Bounded Sign-Noticing Experiment
Set criteria before noticing and treat the result as meaning, not proof
- Difficulty
- Easy
- Time to result
- ~days to results
- Steps
- 5
- Confidence
- 90%
Swart responds to the host's confirmation-bias challenge by accepting that attention changes what people notice and suggesting that this mechanism can still be used deliberately. Her stronger examples set the rules before the observation: choose an unusual symbol, specify what forms count, require a number of appearances by a deadline, and exclude familiar routes or places where the symbol is already known to exist. That structure makes the exercise more disciplined than interpreting any convenient event after it happens. It still cannot establish who or what caused a coincidence. The reusable value is a bounded noticing experiment that may create personal meaning or comfort while preserving alternative explanations such as selective attention and ordinary probability. Consequential decisions should rely on independent evidence.
Origin
Extracted from The Diary of a CEO. Tara Swart describes increasingly specific criteria she uses when asking for personally meaningful signs.
Core principles
- 01Attention changes what people notice
- 02Specific advance criteria reduce after-the-fact reinterpretation
- 03Common symbols provide weaker personal evidence than unusual ones
- 04Known locations should not count as surprising encounters
- 05A meaningful coincidence is not scientific proof of its cause
How to run it
- 1
Choose an Uncommon Target
Select a symbol that matters to you but is not encountered routinely. Avoid broad targets that are nearly guaranteed to appear.
Pro tip Swart chose a phoenix because she considered it less common than a dog.
- 2
Pre-Register What Counts
Define acceptable forms, such as the object, its written name, or a clear symbol. Set the required frequency and the deadline before looking.
Pro tip Write the rule down so it cannot drift after an ambiguous result.
- 3
Exclude Known Exposure
Do not count a place, route, or object where you already knew the target would appear. Separate genuinely unexpected encounters from predictable exposure.
Pro tip Record where each encounter occurred.
- 4
Record Hits and Misses
Log every qualifying encounter and whether the threshold was reached on time. Do not extend the deadline or relax the definition after seeing the result.
Pro tip Keep the record brief enough that you will capture non-events as well as memorable hits.
Watch out Selective memory can make successful trials feel more frequent than they are.
- 5
Interpret Proportionately
Ask whether attention, base rates, or chance could explain the result. If it remains personally meaningful, describe it that way without converting it into scientific proof.
Pro tip Use the experience for reflection, not as the sole basis for a consequential choice.
Watch out The episode provides no controlled evidence that the method enables communication after death.
In the wild
Swart says she asked her late husband for a phoenix while considering how to emerge from burnout. She then noticed a Phoenix Garden restaurant and later had to fly through Phoenix, Arizona, on the anniversary of his death. She interprets the sequence as meaningful; the host raises confirmation bias as an alternative explanation.
→ The episode demonstrates both the emotional meaning and the unresolved causal interpretation of a sign.
Swart describes a tighter version in which a button, the word button, or a button symbol must appear three times by 11 p.m. the next day. The pre-set forms, count, and deadline reduce the freedom to reinterpret any later coincidence as a success.
→ A vague request becomes a bounded personal observation exercise.
Common mistakes
Choosing an Inevitable Sign
A routine object creates too many predictable opportunities to feel surprising.
Changing Rules After the Result
Moving the deadline or broadening what counts makes the experiment impossible to interpret honestly.
Calling Personal Meaning Scientific Proof
The exercise can be emotionally meaningful without establishing supernatural causation.
Is it for you?
Best for
It is best for curious adults exploring personal meaning while remaining aware of attention and confirmation bias.
Not ideal for
It is not ideal for proving supernatural causation, making high-stakes decisions, or evaluating distressing experiences without professional support.
From the transcript
“I don't. I say use it to your advantage.”
“it's got to have happened three times by 11:00 p.m. tomorrow”
“If it's like you know, the normal way that you go or somewhere that you know that they exist, that doesn't count”
From the episode
Neuroscience Expert Dr. Tara Swart on Evidence We Can Communicate After Death and Her Experience Speaking to the Dead!