-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay, i think i understand now. The significant part i was missing, or it didn't sink in last time, was that post hoc observations are more subject to bias bc of human pattern seeking behavior. I did really enjoy reading your examples and the work you put into demonstrating them, so thanks for doing that.So with that said hopefully I answered your question sufficiently. If you want me to go more into detail about any particular point or you have any other questions please do so. If you feel I did not answer your question sufficiently, misunderstood your question, or did not understand the answer please let me know that too.
But we must get back on track a little i think. Bc this statistics things started out with you mentioning i may have some misunderstanding when it comes to statistics. I have conceded you are right about that, but i also have two degrees which both (one more than other) involved many stats classes, so i'm not completely ignorant of it. That's not to boast or anything, i just don't want to pretend i'm playing dumb or something bc i'm not. I truly understand what you mean after you remind me a little, and at the same time, i truly don't remember some of it.
So the main question comes up still in regards to getting back on track (i know i said i'll do that in the last paragraph but got off track again... excuse my messy mind), you said there is some kind of misunderstanding of stats i'm not considering or something on those lines. I don't think i am misunderstanding it in the bigger picture. Like my concern i mainly addressed in my last reply, most of my experiences aren't post hoc. I know they are suppose to happen again, and they've been continuing to happen. I guess it can be argued it's kinda both post hoc and not. But this ultimately doesn't matter too much bc of the experiences i'd rather discuss.
So again, if i mix in the experiences that have multiple coincidence, i don't think it is unfair of me to say they are rare and/or extremely rare occurrences. Maybe i might over estimate by saying like winning the lottery, but i would think close. Especially since some of them foreshadow events that haven't happen't yet, some happening on the spot... but the key is, there were feelings, observations, sequence, events that needed to take place, then the experience itself. I find that to be mind blowing rare, and i think it's fair for me to think at the very least, that shouldn't have been possible (on its face).
So really, you did not address those concerns i had in my reply post (114) which i was more detailed in. I don't see, although appreciated, how your statistic analogies and examples fully apply (bc they definitely play a part i'm sure) to my specific experiences. They do apply more so to my weaker experiences, but even then... those weaker experiences are still experiences for a reason. Although there is only one coincidence, most of my experiences that should 'continue' to happen in the future, and have been, are the weaker experiences which is why i still categorize them as such. I just feel this is a lot different than a one time guess that turned out to be right, or two, or three, that turned out to be right. I shared just four, i've lost count at this point of my experiences... all i can say is more than a dozen maybe two at this point in my life (i keep it at a dozen and not more purposefully cutting experiences out just in case i'm mistaken but it is for sure more if i'm just counting). That changes the tables in the stats i believe to where i can at least say... this is statistically improbable.
