Astro-ma-lollolagy
Sep. 29th, 2002 03:30 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
nfotxnI've never been a big believer in Astrology. To me it's always seemed like the sale of compliments and iteration of universal truths about human beings. Regardless I did find the results eerily accurate. Much like the chart Dan (![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
daninca) made for me last year on my birthday. I'm gonna compare the two.
Link ungraciously ripped fromstingray1975's journal.
daninca) made for me last year on my birthday. I'm gonna compare the two.Link ungraciously ripped from
stingray1975's journal.Brodie's Sun Sign is Aquarius ...
Your sign, dear Brodie, is the eleventh of the zodiac and is considered to be the sign of perspective, the future, and new projects. The water bearer symbolizes intellectual development through communication and innovation. Of all signs, you are the most idealistic and humanitarian, with a strong sense of community and fraternity.
Your ruler Uranus, the planet of change and revolution, represents originality and a strong drive for adventure and freedom. Uranus is also called the rebel planet, and its energy is radical, sudden, and unpredictable.
Aquarius is the third of the three air signs, which means that your intellectuality is expressed as an intuitive grasp of universal principles, along with a concern for the universal well-being of humanity.
Aquarius rules the eleventh house of the chart, Brodie, the sector associated with friends and groups, intellectual pleasures, socializing, and attitude toward society. However, it also describes personal hopes and wishes, as well as collective trends and humanitarian issues.
Yours is a fixed sign, which means that you resist manipulative behavior. You form your own opinion, however unusual it may be, and refuse to adapt. If someone dares to push, pull, or pressure you, they will definitely get to know your stubborn and eccentric side.
Your strengths, Brodie, definitely are that you are accepting and sympathetic to many points of view, and are equipped to understand each of them. This wide sphere of understanding causes you to be idiosyncratic. You are an unusually independent and wildly unique individual with a profound spiritual bent. Your intuition, loyalty, and resourcefulness make you a fun person to be around.
Naturally, you have some weaknesses, too, the most pronounced one being that you can be erratic in your actions. At times, you can be scattered and unrealistic, and confuse your own will with the greater will. Sometimes you can also be detached so that others see you as cold and inaccessible.
Your Rising Sign is Gemini ...
You are an original and creative thinker, Gemini Rising, and tend to dominate your circles intellectually. With the elegance of a dancer, you swing back and forth from one idea to another, with wit and eloquence. You also have the power to visualize your ideas, and express them scientifically. Since you identify yourself with your ideas, Brodie, your most dynamic form of expression is intellectual.
You are sprightly and versatile, and usually end up being the life of every party. Mostly it is you, who gets up on the table and entertains everyone with an improvised one-man show. You feel most alive if you have an audience, are the center of attention, and get an immediate reaction to your mental and verbal output.
If people don't laugh at your jokes, you lose your precious lively energy. In spite of your bubbly and cheerful personality, you can be quite sensitive, Brodie, and it doesn't take a lot to upset you. However, for others, it would take a great deal of perceptiveness and persistence to get down to your real feelings. It seems that you are perpetually wearing a mask hiding who you really are. Only in rare cases others are allowed to see the real you behind the mask, and that means a lot!
You don't open your heart to others easily, and if you happen to declare your love to someone, you might make a joke out of it, or switch the subject as soon as possible. You are a very cultivated person, Brodie, who has a lot of appreciation for beauty. Therefore, you enjoy developing your sensitivity in artistic domains. You could easily be a patron of the arts, a producer or an artist, a singer or a comedian, since you are such a cerebral person.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Good grief
Date: 2002-09-29 02:39 pm (UTC)Have you heard of the Forer Effect (http://www.skepdic.com/forer.html)? It's a partial explanation of why stupid people who don't think things through seem to believe that astrology (http://www.skepdic.com/astrolgy.html) can "predict" things.
For those who are too lazy to click the link(s):
Forer gave a personality test to his students, ignored their answers, and gave each student [the same personality] evaluation. He asked them to evaluate the evaluation from 0 to 5, with "5" meaning the recipient felt the evaluation was an "excellent" assessment and "4" meaning the assessment was "good." The class average evaluation was 4.26. That was in 1948. The test has been repeated hundreds of time with psychology students and the average is still around 4.2.
In short, Forer convinced people he could successfully read their character. His accuracy amazed his subjects, though his personality analysis was taken from a newsstand astrology column and was presented to people without regard to their sun sign.
There are plenty of other reasons why astrology is shit, the simplest reason being that objective tests with control groups have shown over and over and over again that it just doesn't work.
In other words, this shit is below someone of your intelligence, Brodie. Even as entertainment.
Re: Good grief
Date: 2002-09-29 03:25 pm (UTC)Well?
Date: 2002-09-29 06:50 pm (UTC)Your suggestion that people are too intelligent to be entertained by astrology is kind of dumb. It's like saying that they've proven that "Lord of the Rings" isn't real so we shouldn't go see it.
