|
|
|
|
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/25/2009 7:07:06 PM | "Exactly how does astrology differ from religion? I discount religion and astrology for exactly the same reasons."  | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/25/2009 7:54:35 PM |
This doesn't answer the OPs question. If you read my whole response, instead of what you wanted to selectively remember, you (well, maybe not you) would see that I did in fact answer the OP's question.  | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/25/2009 8:56:18 PM |
If you read my whole response, instead of what you wanted to selectively remember, you (well, maybe not you) would see that I did in fact answer the OP's question.
This is my last response to you. You lack comprehension that I cannot excuse, because of your attempt to condescend. I can no longer take you seriously.
I responded to the part of your response that was directed at those who oppose to astrology; which was in context to where we were in our discussion. That reply was superficial, and I pointed it out. Your reaction was to question how it was off-topic to the original poster's question. This was something I did not address, because obviously the thread was on a tangent of astrology itself, and the possibility that it could link the cosmos to human behavior. However, I decided to point out to you what about your comment was off-topic to the original poster's question, since you annoy me. Now here we are, you pointing out yet another obvious point that is completely unrelated to the topic at hand.
If you want to intelligently discuss your views on astrology, I am willing to discuss it. Judging by the superficiality of the response you could bring to our then current discussion, I am willing to ascertain that you won't be. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/25/2009 11:23:45 PM |
This is my last response to you. You lack comprehension that I cannot excuse, because of your attempt to condescend. I can no longer take you seriously. All right, then. Whatever you have to say in order to make yourself feel better.
| |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 12:50:53 AM |
That being said, I wouldn't automatically write someone off whom I was attracted to just because they're a Virgo, but I can't recall ever having a Virgo boyfriend or even dating one!
I didn't automatically write off Leo either. In fact, I even gave Cancer an honest chance.
Before my current relationship, but during my time on here, I had short-term relationships with both.
NO!..............not simultaneously!
Both were great women and you'll not catch me bad-mouth either one of them.
It wasn't a bad match.........just not a great match.
Leo started off great and strong. however, I ended it because I felt my needs weren't being met. Ok, maybe Leo is very affectionate to the right person. But not in the way that Virgo wants/needs.
Actually, Leo and Taurus are a lot alike. In some ways this causes them to butt heads. In other ways, they can identify with each other and make good friends.
You can't strong arm them and they can be stubborn.
But with the right touch, they can be led and controlled.
From what I'm told, Virgo comes across as bossy. Mostly because it ain't right unless it's done to our specs.
My father, mother and brother are all Cancers. Yes it was tough growing up!
How so? Did ya feel like you had to walk on eggshells some times?..............for fear of offending ?
They say that Pisces is seconded by Cancer, in drama. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 2:19:59 AM | | Got to agree with that, every Pisces I've known was a drama queen (and that was just the men), why just have 'something happened' when it could be a crisis. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 4:46:45 PM | bosoxfaninwa - I'm closing my argument on this thread because it's diverged too much. I appreciate that you're trying to find a connection between contemporary astronomy and astrology and the possibility that either can be related to the development of the individual.
I believe there is a direct connection between the light and information carrying capacity of DNA that has not been fully researched that could probably make more sense out of . The fact that light is being emitted from the cosmos to the Earth, along with the possibility that some of this light is affecting us is one possibility.
To consider the disparity between the actual planetary placement and the relative appearance of placement in astrology, and how it relates to time of birth, again I have to return to tradition : if astrology has worked using this system, imperfectly as it is, and has shown results, it's a matter of "don't fix what ain't broke."
I would genuinely be fascinated if someone were to delve into the matter further, and I also wish there was more research being conducted on the many aspects of astrology itself, and with the changes astronomy could bring to it. But I'm not an astrologer.
So far none of the studies quoted on why astrology doesn't work have been convincing to me, and most of them have just been referred to (lots of studies show it! Believe me!). In order to respond to them I'd have to read the study. Saying sun sign relationship compatibility doesn't work, should mean just that, and not that astrology as a whole doesn't work, since that is not the same question. Most of the studies seem to show instead a shallow understanding of astrology and instead test the astrologers themselves and their claims, instead of the actual study itself.
http://www.astrologyweekly.com/astrology-articles/astrology-scientific-studies.php
A few studies that have shown some linkage with cycles and behaviour.
