Page 5 of 7 [ 106 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


When was your birthday?
March 21 - April 19 (ARIES) 7%  7%  [ 7 ]
April 20 - May 20 (TAURUS) 4%  4%  [ 4 ]
May 21 - June 20 (GEMINI) 9%  9%  [ 9 ]
June 21 - July 22 (CANCER) 8%  8%  [ 8 ]
July 23 - August 22 (LEO) 10%  10%  [ 10 ]
August 23 - September 22 (VIRGO) 7%  7%  [ 7 ]
September 23 - October 22 (LIBRA) 7%  7%  [ 7 ]
October 23 - November 21 (SCORPIO) 9%  9%  [ 9 ]
November 22 - December 21 (SAGITTARIUS) 6%  6%  [ 6 ]
December 22 - January 19 (CAPRICORN) 7%  7%  [ 7 ]
January 20 - February 18 (AQUARIUS) 13%  13%  [ 13 ]
February 19 - March 20 (PISCES) 12%  12%  [ 12 ]
Total votes : 99

MrLoony
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298
Location: Nevada (not Vegas)

09 May 2011, 4:40 am

When there is no good research being done, a skeptic says that neither way is certain. That's not what you said. A true skeptic is a person who questions BOTH sides.

My point with tea is that people do the same with with astrology as they used to do with tea: Dismiss the idea as absurd without actually examining it. It took a long time for doctors to start studying it, and they're only really beginning to look at these health benefits.

If I said that I'm a doctor, and you should drink mercury, would that disprove medicine? No. It only proves that I'm not qualified to speak as a doctor. Similarly, studying whether predictions made are accurate calls the astrologer into question, not astrology.

For the record, I am taking my having to explain this as proof of your bias:

Before I begin, I would like to point out that I am not a master of astrological terminology, so forgive me if a different word would be better suited to these explanations. (Edit: Also, please forgive me if the explanation is vague or incomplete. It's 2:45 AM here and I am quite tired)

First of all, in addition to a correlation found between championship-level athletes and Mars, there was a correlation found between prominent scientists and Saturn, as well as actors and Jupiter. There was one more correlation found, however, and that was between parent and child. Children that were born naturally (not induced) were found to be born around the same time as their parents, on average. This actually makes sense from a biological point of view. Our bodies are in tune with things we can't consciously process. Since the parent was born during a particular phase of Mars and survived to breed, the body knows that that is more likely to be a "safe" time to give birth. It's fairly well known that children are more likely to be like their parents than others (for example, bullies often come from the households of aggressive and intolerant parents) and that we tend to attract people much like ourselves (though if we can't find one, often we settle for someone else). From this, we can see that a statistical insignificant difference in personality can lead to a statistically significant difference (using this, I would say that if people born under a particular phase of Mars where it's slightly more common to find athletes would be more likely to have athletic children than those born under a phase where it's slightly less common, simply because of the fact that, in the first case, the parent is more likely to find an athletic person born in the same phase [Remember: Potentially biologically significant] than in the second, where the parent would have to find an unathletic mate and thus the child might develop to be like their unathletic parent). Remember that this would have a very small effect for each generation, but would add up over time. This can also explain how astrology came about without taking the assumption that it was just people making stuff up. It could very well be that they studied what people born during certain phase were like and came up with the beginnings of astrology.

Now, there's more to it than just that. (Before you read this explanation, know that I don't know how astrology worked for people born in a particular sign of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. This explanation only works if the Mars Effect confirmed that people born under a particular part of Mars were more likely to be better athletes, etc) There's also the issue of self-fulfilling prophecy. 40 years (or so) ago, the 4 minute mile was thought impossible. Then someone actually ran it. Suddenly, in the years following, several more people began to get times under 4 minutes (it's a shame that Doyle Brunson couldn't continue his running career. I am sure he would've achieved the 4 minute mile first). It's well documented that people that believe they are more likely to succeed do, and those with an expectation of failure fail. So an athlete goes to an astrologer. The astrologer tells him that he was born during a time that is beneficial to athletic career and that he will find much success. Another athlete goes to the same astrologer. That astrologer tells him that he was born during a time that is very detrimental to athletes, and it may be best to seek out another career. The result? The first athlete is more likely to succeed, while the second is more likely to fail. This also works with parents raising their children based on astrological predictions. The parents treat the child as if they will become a prominent scientist, and so the child becomes more likely to become a prominent scientist. The same works for personality traits. The parents treat the child as if they should be an extrovert, and the child becomes an extrovert.

Both of these allow for a correlation to exist, but also for astrology to not be significant (in the first case, you're better off studying the personality traits of the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, and in the second, the correlation only exists as a result of the existence of astrology in the first place). If we assume that the Mars Effect does exist, then I think a combination of these is more likely than either one individually.

As I said, these explanations took me roughly 10 minutes to come up with after hearing about the Mars Effect. These are not difficult explanations to come up with (though they require accepting that something could be true even if there is no proof, such as the body being in tune to the phases of Mars).


