Psychiatric Annals introduces their December 2011 issue this way:
“Coincidences are common to us all. This issue explores the possibility of a scientific origin for these events and suggests psychiatry has a role to play in the creation of a new field of study: Coincidence Studies.”
The four articles in the issue are entitled:
Synchronicity: Coincidence Detection and Meaningful Life Events
An Initial Study of Extreme, Measurable Forms of Synchronicity
Exploration of Anomalous Mind-Matter Correspondences
Measurement of Synchronicity in a Clinical Context
It’s good to see the scientific community taking a serious look at synchronicity, rather than simply labeling it ‘magical thinking’ – read non-scientific thinking. Yet, such studies clearly remain outside mainstream science. I can just imagine the skeptic forums puzzling over the topic of coincidence studies.
The first article starts out this way:
“Early therapeutic use of coincidences is described by Carl Jung, who coined the term ‘synchronicity,’ referring to the low-probability co-occurrence of two different events in a narrow window of time, perceived as striking for the individual experiencing it. 1 It is now accepted that, for coincidences to qualify as a synchronicity, they have to be meaningful, and help one’s individuation.”
The last sentence is an important one in therapeutic terms. It suggests that synchronicities are guideposts for healing, a positive factor for mental, emotional and spiritual development.
The scientific jargon that’s used is interesting and a bit humorous. The first article repeatedly refers to WCS-2 in their data analysis. What is it? Weird Coincidence Scale. We wonder what happened to WCS-1!
The first study looks at the relationship between age and synchronicity – something that we had never considered as a factor. But, according to the study, it is. The older you are the more likely you are to accept synchronicity.
“Age and probability/chance were negatively related; as age increases, agreement with the statement, “I believe coincidences can be explained by the laws or probability of chance” tends to decrease. Considering this was the only finding regarding age and coincidence detection, replication studies with larger, more representative samples are needed to clarify the true relationship.”
Interestingly, the second study also uses the Weird Coincidence Scale-2. We assume that was not a synchronicity, but part of a coordinated effort to measure coincidence in a similar manner.
What I like about the second study was that it actually included an example of a synchronicity – a complex one involving two scholars simultaneously pondering the importance of footnotes. The story is followed by a detailed analysis of the synchro. To me, it was a synchronicity that only an academic could fully appreciate. Someone not familiar with synchronicity reading this study would probably scratch his or her head and wonder what it was all about.
That’s the problem with academic studies of meaningful coincidence. They tend to make a mysterious subject even more complicated and more confusing. But that’s my non-scholarly take. Trish feels about the same.
Yet, it’s interesting to peruse these studies, and it’s potentially important for our advancement if the scientific world accepts synchronicity as a reality. We’ll take a look at the last two studies tomorrow.















