Responselet 9715b
Date: Thu, 17 Apr 1997 19:46:06 -0500 (CDT)
Dad,
I wanted to open my responselet with a chapter from a book by John Allen Paulos called Beyond Numeracy...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Coincidences
"Coincidences fascinate us. They seem to compel a search for their significance. More often than some people realize, however, they're to be expected and require no special explanation. Surely no cosmic conclusions may be drawn from the fact that I recently and quite by accident met someone in Seattle whose father had played on the same Chicago high school baseball team as my father had and whose daughter is the same age and has the same name as my daughter. As improbable as this particular event was (or as particular events always are), that some event of this vaguely characterized sort should occasionally occur is very likely.
"More precisely, it can be shown, for example, that if two strangers sit next to each other on an airplane, more than 99 times out of 100 they will be linked in some way by two or fewer intermediates. (The linkage with my father's classmate was more striking. It was via only one intermediate, my father, and contained other elements.) Maybe, for example, the cousin of one of the passengers will know the other's dentist. Most of the time people won't discover these links, since in casual conversation they don't usually run through all their 1,500 or so acquaintances as well as all their acquaintances' acquaintances. (I suppose with laptop computers becoming more popular they could compare their own personal databases and even those of people they know. Perhaps exchanging databases might soon be as common as leaving a business card. Electronic networking. Hellacious.)
"There is a tendency, however, to home in on likely co-acquaintances. Such connections are thus discovered frequently enough so that the squeals of amazement that commonly accompany their discovery are unwarranted. Similarly unimpressive is the "prophetic" dream which traditionally comes to light after some natural disaster has occurred. Given the half billion hours of dreaming each night in this country--2 hours per night for 250 million people--we should expect as much.
"Or consider the famous birthday problem in probability theory. One must gather together 367 people (one more than the number of days in a leap year) in order to ensure that 2 of them share a birthday. But if one is willing to settle for a 50-50 chance of this happening, only 23 people need be gathered. Rephrasing, I note that if we imagine a school with thousands of classrooms each of which contains 23 students, then approximately half of these classrooms will contain 2 students who share a birthday. No time should be wasted trying to explain the meaning of these or other coincidences of similar type. They just happen.
"One somewhat different example concerns the publisher of a stock newsletter who sends out 64,000 letters extolling his state-of-the-art database, his inside contact, and his sophisticated econometric models. In 32,000 of these letters he predicts a rise in some stock index for the following week, say, and 32,000 of them he predicts a decline. Whatever happens, he sends a follow-up letter but only to those 32,000 to whom he's made a correct "prediction." To 16,000 of them he predicts a rise for the next week, and to 16,000 a decline. Again, whatever happens, he will have sent 2 consecutive correct predictions to 16,000 people. Iterating this procedure of focusing exclusively on the winnowed list of people who have received only correct predictions, he can create the illusion in them that he knows what he's talking about. After all, the 1,000 or so remaining people who have received 6 straight correct predictions (by coincidence) have a good reason to cough up the $1,000 the newsletter publisher requests: They want to continue to receive these "oracular" pronouncements.
"I repeat that a useful distinction in discussing these and other coincidences is that between generic sorts of events and particular events. Many situations are such that the particular event that occurs is guaranteed to be rare--a certain individual winning the lottery or a specific bridge hand being dealt--while the generic outcome--someone's winning the lottery or some bridge hand being dealt--is unremarkable. Consider the birthday problem again. If all that we require is that 2 people have some birthday in common rather than any particular birthday, then 23 people suffice to make this happen with a probability of 1/2. By contrast, 253 people are needed in order for the probability to be 1/2 that one of them has a specific birth day, say July 4. Particular events specified beforehand are, of course, quite difficult to forecast, so it's not surprising that predictions by televangelists, quack doctors, and others are usually vague and amorphous (that is, until the events in question have occurred, at which time the prognosticators like to assert that these precise outcomes were indeed foreseen).