From Wikipedia
Obstacles to research
Astrologers have argued that there are significant obstacles in carrying out scientific research into astrology today, including lack of funding,[61][62] lack of background in science and statistics by astrologers,[63] and insufficient expertise in astrology by research scientists and skeptics.[61][62][64] Some astrologers have argued that few practitioners today pursue scientific testing of astrology because they feel that working with clients on a daily basis provides personal validation for their clients.[62][65]
Another argument made by astrologers is that most studies of astrology do not reflect the nature of astrological practice and that the scientific method does not apply to astrology.[66][67] Some astrology proponents argue that the prevailing attitudes and motives of many opponents of astrology introduce conscious or unconscious bias in the formulation of hypotheses to be tested, the conduct of the tests, and the reporting of results.
annasthasia - I'm sorry for my hasty reply, I was so annoyed with my previous retort to another poster I carried it over. Thank you for the links to the Mayan calendar.
I'm done with this thread. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 5:01:20 PM |
I believe there is a direct connection between the light and information carrying capacity of DNA that has not been fully researched that could probably make more sense out of . The fact that light is being emitted from the cosmos to the Earth, along with the possibility that some of this light is affecting us is one possibility.
Ummm no... all you've done in this thread is spout nonsense and quackery as if it were gospel... Each time you've been offered information that disproves any chance of astrology being a valid method of doing anything... you have basically ignored it or offered new age mumbo-jumbo in reply... I cannot believe that in an enlightened and educated society that you cling to an ancient concept that has NEVER been proven valid...
The reason no one researches this stuff has nothing to do with the cost of research... it has more to do with the fact that there is nothing to research... You cannot tell me that with so many astrologers there haven't beenb ANY that could put to gether a reasonable study that could once and for all prove astrology works. Yet it has NEVER happened... scientists struggle for funding all the time... they seem to manage to afford to study their chosen fields... Why can't astrologers...? One would think that they would if they could... enough money would ride on it to make a positive outcome desirable... think how much money astrologers could make if it was PROVEN... every other subject gets researched eventually... astrology has had thousands of years for someone to prove it works...
Why haven' astrologers banded together to pay for a study and even devise one...?
Yet they don't... they don't even try... maybe it's because even the astrologers know it's crap too.... | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 5:03:14 PM |
bosoxfaninwa - I'm closing my argument on this thread because it's diverged too much. I appreciate that you're trying to find a connection between contemporary astronomy and astrology and the possibility that either can be related to the development of the individual.
I believe there is a direct connection between the light and information carrying capacity of DNA that has not been fully researched that could probably make more sense out of . The fact that light is being emitted from the cosmos to the Earth, along with the possibility that some of this light is affecting us is one possibility.
To consider the disparity between the actual planetary placement and the relative appearance of placement in astrology, and how it relates to time of birth, again I have to return to tradition : if astrology has worked using this system, imperfectly as it is, and has shown results, it's a matter of "don't fix what ain't broke."
I would genuinely be fascinated if someone were to delve into the matter further, and I also wish there was more research being conducted on the many aspects of astrology itself, and with the changes astronomy could bring to it. But I'm not an astrologer.
I really wanted your thoughts on these specific parts of my responses:
1. What do you think about the fact that there is no correlation between Myers-Briggs Indicator Types and Natal Birth Chart findings?
2. Is there anything from your chart, or in syanstry that you have not identified with at all or found to be false?
As for light and DNA - since we are delivered indoors and there is now artificial light, and some women are in delivery rooms without windows at all, I don't see how it could affect us all fairly equally at birth. Some infants are placed under sun lamps, some are placed under UV rays because of jaundice.
I can appreciate that you believe it, I'm just trying to understand why you believe it so much that studies proving it false do not affect your faith in it.
