If the question sounds confusing, allow me to illustrate two examples of events.
First example: You think of a number between 1 and 1000. 1000 different people all guess it. One of them gets it right.
Second example: You think of a number. John guesses this number. He is correct.
The first example seems less surprising than the second. The second seems way more surprising since there is only one chance. But notice that this is only because when considering the first example, our mind thinks of the probability that ONE of them will guess it right. Note in the second case, our mind thinks of the probability that John gets it right. Of course the second is much lower.
The reason why we are less surprised in the first case, is because given enough attempts, a meaningful event will arise. But notice that we can generalize the second event into a more general kind as well. In the history of the world, there have probably been many times someone or a group has attempted to guess something, expect something, all with different probabilities, many of which could have even been below a probability of 1/1000. It is then unsurprising that atleast one of them would turn out to be meaningful.
What really is the difference in logic between them? In the first case, each guess is independent. In the second case, each "expectation like" event is also independent. Sure, the events in the first case might be more similar to each other than the second, but because they are independent, does it really matter? In either case, we have no prior or independent evidence that mind reading powers are possible. Is it really more likely that the person in the second case is more likely to have mind reading powers than the first? I don't think so.
And yet, one feels clearly more surprising. Is this a glitch in our brain?