This post is a follow-up from yesterday’s in which we took a look at the new issue of Psychiatric Annals, which is devoted to synchronicity. We commented on the first two articles. Now we’ll move on the other two.
We’ll start with Exploration of Anomalous Mind-Matter Correspondences.
This study is interesting, especially since it focuses on the law of attraction and unexpected money. Here’s how it begins.
“The study of unexpected money, conducted as part of a dissertation project, follows the discussion in the online edition of Psychiatric Annals of using experimental methods to determine whether participants under controlled conditions can apply intention to attract “unexpected” money.
So the jargon term in this study moves from WCS-2 (Weird Coincidences Scale-2), to the appropriate and clever acronym of SUM (Seeking Unexpected Money). Here’s how it works.
“The study incorporated methodologies from psi laboratory experiments, prayer studies, and the social sciences to explore whether anomalous mind-matter correspondences (AMMCs) happen more frequently to people who have been instructed to engage in intentional activities. It resembled the psi studies in that it employed a true experimental design: Randomized groups, each blind to the activities of the other groups, received differing instructions to perform a new task. Yet, it differed from these studies in that the new task — to be attentive to receipts of unexpected money — carried a priori meaning for the participants.”
Here’s the definition of unexpected money.
“Money that comes into your hands surprisingly and suddenly (‘out of the blue’), without your earning it, soliciting it, specifically seeking it out, or otherwise expecting it.” Examples of unexpected-money events included finding cash on the street, inheriting money unexpectedly, winning money in a lottery or contest, receiving money through an unexpected credit or class action settlement. Even windfall capital gains, wage increases, new work, or return of monies borrowed were considered valid events if there was some aspect to their receipt that felt highly out of the ordinary.”
(Interestingly, the day I wrote this post, we received two checks totalling $36 from a class action settlement against American Express. It was definitely unexpected money. Too bad is wasn’t more!)
And what were the results of the study? It looks like the ol’ trickster stepped into this one, which involved 64 people. The control group apparently did better at gaining unexpected money than the ones applying intention.
The article summarized: “The fact that the controls prevailed seems to indicate that the act of paying attention was enough, and that performing any additional intentional activities actually deterred participants from achieving the desired outcome. These findings support those from prayer studies and PK experiments, which have discovered that the best results often are achieved when participants are not applying rigorous intentionality to the psi task.”
We’re glad that some people got unexpected money. Certainly, the control group did not expect it!
The final study is called Measurement of Synchronicity in a Clinical Context. It’s about whether or not a synchronicity can be generated under controlled conditions rather than happening unpredictably.
The study made use of divination, specifically, the I Ching, the book of changes. References to Jung and his use of the I Ching were at the heart of the study.
“Jung considered synchronicity to be the I Ching’s basic mode of operation. In light of his lifelong use of the book and beliefs about its underlying process, researchers such as Lance Storm question why Jung never undertook empirical studies with the instrument. Nevertheless, Jung found the uncanny results he received when consulting the I Ching for his personal questions intriguing, referring to the book’s content as a ‘catalog of archetypal information.'”
The author notes: “This study hypothesized that when the I Ching is employed in a psychotherapy-like context, sufficient contingent conditions will be present to cause the occurrence of a synchronicity.”
While Jung believed that the I Ching and other divination systems are examples of synchronicity, he also thought that synchronicity cannot be “caused,” or at least not caused by the principles of modern science. That’s why he called it an “acausal connecting principle.”
I might be over simplifying the results, but it appears that the study found that I Ching readings were accurate only about one out of three times. I’m not sure how such a conclusion was made since I Ching readings are highly subjective. One person might find a reading highly accurate while another person in a similar situation might find the same reading questionable or worthless.
As the author noted: “A person’s level of psychological insight is also thought to contribute to his or her recognizing and extracting relevant meaning from a synchronistic occurrence.”
One Jungian scholar stated, “Jung maintained that to use the I Ching effectively one must possess considerable psychological insight, just as such insight must also be possessed to accurately interpret the full meaning of any synchronistic pattern.”
The study ended, as the others in this issue of Psychiatric Annals, saying that more research was needed. I think that’s a boiler plate ending for most studies. I’ve never read one that concluded by saying no more studies on this subject are needed. 😉
Thanks for telling us about these studies, T&R.
This. . .
“the best results often are achieved when participants are not applying rigorous intentionality to the psi task.”
. . .matches everything I’ve ever learned from various wisdom sources, which is that it’s not a good idea to try to force it. Relaxed trust and faith seem to play a major role. When we tighten up and start trying to dictate the details, it’s as if the universe backs off and says, ‘Hey, we thought you wanted help. No? You wanna run things? Okay, go for it. We’ll just be over here in the corner with our little ol’ cosmic powers, watching you defeat yourself again.” Not that the universe would sound so snarky. Or maybe it would. 🙂
Good insights, Nance! You wanna run things? Hmmm. I need to remember this!
Yes, it’s good that these studies are done, and that the results are writtten up in academic journals. Interesting also that those who tried to manifest money actually did worse than the control group! I am a big believer in gentle action and gentle intention. For me a spiritual journey is as much about listening and being present as achieving goals – although its also fun being in the world and doing stuff!
I noticed in that study that they also paid everyone $10. I wonder if that counted as unexpected money. 😉
I was just listening to the H2O radio show
“Author Anthony Peake: Daemon, and Is There Life After Death?”
https://www.blogtalkradio.com/theh2onetwork/2010/12/06/author-anthony-peake-daemon-and-is-there-life-afte
It’s a cracker.I would encourage people to have a listen.
Interesting stuff.
It’s good I suppose that science is taking an interest in such things but such people like to complicate something that is relatively simple. Interesting articles nevertheless.
These are fascinating studies!
Thanks for the informative post.
Thanks for all this science and it’s good to know they are all smart enough to keep studying how to take the magic out of the equation, science may even try to measure the fun aspect of laughter. Fortunately, magic and fun are contagious and grow exponentially.
It sounds to me like these scientists they are studying more about the filters to synchronicity that people have created. The unexpected-money control group probably got cash because the intent groups were filtering their expectations, maybe with desired amounts related to other aspects of their economics. $36 is good by the numbers even if not to the bank balance. 😀
In spite of the efforts to carry out so-called objective studies, it seems to me that the results are subjective. You could dismiss synchronicity or accept it. You could also get more confused, especially if you didn’t have any strong sense of belief or disbelief in the phenomenon. To me, what counts is personal experience, not studies on the subject.