I have a theory as to why no astrologers don't bother with studying astronomy anymore - because they're too busy raking in the profits. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 6:09:20 PM | That made me laugh! Raking in the profits!  | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:47:41 PM | I used to think astrology was silly, but over the years I've found that certain personality traits do seem to fit certain signs. And I tend to "click" better with certain signs whether its friendship or dating.
I just met another Taurus recently. Never dated one before, but I've read they can be a good match if one or both can bend a bit as far as our stubborn natures. I'm looking forward to finding out. This should be interesting.  | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/26/2009 8:58:12 PM | OK, I just was going to add one thing but I did read the last 2 posts. I am seriously trying to be objective about this because I am a skeptical person, however since I have had so many profound mystical experiences I know for sure that materialistic reality only half the picture. I find it odd and sad that skeptics feel the need to disprove something, when esoterics never feel the need to disprove science, but only to show people that it is not the ONLY way.
I just read 2 "personal portraits" from the birth charts found on astro.com, and went through them both highlighting each statement. Red for wrong, Green for uncertain or neutral or who knows, and left the rest black. The first one, which was my friend's chart, was about 25%red and 25%green based on how it described me. So that makes about 50% of the statements applicable to me. Moving onto my own I highlighted exactly 5 statements as green. There were no statements that were wrong in about 5 paragraphs of a simplistic, computerized astrology system that takes into account maybe 10% or less of the information that can be gained from looking at the full chart.
I will try giving several different charts to a couple friends who know me really well and see if they can guess which is mine. Sometimes other people can see us more accurately than we can, although of course there are some things we keep hidden so others don't know. The most accurate would be to do both and compare.
I also looked at my conception time, since I found out only a few weeks ago that I was a few days late from my due date. Since there is no way to know the time, that leaves out all of the house information, but the signs of the planets were still evident. For the planets that changed :Sun&Mercury were in Virgo, which in my birth chart is the Ascendant (along with Saturn in both). So its interesting that Virgo is still significant. The Moon was either in Taurus or Gemini, in my birth chart Venus is in Gemini and Mars is in Taurus. Mars and Venus are both in Scorpio in the conception chart. I find it interesting since this is also a water sign and also my Mother's sign. Since I have Sun, Moon and Mercury in Cancer this makes Motherhood an extremely important of who I am.
The breakdown of planets according to elements is almost the same with Earth and Water dominating. Interestingly in Chinese Astrology it is the same : Year of the Earth Goat, and Goat is very similar to Cancer in Western Zodiac. Repeating patterns happen many times as I've started to look at this, with personality traits showing up in more than one place. If I were to compare the meaning of a conception chart and a birth chart, they would both be significant, but in different ways. How? Just ask questions about what it means to be conceived vs. what it means to be born. You can be sure I will be examining this more in depth.
By the way, since I've been studying this I haven't taken the interpretations at face value, I find them interesting but I'm more interested in looking for my own patterns and finding correlations based on what I know the planets and signs to signify.
In fact I was thinking about what I would have selected for my chart if I were to check it out without knowing what it already was. Again - another thing to try, give someone a list of all the planets in the signs and ask them to guess which is theirs.
Myers Briggs. I said I can't comment on it until I read the actual report. Did they take into account all of the planets or just the Sun? Since I'm a Cancer but I actually have more planets in Earth signs, this would have to be taken into account.
Again - I find no conflict in looking at this objectively. I have found nothing outright wrong about anything that I've looked at, though I will very much admit that a great deal of personality descriptions can be vague and broad - many people will relate to many things. That said, some are not. Many people are "intellectual" or "practical" but some are the opposite, so it stands out if you have been given this interpretation. As I said half the interpretion of my friends' chart was correct for me - but 95% was right for mine.
Send me the actual description of the report on Myers Briggs. And by the way you didn't comment on any of the studies described on the astrologweekly site. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 11:34:18 AM | I neither believe nor disbelieve ( a Libran sitting on the fence?) I have studied it out of curiousity.
Never thought to do a conception chart. I know I once counted out the exact number of days (gestation) it was my mothers B'Day. Guess they went a bit overboard celebrating? Have suspected it might have been backseat of a car, behind the barn, wonder if cows might have witnessed?
