Hurmanetar
New
How do we know if something is a random coincidence or a meaningful synchronicity? There is really no scientific way to tell the difference. Sure, we can attempt to calculate the odds in attempt to discern between the two, but unless the phenomenon is repeatable and testable, there's no way to examine it with science leaving it up to the individual to assign meaning to the coincidence or synchronicity based on a WAG (wild ass guess) of the probability and the individual's own Confirmation Bias or Coincidence Bias. The justification for Coincidence Bias is that with a staggering amount of improbable possibilities it is highly probable that something improbable will happen in an apparently meaningful way.
I'm creating the new term (at least I think it is new) "Coincidence Bias" because I think it is a real bias that hasn't been identified. In the pervasive modern rationalistic materialist paradigm, it is assumed that the events of the universe are either causal or random so that when a seemingly meaningful coincidence occurs that has no apparent cause, there is a bias to assume it is completely random and meaningless. The converse of Coincidence Bias is Confirmation Bias in which we assign post-hoc meaning or justification to a random or non-causal event. Confirmation Bias is a bit more natural to us with our origins and pattern recognizing brains, so in scientism it is relegated to the same dustbin inhabited by old wives' tales and religions.
So now back to the original question: how do we know if an event is a synchronicity or a random coincidence? As I said above, there's no scientific method for this. We can only WAG it and choose for ourselves whether to apply confirmation bias or coincidence bias.
If we give up the rationalistic materialistic notion that the universe is fundamentally meaningless, and instead adopt the notion that the universe is fundamentally an interesting story developed for the sake of experiencing interestingness, then it becomes apparent that coincidence bias is a real bias.
Anyone who enjoys the dramatic arts through literature or movies or plays knows to watch for foreshadowing in the early events of a story. Nothing in a story is a coincidence although it must be made to appear as such. The creative arranging of details and the playing with symbols in a narrative often adds a tremendous level of interest. We would think someone foolish to assume all coincidences in a novel are truly coincidences.
So if we are living in a story, then we can be free to indulge in the belief in synchronicity and those who refuse to do so engage in coincidence bias and do not see reality accurately just like the poor literary critic who misses all the symbolic meaning and all the foreshadowing in a novel. Now a word of caution: adopting this mindset too strongly could lead some people to become delusional or paranoid. As with all things... balance is key. No story makes sense without a balance of randomness to create meaning by way of contrast.
So what do you think? Is Coincidence Bias a real bias? What else happens when we get rid of the lens of meaninglessness and instead view the universe through the lens of dramatic interestingness? Can you see the ways the universe and human history and life are all constructed to be an interesting story?
I'm creating the new term (at least I think it is new) "Coincidence Bias" because I think it is a real bias that hasn't been identified. In the pervasive modern rationalistic materialist paradigm, it is assumed that the events of the universe are either causal or random so that when a seemingly meaningful coincidence occurs that has no apparent cause, there is a bias to assume it is completely random and meaningless. The converse of Coincidence Bias is Confirmation Bias in which we assign post-hoc meaning or justification to a random or non-causal event. Confirmation Bias is a bit more natural to us with our origins and pattern recognizing brains, so in scientism it is relegated to the same dustbin inhabited by old wives' tales and religions.
So now back to the original question: how do we know if an event is a synchronicity or a random coincidence? As I said above, there's no scientific method for this. We can only WAG it and choose for ourselves whether to apply confirmation bias or coincidence bias.
If we give up the rationalistic materialistic notion that the universe is fundamentally meaningless, and instead adopt the notion that the universe is fundamentally an interesting story developed for the sake of experiencing interestingness, then it becomes apparent that coincidence bias is a real bias.
Anyone who enjoys the dramatic arts through literature or movies or plays knows to watch for foreshadowing in the early events of a story. Nothing in a story is a coincidence although it must be made to appear as such. The creative arranging of details and the playing with symbols in a narrative often adds a tremendous level of interest. We would think someone foolish to assume all coincidences in a novel are truly coincidences.
So if we are living in a story, then we can be free to indulge in the belief in synchronicity and those who refuse to do so engage in coincidence bias and do not see reality accurately just like the poor literary critic who misses all the symbolic meaning and all the foreshadowing in a novel. Now a word of caution: adopting this mindset too strongly could lead some people to become delusional or paranoid. As with all things... balance is key. No story makes sense without a balance of randomness to create meaning by way of contrast.
So what do you think? Is Coincidence Bias a real bias? What else happens when we get rid of the lens of meaninglessness and instead view the universe through the lens of dramatic interestingness? Can you see the ways the universe and human history and life are all constructed to be an interesting story?