User Tag List

First 123 Last

Results 11 to 20 of 24

  1. #11
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Well, what's the actual question here? We have discussed confirmation bias in detail already on this site a number of times, and now you're asking whether it exists (?) at all. I'm not sure if that is your question or not, but what more do you want besides a yes or no?
    I was asking from the three choices, one explicitly scientific and either agnostic or athiestic (confirmation/cognitive bias), one explicitly theological (frequent coincidence) and one which bridges the two in a way (Jung's theory), which resonates he most with posters here.

    Thanks for allowing me to elaborate.

  2. #12
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity View Post
    I think the confirmation bias in some research is that, whether deliberately or accidental, the WRONG data is collected, or is collected in a manner or using an inappropriate sample, that won't provide unbiased results? How frequently do our scientists discover something other than what they are looking for?
    When I consider subject matter like that I often reflect on the fate of Wittgenstein, his philosophy was taken up and triumphantly used by pretty hardened athiests in their definition of logic, particularly Russell but Wittgenstein himself was a bit of a mystic and held views in total contrast to Russell et al.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It could be impossible to expunge bias, maybe just own up to it? The fairest scientific response I've heard in relation to God or the supernatural was on French natural philosopher who when questioned "But what about God?" either at the time off or after the French revolution was "I do not need that hypothesis", it is short a different matter.

  3. #13
    Member Manis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    47

    Default

    The rejection of possible meaning in coincidences is it's own kind of cognitive bias. I side with Jung on this, he respected the value of our subconscious ability to see patterns. There's a big difference between an industrious, unbiased scientist and a visionary Newton-esque genius, and both are required in our species' search for knowledge.
    Likes spirilis, iauiugu liked this post

  4. #14
    Senior Member matmos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    NICE
    Posts
    1,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    When I consider subject matter like that I often reflect on the fate of Wittgenstein, his philosophy was taken up and triumphantly used by pretty hardened athiests in their definition of logic, particularly Russell but Wittgenstein himself was a bit of a mystic and held views in total contrast to Russell et al.

    Ludwig Wittgenstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    It could be impossible to expunge bias, maybe just own up to it? The fairest scientific response I've heard in relation to God or the supernatural was on French natural philosopher who when questioned "But what about God?" either at the time off or after the French revolution was "I do not need that hypothesis", it is short a different matter.
    Well, it's news that Russell was a "pretty hardened atheist", even by your own incompetent summary.

    Am I An Atheist Or An Agnostic?

    In his own words Russell describes himself as agnostic.
    Last edited by ajblaise; 07-02-2010 at 08:37 PM. Reason: flame removed

  5. #15
    @.~*virinaĉo*~.@ Totenkindly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    FREE
    Enneagram
    594 sx/sp
    Socionics
    LII Ne
    Posts
    42,333

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by InsatiableCuriosity View Post
    I think the confirmation bias in some research is that, whether deliberately or accidental, the WRONG data is collected, or is collected in a manner or using an inappropriate sample, that won't provide unbiased results? How frequently do our scientists discover something other than what they are looking for?
    Sigh, I don't know the answer to that. Honestly. I mean, you're right that all searching tends to be directed on SOME level... and the data being looked for is the data people expect to see. It's one of the issues involved in this sort of process.

    But it is quite clear that over time, in our experience, a lot of this stuff has self-corrected... It self-corrects only if outsiders or people with various views are also searching for data, or spinning it around to see things in different, unexpected ways.

    IOW, yes, the process is flawed... but what other option is there? The only way to have any chance to correct an internal bias is to examine more data... or have more data shoved at you... Then, even if the original people are too stubborn or obsessed to accept it, new people who are open to the new data will see it and the old people will become irrelevant.
    "Hey Capa -- We're only stardust." ~ "Sunshine"

    “Pleasure to me is wonder—the unexplored, the unexpected, the thing that is hidden and the changeless thing that lurks behind superficial mutability. To trace the remote in the immediate; the eternal in the ephemeral; the past in the present; the infinite in the finite; these are to me the springs of delight and beauty.” ~ H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,688

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Jennifer View Post
    Sigh, I don't know the answer to that. Honestly. I mean, you're right that all searching tends to be directed on SOME level... and the data being looked for is the data people expect to see. It's one of the issues involved in this sort of process.

