Revision as of 12:30, 5 March 2021 editHob Gadling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users18,522 edits →Draft:Research on synchronicity← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 21:02, 17 December 2024 edit undoSineBot (talk | contribs)Bots2,556,662 editsm Signing comment by 76.130.142.29 - "" |
(36 intermediate revisions by 17 users not shown) |
Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{notice|{{Graph:PageViews|365|width=600}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}} |
|
{{notice|{{Graph:PageViews|365|width=600}}|heading=Daily page views |center=y |image=Open data small color.png}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1= |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Spirituality |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Paranormal |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Skepticism |importance=Low}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Parapsychology}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Philosophy |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{ArbComPseudoscience}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Psychology |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Spirituality |class=C |importance=Low}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Paranormal |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Parapsychology |class=C |importance=mid}} |
|
⚫ |
{{WikiProject Philosophy |class=C |importance=Mid}} |
|
⚫ |
}} |
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|maxarchivesize = 80K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 80K |
Line 15: |
Line 16: |
|
|archive = Talk:Synchronicity/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Synchronicity/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
On the scientific opinion : science is far from having a definite answer to synchronicity hence this[REDACTED] article is pseudo-scientific. |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
Besides, in mathematics, the law of large numbers requires the hypotheses of independence, whereas as Jung recalled, synchronicity has nothing to do with iid random variables. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Refs== |
|
== Refs== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Popular culture == |
|
== Wording in regards to the paranormal == |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm sorry, but how is "arguing for the existence of the paranormal" a more soapbox version than "try to justify his belief in the paranormal"? The former does not suggest any stance towards the issue, merely describes how Jung employed the concept. The latter suggests that Jung's beliefs were transgressions which demanded or demand justification. Clearly, the tone of the former is far more encyclopedic.--<small>]</small>]<small>]</small> 13:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:Because there is no evidence for the existence of the paranormal. ] (]) 20:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:You need to consider ]. When ] is used as an argument for ], we call it pseudoscience. Jung's synchronicity is also pseudoscience, and we, as an encyclopedia, do not give equal time to pseudoscience and quackery. ] (]) 23:10, 29 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::You miss my point. I am not saying that any paranormal phenomena actually exist, and that they do not is clearly expressed in the ] article. However, this is not the space to express that, merely the space to indicate how Jung employed the concept of synchronicity. He did not employ it to "try to justify his belief" because his belief (or any other belief) does not require any justification, or at least not from the point of view of encyclopedic description. Our article on Jung states that "Jung's work on himself and his patients convinced him that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." Should this (or other such statements) be changed to "Jung's work on himself and his patients led him to the mistaken belief that life has a spiritual purpose beyond material goals." or similar? Clearly not; ] needs be considered in the articles on the subject matter itself, e.g. ], ], but not in articles of this sort where such value judgement adds no informational value.--<small>]</small>]<small>]</small> 16:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::That's not true. Take someone like ], for instance: Hovind is an adherent of young-Earth creationism, and a self-styled cryptozoologist. We don't say that these beliefs are incorrect, but we most certainly assert that they are pseudoscientific. The same applies here. No, we don't say that Jung was "mistaken" or "incorrect", but we do make it clear to the reader that his "theory" was clearly pseudoscience. ] (]) 03:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Incidentally, your edit that I reverted didn't say: "arguing for the existence of the paranormal"; it said: "to describe the paranormal". ] (]) 03:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes, but when I changed that to a more neutral wording you reverted me again. Comparing Jung to Hovind is IMO absurd. Nevertheless, my issue is fundamentally with the use of the word "justify" here as I find it unsuitable to address the issue. "Jung used the concept to justify his belief in the paranormal" is somewhat ambiguous; it could even be read to indicate that the action was conclusive and he succesfully justified the belief, or on the other read to suggest that his belief was "incorrect" (which you say is not appropriate) or even insincere. Simply stating that he held the belief and argued is completely sufficient to get the message across; the very word "belief" makes it clear that this is not sound scientific theory, since by definition no belief is backed by evidence.--<small>]</small>]<small>]</small> 10:36, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::I think you're mistaken (or perhaps I am); the 2nd revert I made was identical to the 1st. I would not have reverted "arguing for the existence". Incidentally, if you think I'm comparing Jung to Hovind (apples to oranges), you're seriously missing my point. I'm comparing pseudoscience to pseudoscience (apples to apples). ] (]) 19:33, 2 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Fair enough, so can we agree on ?--<small>]</small>]<small>]</small> 17:36, 3 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:::::::Yeah. ] (]) 21:51, 7 December 2017 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the film "The Eagle has Landed", Robert Duvall's character discusses the idea of synchronicity and his allowing it to influence his thinking sets the plot in motion |
|
== This line about Bernard Beitman seems weak and weird == |
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCg3YKazVG8 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Examples == |
|
A thought for the experienced editors of this entry to consider: the comment, "However, professor Bernard D. Beitman (who is not a mathematician) accused the law of truly large numbers of not being well established but based on "plausibility, not mathematical proof," does not seem to belong here. It links to a recent blog-post type article in Psychology Today, which is not a very reliable source, and certainly not a peer-reviewed academic paper, and, with the greatest of respect, Beitman does not seem sufficiently noteworthy to appear in an entry about Jung. |
|
|
:Beitman's statements are only an example of point of view of some contemporary Jung's supporters with high scientific degrees, personally I prefer David Hand's explanation of coincidences, however added this line to make article more neutral. So generally I'm not opposing of removing it as in fact fringe.] (]) 11:17, 12 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
