After reading all this, I had an interesting thought. A way to at least somewhat come up with a method of testing. Since HammerD says that about half the signs correlate to people that have a lot of friends, and the other half correlates well to those that prefer to have less friends, it seems to me one could further simplify that to introversion/extroversion. Obviously, it's a bit rough around the edges, but like most tests, if you gather enough data, you can usually sift through the noise. My basic premise though would be to take a huge sample of Meyers-Briggs personality tests (need large sample to attempt to weed out the "repressed" people ) and sort them by birth.
Now, my hypothesis would be that the same standard distributions (whatever they may be) would apply to all birthdays/months/zodiac signs. Again, I don't think this would be enough to really prove anything, but I think it might prove interesting, and if nothing else, it could potentially give some actual easy-to-access backing one way or another. I just looked at one of the linked articles, and it seems that's more/less what they did, although I'd like to see something similar to what I proposed and maybe more recent or with something I'm more familiar with..
My last point I'd like to make is that people love to find patterns where none exist. Correlation does not equal causation. Kwark made that case well. My favorite example is that global warming is responsible for the decrease in pirates in the world. After all, the global temperatures have increased in the last hundred fifty years or so while pirates have been decreasing. Also, just because two statistically unlikely events happen near each other doesn't mean they are special or related.
Your defence that while there is no scientific evidence there is plenty of anecdotal evidence is not a strong defence. In fact, it's not a defence. It's the problem.
Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work.
That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples.
Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false.
Explain what cusp signs are.
Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false.
Give me a correct site.
Now don't be a cunt.
Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader.
Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much.
I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
YOU of all people call me a cunt?
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that.
You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk The time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all.
As far as time twins are concerned, if both twins don't contain all the aspects of the astrological sign then it's false.
Saying astrology accounts for a quarter of ones personality allows one to reduce the argument to "Well, it doesn't have a heavy hand in the personality, so X test is wrong".
Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity.
This is a classic test and completely misses the point.
Back that statement up. how does it miss the point?
Two main reasons. A, it exposes fake astrology and not astrology (it essentially attacks the 'cold reading' of bogus astrology).
So it is bad becouse he uses diferent word to describe the same thing.
On January 03 2009 08:13 HamerD wrote: And B, it immediately makes the assumption that any tests that makes people go 'OMG THAT'S ME!' must be false.
The logic of it is very simple he shows that humans have many things in common so it is easy to write something that in big part will generally be true for almost all people, making your prove or anybody else of fitting into such descriptions as meaningless. What is left then?
On January 03 2009 08:13 HamerD wrote:There was a similar experiment Derren was using as a blue print, and the mistake that made was not realising what parts of the psyche astrology deals with, and that most if not all the parts astrology affects are equally affected and smothered by circumstance.
Psyche is affected by circumstances, not sure what your point is.
Typically pithy. I have no defence to the claim 'there is no scientific evidence'. I don't even say I have anecdotal evidence, I said already that I'm not going to give an account of how all of my relationships conform to astrology. I'm just saying that the only evidence that can really work is obtained via a lot of knowledge of the people involved, and therefore experiencing the validity yourself is really the only useful way of examining it. Find an astrology website, look at some star signs in your family and see if there's any overwhelming accuracies. If there aren't, then your family is either a bunch of cusp signs, heavily repressed, the astrology website you are looking at is bogus, or astrology doesn't work.
That's the only measuring stick I can give you because no others have been investigated with sufficient scruples.
Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false.
Explain what cusp signs are.
Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false.
Give me a correct site.
Now don't be a cunt.
Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader.
Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much.
I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
YOU of all people call me a cunt?
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that.
You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk The time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all.
Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity.
That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before.
Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point.
Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance.
On January 03 2009 08:50 Polis wrote: The logic of it is very simple he shows that humans have many things in common so it is easy to write something that in big part will generally be true for almost all people, making your prove or anybody else of fitting into such descriptions as meaningless. What is left then?
Consider it WERE true. Could there be any way to prove it if you took this attitude towards it?
On January 03 2009 08:38 Enrique wrote: My last point I'd like to make is that people love to find patterns where none exist.
True, they also like to find patterns where they do exist. And do you know what's best?! Finding a pattern, then finding out that someone else found that pattern too. And what's even better...finding out that people have been seeing the same patterns since ancient Mayan civilisation xD
Give me a "correct" astrology site right now, and I'll proof your shit to be beyond false.
Explain what cusp signs are.
Heavily repressed doesn't mean shit, because not everyone is in the same situation, which further proves its false.
Give me a correct site.
Now don't be a cunt.
Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader.
Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much.
I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
YOU of all people call me a cunt?
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that.
You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk The time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all.
Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity.
That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before.
Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point.
Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance.
Once again, no proof.