    But it is quite clear that over time, in our experience, a lot of this stuff has self-corrected... It self-corrects only if outsiders or people with various views are also searching for data, or spinning it around to see things in different, unexpected ways.

    IOW, yes, the process is flawed... but what other option is there? The only way to have any chance to correct an internal bias is to examine more data... or have more data shoved at you... Then, even if the original people are too stubborn or obsessed to accept it, new people who are open to the new data will see it and the old people will become irrelevant.
    How do you find unprejudiced sources of data if its all necessarily corrupted? I suppose that its possible through comparative study but then you'd need to be willing to consider honestly appraising with an open mind sources which are anathema to your original position or reason for looking at the data.

    Its possible and there's good books on dialogue written by people in the scientific and research faculties from a while back, they're available from routledge classics, and hark from when Einstein and Popper developed their ideas about the falsifiability (spelling) of claims and hypothesis when the science community tried to make a definitive break with "win-lose" thinking and people defending entrenched or existing findings.

    On the other hand we're all human and I tend to believe, although I'm not happy about it like he was, that Burke was right that prejudice IS stronger than reason and peoples internal filters can distort their investigations. Then they end up just accumulating confirmations instead of making discoveries.

    MT, if its just a cognitive function, totally agree there, is it useful for telling what's true or is it a case that it simply "is"? I read Jung and imagine he was hinting at something more, its why I tend to see him as a bridging theorist between the theological/mystical and strictly scientific.

  7. #17
    Senior Member Synapse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    MBTI
    INFP
    Enneagram
    4
    Socionics
    INFp
    Posts
    3,403

    Default

    I thought this was cool.

    Synchronicity” is coined from the words “synchronous harmony”. It is vitally important because everything happens through synchronicity. There is positive synchronicity and there is negative synchronicity. We all know about negative synchronicity – it is what we call Murphy's Law – everything goes wrong that can go wrong. Positive synchronicity on the other hand, is not so familiar to us. It is being in the right place, at the right time, meeting the right people and receiving what is needed in that moment – all very harmoniously. We might want to refer to positive synchronicity as Paddy’s Law – everything goes right that can go right!

    "Recognize that you are all functioning completely within synchronicity, but many of you choose to function within negative synchronicity, choosing a perception of a negative reality, rather than positive synchronicity and a positive perception of reality. Should you choose a negative reality, than those situtations will be negative reflections." And the reverse is true...

    Synchronicity also involves the phenomenon of coincidences that seem to defy any logical explanation – again, being in the right place, at the right time, meeting exactly the right people for what is wanted or needed. Sometimes a coincidence defies the odds by billions to one – and for some people, it happens all the time.

    Synchronicity is simply the recognition that everything is connected to everything else - that all things are the same-one-thing , manifesting simultaneously in all the ways that it can - to let us know that we are always in the right place, at the right time, interacting with the right people, to represent that which we hold ourselves to be, in any given moment.
    I would like to add that this is about intention. Our intention to manifest what we want from our subconscious towards our conscious by expressing our experiences through the emotional guidance system. From Fear/Grief/Depression/Despair/Powerlessness to Joy/Knowledge/Empowerment/Freedom/Love/Appreciation and the road between those low expressions to become your high expression points.

    The emotional guidance system being, moving up our emotional scale of emotions and changing our preferences of poverty, focusing on our lacking manifestations in our lives towards, abundance, focusing on wants, haves, aspirations etc. Very different, in that respect the intentions are positive and positive experiences manifest when we actively choose to accept our inner being as the broader perspective of our creation. Which means we are listening to ourselves as we used to. And in doing so intuitively know that the intentions that manifest are our reality without the patterns of negativity and control that is initiated as the negative synchronicity we learn from birth. Until we realign ourselves to ourselves do we truly begin to experience life like it was meant to be.

    Without attracting negative energy, friends, relationships and colleagues, without expressing our negative synchronicity as much because we are beginning to manifest our essential selves as a paradigm shift, an energy realignment towards an intentional form acceptable of ourselves first. Which is interesting to say the least.