_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.


Rasta
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 72
Location: Moved to Alberta, Canada

09 May 2011, 10:13 am

I'm new to astrology so I'm not going to waste my time debating with people who think it's crap. I felt the same way, but I never actually took the opportunity to thoroughly research it. If you want an accurate reading you should also use your time of birth, and check a birth chart.

[White Magnetic World-Bridger]

In my case of aspergers, the diagnoses stems from the fact my body holds onto mercury and other metals. This is why I don't excrete the mercury out of my hair like most people do, it comes outta my piss instead. As a child I had metal teeth caps, which contained mercury and other metals. I also had vaccines which had mercury as a preservative. Mercury is also found in products that contain high-fructose corn syrup, such as coca cola. I'm now on a diet and I avoid mercury at all costs.

So I'm not saying that every case is the same, there could be other reasons people have the symptoms leading to the diagnoses... but I believe in most cases it's probably do to mercury.

I highly suggest anyone google their zodiac along with "mercury". You might find some very useful information like I did.



Fern
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 6 May 2011
Age: 38
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,340

09 May 2011, 11:11 am

MrLoony wrote:
Fern wrote:
I think it's fascinating that 37% of the people who answered were born in the statiscically least common months of the year in which to be born: from late January to early March.


In the other poll, Pisces has the lowest response. Unscientific polls aren't a very good source of data.


If by "unscientific" you mean "small sample size" I would have to agree with you. For the record though, I don't actually believe in astrology. I do, however, believe that people who are told their whole life that they posses certain features (be it based on their respective signs or otherwise) may consciously or unconsciously begin to behave in such a manner.



MrLoony
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Jun 2009
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,298
Location: Nevada (not Vegas)

09 May 2011, 12:36 pm

Even if 10,000 people responded, this poll would still be unscientific. It is not a random sampling of a population.


_________________
"Let reason be your only sovereign." ~Wizard's Sixth Rule
I'm working my way up to Attending Crazy Taoist. For now, just call me Dr. Crazy Taoist.


jojobean
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Aug 2009
Age: 47
Gender: Female
Posts: 3,341
Location: In Georgia sipping a virgin pina' colada while the rest of the world is drunk

09 May 2011, 10:48 pm

MrLoony wrote:
When there is no good research being done, a skeptic says that neither way is certain. That's not what you said. A true skeptic is a person who questions BOTH sides.

My point with tea is that people do the same with with astrology as they used to do with tea: Dismiss the idea as absurd without actually examining it. It took a long time for doctors to start studying it, and they're only really beginning to look at these health benefits.

If I said that I'm a doctor, and you should drink mercury, would that disprove medicine? No. It only proves that I'm not qualified to speak as a doctor. Similarly, studying whether predictions made are accurate calls the astrologer into question, not astrology.

For the record, I am taking my having to explain this as proof of your bias:

Before I begin, I would like to point out that I am not a master of astrological terminology, so forgive me if a different word would be better suited to these explanations. (Edit: Also, please forgive me if the explanation is vague or incomplete. It's 2:45 AM here and I am quite tired)

First of all, in addition to a correlation found between championship-level athletes and Mars, there was a correlation found between prominent scientists and Saturn, as well as actors and Jupiter. There was one more correlation found, however, and that was between parent and child. Children that were born naturally (not induced) were found to be born around the same time as their parents, on average. This actually makes sense from a biological point of view. Our bodies are in tune with things we can't consciously process. Since the parent was born during a particular phase of Mars and survived to breed, the body knows that that is more likely to be a "safe" time to give birth. It's fairly well known that children are more likely to be like their parents than others (for example, bullies often come from the households of aggressive and intolerant parents) and that we tend to attract people much like ourselves (though if we can't find one, often we settle for someone else). From this, we can see that a statistical insignificant difference in personality can lead to a statistically significant difference (using this, I would say that if people born under a particular phase of Mars where it's slightly more common to find athletes would be more likely to have athletic children than those born under a phase where it's slightly less common, simply because of the fact that, in the first case, the parent is more likely to find an athletic person born in the same phase [Remember: Potentially biologically significant] than in the second, where the parent would have to find an unathletic mate and thus the child might develop to be like their unathletic parent). Remember that this would have a very small effect for each generation, but would add up over time. This can also explain how astrology came about without taking the assumption that it was just people making stuff up. It could very well be that they studied what people born during certain phase were like and came up with the beginnings of astrology.

