Scientific Astrology??

[substitute]

So this guy, Michel Gauquelin, came up with some statistics that seemed to prove there to be some actual scientific basis for astrology, in that there was a significant correleation between times of birth and levels of success in certain occupations. His work can be accessed quite widely on the Internet, but if you want to know more, start with the Wikipedia Page on him.

Now, I'm thinking, when he did his studies, it was hampered by his not having access to the computer facilities that are now easily available to everyone. It'd be interesting to use these facilities to do a new study of a much wider sample, and also to see how it correlates with MBTI type.

Before I go on, I must say that I'm not a believer in astrology. I'm open-minded, I mean, about the personality part of it (skeptical though cos I'm a very non-typical Pisces), but I totally do not believe it can predict the future.

The first major spanner in the works of this that I can think of is that I remember reading somewhere that there has been a significant increase in the number of non-natural births (caesarean sections, inducements, accelerated deliveries by means of hormone drips, etc), meaning that it might be necessary to separately research those who were born with no medical intervention as regards the time of their birth, and those who were not, compare the two and see if there's any difference.

Thoughts, anyone?

[Nocap]

I think Astrology is bullshit.

See what I did there?

[Nocap]

To respond to the thread seriously though,

Originally Posted by substitute

So this guy, Michel Gauquelin, came up with some statistics that seemed to prove there to be some actual scientific basis for astrology, in that there was a significant correleation between times of birth and levels of success in certain occupations. His work can be accessed quite widely on the Internet, but if you want to know more, start with the Wikipedia Page on him.

I didn't read the article, but anyone who says that statistics proves anything is an idiot. Plain and simple. Correlation != causation. Psych 101 guys, come on. The reason that correlation is not causation is that there might be something smaller - imperceptible, or overlooked that is actually causing it. That's why we have to find the causation. Correlation is fine, but it doesn't prove anything other than that there's a correlation. It's why Ne needs Ti.

Now, I'm thinking, when he did his studies, it was hampered by his not having access to the computer facilities that are now easily available to everyone. It'd be interesting to use these facilities to do a new study of a much wider sample, and also to see how it correlates with MBTI type.

Might be neat if we could find the cause. People talk about these [imaginary] 'energies' that the stars exert, but we have yet to find them. Or even pick up any any inkling that such forces might exist.

Hence '[imaginary]'

Before I go on, I must say that I'm not a believer in astrology. I'm open-minded, I mean, about the personality part of it (skeptical though cos I'm a very non-typical Pisces), but I totally do not believe it can predict the future.

An argument in opposition of the proposed existence of these star energies. Another is that the energies seem to depend on the positioning of the stars in relation to one another, and ultimately the earth, and those who inhabit it. Since the earth doesn't move very far, it's hard to believe that any force exerted by a cosmic body has the profound effects on personality that are more realistically attributed to upraising and genetics.

The first major spanner in the works of this that I can think of is that I remember reading somewhere that there has been a significant increase in the number of non-natural births (caesarean sections, inducements, accelerated deliveries by means of hormone drips, etc), meaning that it might be necessary to separately research those who were born with no medical intervention as regards the time of their birth, and those who were not, compare the two and see if there's any difference.

Didn't read. Lost interest.

Thoughts, anyone?

See above; intermittent responses between quotes.

[Kiddo]

I've always thought astrology might have more basis in the season a person is born than in the stars. If you think about it, the first year of life is the most essential for imprinting. All the events that occur in a year and the order in which they occur could have a profound effect on some of the characteristics of a person. Of course, that is all speculation, but the implications seem more practical to me.

[Eileen]

My neuroscientist boyfriend believes that astrology is correct. He doesn't know how it is correct (yet), and he's basically an atheist, and I think he thinks my Christianity is puzzling at best and maybe even ridiculous. But he was raised by astrologers (one of whom is a statistician who almost certainly is an intellectual son of this Michel Gauquelin's ideas) and recently warned me about what astrology tells him about his work stress... he takes it really seriously. When I gently suggest that it, like all religious and spiritual ideas, is a story that we map onto our lives to form narratives and make the weirdness make sense, he says that no - he believes that astrology is correct. I don't ever even use that language to discuss religion, so it's hard for me to swallow.

[ptgatsby]

Ok, my french is rusty, but from what I can make it, his studies have very little validity and very weak assertions... (within statistical noise and chugged along until some connection is found, but then the basis for that changed for the next assertion). But I can't read the french papers worth a damn, so I'm not that confident in saying that for sure. Is there an english equivalent?

