Misplaced Pages

Talk:Synchronicity: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 10:01, 6 April 2020 edit109.24.162.204 (talk) Refs← 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 - "" 
(39 intermediate revisions by 18 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:
}} }}


== Refs==
On the scientific opinion : science is far from having a definite answer to synchronicity hence this[REDACTED] article is pseudo-scientific.


== Popular culture ==
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.


== Refs==


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
== Wording in regards to the paranormal ==
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCg3YKazVG8 <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== Examples ==
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)


Regarding the 2021 notice "This section may contain information not important or relevant to the article's subject."
== This line about Bernard Beitman seems weak and weird ==


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.
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.
— ] (]) 10:24, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
: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)


== Chinese concept of ] ==
== Article overhaul ==


Something that might be woven into the article?
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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
— ] (]) 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)
: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.
::Not atm: I'll have a look for one. — ] (]) 18:43, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
: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)
::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 ==
:@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)


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)
== Research Section ==


:Agreed. And it's not cited, as far as I can see.
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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:47, 12 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
: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. ]?
: 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)
: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)


== no clarity ==
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">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 13:45, 12 March 2020 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
i dont understand what it is, I understand the controvery <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 21:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

Latest revision as of 21:02, 17 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Synchronicity article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
Daily page views
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconPsychology Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSpirituality Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Spirituality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of spirituality-related subjects on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SpiritualityWikipedia:WikiProject SpiritualityTemplate:WikiProject SpiritualitySpirituality
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
[REDACTED] Paranormal Mid‑importance
[REDACTED] This article falls under the scope of WikiProject Paranormal, which aims to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the paranormal and related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, you can edit the attached article, help with current tasks, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and discussions.ParanormalWikipedia:WikiProject ParanormalTemplate:WikiProject Paranormalparanormal
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconSkepticism Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconParapsychology (inactive)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Parapsychology, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParapsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject ParapsychologyTemplate:WikiProject ParapsychologyParapsychology
WikiProject iconPhilosophy Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Misplaced Pages.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic.

Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience

In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:

  • Neutral point of view as applied to science: Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, a fundamental policy, requires fair representation of significant alternatives to scientific orthodoxy. Significant alternatives, in this case, refers to legitimate scientific disagreement, as opposed to pseudoscience.
  • Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Misplaced Pages aspires to be such a respected work.
  • Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
  • Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
  • Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
  • Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Refs

Popular culture

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 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FCg3YKazVG8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.152.252.101 (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Examples

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)

Chinese concept of Yuanfen

Something that might be woven into the article? — Protalina (talk) 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? HussainHx (talk) 06:05, 18 May 2024 (UTC)
Not atm: I'll have a look for one. — Protalina (talk) 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) See also section. In the current style used there, which copies the short description of each article listed, that would look like:
  • Yuanfen – Concept in Chinese culture
Btw, this is a bit elliptical, now that I notice it :). Note-to-self: on the Yuanfen Talk page, propose something like "Concept in Chinese society" (as in the lead) or "...in Chinese culture".
Protalina (talk) 14:16, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Done — Protalina (talk) 19:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Shambolic sentence in the lede

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)

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. WP:OR?
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 Oxford English Dictionary 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).
Protalina (talk) 12:58, 6 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. — Protalina (talk) 07:45, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

no clarity

i dont understand what it is, I understand the controvery — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.130.142.29 (talk) 21:01, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Synchronicity: Difference between revisions Add topic