You draw a card that speaks of a necessary break. Three days later, a conversation you'd been putting off for months starts on its own. Coincidence? Probably. And yet something in you refuses to wave the event away.

This kind of experience has had a name since Carl Gustav Jung: synchronicity, which he defined as a coincidence in time between an inner state and an outer event, connected by meaning rather than causality.

The concept is fascinating and slippery at once. Fascinating, because almost everyone has lived through at least one unsettling coincidence. Slippery, because it's impossible to prove and easy to fantasize about. Our brain is a pattern-detecting machine, including where there is no pattern.

So what can you do seriously with that?

The problem with synchronicity stories

Accounts of synchronicities suffer from three well-documented biases.

Confirmation bias: we notice the coincidences that confirm what we were hoping for, and forget the hundred times nothing happened. Selection bias: only the spectacular stories circulate, never the draws that were followed by nothing. And the Barnum effect: the vaguer a message, the more precisely it seems to apply to our life.

Most oracle sites ignore these biases, or worse, exploit them. I chose a different path: look them in the eye and build a process that accounts for them.

An open study, with strict rules

Since 2026, Oradia has run an ongoing study on synchronicities reported after a Tore draw. Here are the rules I hold myself to:

Genuine randomness. Only draws made with the Australian National University's quantum generator are counted. If a draw used even a single byte of simulated randomness, it's excluded. I explained why in a dedicated article on quantum draws.

An observation window set in advance. After their draw, each person chooses a period of 7 to 21 days during which they simply commit to staying attentive. The questionnaire is only sent once that window closes, never before. We don't ask "did something extraordinary happen to you?" in the heat of the moment — we ask for a calm, cold observation.

Results published without filtering. Average scores, the distribution of felt intensity, the types of observations reported: everything is visible on the study's public page (currently in French), even when the numbers don't work in our favor. A month where no one reports anything will be shown as such.

No promises. Answering is optional, anonymized, and I say clearly that this sample proves nothing on its own. It's a collection of observations, not a demonstration.

What people report

Without revealing numbers that keep evolving (they're on the study page), the most frequent categories of observation speak for themselves: timing coincidences (a call, an offer, an encounter that falls precisely within the window), thoughts or intuitions that come true, recurring signs in the environment, and dreams connected to the intention set.

One observation strikes us in particular: many people report that simply having defined an observation window changed the quality of their attention. They noticed things they wouldn't otherwise have noticed. Is that a synchronicity, or sharpened attention? Perhaps the question is framed wrong: perhaps sharpened attention is precisely the doorway in.

Even the most cautious reading stays interesting

Even under the most skeptical reading, where no "objective" synchronicity exists at all, the process still does something real: it turns a vague question into a stated intention, then into a period of conscious attention. That's exactly the mechanism the psychology of attention describes: what we actively look for, we find more often, because we finally see it.

And under the most open reading, the one held by Jung and Pauli, meaningful coincidences would be a property of reality our science can't yet describe. I don't settle the question. I observe, I publish, and I let each person form their own opinion based on honest data rather than promises.

As far as we know, this is the only study of its kind run by a French-language online oracle. It grows with every draw.