"This brings me to the so-called Jeane Dixon effect, whereby the few correct predictions (by psychics, disreputable stock newsletter, whomever) are widely heralded and the 9,839 or so false predictions made annually are conveniently ignored. The phenomenon is quite widespread and contributes to the tendency we all have to read more significance into coincidences than is usually justified. We forget all the premonitions of disaster we've had which didn't predict the future and remember vividly those few which seemed to do so. Instances of seemingly telepathic thought are reported to everyone we know; the incomparably vaster number of times this doesn't occur are too banal to mention.
"Even our biology conspires to make coincidences appear more meaningful than they usually are. Since the natural world of rocks, plants, and rivers doesn't seem to offer much evidence for superfluous coincidences, primitive man had to be very sensitive to every conceivable anomaly and improbability as he slowly developed science and its progenitor, "common sense." Coincidences, after all, are sometimes quite significant. In our complicated and largely man-made modern world, however, the plethora of connections among us appears to have overstimulated many people's inborn tendency to note coincidence and improbability and led them to postulate causes and forces where there are none. People know more names (not only family members' but also those of colleagues and a myriad of public figures), dates (from news stories to personal appointments and schedules), addresses (whether actual physical ones or telephone numbers, office numbers, and so on), and organizations and acronyms (from the FBI to the IMF, from AIDS to ASEAN) than ever before. Thus, although it is a very difficult quantity to measure, the rate at which coincidences occur has probably risen over the last century or two. Still, for most of them it generally makes little sense to demand an explanation.
"In reality, the most astonishingly incredible coincidence imaginable would be the complete absence of all coincidences."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I believe a "the bridge between matter and mind" most likely does not exist and that the power of our mind is limited to transforming our perceptions of physical reality rather than physical reality itself. My "amazement" at seeing Mike Pickard in Dallas I think is normal, and I am actually quite amazed that you were amazed I was amazed, especially since you know how I view things. Just as a curiosity, did you think that I would take it as a sign? ...as a reason to plant a seed of faith? Although these coincidences still do take me by surprise, I tend to follow the ideas of Paulos, and see no rational reason to look for meaning in them. The only meaning I can find is that Mike has recently become a regional VP and has made over 150+ plane flights in the last six months to Dallas or Austin. Coincidences do occur.
Now what would have truly been amazing is if someone had forecasted (or asked in a prayer) ahead of time that I would run into Mike at the airport. But asking for a sign is conveniently deemed as an activity for a wicked and adulterous generation - of which I am obviously a part. Instead, "prognosticators like to assert that these precise outcomes were indeed foreseen" post-event, or in other words, people like to believe their prayers have been answered. The reason you can't ask for a sign ahead of time is that it is a particular event, and hence it is almost statistically impossible to predict. Instead, testimonies must be built on things that happen naturally. The Jeane Dixon effect could very well explain testimony building. All of the experiences that build testimonies are based on events that we are not allowed to ask for but encouraged to find meaning in, while the "incomparably vaster number" of potentially testimony-harming events are simply ignored. It is so easy for me to explain why the whole formula for building a testimony works by looking at it this way.
Likewise, it does not surprise me that Michael Talbot, or many other very intelligent people like you, still search for meaning - even if that leads them to derive elaborate, soft science-based theories to explain it all. To me, religion seems to be the ultimate soft science. There are no direct measurable quantities, and an explanation can be generated for everything based on a framework of ideas. Everything appears to make sense (especially when you need meaning), but proving any absolutes is really not possible.
So when you say, "Yes there are synchronicities and coincidences which can not be explained except by a tie between the mind and matter, or by the intervention of an intelligence outside of our experience.", I respond - Why do they need to be explained? How can you be sure that you are not "postulate(ing) causes and forces where there are none."? How do you know the experiences and perceptions your mind has given you present you with a full picture of yourself, your behavior (conscious or subconscious), and your surroundings? Have you really looked at everything from every perspective, or are you going to turn a corner someday only to find the foundation is based on something overlooked (like natural biological tendencies to find meaning in coincidences, for example)? Is a tie between mind and matter or another form of intelligence really the only two viable explanations for what you feel or are there other possible explanations that you have not recognized? How can you claim the power of the mind to be so great, and then claim to be in control of it? (By asserting that you have the power to discern truth, you are claiming to be in control of your mind!!)
