, not conscious, not logical, not causal.

Jung describes synchronicity as the highly improbable concordance of a psychic (or psychoid) event with an outward event, such as a scarab in a dream that adumbrates the startlingly unusual behaviour of a scarab-like bug tapping on a window and flying into a dark room from the outside. These two events did not occur simultaneously and, as is usually the case, the psychic event preceded the outward event, eliminating any possibility of a causal relationship in the way that term is understood. Jung's hypothesis is that these two events are both involved with the activation of an archetype whose symbolic meaning is the connection between them.

The picture in the article is not a picture of the "concept of synchronicity", as it is labeled. It is a representation of a quaternio that shows the relationship of synchronicity with causality, conservation of energy and the time-space continuum. This is part of a continuing conversation between Jung and Pauli in pursuit of a common language that could express such relationships in the fields of psychology and quantum mechanics without prejudice as to which field was the context. It was superseded by a diagram that takes into account the (then) new discoveries in nuclear physics. There is an English language version of both the present diagram and the newer one in the book "Synchronicity: an acausal connecting principle".

Djrodman (talk) 21:48, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Marilyn Manson & Begotten

a new example to possibly be included. marilyn mansons antichrist superstar and the 1991 movie begotten appear to have synchronicity. additional facts to be the included are the identical running length of the album and movie, the fact that the movie director did direct a video from the album and many sync ups visually with lyrics as the article states. it may be intentional or unintentional, at this point its intent is speculative since its a brand new theory and there is no reference to the band being questioned about it. this link is for the theorists post but i was given a google alert from another website that referenced the original article. M8gen (talk) 17:39, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that reference would meet WP:SOURCES, and also if there was an intentional or causal link between the two works then it wouldn't meet Jung's definition of synchronicity. Augurar (talk) 07:21, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

It also sounds like Original Research WP:OR Terry Macro (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Critique or Criticism?

Re: the sentence:

In Fritz Levi's 1952 review in Neue Schweizer Rundschau he critiqued Jung's theory of synchronicity as vague...

Did he critique the theory or only supply the stated criticism of it? rowley (talk) 19:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In the reference it is referred to as a "review" and I suspect it could be categorized as both 'critique' and 'criticism'. - Steve3849 03:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Baader-Meinhof-Phenomenon

I can't tell exactly why from the history, but the page relating to the above phenomenon has been deleted in the past and a redirect pointed to this page, yet we see nothing of it here. I motion that a section or at least a mention be given to the Baader-Meinhof-Phenomenon as a specific form of synchronicity. Anthiety (talk) 00:15, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

It is mentioned in Synchronicity#Film. Perhaps the disambig entry in Baader-Meinhof (disambiguation) should be redone. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:41, 21 May 2010 (UTC)

References to material and books etc by Ray Grasse

Raygra is a new editor to Wiki. He has approached me re the reversals of his recent edits to this topic. I have consequently explained to him about WP:COI etc. I am proposing to reintroduce Ray's edits in their original or modified form (plus possibly some other material on Synchronicity from Professor Richard Tarnas). Let me know if anyone has any objections to the reintroduction of these edits or alternatively propose how these edits should be modified. Terry Macro (talk) 00:10, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

• There are only two external links for this topic which is rather underwhelming. I propose adding the following link:

Synchronicity and the Mind of God at http://www.theosophical.org/publications/questmagazine/mayjun06/Grasse/index.php Terry Macro (talk) 06:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Image

I created an English-language version of Jung's diagram, which I uploaded to Wikipedia Commons here. I suggest this image be substituted for the existing one, as this is English Wikipedia, after all, but I didn't want to make this change myself without some kind of confirmation. Also, I am unsure as to what the appropriate caption would be for the modified image. Thoughts? Augurar (talk) 07:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I could not find your English version at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Schéma_synchronicité_in_English.png ??? Terry Macro (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I am entirely puzzled. This is the first image I have uploaded to Wikipedia, so maybe I did something wrong, but the link works for me. Augurar (talk) 06:09, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Early depictions , folclor

In Romania , there's a often used saying that goes like this " Speak of the wolf and wolf knocks on your door" its meaning is that once you mention something/someone in a conversation ,often that person or object will make an apparition nearby. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.123.168.47 (talk) 10:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