:There are opinions that the ] is special case of 2nd Borel-Cantelli lemma, which has mathematical proof.] (]) 19:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the 2021 notice "This section may contain information not important or relevant to the article's subject." |
|
== Article overhaul == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The examples quoted help illustrate the concept, and so are relevant to the subject of the article. If there's no objection, I propose to delete the notice in one month's time. At that point, I suggest adding three subheads: Jung, Deschamps, Pauli. Plus moving the para starting "After describing some examples, Jung wrote..." to be above the Deschamps one, in order to bring the Jung text in this section together. |
|
The current page is extremely weak and lacks nuance. Most significantly, the definition section is repetitive and highly unreadable. I propose that definition section be organized into three sections: dictionary, scholarly, and separation from magical thinking. I have fixed the definition section up based on scholarly research and citations. There may also need to be a history section. Although Jung coined the term "synchronicity" there is substantial overlap with the concept of magical thinking that has a long history. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
— ] (]) 10:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Chinese concept of ] == |
|
:This article is about the specific ideas put forth by Jung. There is overlap with other philosophies, but this article isn't about those, and it seems deceptive to conflate them all together. |
|
|
:In any case, that's a major change to the content of the article and you should wait to see what other editors (who are more familiar with the topic than I am) think before putting your version back. There's no rush. ] (]) 01:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Something that might be woven into the article? |
|
:@Z5amfYVc: Dictionary definitions are sometimes used in articles, but it's not appropriate in this instance, since the topic focuses on the Jungian interpretation. In any case, ]. Most of the changes you suggest appear to be unsourced generalizations, and overall, aren't an improvement. - ] (]) 17:57, 3 November 2019 (UTC) |
|
|
|
— ] (]) 10:32, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Seems related. Would you happen to be aware of a source which identifies that specific concept as Jung’s inspiration? ] (]) 06:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
== Research Section == |
|
|
|
::Not atm: I'll have a look for one. — ] (]) 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Can't find a source that makes that connection. |
|
|
::So we could add this concept at the end of the (alphabetically sorted) ] section. In the current style used there, which copies the ] of each article listed, that would look like: |
|
|
::* {{annotated link|Yuanfen}} |
|
|
::Btw, this is a bit elliptical, now that I notice it :). Note-to-self: on the ], propose something like "Concept in Chinese society" (as in the lead) or "...in Chinese culture". |
|
|
::— ] (]) 14:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
⚫ |
:::Done — ] (]) 19:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Shambolic sentence in the lede == |
|
I am proposing the addition of a research section to summarize scholarly research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals on the topic of synchronicity. This seems like an obviously needed section. However, there has been some who have dismissed the changes I have sought to include. Please state your reasons here so that we can come to a resolution. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
: Must be more neutral, many psychologists consider experiencing coincidences as irrational: "On the other hand, skeptics (e.g. most psychologists) tend to dismiss the psychological experience of coincidences as just yet one more demonstration of how irrational people can be. Irrationality in this context means an association between the experience of coincidences and biased cognition in terms of poor probabilistic reasoning and a propensity for paranormal beliefs." (Mark K. Johansen, Magda Osman, 2015, )--] (]) 10:49, 12 March 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This sentence is unnecessarily confusing and could be written much clearer - “Synchronicity experiences refer to one's subjective experience whereby coincidences between events in one's mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated, yet have another unknown connection.” ] (]) 05:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
Okay, I suggest adding this paragraph then to help balance the views of different researchers on the relevance of studying synchronicity. In addition, I suggest not linking to a separate article "Research on synchronicity" at this time. Instead, I suggest seeking consensus for adding the research section in the main article and expanding that section first. <!-- Template:Unsigned --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Agreed. And it's not cited, as far as I can see. |
|
==]== |
|
|
|
:Also, the sentence implies that first, the events concerned, or at last some of them, occur in the mind; second, that the relationship between events may or may not be causally unrelated; and that finally, that there ''is'' a connection, but that what this might be is unknown. Doesn't reflect the substance of the article, imho. ]? |
|
Please consider incorporating material from the above draft submission into this article. Drafts are eligible for deletion after 6 months of inactivity. ~] (]) 23:02, 17 December 2020 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:Anyway, perhaps the sentence concerned is redundant if the first sentence in the lead is slightly expanded. Let's look at the definition, current as of July 2023, in the online ] for inspiration: "The name given by the Swiss psychologist, C. G. Jung (1875–1961), to the phenomenon of events which coincide in time and appear meaningfully related but have no discoverable causal connection." So how about tweaking the first sentence (keeping the wikilinks) to read — |
|
|
:"Synchronicity (German: ''Synchronizität'') is a concept introduced by analytical psychologist Carl Jung to describe events that coincide in time and appear meaningfully related yet lack a discoverable causal connection." |
|
|
:— replace the current citation with an OED one, and delete the second sentence (ie, the one in question, to be clear). |
|
|
:— ] (]) 12:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Done. — ] (]) 07:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Einstein == |
|
== no clarity == |
|
⚫ |
i dont understand what it is, I understand the controvery <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
I don't think Einstein should be mentioned that heavily in the article. The article gives the reader the totally false impression that this esoteric bullshit idea is somehow connected to the theories of relativity. --] (]) 12:30, 5 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
Regarding the 2021 notice "This section may contain information not important or relevant to the article's subject."
The examples quoted help illustrate the concept, and so are relevant to the subject of the article. If there's no objection, I propose to delete the notice in one month's time. At that point, I suggest adding three subheads: Jung, Deschamps, Pauli. Plus moving the para starting "After describing some examples, Jung wrote..." to be above the Deschamps one, in order to bring the Jung text in this section together.
— Protalina (talk) 10:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
This sentence is unnecessarily confusing and could be written much clearer - “Synchronicity experiences refer to one's subjective experience whereby coincidences between events in one's mind and the outside world may be causally unrelated, yet have another unknown connection.” CarlStrokes (talk) 05:32, 6 July 2024 (UTC)