[Nocap]

Originally Posted by Kiddo

I've always thought astrology might have more basis in the season a person is born than in the stars. If you think about it, the first year of life is the most essential for imprinting. All the events that occur in a year and the order in which they occur could have a profound effect on some of the characteristics of a person. Of course, that is all speculation, but the implications seem more practical to me.

That's what I always thought. Whatever connection there is is probably due to weather, brought on by the season. Still though, I think parenting and genetics have a lot more pertinence, of course my claim has as little valid empirical research as astrology.

[CzeCze]

Originally Posted by substitute

So this guy, Michel Gauquelin, came up with some statistics that seemed to prove there to be some actual scientific basis for astrology, in that there was a significant correleation between times of birth and levels of success in certain occupations. His work can be accessed quite widely on the Internet, but if you want to know more, start with the Wikipedia Page on him.

Now, I'm thinking, when he did his studies, it was hampered by his not having access to the computer facilities that are now easily available to everyone. It'd be interesting to use these facilities to do a new study of a much wider sample, and also to see how it correlates with MBTI type.

Before I go on, I must say that I'm not a believer in astrology. I'm open-minded, I mean, about the personality part of it (skeptical though cos I'm a very non-typical Pisces), but I totally do not believe it can predict the future.

The first major spanner in the works of this that I can think of is that I remember reading somewhere that there has been a significant increase in the number of non-natural births (caesarean sections, inducements, accelerated deliveries by means of hormone drips, etc), meaning that it might be necessary to separately research those who were born with no medical intervention as regards the time of their birth, and those who were not, compare the two and see if there's any difference.

Thoughts, anyone?

Hmmm...you know I have studied enough astrology to understand the significance of having planets in retrograde, their placement within your houses, relationships amongst planets in your chart (trines, etc.). The last thing I studied was karmic astrology before the skeptic in me won over.

I'm almost embarassed to admit how much time and effort I used to devote to hippie-dippie stuff and not as a skeptic...Now I'm a balanced skeptic. I'm open minded enough to believe non-scientifically proven things work or exist, and in fact would like to believe such things exist, but yeah, skepticism pays. I like the Penn & Teller show Bull---.

To the person who spoke about seasons affecting gestation and childhood -- actually this is a belief in certain east Asian cultures, or rather certain east Asian medical practices. The seasons and what your mother ate while you were in the womb (and food has traditionally been seasonal and local) affects your constitution amongst other things.

The reason astrology is supposed to be accurate is that it is a sign left by [fill in the blank, could be the universe, could be our higher spiritual selves, could G-D] to be a map to your past and your present and future -- and that covers everything. It's supposed to help clue you in to what you should do with your life.

And substitute, when you say you are a non-typical Pisces it makes me laugh. Somehow it's so appropriate that you are Pisces. I have met two other 'non-traditional Pisces' women...Haahah I think actually it is a stereotype that Pisces are the very mellow, emotional, retiring, introverted types -- is that the 'traditional Pisces' you refer to. Have you ever gotten your entire chart read?

Astrology reading is an art and a system...like tarot reading or graphology. Basically no matter how much you follow the rules it's ultimately an interpretative art.

And for the record, though I do identify as a balanced skeptic, the charts of people I have read, including my own, have been sooooo accurate I have found it helpful.

[arcticangel02]

Yeah, there is something really accurate in the astrology reports I've read. I don't believe them as fact, or anything like that, but I don't think you can dismiss them as complete fabrication, either. *shrug* I don't know.

Re: what substitute said about being a non-traditional Pisces...

I'm a Gemini, which seems to always be categorised:
"The Gemini person is versatile, inquisitive, whimsical, nimble, articulate, lively, active, curious, talkative, sociable, mercurial, They can also sometimes be restless, scattered, dual or two-faced, inconstant, gullible, gossipy and superficial."

Now, as a shy-ish kid always categorised as the quiet and smart one, that didn't sound like me AT ALL, but as I'm getting older and more confident, it's starting to sound rather creepily accurate. (Especially when you look at the descriptions that go beyond 'The Gemini is a total gossip!')

And seriously, compare that to the description of an ENFP: Versatile, active, curious, talkative, scattered, whimsical? Just about the only thing that doesn't seem to fit is superficial, although, really, I don't doubt there are superficial ENFPs...

*shrug*

I really don't know. I think there is probably merit in the more detailled astrology charts, rather than the generalised zodiac signs, but who knows? The MBTI definitely doesn't seem to have any correllation.

[Athenian200]

I don't really believe it... you know why?

Because I'm an Aries... can you really imagine me as being anything like an Aries?

Although if you're curious, my rising sign is Gemini, and my moon sign is Libra, in case you think that might have impacted my personality.

I just study it more to get an insight into how people think about things, and what sort of archetypes they appeal to.