Please don't think I am trying to tear your testimony down. You said to me in Colorado, although I don't think you know how much it affected me, "Oh...you have beliefs??? (sarcastically)." But I know you are finding that I do, and that I have strong convictions about them just as you have strong convictions for your own. So I am just doing as you do, and presenting them as I feel and doing so strongly. However, I really hope "you will always see my comments as expressions of my thoughts, opinions and beliefs, and based in a sincere desire to understand and be understood, not as retorts or attempts at correction," just as Chuck said in one of his early responselets.
love,
Roice
20 April 1997
Roice,
Thanks for your your thoughtful Responselet. I am sorry for my sarcasm, anger, and weaknesses. I know you have strong convictions, and I am sure Chuck appreciates as much as I do your quoting his insights. I do believe I see your comments in the light you quoted and I do want to understand and be understood. In giving a fellowshipping discussion to Sarah Songster's fiance a few minutes ago (Darrell joined the church a few weeks ago) with Alan Peterson, Darrell started talking about coincidences. He described the coincidence of how he met Sarah as a result of jamming his thumb when playing football and needing to get physical therapy. He bore testimony about how to him it was not just a coincidence and how wonderful and meaningful finding the church is for him. I listened. Then Alan Peterson talked about how he had a geology professor who said there are no coincidences in geology, and how he viewed God and the Savior as the ultimate geologists and how from his perspective there are no coincidences in the spirit's interaction with man. I listened, and thought of your Responselet.
I tend to agree with you on all of your points from an intellectual point of view. The Best Practice methodology and Continuous Improvement Process we defined at HyperMedia and the popular Learning Orgainzation are based on the Jeane Dixon effect. In other words, as people notice things that improve or predictions that work, they repeat them. As we notice things which don't work, we should unlearn those things. We tend to forget the pain involved in the learning process. However, what happens in real life in regards to this idea is nicely expressed in some of my recent reading; i.e. `Insanity has been defined as doing the same old thing over and over and expecting different results.' The scripture `ever learning, but never coming to a knowledge of the truth' summarizes this approach, and is certianly a big part of my on-going struggle with relationships. I'm sorry you took the comment about sign-seeking as an activity of a wicked and adulterous generation so personally. It was not intended to be focused on anyone, especially you. If it is true, repent. If it isn't don't worry, be happy, and recognize I was quoting from my reference guide, the scriptures.
Where we disconnect is on the spiritual plane. I implied, but did not spell out the discussion I had with the Lord in prayer about you the night before you went to Dallas. I did not ask Him for Mike Pickerd to meet you at the Dallas Airport, but I did ask for the spirit to guide you to those who could bear testimony by their lives in a way that you could hear it. I recognize this was just a coincidence to you, and frankly you did not hear the message, but to me it was a Best Practice, a step in a Continuous Improvement Process, a Learning Organization, a direct answer to a prayer. My faith, my hope, my heart, and my testimony were fueled by this experience. I realize it was just a coincidence to you, and that is fine. I hope it is fine with you it was more meaningful to me.
May I propose an experiment for you. Fast for 24 hours. Pray before starting your fast, even if it is only to say `I am doing this because my Dad asked me to and I love him.' Then a half an hour before you break your fast go to the Thoughtlets and reread (reread and read for the first time) Thoughtlet #97.15, along with Responselet #97.15a and #97.15b. Say another prayer to break your fast, even if it is only to say `I am really hungry but I am striving to understand this spiritual insight stuff my Dad talks about and would appreciate it, if you exist, if Thou would help me understand what my Dad is talking about from a spiritual standpoint,' and then spend a half an hour (or more) meditating on whatever comes to mind. I believe this would let you feel where I was coming from in what I wrote and what I felt when you told me your surprise about meeting Bishop Pickerd at Love Field in Dallas Texas, a few blocks away from where you spent the first seven years of your life. This feels like a way to help you understand me, but If you don't want to do this experiment, that's fine too. I will not be in Austin this week, and will only be there the Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday of the following week.
Thanks again for your nice and thoughtful Responselet. It helped me understand you better.
Love,
Dad