John Cage

John Cage had much to say on this subject and, since this is a subject he is famous for (almost as much as his music) he should be at least mentioned here! Gingermint (talk) 06:08, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Please see Talk:Nonlocality. Thanks. -- IRP ☎ 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Re: "Criticisms and possible scientific explanations"

I think the latter part, "scientific explanations", contains ideological presuppositions, i.e. it implies synchronicity is not scientific. I think simply "Criticism" is the best option, as the 100% correct title is awkward: "Criticism and Possible Scientific Explanations based on the Current Scientific Paradigm" :) DigitalDracula (talk) 08:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

looking glass refrence

were is the refrence of C.G Jung expressing that one of his favourite quotes on synchronicity is to be found in Lewis carrolls book —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.181.199.165 (talk) 14:04, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Some Examples of Synchronicity are not about Synchronicity

Some of the examples about Synchronicity are not about Synchronicity at all. Synchronicity is when two events coincide, but do not have a probable causal connection. The example of the Titanic versus the Titan in the book Futility are not synchronous. The Futility was written 14 years before the Titanic sunk. This may be an example of premonition perhaps, but not synchronicity. Same with the coat owned by Frank Baum, then bought years later for the Wizard of Oz. These events are not only not synchronous, but may also be connected somehow. They are certainly coincidental, but synchronicity refers specifically to coincidental in time as well as meaning.

Larzwaggener (talk) 15:21, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

My comment: The Titanic/Titan example of synchronicity is well-known. According to theory, events do not need to be exactly simultaneous to be regarded synchronistic. Synchronistic events depend on the prepotency of an archetype during a period in time, which can sometimes be an whole epoch. Thus, a synchronicity of two events can be deduced over longer time periods, during which time the archetype was prepotent in the collective unconscious. The point is that synchronistic events occur wholly independent of time, due to the fact that the archetype, as such, resides in a time-transcendent continuum. The reason why synchronistic events pile up on the timeline, is due to the fact that the archetype was active during that period. In the collective psyche of nations, this can be a long time. In the psyche of individuals, this is typically shorter. In theory, that's why individuals often register synchronistic events that are more or less simultaneous. For instance, they sometimes find a counterpart of a nightly dream in the outside world. Matswin (talk) 18:44, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Pattern recognition

Not sure about the new "pattern recognition" material. All looks very scientific and well-sourced. Just wondering if if belongs here. The material suggests real correlation between observation and fact. Synchronicity seems to address uncorrelated material. I think the material should be rm. Student7 (talk) 22:44, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Unclear paragraphs in the Criticisms section

I am not a Jung expert so I don't feel qualified to adequately edit the following paragraphs but, in the hope that a Jung expert will stumble onto this page in the future, an edit of the following paragraphs would be most helpful. Here are the paragraphs to which I refer (in blockquote), followed by my suggestion in italics.

A possible explanation for Jung's perception that the laws of probability seemed to be violated with some coincidences[19] can be seen in Littlewood's law.

- Maybe it's just me being dense, but I don't understand the connection.

In psychology and cognitive science, confirmation bias is a tendency to search for or interpret new information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions and avoids information and interpretations that contradict prior beliefs. It is a type of cognitive bias and represents an error of inductive inference, or as a form of selection bias toward confirmation of the hypothesis under study or disconfirmation of an alternative hypothesis. Confirmation bias is of interest in the teaching of critical thinking, as the skill is misused if rigorous critical scrutiny is applied only to evidence challenging a preconceived idea but not to evidence supporting it.[20]

- Is the author of this paragraph asserting that confirmation bias explains synchronicity? If so, this point needs to be stated explicitly and substantiated in some manner.

Wolfgang Pauli, a scientist who in his professional life was severely critical of confirmation bias, made some effort to investigate the phenomenon, coauthoring a paper with Jung on the subject. Some of the evidence that Pauli cited was that ideas that occurred in his dreams would have synchronous analogs in later correspondence with distant collaborators.[21]

- I don't understand what the author of this paragraph is trying to say. This paragraph needs some explication of the Pauli & Jung article (which needs a reference), including elucidation of Pauli's "synchronous analogs" - an example would probably help. Absent such expansion, it would be preferable to eliminate this paragraph for the time being.