    Because you know its strange that we expand and are taught to expand negative events and so we see them in symbolism everywhere. We are drawn to negative forms of art, film, music, stories, symbolism and wonder how it is that when we expand and give rise to these expression that more and more are forthcoming, that we see and hear even more. And it is so very strange to me that this kind of synchronicity would very nearly extend into our subconscious and then we create them more and more in our conscious by the experiences that we are feeding through the kind of energy we are seeing.

    And strangely positive events and synchronicity are few and far between, while they are most certainly there. Isn't it strange that those good positive intentions that are in existence would become unfocused and experience less accolade than the negatives that give rise to create more of that kind of energy. Film directors for instance would see this and create films based on a certain formula, and that formula gives rise to negative symbolism. While feel good films, certainly are created, their popularity, indeed their success would be less dramatic than those with an disproportionate amount of negative focus. And how astonishing this is.

    Its in the language people use, I've done it. That when you train yourself subconsciously to exercise this focus you back up your words with negative expression and this becomes a synchronistic reality where events transpire in such a way that those events as they say becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. There's nothing self fulfilling about it, its a process of focusing, expanding from that source of synchronicity that is most expanding in our subconscious towards our conscious.

    Wouldn't this be like the subconscious mind expressing positive and negative momentum swings that seem coincidentally unrelated yet are like a charter, a navigational piece for a sequence of events that converge to certain points in time according to what the subconscious is interpreting is what I thought a few years back.

  8. #18
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    1

    Default

    Newcomer bumping ancient thread.

    Meaning is simply effect on a mind. A retrocausal influence on indeterminacy, as in Two State Vector Formalism,

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-state_vector_formalism

    would fill the bill. Since he was mainly concerned with minds, Jung made the mistake of assuming all synchronicity is about minds, when
    that might be a subset of what it really is--if it really is: what Jung coined "Synchronicity" is mainly being attributed to confirmation bias.
    Confirmation bias is real, but that doesn't mean something that COULD be confirmation bias necessarily is. The idea is that
    the set of things that occur is so huge that invariably it will be possible to find coincidences. But I think confirmation bias is working on
    these allegers of confirmation bias: they look for ways for there to be nothing there. The fine tuning of the universe is one example: we want it so
    bad we have to create plenty of other worlds so the anthropic principle can apply. See, it's a huge data set, just looks that way from here.
    Another example is the fact that Earth's moon exactly fits over the sun, making solar eclipses possible. But that's just one sample from an
    entire universe of moons that aren't like that. But if every moon did that, it would be a principle, so still no coincidence. The only way for there
    to be a phenomenon is if you can strictly put it in a test tube and make it perform on command. So, scientifically you can't prove it, but it's not
    entirely unreasonable to believe there is some kind of phenomenon here--other than self delusion. The existence of synchronicity fits into the
    same category as many other unproven ideas, but the existence of observer bias does not conclusively disprove it. It is not illogical, and there is
    some evidence.

  9. #19
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,546

    Default

    Syncronicity is simply divine providence.

    And just as divine providence is superstition based on no empirical evidence, so is syncronicity.

  10. #20
    Senior Membrane spirilis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    MBTI
    InTP
    Enneagram
    9w1 sp
    Socionics
    INTj Ni
    Posts
    2,652

    Default

    Having digested the literary works of a contemporary student of Jung (Dr. Robert Aziz), I have pondered this topic a bit lately.

    First off, Dr. Aziz exacts a thorough critique of the fact that Jung was way too obsessed with separating "intrapsychic" with "reality", and Aziz offers that this distinction should be trashed in order to truly account for phenomena like "synchronicity." He offers as a simple explanation for this that Jung was in his 70's when he formalized his definition of synchronicity whereas his intrapsychic system of analytical psychology was already well established for 40 years as a "closed-system" model by then, so it was difficult for Jung to come to terms with the real implications of this.

    The way I portray this, is I now regard that my mind is not a separated microcosm, but true Flesh and Blood existing here in reality, and as much as I would like to pretend I can shut everything out, the fact is--the neurochemical impulses in my head are influenced to some extent by the stimuli offered by Reality, that is to say, everything happening around me. Albeit the feedback is not always immediate, i.e. it's important to understand there is sometimes a large time lag between the receiving of information from one aspect of the environment and my own tangible actions that could be traced back to such, the influences are there and anyone who prides themselves as being "sensitive" or "in tune" with subtle "energies" of their environment could certainly pat themselves on the back at this point.