Re: Well?
Date: 2002-09-29 09:20 pm (UTC)What does that have to do with anything? Non sequitur. Suppose that, yes in fact there are some things in my life that lack a rational explanation. So what? Does that mean astrology is real? No, of course not.
Of course it's unreasonable to dismiss astrology a priori. I don't do that. I don't rely only on common sense, I happen to know that astrology has been debunked by the weight decades of testing which shows that it just doesn't work. Period. It's no better than random chance at predicting anything.
Re: Well?
Date: 2002-09-29 10:39 pm (UTC)My statement was in direct response to your saying that stupid people who don't think things through believe that astrology can predict things. You would be incorrect because many non-stupid people who think things through believe that astrology can predict things--myself included.
Also, God (and many other unexplained phenomena) has been debunked, but it doesn't prevent people from believing. I've had spiritually profound things happen in my life, and, quite frankly, a test isn't really going to convince me that they didn't *really* happen.
I don't blindly disagree with the "forer effect" stuff, but I have to question why you would take such a strong stand against astrology when you obviously know so little about it. I mean, to imply that Brodie would be stupid for believing that there might be something to astrology (or to simply be entertained by it) is a little harsh, don't you think?
I'm definitely no expert, but I did study astrology and tarot for almost a decade before deciding to go for the 'formal' education, and I still think there's something to it. I'm not trying to convince you--I'm just explaining why I thought your statements were misguided.
Re: Well?
Date: 2002-09-30 04:31 am (UTC)You should do some reading with an open mind. Read http://www.skepdic.com/astrolgy.html then check out the links at the bottom and read some of the books. Also read some of the links on that page on the Forer effect, subjective validation, wishful thinking, testimonials, and confirmation bias. That will get you thinking about the arguments on the other side. Of course I doubt you'll read any of it.
Also, God (and many other unexplained phenomena) has been debunked, but it doesn't prevent people from believing. I've had spiritually profound things happen in my life, and, quite frankly, a test isn't really going to convince me that they didn't *really* happen.
God and astrology completely irrelevant to each other. One does not require the other. It's perfectly possible to believe in a god or gods and not astrology, or vice versa. The topic here is not religion, it's astrology.
I don't blindly disagree with the "forer effect" stuff, but I have to question why you would take such a strong stand against astrology when you obviously know so little about it.
I know plenty about it -- the bottom line being that it just doesn't work. Astrologists just can't predict things any better than random chance -- even in tests that astrologists themselves design!
You say that I "know so little about it" just because I disagree.
Re: Well?
Date: 2002-09-30 08:10 am (UTC)Just as I doubt you'll have your astrology chart done anytime soon.
God and astrology completely irrelevant to each other. One does not require the other. It's perfectly possible to believe in a god or gods and not astrology, or vice versa. The topic here is not religion, it's astrology.
Perhaps you failed to grasp the larger meaning I was trying to convey, which is that some things are unquantifiable.
I know plenty about it -- the bottom line being that it just doesn't work. Astrologists just can't predict things any better than random chance -- even in tests that astrologists themselves design!
It works for meeee. That's my whole point!
You say that I "know so little about it" just because I disagree.
Actually, it was just an unfair assumption. I usually assume people who are so "anti" something know little about the subject matter--kinda like a homophobe.
Re: Well?
Date: 2002-09-30 05:25 am (UTC)I mean, to imply that Brodie would be stupid for believing that there might be something to astrology (or to simply be entertained by it) is a little harsh, don't you think?
What are friend for if not to tell you when you do something stupid? Brodie's certainly told me when I've done stupid things, and I thank him for it.
In any case, that would be between Brodie and me, and I'm pretty sure we can handle it on our own, thanks.
Re: Well?
Date: 2002-09-30 08:14 am (UTC)In my book friends also stick up for one another, so when I see someone calling my friend 'stupid' I'm going to call them on it.
Re: Good grief
Date: 2002-09-29 07:13 pm (UTC)(1) The "newspaper astrology" Forer used in his test is nothing like real astrology. Newspaper astrology is vague, and flattering, and everything else people say about it. Real astrology is quite different.
(2) I think Brodie is capable of objectively deciding whether a description matches him or not, Forer Effect be damned. Even I can see that the above description matches Brodie's prominent personality traits, and I have no emotional investment in whether Brodie feels flattered or not.
Astrology is more about studying personality
archetypes (the same kind of personality archetypes which come up in Tarot, which is why many astrologers also practice Tarot reading), and then correlating them to the stars.
For example: From the little I know of you, I'd say that you were a Taurus (even though I know you were born in September). You're stubborn, and you look like a Taurus. (Taureans tend to be stocky and big-boned.) Then I'd try to see where the Taurean influences come into your personality. At a guess, I'd say you have Taurus rising, because rising signs often correlate with appearance. Then I'd check if I was right.