Anyway, I did see a few interesting things in chart.
I have seen some trash Myers-Briggs as well... | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 12:00:33 PM |
So apparently we can't have a fun discussion about something other than "why does my dating life suck" here?
my dating life suxs cuz my planets aren't aligned!! are we havin' fun yet? | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 3:03:46 PM |
Ummm no... all you've done in this thread is spout nonsense and quackery as if it were gospel... Each time you've been offered information that disproves any chance of astrology being a valid method of doing anything... you have basically ignored it or offered new age mumbo-jumbo in reply...
New Age mumbo jumbo? The fact is DNA does give off biophotons and the fact is this hasn't been studied? Did I say it was for sure connected? No, I said it was a possibility because it hasn't been researched. I'm sorry but looking at actual genes is still a fairly new field and to say that what has been discovered here is inconclusive is true. Why don't you go on a New Age forum then if you want and tell them when you think, the same as me going backwards and go on a skeptics forum is ridiculous.
... scientists struggle for funding all the time... they seem to manage to afford to study their chosen fields... Why can't astrologers...?
Why haven' astrologers banded together to pay for a study and even devise one...?
So you're not going to look at the studies I posted either? Why is it just because I point out that all I've read from your guys' info on these reports has been incomplete or hasn't shown me enough to even be able to comment on yet you ignore my link and pretend none of those studies exist.
So if scientists struggle for funding why would they spend it studying astrology? Why do you think astrologers are so rich they would try to scientifically prove it, when the reason they study it is to help people. That's what they DO, they learn how astrology works by working with people. THAT is a more rewarding test.
Psychoanalysis has also been proven ineffective, as well as plenty of the drugs that get pushed on us by pharmaceutical companies. If you were to do a test on the number of people that go to the doctor and get misdiagnosed it would be embarassing, but does that mean medicine as a whole doesn't work? You don't know nearly as much as you think you do, and the more you keep reading up on all the people who are biased to your point of view, you won't get anywhere.
And guess what? I hardly even care about astrology, it's just been amazingly accurate for me, and all of the 9 people whose charts I've looked at. I'M deciding for MYSELF if it works, and until I read through and understand the studies that were done, I'll be able to decide why and how it works, and why and how some parts of it don't work.
I DO have an issue with scientific dogmatic thinking and I believe it is equally as wrong as any fundamentalist of any other creed. Just replace God with Reason and Jesus with Logic and you've got yourself the 21st century Church. The essay your reprinted on here wasn't even worth responding to but I could have gone through every part of it to point out how it was misled, misleading, ignorant of what astrology is without having examined it, and a waste of my time.
Percy Seymour - an astronomer and astrophysicist.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/percyseymour1.html
It's my view that those who use simplistic models to disprove astrology are violating the principles of the philosophy of science, which is a particular interest of mine. From the viewpoint of the philosophy of science, any number of theories may be shown not to work, but to say it follows that no theory of astrology can work is just bad science. It totally rules out scientific method. So, having examined the arguments that supposedly disproved astrology, I came to the conclusion that they were totally unscientific - a form of rationalized bigotry cloaked in academic language. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 4:02:32 PM |
New Age mumbo jumbo? The fact is DNA does give off biophotons and the fact is this hasn't been studied?
Oh dear... you didn't buy into the Biophoton thing too did you?
Biophotons were supposedly discovered by a Stalin regime scientist...
Problem is, the notion of biophotons goes back to science done in Stalinist Russia in the 1920 and 1930s – this was a time in
history where science was perverted in the name of ideology
Wikipedia:
Biophotons were employed by the Stalin regime to diagnose cancer, and their discoverer, Alexander Gurwitsch was awarded the Stalin
Prize, though the method has not been tested in the west[1] However, more recently there have been claims that, by "harnessing the
energy of biophotons", supposed natural cures for cancer are possible.[2][3] Commercial products and services based on these latter
claims appear at present to be best regarded as base and baseless pseudo-science.
