susan - they are not actually coincidences.
doesn't matter what we call them - it is the human imagination that links any such things together and concludes significance!
eddie - Great point Susan. And that is exactly how science works! That’s the way everything goes, thinking about things.
"that's how science works??"
It's funny, for many of my adult years I have had a serious interest in synchronicity, but only very recently have I begun looking into how others, who seem to be interested in the subject, treat the subject.
For many years I had believed that synchronicity has greatly under-performed, as a subject deserving of serious treatment, because those involved in the subject tend to only focus on the personal experience of synchronicity. As such, those on the outside have little ability to confirm the 'alleged' facts, which they would instinctively reject because the alleged results are too timely, too relevant or noteworthy, AND too improbable to otherwise accept on faith.
In other words, improbability is a central concern when it comes to the perception of so-called synchronicity. Jung understood this very well, and he wrote at length on how this essential element made a case for synchronicity.
What I have found, very contrary to this, is that most of the 'serious' synchronicity people DON'T want to subject their fleeting impressions to such relevant examination. It's as if they are afraid of what they might find, or that they don't get the need for improbability assessments whenever something happens that invokes that famous phrase, "What are the odds!?" Time and time again I saw, at synchronicity sites, snapchat photos of things like receipts, digital clocks or license plates with pattern-related numbers. Dozens of likes added, but no commentary, other than those of the self-appointed gurus who offer their pearls of wisdom regarding what it must all mean.
This superficial treatment of "synchronicity" validates the generalization of Susan, and Eddie's implied one - I think - which is that anyone can find "patterns." I'd lament such superficial treatment, which leads to other common criticisms that again, really should b mentioned, but as one who believes we are evolving according to some higher plan, I firmly choose to not let it bother me. If people want to upload pics of license plates so that others can click likes, have it at. If people want to 'like' pics, have at it. That said, and unfortunately for Susan and Eddie, or at least those who dismiss this subject dismissively, rather than mere examples, their general criticisms are really only relevant for those I have mentioned above.
We are not quite ready, as a species, to treat this subject with the respect it deserves. This is reflected in the general commentary. However, things are falling rapidly into place, mainly search engines and our ability to evaluate public events which display features whose features the serious skeptic can confirm and evaluate in terms of improbability. In due course, I predict we will eventually begin analyzing synced events, at least public ones, as people have been examining the world's ancient monuments in recent years - with respect to their relative temporal position and similar considerations. For now, we continue to spin our wheels on this one, big time.
To Daniel's point: I have found that certain indicators are surprisingly reliable indicators of a potential synchronistic effect, either with respect to a past event, an unfolding one, or an event that is still in the future. On the public stage, that strangely reliable indicator is when salience combines with high improbability in at least one instance, in a way that tends to capture the public imagination (in a manner that often mimics the individual's reaction when it comes to personal syncs). It has been my experience that such events usually display a high degree of synchronistic 'convergence', other features that add to the improbability. In my estimation, the bodies of evidence don't just defeat the default chance presumption, they crush it.
Later I will present my findings in one such case very famous study, and English one. I hadn't even known of this unfolding event until months into its process, and at the time I had NO idea about any of the major players of the present, and very little one of the arcane past. But when I looked to that event's salient-synchronistic features, I soon found more detail in a manner that I have found to be consistent with this general approach. In other words, Daniel, I was applying a template that I have found to work with remarkable (improbable?) consistency. The findings I will present are based on unarguable salience, certain things that definitely stand out in this case's related settings. God only knows what those familiar with the affected settings would come up with, because such familiarity makes it much easier to know where to look, to other related salient events and to the prominent actors involved.
So, I would say look to very well known events which display at least one feature that is clearly improbable AND relevant or noteworthy to the event, keeping in mind that salience is salience. What stands out on public stages tends to be clearly apparent to all. Exceptionally noteworthy events are described in superlative terms, making their exceptional cultural 'salience' evident to everyone who is willing to take a SERIOUS look.