| Revision as of 03:16, 20 March 2021 editPaleoNeonate (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Page movers, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers29,743 edits →Einstein: re← 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 - "" |
| (27 intermediate revisions by 16 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 16: |
Line 17: |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== Untitled == |
|
== Refs== |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Popular culture == |
|
On the scientific opinion : science is far from having a definite answer to synchronicity hence this[REDACTED] article is pseudo-scientific. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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 |
| ⚫ |
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--> |
|
|
|
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 == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding the 2021 notice "This section may contain information not important or relevant to the article's subject." |
|
== Refs== |
|
|
|
|
|
== 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) |
|
|
:I removed this: "he had begun considering the possibility of a non-causal principle as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913, when he met ] and was introduced to the idea of the ]". This is like "he had begun considering the idea when he visited Paris". Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity between the two events. So what? Misplaced Pages is not for promoting fringe theories, and the idea that there is some connection between Jung hearing about science and Jung concocting an unconnected specific stupid idea is fringe, especially if the sentence in the article suggests a logical connection, as this one did. --] (]) 07:15, 12 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thanks for your edits but unfortunately we must go by what ] say. I agree that this should be handled carefully which is why direct quotations are helpful for avoiding misrepresentation of scholarly source. But if Jung's conversations with Albert Einstein and Wolfgang Pauli are considered {{em|noteworthy to the origins of the idea}} by academic sources (e.g. ''Encyclopedia of Critical Psychology'' published by ], and ]'s paper published in the ''Journal of Analytical Psychology'') then this article must reflect that. We cannot misrepresent a subject or concept simply because it is wrong or disliked. I'm not really sure what you mean by "{{tq|Jung, or the guy who wrote that sentence, believed that there was some synchronicity}}" since the Bishop quotation only states that Jung {{em|claims}} to have drawn inspiration from his conversations with Einstein—nothing more. It is an academic fact that Jung had conversations with Einstein and Pauli, and that Jung believed these conversations to have inspired him in inventing the concept of synchronicity. If you have any reliable sources that refute the notability of this information please share them so an agreement can be reached. Cheers, ''''']'''''<sup>]]</sup> 00:10, 13 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Obviously, we cannot mention everything a sources mentions. We need to choose which parts are relevant enough for an encyclopedia article. Also, we have rules such as ]. I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein also mentioned heaps of other people influencing Jung. If we write that Jung was influenced by Einstein, without mentioning all those other people, many of whom are crackpots like Jung himself, we are doing a selection with the implication that synchronicity is somehow scientific. Which it is not. Thus violating ]. |
|
|
:::This is not simply ]. None of the people quoted here has any expertise in physics, and there is no reason to assume that any of them knows what the theories of relativity are actually about, so their mentioning Einstein is on the same level as if they had written "shortly after Jung had come back from a vacation in Naples". There is no logical connection between Jung doing something such as talking to Einstein (or taking a vacation) and his ] ideas. If he claimed that he was inspired by Einstein, we can write that he claimed that, but we cannot just state a correlational connection, implying a causal connection as if it were a fact. --] (]) 09:38, 17 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It still stands that if this hypothetical "vacation in Naples" is considered amply {{em|notable}} by academic sources and ] then it must receive due weight. We are talking about historical facts here, rather than scientific {{em|implications}}. Wolfgang Pauli's contribution especially is heavily noted in a multitude of sources which makes discluding these facts from an origins section somewhat dubious. (Yes, he is mentioned several times throughout the article and not without reason; he was Jung's principle collaborator on this topic. It is perhaps of greater importance throughout the article to state {{em|what}} Pauli actually did in this capacity, rather than just name-dropping for the sake of name-dropping as you say. Your concern seems to lie more with Einstein.) As for "{{tq|I am pretty sure that the source which mentioned Einstein ...}}", I can only suggest double-checking the sources yourself; besides physicists, Taoism and ] are perhaps also undermentioned in the origins section. All historical facts must be presented according to due weight then there can be no improper emphasis. I may suggest re-adding something along the lines of: "Furthermore, Jung states/claims that he drew influence for the concept from his conversations with ] as early as 1909–1910 and 1912–1913." (Here with no unnecessary mention of Einstein's scientific theories as you'd agree they may be misleading. Your further suggestions welcome.) Then of course any well-sourced material {{em|contrary}} to this claim must also be given due weight, if such exists. Thanks for your constructive responses. Cheers, ''''']'''''<sup>]]</sup> 11:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Deleting Pauli too was probably too much - yes, it is usually said that he was involved. And diluting Einstein with unscientific influences like Taoism and Rhine would make him more acceptable. Still, the rules do not force us to copy everything from all the sources. |
|
|
:::::I asked at ] what others think. --] (]) 13:31, 19 March 2021 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::There's currently already a long quote that mentions Einstein as an influence, as for the material Hob removed, it appears ] and to suggest that physicists also entertained the idea, which seems implausible, considering that such philosophical misinterpretations and mystical readaptations of physics happen outside of the field (like in this case, Jung's ideas, Chopra... an exception might be Capra like in ], an article that probably needs a little work too BTW, but still, it's not development in physics, more popscience artistic synchretic presentation)... —]] – 03:16, 20 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)
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Paranormallogo1.png){kind=link}