Digging deeper into the Web, one finds....
http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-104217.html
This term was used the first time by F. A. Popp (1976) in order to describe a permanent light emission from all biological
systemsin terms of single photons, indicating a biological quantum phenomenon. The intensity ranges from a few up to some hundred
photons/(s cm²) within a spectral range from at least 300 to 800 nm. The spectral distribution is flat, following almost a f = const.
- law which means that the excitation temperature increases
So he's saying that DNA is constantly emitting visual light due to some 'quantum phenomenon'.
First, quantum physics still obeys the laws of thermodynamics, and this would run counter to them for several reasons.
Second, DNA is routinely looked at spectroscopically. It's likely done thousands of times every day. If DNA had any kind of unusual
spectrum, it would be very well known and documented by now (and would've been discovered long before 1976!). In other words, he's
saying something counter to an overwhelming amount of empirical evidence.
Violates laws of thermodynamics + Counter to overwhelming evidence = Crackpot.
Most of the groups that seems to believe in biophotonics seem to be either New Age groups or are connected to F.A. Popp who is
conidered to be a bit of a quack... (he created the term as his own version of "mitogenics" which was the named used by Gurwitsch.
He named them "mitogenetic rays" because his experiments convinced him that they had a stimulating effect on cell division. (see
Morphogenetic field) However, the failure to replicate his findings and the fact that, though cell growth can be stimulated and
directed by radiation this is possible only at much higher amplitudes, evoked a general skepticism about Gurwitsch's work. In 1953
Irving Langmuir dubbed Gurwitsch's ideas pathological science
Why don't you go on a New Age forum then if you want and tell them when you think, the same as me going backwards and go on a
skeptics forum is ridiculous.
Actually, I have been on many New Age forums over the years. I have several friends who believe whole heartedly in some of them. In
the last few years, I've read about Atlantis, Reiki, Shamanism, Animism, Crystal healing, Mayan calendars, Toltecs, Wiccans...
In contrast, I didn't ask you to go to a skeptics forum, I suggested you go to a forum created by real Native americans who are
concerned about frauds...in which they discuss who are frauds, and who are not.
So if scientists struggle for funding why would they spend it studying astrology? Why do you think astrologers are so rich they would try to scientifically prove it, when the reason they study it is to help people. That's what they DO, they learn how astrology works by working with people. THAT is a more rewarding test.
So why do scientists study? Do not scientists help people? Your argument is a standard new age argument... I've heard it used in many variations... all of which come down to it being an EXCUSE for why there is ino 'proof'... sorry... scientists are most often not rich, they seek and get money to do research by applying for grants etc, or by appealing to private or corporate sponsors to fund research... Why can't astrologers do the same?
Percy Seymour - an astronomer and astrophysicist.
http://www.tmgnow.com/repository/solar/percyseymour1.html
Yes, I've heard of him too... He's been denounced as a quack also... his theories go back to magnetic fields influencing people...as a basis for astrology...
His other books include:
"The Third Level Of Reality: A Unified Theory of the Paranormal"
"The Scientific Proof of Astrology: Tune Into the Music of the Planets"
"The Birth of Christ: Exploding the Myth"
"Seymour said: "It means the whole solar system is playing a symphony on the Earth's magnetic field. We are all genetically tuned to receive a different set of melodies from this symphony." His claims will infuriate other astronomers. They have suffered the humiliation of seeing astrology rising in popularity with top astrologers' earnings surging beyond those of even the most eminent of researchers. Until now they have at least had the comfort of being able to dismiss any suggestion of scientific support for the idea that people's lives and personalities are influenced by the planets.