Now, there's more to it than just that. (Before you read this explanation, know that I don't know how astrology worked for people born in a particular sign of Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn. This explanation only works if the Mars Effect confirmed that people born under a particular part of Mars were more likely to be better athletes, etc) There's also the issue of self-fulfilling prophecy. 40 years (or so) ago, the 4 minute mile was thought impossible. Then someone actually ran it. Suddenly, in the years following, several more people began to get times under 4 minutes (it's a shame that Doyle Brunson couldn't continue his running career. I am sure he would've achieved the 4 minute mile first). It's well documented that people that believe they are more likely to succeed do, and those with an expectation of failure fail. So an athlete goes to an astrologer. The astrologer tells him that he was born during a time that is beneficial to athletic career and that he will find much success. Another athlete goes to the same astrologer. That astrologer tells him that he was born during a time that is very detrimental to athletes, and it may be best to seek out another career. The result? The first athlete is more likely to succeed, while the second is more likely to fail. This also works with parents raising their children based on astrological predictions. The parents treat the child as if they will become a prominent scientist, and so the child becomes more likely to become a prominent scientist. The same works for personality traits. The parents treat the child as if they should be an extrovert, and the child becomes an extrovert.

Both of these allow for a correlation to exist, but also for astrology to not be significant (in the first case, you're better off studying the personality traits of the parents, grandparents, and great-grandparents, and in the second, the correlation only exists as a result of the existence of astrology in the first place). If we assume that the Mars Effect does exist, then I think a combination of these is more likely than either one individually.

As I said, these explanations took me roughly 10 minutes to come up with after hearing about the Mars Effect. These are not difficult explanations to come up with (though they require accepting that something could be true even if there is no proof, such as the body being in tune to the phases of Mars).


That appears to be a loose assocation between planets and people's personality...but psychological bioligists (sp) have found that genes play a very strong role in personality much more so then previously thought. However, I do agree there are some things not yet understood by science, but I honestly dont have any evidence on either side to be certain of where the astroloical bias lay.


_________________
All art is a kind of confession, more or less oblique. All artists, if they are to survive, are forced, at last, to tell the whole story; to vomit the anguish up.
-James Baldwin


Rasta
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker
Yellow-bellied Woodpecker

User avatar

Joined: 7 Apr 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: 72
Location: Moved to Alberta, Canada

14 May 2011, 10:06 am

bump.



Scorpion_Heart
Hummingbird
Hummingbird

User avatar

Joined: 21 Oct 2010
Age: 40
Gender: Female
Posts: 24

14 May 2011, 12:04 pm

Rasta wrote:
I recently am getting into astrology, I used to think it was a mythical thing but now it's part of my core beliefs.

I want to see if there's any pattern correlation between people with Autism, and their zodiac.

So I'll start off with mine, which is March 20, (Pisces).
_________________

EDIT: Thanks for all the data you've contributed!! :) I highly suggest you google both your astrological symbol along with "mercury"... you might find some useful information. ^_^

Mercury in Piesces = http://www.angelfire.com/ga3/thelema/ot ... isces.html


I would not look at only sun signs for a correlation with Autism but the chart as a whole since sun signs alone do not help much.



billybud21
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 666
Location: Crossroads of America

15 May 2011, 3:20 am

Not many Scorpios out there I guess.


_________________
I don't have one.


thewrll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,619

15 May 2011, 3:50 am

Actually they changed the dates of birth corresponding with the different astrological signs. I am not sagitarius anymore.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 May 2011, 8:00 am

billybud21 wrote:
Not many Scorpios out there I guess.


Australian Scorpio here!



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

15 May 2011, 8:01 am

thewrll wrote:
Actually they changed the dates of birth corresponding with the different astrological signs. I am not sagitarius anymore.

Please don't spoil the fun with astrology by introducing astronomy



thewrll
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 10 May 2009
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,619

17 May 2011, 7:19 pm

I am talking about the zodiac sign and they have changed the birth date so your corresponding sign may be different.



cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

17 May 2011, 9:15 pm

thewrll wrote:
I am talking about the zodiac sign and they have changed the birth date so your corresponding sign may be different.


Yeah I know but astronomical information is so terribly dry and I was getting comfortable with my schema that fit's like a high score on a Chi Square test aligning against the Scorpio zodiac sign. According to the astronomic adjusted star chart I should be a Libra.



Grete
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Feb 2011
Age: 32
Gender: Female
Posts: 1,124

18 May 2011, 1:11 am

Leo here.



Moog
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Age: 45
Gender: Male
Posts: 17,671
Location: Untied Kingdom

18 May 2011, 3:37 am

cyberdad wrote:
thewrll wrote:
Actually they changed the dates of birth corresponding with the different astrological signs. I am not sagitarius anymore.

Please don't spoil the fun with astrology by introducing astronomy


http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_ophiuchus_e.htm


_________________
Not currently a moderator


cyberdad
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Feb 2011
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 36,036

18 May 2011, 5:32 am

Moog wrote:
cyberdad wrote:
thewrll wrote:
Actually they changed the dates of birth corresponding with the different astrological signs. I am not sagitarius anymore.

Please don't spoil the fun with astrology by introducing astronomy


http://www.astro.com/astrology/in_ophiuchus_e.htm


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophiuchus_(astrology)

Interesting!