In the latest episode of my podcast I discuss our tendency to put more meaning into coincidence than really is there. I discussed a little probability and a little critical thinking. I then interviewed a Jungian analyst who explained what Jung meant by the term "Synchronicity".
In all honesty, I don't think he came off looking too good and I'm wondering if I did him a disservice by not pointing out to the listeners that our (Western) way of thinking is based on empiricism and that this mode of thought is different than the tradition Jung came from. I have to admit though that the philosophical underpinnings of Jung's thinking is not my forte. We all want students to be critical thinkers, but I also want them to appreciate different modes of thinking. Can anyone give me a little insight on this issue? Perhaps the psych historians in our group? Michael -- Michael Britt, Ph.D. [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