Among the most outspoken figures against astrology are Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, and Professor Stephen Hawking. Rees has described astrology as "absurd", adding: "There is no place for astrology in our scientific view of the world; moreover its predictive claims cannot stand any critical scrutiny." Seth Shostak, a leading American astronomer, was also scathing, describing Seymour's theory as "nonsensical". He pointed out that even though large planets like Jupiter had magnetic and gravitational fields far greater than the Earth's, they were massively diluted by distance. "Jupiter's magnetic field is about a trillion times weaker than the Earth's," he said. "You would experience a far stronger field from your lights and washing machine." Shostak works for the Seti Institute in California which is building a powerful radio telescope to seek alien life. "By 2025 we will have surveyed a million stars and I believe we will have found intelligent aliens," he added. Hawking, Lucasian professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, has said that astrology became impossible as soon as early scientists found that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, an idea on which astrology was founded. "
And sorry, Bosox already provided enough proof that these concepts are false... (which saves me adding more to this posting)
While Seymour is widely seen as a scientist who has joined the defence of the astrologers, it was an ex-astrologer who helped deliver the most signifiant blow to the credibility of his former profession. Last year, Geoffrey Dean, who left astrology to become a scientist in Perth, carried out what is probably the most robust scientific investigation into astrology ever undertaken. He led a study of 2,000 people, most born within minutes of one another, and looked at more than 100 different characteristics, ranging from IQ to ability in art and sport, from anxiety levels to sociability and occupation - all of which astrologers claim are influenced by heavenly bodies. He found no evidence of the similarities that astrologers would have predicted. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 4:10:10 PM | | I think Percy would be a great date. I am a true pusher of astrology. I need a pisces, age 45-60 if ya know one. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 4:10:12 PM | I find it very hard to believe any astrologers are making big money. With the economy and recession the way it is, then why aren't there headlines "new best occupation for hard times, Astrologer?"
Yes, when times are tough, there will be charlatans, in ALL aspects of business. More and more people looking for ways to make a buck, especially with the pyramid schemes and/or worse scams, identity theft, promises of financial returns for investments, etc.
IMO nobody can foresee the future or guarantee anything. Even the scientists who predicted terrible hurricanes the past 2 years for Florida were wrong. Sure, yes, they'll be right, one of these years. Are they raking in big bucks? Probably much more than astrologers are! | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 4:48:05 PM | I don't put much stock in it but find it interesting all the same.
I am an Aquarius, and score a INTP on the Myers-Briggs thingy. Interesting how much the two can be alike, and I do see quite a bit of myself in such descriptions. But I see it as me reading into things, looking for the traits I already see in myself.
Then again two of my best relationships were with a Leo and a Gemini, which my sign is suppost to be pretty compatable with. *shrugs* | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 5:04:23 PM |
OK, I just was going to add one thing but I did read the last 2 posts. I am seriously trying to be objective about this because I am a skeptical person
I think that's great.
I don't think you fully understand that the "skeptics" are not telling you what to think, but to scrutinize astrology, like we have done, and we feel more than confident that you will arrive at the same conclusion.
We simply share the reasons why we have found NO evidence of it's viability.
When you have many people, from very diverse backgrounds telling you the same thing, it's probably a good indicator to take a second look at something that is subjective and questionable at best.
I will try giving several different charts to a couple friends who know me really well and see if they can guess which is mine. Sometimes other people can see us more accurately than we can, although of course there are some things we keep hidden so others don't know. The most accurate would be to do both and compare.
I'll be interested in hearing the outcome of this.
Again - I find no conflict in looking at this objectively. I have found nothing outright wrong about anything that I've looked at, though I will very much admit that a great deal of personality descriptions can be vague and broad - many people will relate to many things.
I'm actually surprised that you've become more objective, and I'll give you kudos for openly doing so. 
New Age mumbo jumbo? The fact is DNA does give off biophotons and the fact is this hasn't been studied?
Sorry, this is clutching at straws.
Basing an uproven theory on another unproven theory is simply redundant. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 5:24:38 PM | Jesus was the sun. The twelve disciples the twelve signs of the zodiac. Born of the Virgin? The sun rose in the sign Virgo, also referred to as the breadbasket, aka bethlehem. Died on the cross? The sun "dies" on the southern cross, a constellation. Reborn? Actually occurs on December 25th. On the 22nd, the sun reaches the lowest point, the bottom of a curve, from where it rises again on the 25th. The age of pisces, the brotherly fishes, began in the year 0. It will end around 2150, the end of the age, until such time Jesus, the piscean personification of the sun, shall be with us. ("I shall be with you until the end of the age.") Christianity is astrology and the bible is a book of astrological predictions, which are frighteningly accurate. And similar mythologies are found in Egyptian, Greek, Sumerian, Assyrian and other ancient cultures. Virgin births, dying on crosses, rebirth.