On the verge of page six, and you started this thread probably thinking you'd get your lies across and have us start sacrificing goats to the moon gods whilst chanting.
I suppose you also believe the world will end in 2012.
On January 03 2009 08:38 Enrique wrote: My last point I'd like to make is that people love to find patterns where none exist. Correlation does not equal causation. Kwark made that case well. My favorite example is that global warming is responsible for the decrease in pirates in the world. After all, the global temperatures have increased in the last hundred fifty years or so while pirates have been decreasing. Also, just because two statistically unlikely events happen near each other doesn't mean they are special or related.
I think I'm going to stop arguing here for a while. I would just like to point out something which I feel has been the theme of this thread, and that is this idea just because I post a coincidental pattern that I find interesting (in the theme of this thread no less), everyone assumes that I'm arguing its true. In fact, ironically the reverse situation is true. You see me post something and you assume that somehow I'm arguing its true. I'm not the one creating patterns here based on my biases, here. (except for that last sentence )
Similarly, those considering themselves objective in fact are so blurred by their biases that they do not even read my posts correctly. That is why I no longer take the hard line in demanding evidence, because I realize that people will believe whatever they want to believe (including myself). I'm not really criticizing anyone individually because it is in general a cultural phenomena.
I would however like HammerD to expand more upon what the point of astrology is and what it can tell us. I would also like to know how he started practicing it and what he believes it can accomplish.
Cusp signs are signs that are like quite close to the edge of another. The zodiac is like a colour chart, if you are in between green and blue you are turquoise, and if you are between leo and cancer you are a vulnerable leader.
Is english even your first language? That third sentence is awfully constructed. But to reply to it, no I disagree, if you don't know what repression is or how frequently you come across it, you just haven't been around people much.
I'll find you a correct site, but like I said before I don't spend much time with astrology. Just give me a while to find a good one.
YOU of all people call me a cunt?
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that.
You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk The time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all.
Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity.
That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before.
Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point.
Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance.
Once again, no proof.
On the verge of page six, and you started this thread probably thinking you'd get your lies across and have us start sacrificing goats to the moon gods whilst chanting.
I suppose you also believe the world will end in 2012.
Notice how you categorize the OP into a specific category, a pattern if you will. You believe that religion and esoteric knowledge is the bane of humanity (and cause of its problems), so you attack him. It is not so much the topic at hand as it is for broader (and subconscious) reasons. All humans have these underlying traits so I am not blaming you personally. However recognizing this is possible and beneficial I believe.
Have a little check to see if your family show anything of what it says of the signs, and if they are born within about 1-8 days of another sign, better check that sign too.
For example for my sign cancer, in the small set of words summing up the sign:
Good Side Emotional and loving Intuitive and imaginative Shrewd and cautious Protective and sympathetic Bad Side Changeable and moody Overemotional and touchy Clinging and unable to let go
Every single one of these is exactly what I am. Any of my friends and family would tell you they literally haven't left out an important adjective to describe me, aside perhaps from judgemental, which comes more from my conditioning (realising that the world sucks most of the time, and I have to choose everything I like very carefully)
Things that it didn't say about me: Controlled Down to earth Explorative, Brave Likes variety Independent
I fail to see how it could apply to everyone? My mate Willis (Sagittarius) would just be like 'no, no, no, no, no' etc.
On January 03 2009 08:59 HamerD wrote: Get my lies across? I don't give a shit what you think! The trollslayer must have failed. I need me some fire
brb rolling heads down stairs to make the sun rise because the sun god knows all
I agree with your steadfast appreciation of the scientific method, but you're completely misunderstanding the point.
You're arguing against a pagan who believes that the planets control every facet of life. HamerD is neither of these things. I disagree with him but he isn't a retard. His method of reasoning has merely brought him to a different conclusion.
Be civil, or I predict you'll be banned before long.
I didn't call you a cunt. I thought your nationality was Chinese, I must have just thought you were yangpan who is someone from this website who is Chinois. I don't have a good website to hand because I so infrequently visit astrology websites (once a year if that).
You're dodging the evidence I put forth, attacking him personally instead of providing answers, and you still haven't explained why that video test misses the point.
I just don't like him. And I felt like replying to him first, sorry! He's just being confrontational and I hate people like that.
True. A discussion has no place for personal attack, and he is guilty of that.
You make a fair point on the selection bias of his test, however the evidence I have put forth against astrology is still on the table. I would like to see a response to that.
Sure, let me read it (you are referring to the 4 tests you put?) Sorry if I skim them.
http://64.233.183.104/search?q=cache:mXtoOvmpSHMJ:www.imprint.co.uk The time twins test is the definition of uncontrolled. Like I said, personality = genes + astrology + circumstance. Of course twins turn out differently. It also deals far too much with life prediction and horoscoping, which I don't believe at all.