And even if you had no Taurus in your chart, I'd still say you strike me as a Taurus.
And more often than not, I've found that people's personalities do correspond well with what their birthchart predicts. (Just look at the proliferation of Taureans in the bear community.) I've seen some total exceptions too, but it usually works reliably well.
And Brodie is totally an Aquarius.
Re: Good grief
Date: 2002-09-29 09:15 pm (UTC)That wasn't the point. Please re-read.
Even I can see that the above description matches Brodie's prominent personality traits ....
Blah blah blah. Also read about confirmation bias, communal reinforcement, and selective thinking.
Astrology just doesn't work. It has never been shown to work. Period.
Re: Good grief
Date: 2002-09-29 09:36 pm (UTC)Re: Good grief
Date: 2002-09-29 10:01 pm (UTC)What does that have to do with anything? We're not talking about god(s), we're talking about astrology.
Fact is, your entire response to me consisted of statements tangential to the issue of the Forer effect. (For example, "The 'newspaper astrology' Forer used in his test is nothing like real astrology." Irrelevant, because although he used a newspaper astrology reading, astrology itself wasn't the issue in Forer's test. It applies equally well to other pseudosciences like graphology, or to things like the Myers-Briggs type indicator.)
You also made statements that are pure speculation ("At a guess, I'd say you have Taurus rising, because rising signs often correlate with appearance. Then I'd check if I was right." So suppose I don't have Taurus rising? Does that mean astrology is false? If I do, does that mean it's not?) and then you cover your ass with something like "And even if you had no Taurus in your chart, I'd still say you strike me as a Taurus." (The equivalent of plugging your fingers in your ears and saying "NANANANANANANA I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!")
You follow it up with assertions unsupported by any evidence ("Just look at the proliferation of Taureans in the bear community.") and some more ass-covering statements. ("I've seen some total exceptions too, but it usually works reliably well.")
Of course that's not even mentioning the fact that the "chart" that Brodie posted is vague enough that it could probably apply to a significant chunk of the population regardless of when and where they were born.
You obviously didn't read the links, especially not the one on astrology. The astrology link I gave earlier in the thread has plenty of links to books and articles that debunk astrology.
Find me one reliable, repeatable, double-blind, controlled study published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. If you can find one that shows me that astrology works, I'll be more than willing to consider the evidence.
You won't be able to find one. There are none.
Re: Good grief
Date: 2002-09-29 10:20 pm (UTC)Virgo? Shurely not!
Date: 2002-09-30 05:32 am (UTC)Ugh
Date: 2002-09-29 11:05 pm (UTC)The reliable, repeatable, double-blind, controlled study published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal will state that you saw nothing more than space dust hitting the atmosphere at a great rate of speed.
I'd like to believe that both explanations are true.
Re: Ugh
Date: 2002-09-30 05:21 am (UTC)Yeah, suppose my boyfriend is cuddling me and something pretty happens. Of course it's *both* something romantic *and "nothing more than space dust hitting the atmosphere." The scenario is romantic, pretty, satisfying and totally irrelevant, because there's no scientific question being asked there.
It's clever writing, but it shows that you don't fully understand what "reliable, repeatable, double-blind, controlled study" means or how it's relevant to this dicussion.
Astrology makes a basic statement: namely, that Astrologers can predict some of your characteristics based on the configuration of the sun, moon, planets, constellations, etc, in relation to the time and place where one was born. Naturally in the face of such a statement, it would be natural to test it to see if it works, right?
The point is that if astrology really works, it should be possible to design a test to satisfy both scientists and astrologers that will determine whether astrology really works. If astrology really works then astrologists should be able to predict people's major personality characteristics reasonably accurately over and over again with a success rate that's better than random chance.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence in favour of astrology for the same reason than anecdotal evidence isn't proof of the usefulness of a new drug. That's why a new drug goes through as much testing as it does rather than relying on one person to take it and say "yeah, it works!"
Anecodotal evidence is unreliable for tons of reasons; as my mother would say, "even a blind chicken can find some corn." That's why real studies are required for these kinds of things -- studies that, as much as possible, remove the possibility for interference, misinterpretation, bias, and error.
Astrology just doesn't work, and it's been shown time and time again. Tests show that astrologers can't predict any better than random chance. Does that mean that they're always wrong? No, it just means that flipping a coin or rolling dice can get it right just as often.
Astrologists haven't been able to pass any tests so far. And if they can't, then why should anyone believe that there's any truth to it?
Re: Ugh
Date: 2002-09-30 08:28 am (UTC)You really *don't* understand the larger context of what I was trying to say, do you?
It's clever writing, but it shows that you don't fully understand what "reliable, repeatable, double-blind, controlled study" means or how it's relevant to this dicussion.