Aries is the time of new beginnings. Taurus the time to plow the fields. Etc.
I was a skeptic until a number of Chinese astrologers (who use a different system) told me all sorts of details about my life and made predictions which have come true or were very near misses. I am still a skeptic, but its an old science, over 5,000 years. Few things last so long with such vibrancy without some real value.
Also, newspaper horoscopes are useless. Real astrology is very complex. And it is not a laboratory science, confined to examining one to one relationships that have no relevance to life outside the lab. It is an attempt to understand man's place in the world. As such, it offers many wonderful tools and leaves many questions unanswered.
Personally, I keep dating libras, which are my moon sign. I don't choose them that way, I just find out after I'm head over heels. And I keep having the same troubles. But boy do I love 'em. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 5:50:26 PM | If you've taken a real Myers-Briggs test (http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/take-the-mbti-instrument/), it is very accurate. It doesn't just describe you; it describes the way you have a tendency to do things. It is used in the professional world, some companies pay good money to ensure they are hiring the right person for each position. I don't see this happening for Astrology.
The more detailed your birth chart is, the more you are going to feel a connection to it. The more data that is provided, the higher the chance it will accurately describe you. Astrology is a business, and they have perfected their wording and delivery so that it can be easily identified with.
The vaguest description of a sign has a one word description assigned to it. Most people do not find this to be very accurate, and they pass it off as B.S. until an astrologer or a believer tells them to look deeper.
Let's take a zodiac description that offers 5 key points about a sign, using only the sun sign. Now there are 5 chances for you to identify with the sign. Few people hit all 5 points, but they are so general, it is easy to. The odds are still pretty low. Most people will not identify with each point.
Let's take the Natal Birth Chart. It offers a description using 7 planets, the Sun, Earth's Moon, Pluto, Lilith (the dark moon), the ascending node and 12 Houses. There are 24 descriptions, all with at least 5 points, many with more. There are 120 chances for you to identify with the description. Most people identify with these descriptions, and the thing that bothers me most when I read them is the repeated use of "or" allowing even more room for someone to connect themselves with it. More people identify with this reading because it is intended to be to be the easiest to connect to.
Strangerange: The M-B:Zodiac study is my own, and I haven't published it yet. I just started working on it this last week. I've only compared 100 people so far. There are no trends as of yet. If you would like to be included in the study, send me a message with a link to your chart and your M-B type indicator. | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 6:04:19 PM |
How much do stock do you put in signs? What are you best matches and are the same type of people that astrology claims you’re most compatible with?
Astrology is garbage, and this is coming from a guy who knew how to cast natal charts from scratch using logarithms. There is no valid science behind astrology, hence even the name is a misnomer. Some people do show an affinity for partners of certain "signs", but that's only because human phenotypes (the outward expression of one's genetic makeup) can be greatly influenced by the season of the year in which one is born. People are attracted to certain physical types, and that's as far as it goes.
Astrology is good for a laugh; but there is no substance to it whatsoever.  | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 6:05:02 PM | | interesting bosox, so you have searched and found no other such study? Or there are others? | |
|
| Astrology
Posted: 7/27/2009 6:16:34 PM |
interesting bosox, so you have searched and found no other such study? Or there are others?
I haven't found any others. But I have found numerous people of various signs and M-B types that say they feel the descriptions match quite well. This includes an Aries who is an INTJ, an Aries who is an ENTP, a Taurus who is an ENTP, an Aries who is an INFP, a Scorpio who is an INFP, a Pisces who is an INFP, a Leo who is an INTJ... you get the gist.
All of these people said their Zodiac description matched their M-B Type description pretty much to a T.
This would be impossible, technically, unless one of the descriptions was vague enough to be applied to anyone. | |
|
|
| Page 15 of 18
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 |
|
Home
login 