Either the traits described by a sign are true always or very close to always, or they have no validity.
That's a bogus ultimatum. You are trying to apply this to some sort of cold hard military test condition. Like I said the water's fecking murky! Twins usually have different FRIENDS. They usually have different LUCK. Usually get picked on by different people etc etc. Their personalities will often differ heavily because of that. Hell, simply the sibling dynamic can mold them into different personalities! Astrology is useful for finding out what their true leanings are, it would be helpful to ANYONE to see what their uninterrupted predispositions are. But it's not going to be an accurate predicter of their personalities for the reasons given before.
Conditioning has been proven time and again to be an incredibly dominant force on the development of a personality. Do I even need to bother proving that? I consider astrology, paired with genes, to kind of give the blue print of the child. It shows what they would be, if not repressed. But when conditioning, circumstance, is thrown into the bargain everything changes on the outside (and on the inside, but less). Which I find very interesting! Half the time astrology tells me nothing I didn't know. But for me, astrology is very rarely wrong which is the point.
Also, just another little piece of my personal evidence for myself, amongst relatives and friends my guessing rate for star signs is verging on 50%, which is far too high for chance.
Once again, no proof.
On the verge of page six, and you started this thread probably thinking you'd get your lies across and have us start sacrificing goats to the moon gods whilst chanting.
I suppose you also believe the world will end in 2012.
Notice how you categorize the OP into a specific category, a pattern if you will. You believe that religion and esoteric knowledge is the bane of humanity (and cause of its problems), so you attack him. It is not so much the topic at hand as it is for broader (and subconscious) reasons. All humans have these underlying traits so I am not blaming you personally. However recognizing this is possible and beneficial I believe.
"Notice how you categorize the OP into a specific category."
God damnit, im not categorizing shit.
I demand proof, thats it. Don't "categorize" me into your mystic non-sense.
I never once said religion, and esoteric knowledge is the bane of humanity, and fuck you for assuming that. I attacked him for not providing evidence.
It is the topic at hand, I demand proof.
Ok well you guys check this out, seems fine to me.
Beyond wrong on everypoint for my sign, you failed hard. I too am cancer, doesn't fit me buddy.
I agree with your steadfast appreciation of the scientific method, but you're completely misunderstanding the point.
You're arguing against a pagan who believes that the planets control every facet of life. HamerD is neither of these things. I disagree with him but he isn't a retard. His method of reasoning has merely brought him to a different conclusion.
Be civil, or I predict you'll be banned before long.
Does it look like I care if I'm banned?
I was making a joke about the mayans he mentioned, it was satire.
He said,
True, they also like to find patterns where they do exist. And do you know what's best?! Finding a pattern, then finding out that someone else found that pattern too. And what's even better...finding out that people have been seeing the same patterns since ancient Mayan civilisation xD
For me, and for the ancient Chinese and Mayans all the way up through all (comparatively) credible astrology
I was simply stating that mayans also believe that human sacrifices and rolling heads down temple stairs would make the sun rise.
It, was, a, joke.
By the way, "Civilisation"? Is English your second language?
Sorry the description of cancer was wrong for you. Either you are being guarded, you don't know yourself, you are repressed, or astrology is wrong. I think you made your mind up before you even clicked on the thread. Now stop making noise.
Sorry the description of cancer was wrong for you. Either you are being guarded, you don't know yourself, you are repressed, or astrology is wrong. I think you made your mind up before you even clicked on the thread. Now stop making noise.
Moron*
So because it doesn't apply to me, I must not know my self, I must be repressed, or im being guarded, so I should stop talking and agree.
Oh man, thats how people believe in astrology!
They tell them they're wrong, and if it doesn't apply, they should shut up and accept it.
No, I'm not the one being repressed, I'm not the one that believes in fantasy bullshit.
Likes: Talking (true) Novelty and the unusual (true, but who doesn't?) Variety in life (untrue, I fear change) Multiple projects all going at once (Untrue, I'm easily overwhelmed) Reading (True)
Dislikes: Feeling tied down (True) Learning, such as school (Untrue, this is one of my favorite things) Being in a rut (Everyone dislikes this?) Mental inaction (True) Being alone (Untrue)
Adaptable and versatile (Untrue) Communicative and witty (Somewhat true) Intellectual and eloquent (I think so) Youthful and lively (Untrue) Nervous and tense (True) Superficial and inconsistent (untrue) Cunning and inquisitive (True)
Everything on this page is about 50/50, so I'm not convinced.
Then again, I am looking for failure, whereas you are looking for success. Perhaps we are both victims of confirmation bias?
EPT
) and sort them by birth.![[image loading]](http://lostinthewarp.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/duel_1_c.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k110/HamerD/get_a_brain_morans.jpg)
