Reading Love and Lifesense

Nov 17, 2009 20:08 # 46613

Bunk *** wants to know...

Astrology is bullshit... or is it?

?% | 1

I've always considered astrology to be absolute nonsense. Logically, how could one's date of birth possibly have any influence on their nature? It makes no sense whatsoever that the stars or planets would influence our personality, especially in comparison to such factors as genetics, cultural upbringing and education.

BUT... when I look at descriptions of my astrological sign (Pisces), I very strongly recognize my own traits and tendencies - so much so that it's not plausible that I'm just finding connections in random info. The accuracy of the signs seems to also hold true in a general way for other people that I've met.

I thus have two questions: what are other people's thoughts on the accuracy/inaccuracy of astrological descriptions, and what could explain any accuracy?

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford

Nov 18, 2009 12:21 # 46614

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Astrology is bullshit... or is it?

Just a quick note (going to enhance this when I get some time for): I don't think any bloody star constellations do have significant influence on your live, but at least the season you're born in sometimes DOES have.

Eg. I'm born in late summer / early autumn, and that definitly does influence me. Ie. I like autumn and the late summer ;)
But also (not just) a few of those attributes which are attributed to someone born on autumn actually work out for me.

I actually think life works rather more complex than just this - ie. than just depending on season or year of birth. Everything may be influence yourself a tiny tiny bit..

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

This post was edited by ginsterbusch on Nov 18, 2009.

Nov 18, 2009 13:18 # 46616

null throws in his two cents...

Re: Astrology is bullshit... or is it?

Once upon a time I came across that funny study which shows that when somebody is read the wrong horoscope as their own, or is often confronted with an 'incorrect' list of character traits they should have according to their zodiac sign, the hit rates are comparable to those of people who were given the 'correct' horoscope/description. If I ever find that study again, I'll be able to give you more details.

As a free extra (and having to defend my reputation of being a cynical sceptic, or a sceptical cynic?), check out Storm by Tim Minchin. It's pretty cool. :-)

When life hands you a lemon, that's 40% of your RDA of vitamin C taken care of.

This post was edited by null on Nov 18, 2009.

Nov 18, 2009 18:27 # 46618

ginsterbusch *** replies...

Re: Astrology is bullshit... or is it?

I usually talk about european astrology like this: So, because my zodiac sign is the Virgin, I should be very prude, fastidious and have kind of a cleaning-up fetish. And because my ascendent is the Sagittarius, I should also be very straight-forward, have truth-loving personaility, etc.

Well .. if it's about my computer stuff, I'm probably fastidious and obsessed with cleaning up and being orderly, but I'm neither a very prude person (quite about the opposite), nor do I tend to have be very orderly (well, order in chaos maybe ;)). At least with food, I am somewhat fastidious, but that's just because of my bringing up as a veggie (and thanks to my mother's strange behaviour about letting food lie around in the fridge till it's definitely over the "best before"-date, ie. rotten or starting to mould).

I'm also not obsessed with truth or faithfulness - eg. in a relationship I take that as granted, else there won't be one, but I dont tend to make a fuzz about it ;)

These are all attributes being assigned to these specific zodiac signs, so either I'm the exception that proves the rule, or it's all just made-up crap :D

cu, w0lf.

beards are cool. every villain has one!

Nov 28, 2009 20:35 # 46624

Bunk *** has an idea...

Re: Astrology is bullshit... or is it?

As a free extra (and having to defend my reputation of being a cynical sceptic, or a sceptical cynic?), check out Storm by Tim Minchin. It's pretty cool. :-)

Haha, wicked! Wouldn't describe it as cynical though, he seems to have a good perspective. His ultimate message - that reality, if you really accept it as it is, isn't so bad - is pretty positive.

Once upon a time I came across that funny study which shows that when somebody is read the wrong horoscope as their own, or is often confronted with an 'incorrect' list of character traits they should have according to their zodiac sign, the hit rates are comparable to those of people who were given the 'correct' horoscope/description. If I ever find that study again, I'll be able to give you more details.

Feel free, and may I say that I completely buy that sort of explanation, particularly when it comes to horoscopes. I kept that idea in mind when examining descriptive profiles of myself based on astrological signs. But what I'm confronted with is an accurate description of my own traits - accurate enough that I find it hard to rationally dismiss.

I don't think any bloody star constellations do have significant influence on your life, but at least the season you're born in sometimes DOES have.

Yeah... that does make a lot more sense than constellations. Either way, if the time of year does have a correlation with personality, I still wonder how it's possible. I could theorize about it though, in a rational but somewhat non-scientific way (in that I can't back this up with hard facts).

People's moods seem to change as the seasons/weather changes. I'm not sure how universal those changes are, but it could make sense that they would be fairly universal. After all, animals instinctively change their behaviour based on the changing seasons; this is a good survival mechanism, as it helps those animals adapt to changing conditions. Seems logical that our behaviour would change in a similar way, even if we don't completely realize it.

The stages of psychological/mental development progress in rapid and fairly predictable steps for the first year(s) of our lives. At that time, we are laying the foundation for our understanding of human behaviour (which will, perhaps, form the deepest basis of our own behaviour). So, maybe, because the behaviour of those around us depends in some fundamental way on the time of year, our behaviour is shaped specifically to correspond with the time of year in which we are born.

So, I'll use my own example - I was born in February. From that point on, as I progressed in my early development, what I learned about how to behave as a human being was shaped by the time of year at which I learned it. To use a nonsense example, if I first began learning about using my hands at two months old, and people use their hands a certain way in the month of April, I theoretically now use my hands that way, for my whole life, because that initial learning forms the basis for everything I learn after.

Reading over this, I realize an obvious counter: "well, wouldn't everyone just instinctively act like different star signs, according to the seasons? And wouldn't you, our example child, have all the different instinctual behaviours pre-programmed?" That's a good counter argument. I guess the key for this to work would be to (somehow) make a distinction between fundamental characteristics and seasonally changing behaviour. At that early stage, we're wiring in basic human behaviour, so we're particularly vulnerable to the behaviour of others as regards shaping our own traits. And also, our instincts perhaps only become manifest later, and are layered OVER our basic traits (so our behaviour would change according to the seasons, but our basic traits would be constant).

Lol... is this making sense? :P

"History is more or less bunk." - Henry Ford


Small text Large text

Netalive Amp (Skin for Winamp)