Mark D Worthen PsyD 16:33, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I can see how one might be confused at the above phrasing: "Pauli, a scientist who in his professional life was severely critical of confirmation bias, made some effort to investigate the phenomenon, coauthoring a paper with Jung on the subject."

The sentence really should have been written in this manner: "Pauli, a scientist who in his professional life was severely critical of confirmation bias, made some effort to investigate the phenomenon of synchronicity, coauthoring a paper with Jung on the subject.", which Pauli eventually did indeed: C. A. Meier, ed. Atom and Archetype: The Pauli/Jung Letters 1932-1958. (Princeton University Press, 2001). The author of the above may have been intimidated by the frequent mentions of "Not repeating words too often" by Wikipedia article critics and thus, avoided an extremely important and pertinent contextual repetition. I presume the author of the above paragraph, maybe someone well acquainted with the scientific method as well as Pauli's rigorous attention to details, was merely attempting to comment on the fact that IF Pauli was manifesting an interest in synchronicity, it was indeed after a great deal of forethought and much pondering. My understanding and interpretation of the sentence is: "If someone so severely critical of confirmation bias, like a physicist such as Pauli, made some effort to investigate the phenomenon and even co-authored an article with Jung on the matter, this would add more weight to Jung's postulations, in a very big way."

Also, in the book "Pauli and Jung: The Meeting of Two Great Minds" By David P. Lindorff, we read the following:

It took twenty-odd years from the time of the principle's inception [1930] and Pauli's encouragement for Jung to write an essay on the subject. [the subject being synchronicity]

Pauli revealed his initial interest in synchronicity in a letter to Jung (November 7, 1948): "Our talk yesterday over the 'synchronicity' of dreams and outer experiences... was a great deal of help to me." With Pauli's support, Jung began to put his ideas on synchronicity into writing.

Half-year later (June 22, 1949), Jung wrote, "For a long time you have urged me at some point to put my thoughts down on synchronicity. I have finally succeeded in following your suggestion." He asked Pauli to give some enclosed material a critical review, adding, "The physicists are the only ones today who are seriously concerning themselves with such ideas." Jung suggested that they plan to meet at his Bollingen retreat for a discussion. The date of their meeting was set for July, but Jung asked Pauli for an immediate overview of the material.

Two years of written letters followed between two of the greatest minds of the twentieth century; One a psychologist and the other a physicist on the cutting edge of quantum mechanics.

174.116.18.135 (talk) 17:59, 3 July 2013 (UTC) Jerry M. Languirand, PMP

Maybe I read too fast, but I don't get the impression that it was a single paper. Rather two (or more?) papers, one written by Jung, the other by Pauli, published within the same cover? Student7 (talk) 19:14, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

lead sentence contradiction

Right now the lead sentence says: "events that are apparently causally unrelated or unlikely to occur together by chance, yet are experienced as occurring together in a meaningful manner." - 'Causally unrelated' is exactly the opposite of 'unlikely to occur together by chance'. I am not crazy, right? I'm taking a liberty to erase the 'unlikely' part.Cosainsé (talk) 19:53, 7 July 2013 (UTC)

I like the causally unrelated part. One did not cause the other. One cause did not trigger the events.

The second phrase I am less sure about. It's like when I pick up the phone to call someone, only to find that person calling me before the ring sounded. The chances of that happening at exactly the same time are unlikely. Diminishingly small. Maybe rewording? Student7 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

My comment: the sentence is better written: "Synchronicity is the experience of two or more events as meaningfully related, whereas they are unlikely to be causally related. The subject sees it as a meaningful coincidence, although the events needn't be exactly simultaneous in time." This notion "occurring together" lends one to believe that the events are synchronous, which they needn't be. (See also my earlier comment.) I take the liberty to change this sentence. Matswin (talk) 06:03, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Yet another external link?

I humbly request that my "Critique of Synchronicity" is inserted as an external link. Could somebody please read my article and insert it if it is found pertinent? http://home7.swipnet.se/~w-73784/synchronicity.htm Matswin (talk) 07:39, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The problem we have here is WP:RS. No author is given and no "publisher" per se and no obvious "peer review." I like the material, but it doesn't seem to meet the criteria Wikipedia has established. Student7 (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2013 (UTC)