Thanks about the writing... and I really do fully understand the scientific method, as it is a basis for my studies in Anthropology at Berkeley.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence in favour of astrology for the same reason than anecdotal evidence isn't proof of the usefulness of a new drug. That's why a new drug goes through as much testing as it does rather than relying on one person to take it and say "yeah, it works!"
Irrelevant. Astrology isn't a chemical that can kill you :P
Astrologists haven't been able to pass any tests so far. And if they can't, then why should anyone believe that there's any truth to it?
Because believing in something is FUN! You should try it sometime.
Re: Ugh
Date: 2002-09-30 09:21 am (UTC)I deny that it's a phenomenon.
I've done plenty of reading on astrology and pseudoscience in general, having taken university courses on pseudoscience. And yes, I have had my chart done. There's no Taurus rising, and while parts of it were accurate, other parts were way off.
Because believing in something is FUN! You should try it sometime.
I believe in lots of things.
sorry in advance
Date: 2002-09-29 06:39 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2002-09-29 09:54 pm (UTC)...nah! ;-)
IMO
Date: 2002-09-30 09:20 am (UTC)The sort of "canned astrololgy" generated by software is interesting in the same way as an inkblot - it's interesting to see what you can make out of it, and whether any of it might apply to you. The way these are created is to calculate each of the planetary placements and aspects in isolation and then cut and paste a canned explanation of their "meaning". People who take astrology seriously mostly suggest that you use it as a starting point to think about issues - which it seems to me is exactly what Brodie & Ray have done with it.
The more sophisticated kind of astrology, practised by people who care about their clients (as opposed Madame Sosotris trying to make a quick buck) can compete with talk therapy as a means of self-examination or counselling, but IMO this is largely a function of the skill of the practitioner knowing how to read people and when to apply the astrological archetypes and when to ignore them. In particular it seems to work well in the same areas where Jungian talk therapy works well.
Astrology is most problematic when it becomes a predictive tool. I feel it is not predictive in terms of micro scale events or "acts of nature". However, in the 3000 years we have been using astrology as an operational framework for thinking about what is now called psych and natural science, we have come up with some pretty useful metaphors and structures. To use a meteorological analogy, it doesn't predict weather, but can predict climate pretty well; it can tell you that you need to have a raincoat but not whether you should wear it tomorrow morning.
The "scientific research" bandied about by both sides is for the most part useless - studies done to confirm the biases of the researchers, designed to encourage one or another outcome. IMO one must be very careful about using this "science" to make any decision about astrology. I'm thinking especially of a lot of the research done in soviet Russia "proving" that their psychics & astrologers were more powerful than western Intelligence, and the counter-research conducted by debunkers in the US who were equally motivated to prove the opposite. 50 years later, these studies (since admitted to have been fabricated as propaganda) are STILL being cited by both sides to prove their agenda.
My official statement?
Date: 2002-09-30 06:10 pm (UTC)I'm not really familiar with the genesis of astrology but I'm sure it has roots in observation and analysis of the stars. Perhaps not an inter-disciplinary science like those we observe today.
It's when the untruthful marr reputations that I think anything, be it science or otherwise, loses it's power over the individual. What ever truth there is in astrology, be it perhaps some sort of bio-rhythm encoded in the starts, has definitely been mis-represented by people through-out history.
So in our modern world it exists as a curiosity of sorts to most. A good deal hokey but with an underlying truth somewhere in there.
That's how I see it.
Re: My official statement?
Date: 2002-09-30 08:28 pm (UTC)One of the reasons we have such a hard time "doing science" about astrology is that it's very hard to pin down what astrology might be. Is it the newspaper columns? The canned AI type stuff you got above? The predictive readings given by Madam Ruth down on the corner? Or by the "serious" astrologer? by the therapeutic astrologer who has a doctorate in Jungian psychology? do we use the one that goes by the established "houses" that are not adjusted for precession, or the kind that uses the actual stars as they appear in the heavens today? Etc, etc, etc, really ad nauseam.
The most interesting and most nearly scientific research I've seen done is some that links the character of a child with the time of year it was born - the general theory being that the season and activities and attitudes associated with it deeply imprint the child as it's first impression of the world. But I saw a couple of papers on that about 10 years ago and have never seen proper follow-up.
If you wanted an article on the genesis of so-called "Chaldean" astrology, you could look at the link posted above in
Then the other thing to add to that article is that from the time of the Romans forward, astrology was SO popular everywhere in Europe and the Mediterranean that it was one of the few vehicles where ancient (pagan) knowledge was allowed to survive the Xian church. Yes, it was persecuted, but in that "for show" kind of way; most of the Popes and wealthier nobles had court astrologers / doctors / engineers / historians. Astrology and medicine especially were intimately linked. This unbroken tradition is what accounts for the survival of antique gods and names and practices.