    The big leap of faith we must make from "conventional mechanistic scientific thinking" to whatever we could call the future thought framework that eventually overtakes humanity as a whole, is the fact that many of these phenomena of "meaning" that we ascribe to being chiefly mental in nature have some abstract basis in Nature and Reality as a whole. That's not to say the rocks falling off cliffs in Grand Canyon National Park have fanciful love lives and some may be accomplished authors of lithographic poetry, but it is to acknowledge that we humans and our brains are subject to the exact same set of physical laws of Reality as the rocks are. In that respect, I judge the human mind not in the dimension of molecule count or energy expenditure or whatever, but in terms of complexity--the world around us ranges in complexity from simple to well beyond what we have comprehended with current scientific inquiry, and our brains are obviously of the latter. So if our brains are so complex, but built of the same material and natural processes as everything else around us, does it not occur to you that other natural processes may proceed with a level of complexity of similar scale? It would make sense to me then, that what we see as "meaning" in our observations could have analogous presence in other natural events or processes. The key here is, this doesn't mean everything magical truly exists, it just means there is probably a framework of abstract meaning that could account for such thoughts--e.g. the "idea" of time travel itself could be considered as an idea manifestation of our desire to control, since what would be the point of time travel except to either control the flow of Reality or to satisfy our own desire for information to control our own destiny? That time travel doesn't really exist (to the best and most practical, occam's razor approved explanation we have thus far), tells us that this innate desire for control is bullshit in the first place.

    The concept of "meaning" I think Jung tried to ascribe in the concept of the "archetype", calling them "transpersonal" "collective unconscious" or whatever mystical sounding terms he used--the fact is, "archetype" is to "meaning" as "motif" or "pattern" is to physical form. Like the idea of a fold or crease--the basic idea of a fold or crease is found in many different places, the corner of a rectilinear wall, the crease of a book, the crease formed inside my elbow when I bend my arm, etc. is a basic idea that has "transpersonal" presence and probably has existed as long as the Universe existed, but we don't go around worshiping every crease we find as if it were some sort of God. Likewise, there are tokens of "meaning"--like the Hero archetype, the idea of something coming through and "making right" something that is proceeding in a direction of disintegration or destruction--that have everyday occurrences not just in matters of humanity, but in the physical realm as well... It's awfully easy to sign this off as just being "all in our head," but I think there's more to be learned by stepping outside of that paradigm of thought.

    Anyway, Jung did basically say that Synchronicity is founded in the archetype, that archetypes are the content of synchronistic phenomena, but his description of it is derived from the paradigmatic standpoint of it being "all in our head" to some extent, and that archetypes are "meaning" that is all in our head. Aziz would have you take the leap otherwise and understand it's no accident that synchronistic phenomena are based in Reality outside of our heads. That's not to mean that we actually know what we're talking about or have truly identified the legitimate meaning of synchronistic phenomena, it's to say that if we learned and studied it in depth we could derive meaning from it, indeed we may even acknowledge our personal role in the whole event's emergence, and it would be important for us to understand what could come out of that. Ultimately what we do *with* synchronistic thoughts and phenomena is the only real reason why we'd want to discuss them.

    I think at the end of the century, or maybe the next, or who knows when, we humans will have resolved many of the great questions of what people ascribe to "mysticism" as being rather ordinary phenomena in the same way that we regard much elementary mathematics and physics as being rather ordinary, when it was probably awe-inspiring and groundbreaking in the days of which much of the mathematics we learn in grade school was conceived.

    But one thing is damned certain, we can't IGNORE these phenomena outright; they are NOT going away. Ponder that in your pipe and smoke it ;-)
    intp | type 9w1 sp/sx/so

Similar Threads

  1. Synchronicity, coincidence and confirmation bias?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 02-07-2010, 05:59 PM
  2. Replies: 34
    Last Post: 09-11-2008, 06:24 AM
  3. Ni, Tarot and Confirmation Bias
    By The WhimWham in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 05-02-2008, 02:15 AM
  4. Eye Direction and Cognitive Function
    By heart in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 04-27-2008, 08:02 PM
  5. MBTI and Cognitive Functions
    By RansomedbyFire in forum Myers-Briggs and Jungian Cognitive Functions
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 09-10-2007, 06:52 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO